9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

a reply to: skyeagle409

You are unable to discern between government stories and reality. They are not the same. Sadly, they are seldom the same.

a reply to: Salander

I have flown that airspace many times, in Learjets and Falcons. They had eyes on before the plane was out of Florida. From 40 NW of Gainesville it does not take an hour to get out of Florida airspace, and as I've shown by simple calculations, it only takes 37 minutes to where the formal intercept took place.

That doesn't change the fact that it took over an hour to intercept the Lear Jet of Payne Stewart.

The Dallas paper and others wrote about the A-10 intercept and others did too.

Try having an A-10 catch up to a Lear Jet at cruise speed.

a reply to: Salander

So the F-16 pilot was lying in his statement.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You sir, are not persuaded by facts. You are not persuaded by simple time and distance calculations. You are not persuaded by the simple fact that since the formal intercept took place along a time-zone line, there might be a simple explanation for the time controversy all these years later. You are not persuaded by the agreed to fact that Eglin or Tyndall had other ships up already doing other things and that they were sent to try to see the errant NORDO Learjet.

None of that has any bearing on your thought processes. We are off topic, and this will be my last post on it. As other posters have noted, posting with you is like posting back and forth with a brick wall.

Peace, Skyeagle. Ignorance is bliss. On that we agree.

a reply to: jude11

Shes just mad her brother David Lee is making more money running with the devil.

How dare you blaspheme ISisRAELohim Yahoo worshiping Sharmoota ashkeNAZI Khazarian mafia. They are Shem Satans chosen people.

a reply to: Salander

You still have to explain how it was intercepted within minutes when it was 27 minutes between loss of contact, and requesting an interception. And somewhere in there the F-16 had to refuel to have enough fuel to intercept them.

a reply to: Salander

You sir, are not persuaded by facts. You are not persuaded by simple time and distance calculations. You are not persuaded by the simple fact that since the formal intercept took place along a time-zone line, there might be a simple explanation for the time controversy all these years later.

If "CDT" and "EDT" confuse you, try using "Zulu" time instead. In doing so, it will make it easier for you to understand for yourself, why you are confused.

You are not persuaded by the agreed to fact that Eglin or Tyndall had other ships up already doing other things and that they were sent to try to see the errant NORDO Learjet.

And despite the fact the aircraft were already airborne, it still took over an hour to intercept the Lear Jet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Vulnerability in the system? Let me put it this way: there was no system left. Various exercises and lost tapes all over the place, where should we start?
I didn't expect things to be perfect that day but I didn't expect things to be perfectly messed up either. Which was the case, btw. 47mins should've been sufficient to actually do something but we didn't see any heads rolling for that on, did we?


a reply to: Boone 870

You know... I'll put my money on Bollocks again.
10-12 mins you say? Where did you get this... "information"?

If this is true, NORAD is once again wildly incorrect with its estimates. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:38. So, if NORAD did in fact learn of Flight 77’s hijacking around 8:51 when the FAA concluded it had been hijacked, it would have had about 47 minutes to get a plane over Washington. Even traveling at 1100 mph—the speed NORAD commander Larry Arnold says fighters traveled in making the longer journey to New York City earlier in the day—the F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base 129 miles away could have reached Washington in only seven minutes.

www.historycommons.org...

You do the math now.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Unless you too are claiming the exercises were affecting the FAA controllers, they didn't play a major role in the response beyond the first few minutes. The alert fighters were not part of them, and had nothing to do with anything except responding to the request of the FAA.

Again, the aircraft locations came from the FAA. As did other data. So now the exercises were messing with the FAA too? Vigilant Guardian was suspended immediately upon word from the FAA. None of the aircraft that were airborne would have been able to do anything except ram the aircraft, even if the FAA knew where they were. By the time 175 hit the tower it was too late to stop the rest of the attack.

And what should they have done exactly? They couldn't shoot. They could try to get close and push them off course, but that would have been the best they could do. Even with the towers being hit, no fighter pilot would have shot without orders, and even with them many would hesitate. So what exactly did you want them to do?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

What would the F-16's have done if they reached American 77? What constitutes a threat? At what point is a hijacked airliner considered a threat? What would happen if the aircraft is shot down over a populated area or if a missile missed its target and slams into an occupied building? Were the pilots cleared to fire on any civilian aircraft within the borders of the United States?

What would have been the consequences if the wrong aircraft was shot down? It has happened before as in the case of an Iranian airliner shot down over the Persian Gulf by mistake and the downing of two Black Hawk helicopters by mistake over Iraq by two F-15's.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion


You know... I'll put my money on Bollocks again.
10-12 mins you say? Where did you get this... "information"?

I must admit I made an error when I claimed NEADS and the pilot said 10 to 12 minutes, it was from somewhere else.

The fighters were airborne at 9:30 EDT and were not going to turn for at least two minutes. Had they turned as soon as possible, the turn would have occurred over the Delmarva Peninsula and the remaining flight time to the nation’s capital was on the order of 10-12 minutes, too late to be in position for AA 77 but well in time to guard against the approach of UA 93.LINK

If this is true, NORAD is once again wildly incorrect with its estimates. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:38. So, if NORAD did in fact learn of Flight 77’s hijacking around 8:51 when the FAA concluded it had been hijacked, it would have had about 47 minutes to get a plane over Washington. Even traveling at 1100 mph—the speed NORAD commander Larry Arnold says fighters traveled in making the longer journey to New York City earlier in the day—the F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base 129 miles away could have reached Washington in only seven minutes.

www.historycommons.org...

You do the math now.

That quote is so full of fail I hardly know where to start. First, NORAD was not notified of Flight 77 at 8:51, it was 9:33. This has been proven without a doubt based on when Washington Center called NEADS.

33:16 - WAS OP: Okay, now let me tell you this; I- I'll- We'll be looking, we've also lost American 77.
33:21 - NEADS ID2: American 77? Where was he proposed to head sir?
33:23 - NEADS ID3: American 77's lost - American 7 7.
33:25 - WAS OP: Excuse me?
33:26 - NEADS ID2: Where was he proposed to head sir?
LINK

There's no way NORAD could know 77 was hijacked at 8:51 because the controllers handling it didn't even know it was hijacked at that time. It didn't start deviating from its course until 8:54 and did not lose its transponder until 8:56. ATC thought it was having some kind of mechanical/electrical difficulty for a long time before suspecting it was a hijacked. But I'm guessing you already knew this.

Second, the 1100 mph is in reference to F-15s, not F-16s. F-15s are faster than F-16s.
Third, Arnold was referring to the F-15s circling off of Long Island already at altitude. Airplanes can fly at higher speeds at altitude. Even if the F-16s could fly at 1100 MPH, they would've had to climb to altitude first.
Fourth, there's no need to speculate on how fast the F-16s could've, should've, would've flown while going to Washington. We know how fast they went based on how fast they actually went on their way to Washington based on their radar returns. It was nowhere near 1100 mph, they were subsonic the whole time. That's what the above time is based on, their actual speed.

Hope this helps.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've provided you with a list of old exercises to complete your statement, they trained that crap for years. There is more to find on historycommons. I can't see how and why we should even talk about exercises when they've had 47min time to ask for orders. Yeah, those exercises and (fake)inputs were mentioned in the Norad-tapes abundantly. Is there anything left to discuss now?

You think excuses are the way to go? Really?

What's the matter with you guys? Ramming the plane before it could inflict more damage would've been nothing you say? Sounds pretty insane to me, being in my head and all that. When lifes not really matter anymore... welcome to the Brave New World! I knew it, fantastic. Progress or how do you call that?

a reply to: Boone 870

So you say the FAA messed it up then, the usual move to whitewash others from blaim. Whatever, it's your opinion and your right to believe anything you want to. But I wouldn't call "911-mythbusters" a source btw.
You didn't debunk anything so far, but go ahead!

The fighters were airborne at 9:30 EDT and were not going to turn for at least two minutes. Had they turned as soon as possible, the turn would have occurred over the Delmarva Peninsula and the remaining flight time to the nation’s capital was on the order of 10-12 minutes, too late to be in position for AA 77 but well in time to guard against the approach of UA 93.

This quote doesn't really help at all.
The question was, how fast they could've been in DC without any detour whatsoever. 7mins, correct?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Boone 870

So you say the FAA messed it up then, the usual move to whitewash others from blaim. Whatever, it's your opinion and your right to believe anything you want to. But I wouldn't call "911-mythbusters" a source btw.
You didn't debunk anything so far, but go ahead!

Yes, blame it on the FAA because the FAA didn't contact NORAD. It's pretty simple, really. There was literally hundreds if not thousands of different sectors all with different frequencies on September 11, 2001. NORAD did not monitor any of them so there was no way for them to know when something went wrong unless the FAA contacted them. How would you suggest they learn that something was wrong with Flight 77 without being contacted by the FAA?

It's not an opinion, it's a fact recorded on tape for everyone to hear.

You can call "911-MythBusters" whatever you want, that doesn't change the fact that I linked to a transcript of air traffic control recordings.

This quote doesn't really help at all.
The question was, how fast they could've been in DC without any detour whatsoever. 7mins, correct?

I told you it was based on the actual speed of the actual aircraft as they flew on 9/11.

You're the one the posted seven minutes, you prove it. That time is calculated off of aircraft already airborne traveling at 1100 mph. To use that as a method to determine the time it would take aircraft just lifting off at 180 mph and making a turn to the north then accelerating to speed and altitude isn't even comical, it's just plain stupid.

a reply to: Boone 870

You didn't read that by now? Ok, there you go:

Larry Arnold says fighters traveled in making the longer journey to New York City earlier in the day—the F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base 129 miles away could have reached Washington in only seven minutes.

www.historycommons.org...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

They did not train to respond to aircraft hijacked within the US and used as weapons. They exercised for responding to individual aircraft that were escorted and landed.

And what happens if they ram the plane and it crashes into a neighborhood? Or a crowded freeway? Or they miss and they slam into something on the ground? So it's better to risk more damage and loss of life to limit it. Got it.

Go back and read the discussion on the Payne Stewart crash. The transponder was on the entire time, broadcasting their position. They were intercepted by an aircraft that was already airborne, and it took over an hour to get him into position. On 9/11 they had aircraft with no transponders, changed codes, no primary radar coverage in places, and a lot of confusion because they were in a totally unfamiliar situation.

Okay, I went and opened up Google Earth and looked at the radar returns for the Langley F-16s. The first radar return showed up about 3 miles off the end of Langley's runway at 9:30:26. Nearly 10 minutes later at 9:40:05, when they switched transponders to squawk 7777 after Nasypany declared AFIO, they had traveled right at 90 miles.

That averages out to 540 mph for the first 10 minutes. That would've put them 40 miles away from Washington DC two minutes after flight 77 had crashed into the Pentagon.

Seven minutes is bollocks.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

They could have done it at 1100 mph. They would have to have gone from takeoff to 1100 mph immediately to reach there in 7 minutes.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

If they traveled at 1100 miles per hour. They didn't.

They traveled at 540 mph, roughly half that speed, so roughly double the time to get there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Anyway... it was not a completely new tactic but precisely well timed, you catched the drift. 1st AirForce somewhere else, coincidentally confused FAA, strange detours and lot's of exercise-blimps for additional confusion in the beginning with some magically disappeared Giant-Killer tapes to cherry the pie. Nothing to see here, move on! Yeah. Nope, we didn't even touch the bigger picture yet.

And what happens if they ram the plane and it crashes into a neighborhood? Or a crowded freeway? Or they miss and they slam into something on the ground? So it's better to risk more damage and loss of life to limit it. Got it.

You think the pilots were as bad as the alleged hijackers, I guess? You lost me in the neighborhood. Agreed to disagree then.