posted 09-11-2003 07:21 PM            

or blame on Bill CLinton.

What a joke !

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

The following list were the seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001.

The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, California; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas. http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm

Beside the 7 Air Station on full alert covering the continental United States, here are 28 more Air stations that could have done something -- if they were left to do their job.

The following happened on September 11, 2001; At 10:01 a.m. the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio to scramble their F-16 fighters. Although the base has no fighters on stand-by alert status, it manages to put fighters in the air 16 minutes later, a "phenomenal" response time - but still 11 minutes after the last hijacked plane has crashed.

One interesting aspect is that NORAD has explained that it didn't scramble fighters from bases nearer to the hijacked planes because they only used bases in the NORAD defensive network. Yet the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio wasn't part of that network, so why weren't planes at other bases scrambled at 8:20 or 8:40 or 8:43 or 8:46:26 or 9:02:54 or 9:24 or at the very least at 9:37?

Maybe some of these Air station could have managed to get fighters up just as fast as the 180th Fighter Wing. Why weren't they? Stand Down.

Andrews AFB 11 miles SE of Washington D.C.

Bolling AFB 3 miles south of US Capitol

Dover AFB Dover, DE

Hanscom AFB 17 miles northwest of Boston, MA

McGuire AFB 18 miles southeast of Trenton, NJ

Wright-Patterson AFB Dayton, OH

Cape Cod, MA AFS

New Boston, NH AFS

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Bases

Atlantic City Airport, NJ 10 miles west of Atlantic City

Barnes Municipal Airport, MA 3 miles northwest of Westfield

Bradley International Airport, CN Windsor Locks

Byrd Field, VA 4 miles southeast of Richmond

Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport 4 miles south of Martinsburg

Frances S. Gabreski Airport, NY Westhampton Beach

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, PA 15 miles nw of Pittsburgh

Harrisburg International Airport, PA 10 miles east of Harrisburg

Martin State Airport, MD 8 miles east of Baltimore

New Castle County Airport, DE 5 miles south of Wilmington

Pease ANGS, NH Portsmouth

Quonset State Airport, RI Providence

Rickenbacker ANGB, OH Columbus, Oh

Stewart International Airport, NY Newburgh, NY

Toledo Express Airport, Swanton, Ohio

Westover ARB, MA 5 miles northeast of Chicopee

Willow Grove Naval Air Station, PA 14 miles north of Philadelphia

Yeager Airport, WVA 4 miles northeast of Charleston

Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport ARS, OH 16 miles north of Youngstown

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

Source: http://www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a

posted 09-11-2003 10:54 PM            

btw...turkey boy throat...what ever came of that aircraft cabin filter of yours ?

did you ever get it sampled ?

you are and since I been around have been nothing but ALL talk and 0 substance...like the rest of your secretive brood...

I could pop back in here in five years and you will still be touting the same deceptive garbage...

posted 09-12-2003 12:47 AM            

Yep, this was the response for a Lear jet full of dead people.

Amazing how the neocons just can't get past the fact that THEIR Commander-In-Chioef was a deer in the headlights, running around the counrty, hiding in a hole in Omaha, how THEIR Commander-In-Chief completely blew it that day...

...or was it all part of THEIR plan?

Remember the hole the shrub was in before 9/11?...

and look at what he and his cronies have gotten since then.

And do you think that life is better for avaerage Americans...

or Iraquis for that matter.

Nope, those neocons are true con artists.

They are really socking it to mainstream, tax paying Americans...

posted 09-14-2003 09:52 PM            

MAD AS HELL

CHERI DELBROCCO

WHERE'S THE COMPASSION?

After watching the second anniversary tribute to the victims of 9/11, we finally have a demonstration of “compassionate conservatism” in action. As the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and friends read the list of those lost on that horrible day, the impact was overwhelming.

Bells, tears, and prayers brought back all the emotions, pity, and sympathy we share for the victims and their families. And our “compassionate conservative” President was too tired from fundraising to be in attendance at Ground Zero.

Even after two years, commemoration requires courage. It also requires humility and honesty. But more than anything, it requires compassion.

When the memorial was over, many of the relatives, especially the widows, appeared on television networks. Their comments and questions gave clues to their growing frustration with and suspicion of the President and his administration. Widow Lorie van Auken, when reflecting on that tragic day, said, “I couldn’t stop watching the president sitting there, listening to second-graders, while my husband was burning in a building.”

No explanation has ever been given to families as to why Bush continued reading a story to Florida elementary students for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack in America’s history. Where is the courage and humility to provide the families an answer? Where is the honesty? Where is the compassion?

Lots of other answers are needed in order to understand what happened to our country on that fateful day, only nine months after Junior Bush came to power. Why did John Ashcroft and Pentagon officials cancel their personal commerical airline flights the day before the attacks? Now that the FBI has changed its story, what really happened when Flight 93 crashed in western Pennsylvania? Where are the “indestructible” black boxes from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center?

Where were the jet fighters that were supposed to protect the air space that morning? Who mailed anthrax that killed five Americans? Why are 28 pages in the Congressional September 11 report blacked out? Where is Osama bin Laden? Why was his family whisked out of the country when it took government approval for anyone to fly? Why did this administration so quickly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks? Why has the White House fought against a comprehensive Congressional investigation? Where are the answers? Where is the compassion?

Although Bush attended several fundraisers in several states in days just prior to the tribute, he curiously was unable to make the forty five minute plane ride to New York. Instead, he chose to attend a service at a church across the street from the White House. In his brief television interview, he piously quoted the Bible while speaking of the nation’s remembrance of “a sad and terrible day.”

It seems odd that a man who has so cavalierly and repetitiously alluded to his deep and abiding religious faith, would fail to show up to speak, hug, weep, and comfort the families of 9/11 - especially when it happened on his watch.

Does the passing of only two years now mean we can only expect sanctimonious lipservice from this President? After all, this is the worst act of terror to ever happen on American soil. We hear a lot of talk from Bush about winning at war. As a matter of fact, the word “war” seems to be his favorite word. When it comes to answering the questions of the victims of war, there are no answers. Where is the compassion?

The 9/11 families, as well as the rest of the nation, are owed answers by George W. Bush. Those answers should provide information with honesty and humility. Unfortunately, Junior Bush has acted with cowardice and callousness, not compassion.

posted 09-15-2003 08:10 PM            

9/11 QUESTIONS?
By WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com

NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today.

Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24- hour news.

So, why after 730 days do we know so little about what really happened that day?

No one knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are really the right guys.

Who put deadly anthrax in the mail? Where were the jet fighters that were supposed to protect America's skies that morning? And what was the role of our supposed allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

There are dozens of unanswered questions about the 2001 attacks, but we've narrowed them down to 20 - or 9 plus 11.

1. What did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tell President Bush about al Qaeda threats against the United States in a still-secret briefing on Aug. 6, 2001?

Rice has suggested in vague terms that the president's brief - prepared daily by the CIA - included information that morning about Osama bin Laden's methods of operation - including hijacking. But when the congressional committee probing Sept. 11 asked to see the report, Bush claimed executive privilege and refused to release it.

2. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?

On July 26, 2001 - 47 days before the Sept. 11 attacks - CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Did either Ashcroft or the Pentagon have advance information about a 9/11-style attack and, if so, why wasn't this shared with the American public?

3. Who made a small fortune "shorting" airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?

On Sept. 10, 2001, the trading ratio on United Airlines was 25 times greater than normal at the Pacific Exchange, where traders could buy "puts," high-risk bets that the price of a company's stock will fall sharply. The next day, two hijacked United jetliners crashed, causing the company's shares to plummet and ultimately leading the airline into bankruptcy. CBS News later reported that at intelligence agencies, "alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market" on the day before the attacks.

The unusual stock trading suggests that someone with a sophisticated knowledge of finance also had advance information about the impending attack. But two years later, no one has been charged in this matter, and officials have not indicated even if the probe is still open.

4. Are all 19 people identified by the government as participants in the Sept. 11 attacks really the hijackers?

Probably not. Just 10 days after the attacks, a report by the British Broadcasting Corp. said that some of the supposed hijackers identified by the FBI appeared to be alive and well. The BBC story said Abdelaziz al-Omari, named as the pilot who crashed the jet into the World Trade Center's North Tower, was reported by Saudi authorities to be working as an electrical engineer. He reported his passport had been stolen in Denver in 1995. Saudi officials said it was possible that another three people whose names appear on the FBI list also are alive.

The article, which can be read at Unanswered Questions, makes a persuasive case that another man was posing as Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of hijacked Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pa. So why did this story line vanish into thin air?

5. Did any of the hijackers smuggle guns on board as reported in calls from both Flight 11 and Flight 93?

Quite possibly. An internal Federal Aviation Administration memo written at 5:30 p.m. on the day of the attacks said that a passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 11 - Israeli-American Daniel Lewin - had been shot to death by a single bullet before the jet slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The FAA insists the memo was a mistaken "first draft," even though the alleged shooting is described in great detail.

Aboard Flight 93, passenger Thomas Burnett told his wife, Deena, in a 9:27 a.m. cell-phone call: "The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, and they are telling us there is a bomb on board."

Why has this angle of Sept. 11 not been investigated in more detail?

6. Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets?

During the depths of the Cold War, Americans went to bed with the somewhat reassuring belief that jet fighters would intercept anyone launching a first strike against the United States. That myth was shattered on 9/11, when four hijacked-jetliners-turned-into-deadly-missiles cruised the American skies with impunity for nearly two hours.

Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command seem unaware of literally dozens of warnings that hijacked jetliners could be used as weapons? Why does NORAD claim it did not learn that Flight 11 - the first jet to strike the World Trade Center about 8:45 a.m. - had been hijacked until 8:40 a.m., some 25 minutes after the transponder was shut off and an astounding 15 minutes after flight controllers heard a hijacker say, "We have some planes..."?

Why didn't the fighters that were finally scrambled at Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia fly at top, supersonic speeds? Why didn't fighters immediately take off from Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, D.C.? Why was nothing done to intercept American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, when officials knew it had been had been hijacked some 47 minutes earlier?

And why has no one been disciplined for the worst breakdown in national defense since Pearl Harbor?

7. Why did President Bush continue reading a story to Florida grade-schoolers for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack on America in its history?

In arguably the greatest understatement in U.S. history, Bush told a questioner at a California town-hall meeting in January 2002 that 9/11 "was an interesting day." Interesting, indeed. In the two years since the attacks, questions have only grown about the president's bizarre behavior that morning, when he was informed in a Sarasota classroom that America was under attack.

"I couldn't stop watching the president sitting there, listening to second-graders, while my husband was burning in a building," World Trade Center widow Lorie van Auken, a leader of relatives of Sept. 11 victims who have raised questions about the attacks, told Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.

Why did Bush read a children's story about a pet goat and stay in the classroom for more than a half-hour after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and roughly 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him that it had been a deliberate attack? Why didn't he take more decisive action, and why wasn't he hustled to a secure area while the attacks were clearly still under way?

Conspiracy advocates have cited these strange lapses as evidence that Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time, but why would anyone with advance knowledge appear so clueless?

For a fascinating read on the subject, go to: An Interesting Day.

8. How did Flight 93 crash in western Pennsylvania?

The most popular version - that heroic passengers who fought with the hijackers successfully stormed the cockpit - has become so widely accepted that people were jarred last month when an Associated Press report seemed to contradict it. The AP story took one line out of a congressional report and wrote that the FBI now believes the hijackers crashed the plane on purpose.

Many were dismayed that the FBI would change its story, but the government had never put out an official story. Some unidentified government officials had first floated the hijackers-crashed-the-plane-on-purpose theory in late 2001.

Based solely on circumstantial evidence from several cell-phone calls made by passengers, most of the public and the mainstream media have come to believe that the plane crashed because of a struggle between the passengers and the hijackers.

Meanwhile, the FBI reportedly has enough hard information about what really happened on Flight 93 to have worked up a flight-simulation video. But that video, the cockpit audio recording and the hard data from the other "black box," the flight data recorder, is still top secret.

The issue symbolizes the government's continuing refusal to release information about what really happened on Sept. 11. Even some relatives of Flight 93 victims are growing unhappy that more information has not been publicized.

9. Was Zacarias Moussaoui really "the 20th hijacker"?

Almost certainly not, even though the allegation has been repeated hundreds of times in the media. The Moroccan native, who has been in custody since his August 2001 arrest on immigration charges after he attended a flight-training school in Minneapolis, has admitted that he is a member of al Qaeda and wanted to commit terrorist acts in America. But he arrived here much later than the Sept. 11 hijackers and reportedly had no contacts with them.

The issue is important because some family members of Sept. 11 victims who are seeking information about what happened that day have been turned down because of the ongoing Moussaoui case.

10. Where are the planes' "black boxes"?

Nothing is more critical to learning about air disasters than the so-called "black boxes." They are the 30-minute audio recordings of cockpit chatter and the fight-data inputs which show the speed, direction and operational condition of the plane, and which are encased in material designed to withstand a high-speed crash. Yet the government has continued to keep a lid of secrecy on the black boxes from Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and from Flight 93.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. Why not? Why not release the information to the public? Why has a docile mainstream media not demanded this information?

And how come none of the four "indestructible" black boxes was recovered from the World Trade Center, even as investigators said that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers had been found in the rubble, undamaged, a week after the towers's collapse?

11. Why were Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials so quick to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks?

CBS News reported that the defense secretary was making notes about invading Iraq even before the fires from Flight 77 had been extinguished on the other side of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wrote that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H." - Saddam Hussein - "at the same time. Not only UBL" - Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Rumsfeld and a number of other Bush administration officials have ties to a once-obscure policy group called the Project for a New American Century. In a 2000 white paper, PNAC - which had long urged an American invasion of Iraq - said that for the United States to assert itself properly as the world's lone superpower, "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" - would be required.

That new Pearl Harbor came - two years ago today.

12.Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?

7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, was not struck by an aircraft on Sept. 11, yet the building mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that afternoon. Apparently debris from the jetliner attacks on the adjacent twin towers started a fire at No. 7. But as the New York Times noted: "No building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." Investigators have speculated that excess diesel fuel for emergency generators fanned the flames, but the full story may never be known.

Some questions also have lingered about why the two 110-story towers collapsed. But investigators think the burning jet fuel - compounded by paper-and-electronics-laden cubicles and possibly insulation matter - burned long enough, at temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees, to weaken the structural steel.

13. Why did the Bush administration lie about dangerously high levels of toxins and hazardous particles after the WTC collapse?

Because apparently some White House officials felt that the health of the American economy and Wall Street was more important than the health of New York City residents who lived nearby. For example, on Sept. 16, 2001, a draft press release from the Environmental Protection Agency said: "Recent samples of dust gathered by OSHA on Water Street showed higher levels of asbestos in EPA tests." That was deleted and replaced with this: "The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."

A key figure in the changes was the head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who - you can't make this stuff up - is a lawyer who formerly represented the asbestos industry.

In fact, the EPA told workers and residents that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan at a time when some test results had not been analyzed and other key tests had not even been performed. The outcome? Key medical professionals say thousands of New Yorkers have developed respiratory illnesses associated with exposure to the dust. Symptoms include periodic gasping for air, a choking sensation and unusual sensitivity to airborne irritants, apparently from a type of "occupational asthma" called Reactive Airways Disease Syndrome.

14. Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?

We'll never know, but a widely reported rumor was that it was right here in the Keystone State. The speculation is the vice president spent the days after the attack at Site R, a secretive Cold War-era site, also known as Alternate Joint Communications Center, deep inside Raven Rock Mountain. The mountain is in western Pennsylvania, near Waynesboro.

15. What happened to the more than $1 billion that Americans donated after the attack?

The largest recipient, the American Red Cross, says it already has used $741 million from its Liberty Fund to help more than 55,000 families cope with the death of loved ones, serious injuries, physical and mental health concerns, financial loss, homelessness and other effects of the attacks.

Of that, $596 million was in the form of direct financial assistance to families of those killed or seriously injured, as well as to displaced workers, residents and emergency personnel who were seriously affected. Depending on individual needs, this financial assistance included up to a full year's living expenses, estate and special-circumstances cash grants, and more.

16. What was the role of Pakistan's spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?

The idea that Pakistan is considered a leading American ally in the war on terror is both ironic and a bit disturbing when one considers that there are proven links between Pakistan's intelligence agency, the notorious ISI, and the Taliban, as well as likely ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

In October 2001, the Wall Street Journal and many reputable news organizations in South Asia reported that the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, was fired after being linked to a $100,000 payment that had been wired to al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta in America to pay for the Sept. 11 attacks. The New York Times said the intelligence service even used al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India.

In recent weeks, two troubling reports have emerged. The highly regarded French journalist Bernard-Henri Levy has written that Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl had been murdered by elements of the ISI because he'd learned that al Qaeda "is largely controlled by the Pakistani secret service" and that Islamic extremists control the nation's nuclear weapons. And investigative reporter Gerald Posner writes that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah not only revealed a link to top Saudis but also to high-ranking Pakistani air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir. Mir, who is said to have cut protection deals in secret meetings with bin Laden, died earlier this year in a plane crash that also killed his wife and closest confidants.

17. Who killed five Americans with anthrax?

Actually, it's not clear whether this question should even be on this list. Two years later, it's not known whether the anthrax-laden letters that killed five Americans from Connecticut to Florida, and targeted some leading Democratic pols and TV news anchors, had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, the list of potential suspects - al Qaeda terrorists, Saddam, crackpot U.S. scientists - hasn't been narrowed down. Our government's utter cluelessness about a reign of terror that rattled the nation and dominated the headlines in fall 2001 is an investigative failure of epic proportions.

One man, a former Army biomedical researcher named Steven J. Hatfill, has been labeled "a person of interest" by the FBI, but nothing definitive has linked Hatfill to the crime. Just this summer, federal investigators drained a Frederick, Md., pond where they speculated the anthrax letters might have been assembled, but tests of soil samples taken after the draining yielded no evidence of biological weapons. And now Hatfill has sued the government for invading his privacy - in a case that may never be solved.

18. What happened to the probe into C-4 explosives found in a Philadelphia bus terminal in fall 2001?

Do you remember this front-page headline from Oct. 20, 2001: "In Phila. locker, a lethal find; Explosive 'would probably have leveled' bus depot." You can be forgiven if you don't. There's been no mention in local media since late 2001 of the alarming discovery of one-third of a pound of lethal C-4 and 1,000 feet of military detonation cord in a locker at the Greyhound bus terminal in Center City, even though it's possibly the most direct link between Philadelphia and domestic terrorism.

Investigators conceded a couple of months into their probe that the trail had gone stone-cold. They speculated that the material had been stolen from an Army base and that the culprit, who rented the locker on Sept. 29, 2001, decided that the material was too hot to handle after the Sept. 11 attacks. The truth may never be known.

19. What is in the 28 blacked-out pages of the congressional Sept. 11 report?

It's not a total mystery. Everyone has acknowledged that the pages contain highly embarrassing information about links between the Sept. 11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the Middle East and home to the world's largest oil reserves. One of those officials is said to be Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, whose wife, Princess Haifa, indirectly funded at least two of the Sept. 11 terrorists during their time in San Diego. The prince is so close to the Bush family that he's known, incredibly, as "Bandar Bush." This week, Time reports that just after the Sept. 11 attacks, when U.S. commercial airspace was still closed to our citizens, Bush allowed a jet to stop at 10 U.S. cities to pick up and fly home 140 prominent Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden.

A new must-read book by investigative reporter Posner - "Why America Slept" - takes the conspiracy to the highest of levels of the Saudi government. He says a top bin Laden lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002, stunned investigators when - allegedly given the "truth serum" sodium pentothal - fingered three top Saudis. They were Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the Westernized owner of 2002 Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem; Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir.

The most incredible part of the story is what happened next. In an eight-day period in late July 2002, Prince Ahmed died at age 43 from a heart attack, Prince Turki died in a car crash and Prince Fahd "died of thirst." Coincidence? What do you think?

20. Where is Osama bin Laden?

Remember how President Bush vowed on Sept. 17, 2001, that he was determined to catch bin Laden "dead or alive"? Well, the good news is that if he wants bin Laden "alive," there's still a chance that could happen. Intelligence experts now agree that bin Laden successfully escaped his Tora Bora hideout in Afghanistan back in December 2001 - when the U.S. failed to commit ample manpower to the chase - and that the al Qaeda leader is alive and well, and plotting new attacks.

"We don't know where he is," Army Col. Rodney Davis, spokesman for America's forces in Afghanistan, said recently. But Newsweek seems to know where to find bin Laden: in the remote, mountainous - and lawless - Kunar province of Afghanistan. The magazine chillingly reported that just five short months ago, bin Laden convened the biggest terror summit since Sept. 11 at a mountain stronghold there. The participants reportedly included three top-ranking representatives from the Taliban, several senior al Qaeda operatives and leaders from radical Islamic groups in Chechnya and Uzbekistan. The topic was carrying out attacks against U.S. interests inside Iraq.

The most chilling aspect of the Newsweek report is that bin Laden has access to biological weapons and is determined to find a way to use them against the United States. A source from the Taliban told the magazine: "Osama's next step will be unbelievable."

posted 09-15-2003 09:49 PM            

Mech and a few others have made statements throughout this thread like "if you were to ask a pilot..." etc etc.

Well, here ya go, a real live pilot to weigh in on some of this stuff.

To start off with, though, you can't take anything on Rense seriously, because half of it is downright wrong, and the other half is full of half-truths. The people that contribute to Rense rarely know what they are talking about (like the one guy who claimed 17 people were aboard an Air Force C-21, on their way to arrest Clinton).

So, let's start.

quote:

---

Maybe some of these Air station could have managed to get fighters up just as fast as the 180th Fighter Wing. Why weren't they? Stand Down

---

If this "list" and article is where you're getting your source for the supposed "stand down", you're putting your eggs into a basket with no bottom. This article claims that only the Ohio unit scrambled, and that the closer ANG air defense fighter units did not. That is not true. Prior to the completion of the terrorist attack, F-15s from both Langely and Otis ANGB DID in fact scramble, and were enroute to an intercept. Fighters from the DCANG at Andrews also scrambled. Don't believe me? Ask the pilots. Ask me...I'm a USAF pilot, and they did in fact scramble. There was no stand down.

As for the other "air stations" that "could have done something"...I'm asking, what could they have done? The article prints a laundry list of nearby installations that supposedly could have done something to stop the attacks...lets' go down the list, shall we?

Andrews AFB- The F-16s of the DCANG did scramble.

Bolling AFB- Does not even have a runway...is the HQ of the USAF.

Dover AFB- Has two squadrons of C-5 Galaxy cargo planes...no combat assets.

Hanscom AFB- A research facility adjacent to a civilian airport. No aircraft assigned.

McGuire AFB- Home of a C-141 cargo squadron and a KC-10 refueling squadron. No combat assets.

Wright-Patterson AFB- Home of research units, and a Reserve C-141 cargo squadron.

Cape Cod AFS- A radar station used to track space vehicles.

New Boston AFS- Same as Cape Cod.

Atlantic City- F-16 Guard squadron, but was not on alert. They scrambled after the last aircraft hit.

Barnes- A-10 attack squadron...no air-to-air capability

Bradley- Another A-10 unit

Byrd- Non Air-Defense F-16 unit

E. West Virginia- C-130 cargo unit

Gabreski- HH-60 helicopter rescue unit

Pittsburg- KC-135 refueling unit

Harrisburg- C-130 cargo unit

Martin State- A-10s and C-130s

New Castle- C-130s

Pease- KC-135s

Quonset State- C-130s

Rickenbacker- KC-135s

Stewart- C-5 cargo unit

Toledo- Non air defense F-16 unit

Westover- C-5 unit

Willow Grove- C-130 unit

Yeager WV- C-130 unit

Youngstown- C-130 unit

Gee, that's alot of combat capability there. All but two of the fighter units at those bases did scramble aircraft. Hell, you even listed four installations that don't have (or own) runways!

As for the fighters not reaching their targets...when you turn off a transponder, you lose the "blip" on the radar. Air traffic control radars are generally non-sensitive, so they don't wind up picking up large flocks of birds and rain storms. So for that reason, they have a hard time picking up the return from a single airplane. Radars located at airports can generally pick up individual aircraft (called "skin paints"), since they are closer to the radar target.

What am I getting to? Well, once the transponders were turned off, the controllers on the ground were blind as to where the airplane is. All they have to go off of are faint occassional returns and their last known heading and airspeed. So in short, the fighters didn't know where to go. And, as anyone can attest to at that point, no one really knew what was going on.

When the first airplane hit, ATC (air traffic control) knew a couple airplanes had lost radar contact, which is not totally unusual. If you have an electrical failure (as I have had in the Learjet), you lose the transponder signal as well. It's uncommon, but not rare, to lose a transponder signal. Like I said, it could be due to an electrical failure in the airplane or a transponder failure.

It's quite common for ATC to lose transponder signals, and then they contact the aircraft in question and have the crew recycle the transponder.

So at this point, prior to the impact at the WTC, ATC finds it perhaps unusual that two transponder signals have been lost, but it's not ringing alarm bells yet.

THEN the first jet hits the tower. Reports are speculating if it's an accident. ATC folks start to wonder if that jet was one of their "lost" signals. It was obvious to aviation professionals that an airliner simply does not hit a building in broad daylight without it being intentional. This is what tripped the alarm, and Langley and Otis were both scrambled. Unfortunately, the other jet had already beat the fighters to the WTC (that and no one really knew where the other one was headed).

Simultaneously, in another ATC sector, they are dealing with a similar problem...they've lost the transponder for an American Airlines flight. But again, it doesn't raise any alarms because this isn't a rare situation. Only after they see and hear of the WTC attack do they realize that their missing airplane is quite likely part of the plot. So they scramble the DCANG, but too late...the airplane already hit the Pentagon as the F-16s were leaving the ground.

posted 09-15-2003 10:10 PM            

How fast can they fly?

Here, let me help:

8:25 a.m.: Boston ATC notified several air traffic control centers that a hijack is in progress with American Airlines Flight 11. Boston air traffic control first lost communication with American Airlines Flight 11 more than 11 minutes ago. What took them so long to start to implement procedure? Why didn’t they also notify NORAD at this time? Or did they?

If they did follow procedure and notify NORAD at 8:25 and NORAD followed protocol and ordered the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts to scramble at say 8:26 – two F-15’s would have been airborne by no later than 8:32 – these F-15’s would have had at least 14 minutes and 26 seconds to reach the WTC before American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) at 8:46:26. If these two F-15’s were flying at top speed, 14 minutes and 26 seconds is exactly twice the amount of time needed to reach the WTC. These two F-15’s could have been at the WTC in just over 7 minutes, or as early as 8:39. Even a spokesperson for Otis said that their F-15’s could reach the WTC in 10 to 12 minutes, which would have them there at 8:42 to 8:44.

These two F-15’s could have easily intercepted American Airlines Flight 11. If only Boston ATC, which notified several air traffic control centers that a hijack is in progress with American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:25, had also notified NORAD. Why didn’t they? Or did they follow procedure, and notify NORAD, and NORAD is lying about it. Let me state that it is NORAD’s job to know every inch of the skies over North America, so they must have known that American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked somewhere between 8:14 and 8:20.

After the first tower was hit do you image that there should have been some sense of emergency?

Why no intercepts from the F-16s scrambled from Andrews?

Is American airspace really that vulnerable?

Do you really expect us to believe that our radar and tracking capabilities are that blind?

Do you know that NORAD can actually track a wrench that was lost during an astronauts space walk?

Why was it that when Paine Stewart's Lear Jet lost cabin pressure there were F-16s on the wing tips within 15 minutes and they shadowed that doomed plane all the way until it crashed in the Dakotas?

You really expect us to believe that NO AIR DEFENSE was capable of achieving an intercept with any of the four hijacked planes on September 11th?

How much do we spend annually to fund our Air Force?

Where in the scheme of things do you prioritize protecting the air space over the United States?

Straight answer here Pacer?

Do you think that it was reasonable that there wasn't a SINGLE intercept that day?

By the way, you get points for actually answering questions rather than being an apologist for what was either incompetence at best or a conspiracy at worst.

posted 09-15-2003 10:11 PM            

Exploiting the flag and 9/11

Paul Krugman, N.Y. Times Service

IN MY FIRST column after Sept. Sept. 11, I mentioned something everyone with contacts on Capitol Hill already knew: That just days after the event, the exploitation of the atrocity for partisan political gain had already begun.

In response, I received a torrent of outraged mail. At a time when the nation was shocked and terrified, the thought that our leaders might be that cynical was too much to bear. "How can I say that to my young son?" asked one furious e-mailer.

I wonder what that correspondent thinks now. Is the public -- and the news media -- finally prepared to cry foul when cynicism comes wrapped in the flag? America's political future may rest on the answer.

The media have become a lot less shy about pointing out the administration's exploitation of Sept. 11, partly because that exploitation has become so crushingly obvious. As the Washington Post pointed out on Thursday, in the past six weeks President Bush has invoked Sept. 11 not just to defend Iraq policy and argue for oil drilling in the Arctic, but in response to questions about tax cuts, unemployment, budget deficits and even campaign finance. Meanwhile, the crudity of the administration's recent propaganda efforts, from dressing the president up in a flight suit to orchestrating the ludicrously glamorized TV movie about Bush on Sept. 11, have set even supporters' teeth on edge.

Some stunts no longer seem feasible. Maybe it was the pressure of other commitments that kept Bush from visiting New York on Thursday; but one suspects that his aides no longer think of the Big Apple as a politically safe place to visit.

Yet it's almost certainly wrong to think that the political exploitation of Sept. 11 and, more broadly, the administration's campaign to label critics as unpatriotic are past their peak. It may be harder for the administration to wrap itself in the flag, but it has more incentive to do so now than ever before. Where once the administration was motivated by greed, now it's driven by fear.

In the first months after Sept. 11, the administration's ruthless exploitation of the atrocity was a choice, not a necessity. The natural instinct of the nation to rally around its leader in times of crisis had pushed Bush into the polling stratosphere, and his re-election seemed secure. He could have governed as the uniter he claimed to be, and would probably still be wildly popular.

But Bush's advisers were greedy; they saw Sept. 11 as an opportunity to get everything they wanted, from another round of tax cuts, to a major weakening of the Clean Air Act, to an invasion of Iraq. So they wrapped as much as they could in the flag.

Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-Sept. 11 levels.

Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that's not how they operate. Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals -- involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence -- that would burst into the light of day if the management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost.

The result, clearly, will be an ugly, bitter campaign -- probably the nastiest of modern American history.

This political ugliness will take its toll on policy, too. The administration's infallibility complex -- its inability to admit ever making a mistake -- will get even worse. And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: On major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.

In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: It's about to get worse. A lot worse.

posted 09-15-2003 10:33 PM            

Later in the article, a claim is made that the ADIZ is constantly being patrolled offshore. Actually, that is not true. The ADIZ does involve regular flights, but there is no 24/7 patrol of this airspace. Only a 24/7 alert.

Now on to something completely different...

Payne Stewart's Lear was intercepted so quickly because of two things...1, they knew where it was because although everyone was dead on board, the transponder continued to work. 2, it was flying a straight track and the fighters could intercept the jet much more easily. The 9-11 jets didn't have a transponder signal, and the ATC radars couldn't pick up the basic radar return enough to let the fighters know where to go. Also, the 9-11 jets were changing course, and no one knew where they were going, so the jets couldn't set an intercept heading without knowing where to intercept it at.

As for Bush "hiding" in Omaha, that's standard protocol. It wouldn't matter WHO was president...the Air Force One crew and the other advisors are pre-trained to take him there, because that's where all the hardened bunkers are with the emergency communications equipment. If war would start, the Prez would go to Offutt AFB. If Offutt itself is threatened, he'd board an E-4B NAOC airplane (National Airborne Operations Center) and do business from there.

When 9-11 happened, the NAOC jet was rolled out and was ready to go. The security team designated to run the defenses in an emergency were already on the airplane ready to go.

quote:

---

Why did John Ashcroft and Pentagon officials cancel their personal commerical airline flights the day before the attacks?

---

John Ashcroft probably doesn't travel by commercial airline. What he DOES do is make reservations on an airline, in case his government ride has to cancel. It's quite common...I've done it as well. Government aircraft aren't required to meet schedules like airlines, because they aren't working for profit. If the jet breaks, then they cancel the mission, and if you don't have standby airline reservations, you're stuck.

I fly Learjets for the USAF, so I'm part of the network of "small jets" that flies senior officials around, and I know how that system works. You make reservations, but hope your government airplane is working. If it doesn't, you fly commercially. If it is working, then you cancel your tickets just prior to leaving.

This is done ALL THE TIME. So the fact that "government officials" canceled airline reservations does absolutely nothing to convince me that they "knew" anything.

quote:

---

Where are the “indestructible” black boxes from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center?

---

They are not "indestructable". Given enough violence, anything can be destroyed. All those boxes are are steel canisters with all metal recording devices...no tapes...everything is recorded onto a steel wire. But given the heat and violence of not just the crash, but the ensuing fire and building collapse...it's not to hard to figure out that perhaps they might not make it in one piece.

Heck, not too long ago an airliner impacted the water, and the recovery crew found a recorder, but it wasn't in great shape, and didn't work anymore. That was an impact in WATER! No long exposure to heat...no building collapse...get my drift?

quote:

---

On July 26, 2001 - 47 days before the Sept. 11 attacks - CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Did either Ashcroft or the Pentagon have advance information about a 9/11-style attack and, if so, why wasn't this shared with the American public?

---

We had been given similar "warnings", these are not unusual. And Ashcroft and other top government officials generally fly aboard one of the dozen or so Gulfstream business jets at Andrews AFB very regularly. For nearly all those folks, commercial air service is looked upon as a back-up.

quote:

---

Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command seem unaware of literally dozens of warnings that hijacked jetliners could be used as weapons? Why does NORAD claim it did not learn that Flight 11 - the first jet to strike the World Trade Center about 8:45 a.m. - had been hijacked until 8:40 a.m., some 25 minutes after the transponder was shut off and an astounding 15 minutes after flight controllers heard a hijacker say, "We have some planes..."?

---

NORAD wasn't looking for airliners prior to 9-11...it was primarily concerned with drug smugglers, foreign military aircraft, and missiles. Like I posted above, losing a transponder signal isn't rare. It happens all the time. I don't know how many times I've had to turn off then turn back on my transponder because ATC lost the signal. And at least once they lost it because our jet suffered a total electrical failure on the avionics bus. It's not rare to have transponders just "die" and stop working, or to lose power. In fact, the FAA and military both have procedures for dealing with "NORDO" (NO RaDiO) aircraft...ie, those that aren't in communications with ATC for whatever reason (electrical failure, radio/transponder failure, etc). Those procedures allow the pilots to continue to fly their planned route without talking to anyone, and ATC is supposed to move people out of their way so they can land safely.

So prior to 9-11, most of the ATC controllers attributed the loss of the transponders to perhaps just a typical power failure. They probably thought "well, we've got an airliner that's NORDO". No one could have known that it was the beginning of a dark plot to fly airplanes into buildings.

quote:

---

And why has no one been disciplined for the worst breakdown in national defense since Pearl Harbor?

---

There wasn't a breakdown in national defense. The system wasn't designed to handle that kind of situation. Given the circumstances, our air defense system worked as it was supposed to, but unfortunately it wasn't equipped to deal with that situation. It is now, I can assure you. Any aircraft that go NORDO for any length of time get extra scrutiny.

quote:

---

In the two years since the attacks, questions have only grown about the president's bizarre behavior that morning, when he was informed in a Sarasota classroom that America was under attack

---

Actually, he wasn't informed that "America was under attack". He was told that an airplane had flown into the WTC, and no one knew why. Hell, even I was wondering "was this an accident or something else?" It wasn't until the second jet hit the other tower that it was clear this was no accident. At that point, it was not only clear it wasn't an accident, it was also clear that it wasn't a freak incident where a pilot wanted to commit suicide or something. It was obvious at that point we were under attack of some kind. And that's about the time that the national defense system swung into high gear.

About the time the second jet hit the WTC, Bush rushed off to Air Force One.

quote:

---

Why didn't he take more decisive action, and why wasn't he hustled to a secure area while the attacks were clearly still under way?

---

First you bash him for "hiding" at Offutt AFB in Nebraska. Now you're wondering why he didn't go there sooner. Which do you want?

quote:

---

And how come none of the four "indestructible" black boxes was recovered from the World Trade Center, even as investigators said that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers had been found in the rubble, undamaged, a week after the towers's collapse

---

You could probably go through the rubble and find alot of things that are seemingly "untouched". Sometimes things are just unusual. Why does a house remain untouched, yet the tornado completely wiped out the houses on each side of it? Who really knows...It's quite possible that the hijacker was in the front of the aircraft, and prior to the fireball, the passport was ejected from the wreckage and fell to earth. I don't know this for sure, but it's not impossible.

quote:

---

12.Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?

---

Take a look at the area surrounding the WTC right after the attacks. You'll see several buildings with huge chunks missing from them. That is due to the debris from the WTC that fell onto the other buildings. Also, the debris went outward at ground level and caused major damage to a number of adjacent buildings. #7 fell not because of a fire, but because of structural damage.

quote:

---

14. Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?

---

Well, if we knew that then it wouldn't be "undisclosed", now would it? There are security bunkers around DC. One of the former locations is at a hotel in the Blue Ridge Mountains...it's now a museum.

posted 09-15-2003 10:47 PM            

"Actually, he wasn't informed that "America was under attack". He was told that an airplane had flown into the WTC, and no one knew why. Hell, even I was wondering "was this an accident or something else?" It wasn't until the second jet hit the other tower that it was clear this was no accident. At that point, it was not only clear it wasn't an accident, it was also clear that it wasn't a freak incident where a pilot wanted to commit suicide or something. It was obvious at that point we were under attack of some kind. And that's about the time that the national defense system swung into high gear.

About the time the second jet hit the WTC, Bush rushed off to Air Force One."

How entirely wrong you are Pacer. Bush knew about the crash into the FIRST WTC BEFORE he entered the classroom.

During his time reading the pet goat story with second graders Andrew Card informed him of the SECOND WTC hit. By all accounts he contined with the the storybook reading for another 20 minutes. He did not "rush" away from the school

You must be a government propagandist to state that "About the time the second jet hit the WTC, Bush rushed off to Air Force One."

I assume you have every opportunity to get you facts straight Pacer, and yet you don't.

posted 09-15-2003 10:52 PM            

"--WTC #7 fell not because of a fire, but because of structural damage.--"

LOL!

I dont beleive that for a second.

It was most certainly DESTROYED with purpose and intent..just like both WTC towers.

posted 09-15-2003 11:05 PM            

An "interesting" choice of words.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

Andrew Card tells Bush the second tower has been hit. [White House via AP] See a video of Bush's reaction here:
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_1.html

Sufficient referencers and documentation for you Pacer?

Why did you feel the need to ressort to such utter disinformation about your Commander-In-Chief?

By the way, how does it feel to take orders from one who was AWOL during his opportunity to serve his country, and yet prances around playing pilot in a flight suit that now been made into a doll?

How galling that must be for the members of our armed forces that are actually making real sacrifices and contributions.

Oh yeah, this is the same Commander-In-Chief that cut combat pay and veterans benefits.

What an honor it must be to serve under this Commander-In-Chief....

posted 09-15-2003 11:17 PM            

EIN VOLK

EIN REICH

EIN HOMELUND

EIN FUHRER!!!!

UBER ALLES

posted 09-15-2003 11:19 PM            

quote:

---

If they did follow procedure and notify NORAD at 8:25 and NORAD followed protocol and ordered the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts to scramble at say 8:26 – two F-15’s would have been airborne by no later than 8:32 – these F-15’s would have had at least 14 minutes and 26 seconds to reach the WTC before American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) at 8:46:26. If these two F-15’s were flying at top speed, 14 minutes and 26 seconds is exactly twice the amount of time needed to reach the WTC. These two F-15’s could have been at the WTC in just over 7 minutes, or as early as 8:39. Even a spokesperson for Otis said that their F-15’s could reach the WTC in 10 to 12 minutes, which would have them there at 8:42 to 8:44.

---

Here's something you need to understand...the protocol is NOT to call NORAD as soon as you lose a transponder signal. You first have to know that aircraft's intent. As I've posted above, transponders fail frequently. Sometimes all you need to do is turn it off and back on. Occassionally it breaks altogether. Sometimes a jet will lose part of the electrical system or an entire electrical system, and can't talk to ATC or have use of the transponder.

So THAT is why ATC doesn't automatically call NORAD. If they did, they'd probably make several hundred calls a day and get a bunch of innocent folks shot down.

Like I've stated before...it took a few minutes to understand that this wasn't a routine NORDO situation (NORDO being an airplane that has lost the ability to communicate via radio and has also likely lost its transponder). All of the hijacked jets were flying in seperate ATC sectors, and so each sector controller handled the event seperately. It wasn't until a bit later that the FAA found it had a few jets that were NORDO.

The 10-12 minute time frame is correct for those F-15s. They don't just takeoff and go straight to Mach 2.5. Most importantly, speed is nothing when you don't know where to go. After the transponders went off, the ATC radar wasn't sensitive enough to pick up a plain radar return, so for most of the time, no one really knew where the airplanes were. And as such, the F-15s spent time heading in the general direction, but with no specific guidance.

quote:

---

These two F-15’s could have easily intercepted American Airlines Flight 11. If only Boston ATC, which notified several air traffic control centers that a hijack is in progress with American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:25, had also notified NORAD. Why didn’t they? Or did they follow procedure, and notify NORAD, and NORAD is lying about it. Let me state that it is NORAD’s job to know every inch of the skies over North America, so they must have known that American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked somewhere between 8:14 and 8:20.

---

It's easy for you to armchair quarterback this situation and say "it could have been done". But you have ZERO experience dealing with ATC, the air defense system, or anything else related to this issue. It's about as silly as me saying that a figure skating routine is "easy", but not fully knowing what goes into making it look easy.

Think about it for a second. Take your head out of "I HATE BUSH" land for a second, and put yourself in the controller's shoes. You see an airliner in your sector lose a transponder signal. That's not unusual...it happens all the time. So you call them up and do the normal thing...ask them to recycle their transponder. No answer. Now you're picking up faint, intermittent base signals that indicates the airplane is changing course. That's odd, you wonder. You call your supervisor. Hey, what do you make of this? Perhaps they are NORDO...meaning maybe they lost all electrical power and are trying to maneuver to an emergency landing. After a few minutes of watching this, you and your supervisor hear of similar problems in a couple other sectors. What's going on? Perhaps they are being hijacked? 10 minutes or so has gone by, so you pick up the phone to NORAD. At NORAD, it's not obvious that this is a hijacking, but it's certainly unusual activity at this point. At least two airplanes are NORDO, and they are both changing course, airspeed and altitude. Maybe it's possible that two airliners lost electrical power? Maybe it's possible that they are heading to JFK in New York for an emergency landing? But two, at the same time? So now the word goes out...scramble fighters to take a look.

As the fighters are getting airborne, the first jet hits the WTC. NORAD and the ATC controllers immediately involve now know this is no typical NORDO incident. But the fact that ATC radar is desensetized is hindering them from tracking the jets. Future interceptors don't know where to go. No one knows for sure how many other aircraft are out there being hijacked, or hijacking in progress.

Look at it from that standpoint, sorethroat. Ask yourself, honestly. Did you EVER think prior to 9-11 that someone would hijack an airplane and fly it into buildings? Honestly? Myself, I have to say no. I was always trained that hijackers want media coverage for their cause, and to go along with them. Hence why it was fairly easy to subdue a flight crew with box cutters. The crew was trained to go along with them...not to resist. Doing so would get you killed, perhaps. Just play along, land, and hope the police raid the jet. That's what I thought of when I thought about hijackers.

quote:

---

Is American airspace really that vulnerable?

---

Actually, yes it is. It's not vulnerable from military attack. It's not vulnerable from missile attack. But from our own, US registered airliners being turned into weapons...yes. It's less vulnerable now, given the fact that we now know what we know. But since we have very free airspace (part of that liberty and freedom thing you constantly say you're defending), anyone can get into an airplane and fly just about anywhere in the US.

A friend of mine remarked that he was suprised that they let civilian aircraft fly over my airbase. Sure, it's normal. There are only a few installations that don't allow that. We live in a country where you can fly just about anywhere.

Here you are talking about securing freedom, yet you advocate an airspace system that has no freedom whatsoever. Freedom has a price, and part of that price includes having an open system where people can get through with little security.

quote:

---

Do you really expect us to believe that our radar and tracking capabilities are that blind?

---

The radar itself is actually quite powerful. But it's tuned down somewhat. If you have the radar at a power setting to track individual airplanes, it can also track flocks of birds and rainstorms, thus blocking out the other aircraft. So to keep clutter down on the scope, the radars are tuned down. Some are tuned down less than others. For example, the WTC airplanes could be tracked by some radar systems, and by using a composite of all the radar sites across NY, you could actually have a pretty good idea where they were going. Unfortunately, controllers didn't have access to a composite radar view...just their own.

Then, the DC controllers could barely keep tabs on flight 77. Their radar was tuned down so low that they only caught occasional glimpses. Part of this is due to the idea that perhaps flight 77 descended too low for DC's radar to pick them up well. But in any case, flight 77 wasn't tracked well at all.

quote:

---

Do you know that NORAD can actually track a wrench that was lost during an astronauts space walk?

---

Yes. It's a radar specifically designed to track space vehicles and debris. You can have a radar that powerful because aside from space junk, satellites and vehicles, there's nothing else up that high.

Not so down here in the atmosphere. There's rain, snow, hail, birds and airplanes. If you have your radar tuned up to detect individual airplanes, you'll also pick up all that other stuff. And your scope will look like an abstract painting.

quote:

---

Why was it that when Paine Stewart's Lear Jet lost cabin pressure there were F-16s on the wing tips within 15 minutes and they shadowed that doomed plane all the way until it crashed in the Dakotas?

---

Like I listed before, they knew where he was. His transponder was working the whole time.

quote:

---

You really expect us to believe that NO AIR DEFENSE was capable of achieving an intercept with any of the four hijacked planes on September 11th?

---

It was possible...with more time. Something we didn't have. The key was in figuring out what was going on, and then finding the jets. Had they decided to hijack the airplanes in NY and then fly them to Atlanta for the attack, we would have gotten them first. But they hijacked the jets in mid-NY and hit NYC. It didn't take long.

quote:

---

How much do we spend annually to fund our Air Force?

---

Not enough to fund everything we need to cover the committments we now have worldwide.

quote:

---

Where in the scheme of things do you prioritize protecting the air space over the United States?

---

US Air Defense is a serious priority. But it is one that many Americans take for granted. NORAD is a technological marvel, but it has weaknesses. The 9-11 attackers exploited one of those weaknesses. I doubt they KNEW about that weakness, but they just happened to find the right mix...using our own airliners went a big way into confusing the controllers at first. Had it been a foreign jet going NORDO...bells would perhaps have gone off earlier.

Another thing, our air defense system prior to 9-11 was poised to protect against outsiders trying to get in...ie, drug runners and military aircraft trying to fly into the US. The system wasn't really set up to defend against US-registered aircraft being used as weapons.

quote:

---

Straight answer here Pacer?

---

Straight as an arrow.

quote:

---

Do you think that it was reasonable that there wasn't a SINGLE intercept that day?

---

Reasonable? The better word would be understandable. I know people who fly those air defense fighters, and it was a big let down that they were unable to find the 9-11 jets. Everyone did what they were supposed to do, and everyone put in 110% that day. But they failed because al Qaeda had found a hole in our defense system, and it was too late to fix it.

9-11 could happen again. That's just the nature of the beast. The only way we can assure it won't is to stop commercial and private aviation, and make it like the old Soviet Union where the only airplanes allowed to fly were either Aeroflot (front for Soviet Air Force transport wing) or military flights.

Something else to think about...the Soviets had some of the strictest and tightest airspace security ever in history, yet a German private pilot flew a Cessna 172 single-engine airplane into the USSR and landed in Red Square, without ever being noticed until he plopped the airplane down on the ground in front of hundreds of onlookers, most of whom had their mouths open in awe.

posted 09-15-2003 11:37 PM            

I love it when people try to paint me as though I'm lying about what I do.

Anyways...as for Bush being AWOL, he was in fact not. I was in the Army National Guard for 8 years, and saw people get away with far more than Bush did. My former company commander plain out quit the Guard, citing he was going to attend law school...and he still had 3 years left on his flight school obligation.

With the Guard, there are many under-the-table handshake deals between individual members and their commanders on how to make up missed time. Once, I missed a weekend, and showed up to make it up. I was told within 10 minutes of showing up to go home, that they'd credit me with the time. So I made up 2 days worth in 10 minutes.

Guardsmen are allowed to make arrangments or even get out of their committments altogether if they transfer outside a 200 mile radius of their unit for job reasons. Another friend of mine left our Medevac company to be the manager of a NTB store in Mississippi. He still had a year left to go on his committment, but he left and no one heard back from him. He never got into any trouble either...he was just released.

As for Bush being "grounded", yes, he was removed from flying status for not getting a flight physical. But so was I...when our unit had trouble paying the local doctor for flight physicals, I went a month non-current on my physical. The result probably generated a report saying I was no longer on flying status...but I got back on flying status a month later, along with a few other folks. Does that mean we were negligent? No. All his grounding meant was that he was no longer qualified to fly. All he needed to do was take a physical and he probably would have been reinstated.

If you're permanently grounded (ie, have your wings taken away), that's called a Flight Evaluation Board, or FEB. Bush never was prosecuted by an FEB. He was *eligible* for flight status, but wasn't currently on flying status, if that makes any sense.

In any case, the Guard can't be compared to the active duty, simply because the Guard is run by the state, not the federal government. So they actually do alot of things the way they want to. If Bush's commanders wanted to turn a blind eye to his participation level, they could do that and get away with it. It still happens to this day, and you don't have to be rich to do it. Just have to know people.

It's not "galling" to me. Bush is a politician. He's not much different from the many other politicians out there. They are elected, and get the boot after 4 years. That's the way it works. We follow their policy because that's how our system works. I think it's much more scary to have a military willing to ignore it's civilian leadership, than a military duty-bound to follow a poor civilian leader. That's where you get military coups.

posted 09-15-2003 11:43 PM            

The REAL people running the show are a tiny cabal of GLOBALISTS..Their names are Rockafeller, Rothschilds, Krumps, Windsor etc..who own the international banks and the illegal Federal Reserve system.

Bush SR and his buddies at the CIA orchestrated the attacks and JUNIOR was just an all too willing servant of the elite.
Always will be.

All it took was NORAD to stand down and a few command trucks.

-----
http://www.letsroll911.org/

posted 09-16-2003 12:59 AM            

If you scan toward the bottom here, you’ll see an image of a crater where WTC 6 once stood. Where’s the supposed debris that caused the collapse? http://serendipity.fakelabs.org/wot/wtc_other.htm

Pacer:
Since you are an instructor pilot and are familiar with flying objects, maybe you can explain what this is. Look at the animated image in the upper right, this appeared in a Japanese Newspaper. Is that a missile?
http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/index.html

posted 09-16-2003 02:29 PM            

Hardly Pacer... he doesn't warrant that expenditure of my emotional energy.

I see him for what he is... a puppet, and not a very smart one at that.

Please tell me once again how Bush "rushed" to Air Force One as soon as he heard about the crash into the second WTC.