It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wheres the SAM Batterys at the Pentagon??

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Now that u have established theres traffic there, even tho theres a "no-fly zone" which makes no sense, because your trying to say every jet that takes off , flys right thru that zone..

Look at that picture again. The aircraft in the picture is flying an arc around the Pentagon, not directly over it. If the aircraft wasn't in a banking turn you wouldn't be able to see the Pentagon.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:02 PM
This is in 2002 which is post-9/11, planes still land while flying near or over the Pentagon.

You can be certain its landing on the runway far right end.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:09 PM
Runway 15 Approach Plate Washington National Airport

The above link is to the approach plate for Runway 15 at Washington National airport. This is the runway that is shown in Deltaboy's image. If you notice the approach goes around the Pentagon.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:18 PM
Here is some info in regards to current protection that may give insight. I'm a bit uncomfortable in trying to reveal where SAM's might be in DC. Seems like information a Terrorist might want. Since it is in the Wiki I suppose it does not matter. I was surprised I was able to find any such information. It would be stupid beyond belief for anyone to reveal what DC's defenses are. That person you quoted from your tour should be strung up for running their mouths.

In 2006 the Norwegian magazine Økonomisk Rapport (Economic Report) revealed that several NASAMS were used to guard air space over Washington, D.C. during the 2005 presidential inauguration.[5] According to the report, the same NASAMS units has since been used to protect air space around the White House. The magazine received access to the deal which mentioned specifically that the equipment be used for protection of the President in Washington. Director Tore Sannes of Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace refused to comment, other than acknowledging that they had made a weapon systems deal with U.S. military contractor Raytheon and the United States Air Force.

Although Økonomisk Rapport claimed to have revealed this in March 2006, the official webpages of the Royal Norwegian Air Force gave very clear hints about the event one year earlier—giving specific mention to the fact that the NASAMS had been used to protect Washington, D.C. during the recent presidential inauguration. The official site popped the lid on what had become a not so well kept secret.[6]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:56 PM
Hello muzzleflash. I'm with JIMC and deltaboy on this one. I flew into Reagan in the spring of 2002 and final approach is a very twisty and entertaining ride right past the Pentagon. The burden of proof on this one is directly on the shoulders of those that say there were SAM sites at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

I will try to find some links and post them tomorrow if the thread doesn't fizzle out before then. Here's one that I just found at I have not read it in its entirety and cannot vouch for its validity, so take it as you will. It seems like most of the accounts are after the terrorist attacks of 2001 and if there are no SAM after the attacks I would assume there wasn't any before (my opinion).

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:20 AM
good call muzzleflash i would go with your angle here rather than the writers(cough) who parrot the normal hot air here

Your not the only one to think this,its very logical to expect a defence of some kind to have been in operation to deal with potential situations like this.I think it can be safe to assume that a plane flying at illegal alltitudes on a flight path that leads it to the Pentagon would be picked up as a threat and dealt with harshly!I am sure the Pentagon knows what a threat is unlike the other normal flights mentioned by whoever above-to say they wouldnt use SAMs because of all the other local craft is wrong-the other craft dont fly at angles and heights aimed at hitting the Pentagon

Thanks for the thread

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
One possible reason is that the transponder on the plane was turned off...the air traffic control in that region had no idea where the plane even was...

Radar is capable of tracking aircraft without transponders otherwise how did we track aircraft in WW2 ( and the modern radar is significantly better than what we had then)

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:59 AM
Good convo starter, Muzzleflash. I've looked into the Pentagon case a lot, tho not so much this issue. I've heard it both ways, and hve seen no one clear it up either way, and that ambiguity is clue no. 1 for me. We don't know whether or not there were missiles there. Nat'l security, right?

Re reports in the 90s of missiles that you heard: Remember Frank Eugene Corder - crazy 9/11/94 white house plane guy. Imagine a policy at the time to assert there were missiles, either to assure the public or to deter other nutjob pilots, scoping the area out on a standard tour, etc. Another angle. May not really prove much.

They made a big deal of bringing out the Avengers,as Deltaboy points out, I think around 9/11/02 - mobile missiles not deployed since Cuban missile crisis CNN said. So either no missiles normally or they just want us to think that. Whatever. If there was big guns, they would be shut down, as the air defense effectively was. And that we can see, despite the line of excuses.

Re: ADIZ zone and all these DC air defense precautions - ADIZ zones are all by definition offshore I hear. They say no one ever thought of or prepared for an attack from West Virginia. And that's all you need to know they say.

Hooey of course. But where were the SAMs? I dunno. Where's Waldo bin Laden?

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:32 AM
The only thing I can add to this is my opinion and some food for thought. I don't dispute that there may have been SAM batteries or not. My thoughts are if there were and they were not used what are the likely reasons why. The first thing that came to mind is the agony in all the confusion of the day of making the dicision to shoot down a civilian airliner. Or wait to see what more information you can get on the situation before making the call. Did they hesitate too long? I don't know. I wasn't there. Have you ever noticed on most of the police videos, reality cop shows and the news reports the reluctance of law officers to use necessary force? When it is used the officers are often faced with law suits. They command "get on the ground" 10 -20 times, in my opinion to make it clear what they wanted and to make it clear they gave the suspect every opportunity to respond. I'm not that patient. I know when I watch those kind of shows I'm thinking I couldn't be a cop cause I'd use everything I had to subdue a suspect. But you never know unless your in that situation what call you'd make. I have a tendency to act first and ask questions later. Just my opinion for general lack of action in relation to 9/11 given this lawsuit happy society.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:38 AM
The only possible explanation I can think of, (if there are any SAM installations) is that it detected the airliner as a friendly when it had hit the facility. All SAMs/Aircraft/Radar/etc. has IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) capabilities. Only the SAM/Radar operators can change the identification of the an aircraft (in other words, changing it from Friendly to Foe), BUT it needs confirmation form senior officers to take such an act.

If there were/are SAMs in/around important facilities, then it was either a logical error (mistaking it to be an actual friendly aircraft) and discovered that it was too late to take action and destroy the craft OR (as some may say) it was an inside job.

IF there are/were no SAM installations in/around the pentagon... then it shoots all theories (of it being an inside job, or human error, etc) out the window.

Good thread though... thought provoking.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:20 AM
I also like to point something out that could counter about SAM sites around D.C. Something that happened on 9/11.

1. On 9/11, some cameraman recorded some footage at the White House where Secret Service personnel were telling White House employees and reporters to get the Hell out of the White House grounds. Now I don't know what the policy is dealing with a situation about possible air attack against the White House grounds, however it could conlude that A) They don't have a SAM defense system and this is the way to go or B) They have extreme low confidence on a defense system to shoot down a passenger airline (if it exist).

2. Another fact is that Vice President Dick Cheney was dragged into the bunker of the White House to protect him from possible air attack which would conclude A) The White House does not have a system to defend itself against any air attacks or B) They extremely have no confidence on the supposed existed system.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:42 AM
The original topic was that there were SAM batteries near the Pentagon, yet they did not fire on the Al quaida hijacked civilian jet liner. But the thread so far has discussed everything between shoulder fired SAMS (Stingers) to HUMVEE mounted mobile SAM systems to possibly Patriot missile batteries. How did we first conclude that there were SAM "batteries". A SAM battery cannot be descretly hidden among the Federal bulidings, you need a target acquisition radar, a guidance radar to direct the SAM to target, you need the SAM battery itself (no wee bit of equipment there) and other support vehicles, never mind troops to cordon off the launch blast area so some Japanese tourist visiting D.C. is not singed in the take off blast. Where are photos of this setup? I am not trying to debunk your shadow govt. theory, otherwise why would I even sign up for this. I just cannot see the practical logic.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:55 AM
i didnt read the entire thread, just the original post.
what i think: the sams were turned off for the occasion
maybe they didnt fire cause they saw it was a passenger craft, bullshyt

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:02 PM
I'm still looking, but here is what I have so far.

For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday -- a precaution that comes amid a heightened alert status on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
the article states that missiles have not been used to protect the capital in 40 years. The article was written in 2002 so that would put 40 years ago in 1962. Which leads me to the first page post by Now Then where the author of the article claims that missiles were there in 1958. That is not all that he says though.

When I was 10 or 11, to the best of my memory, which means 1957 or 58, I recall going outside and sitting down on a silver metal box. My father told me to get off of it. When I asked why he said it was a surface to air missile. (I could be off by 2-3 years on this recollection, but it was certainly before 1961).
Now he admits that he could be off by two or three years or maybe it's four years.

In 1962, 82 Army National Guard units manned Nike Ajax air defense batteries in 15 states and the District of Columbia, according to a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command

Maybe he is off by a year and he was sitting on a silver box during the Cuban missile crisis. My $.02

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:40 AM

Not only that, in my trip during 96 (think it was 96), as i was touring the "tour section" of the white house, i was just BS'n with the SS agents there keeping an eye on everyone. They were just telling me stuff about DC etc, and somehow we got on the subject of how do they defend their buildings. And the SS agents CLEARLY told me they have DOZENS of SAM launchers ALL over the White House, Capitol Building, and Pentagon (among other facilitys)

This reminds me of a scene in the Scorcese classic Taxi Driver where DeNiro goes up to an SS agent and starts to talk. The SS agent tells him politely to go pound sand. It is difficult to understand why SS agents were talking about SAM placement to a tourist....... I think they are better selected and trained than that.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:30 AM
Some good posts in here by JimC and DeltaBoy…

First off, if your going to intercept something you do it BEFORE it gets into a densely populated civilian area. That is why things such as the 1994 incident were able to happen. When something is brought down in that manner, the wreckage is not going to just disappear; it’s going to fall onto something and cause significant damage. So the best option in a situation such as that before 911, was to send in a fighter escort, then arrest the person after the fact. This was especially the case, due to the fact, that most incidents were accidental in nature and it was a matter of pilot error with no ill intent.

Originally posted by solidshot
Radar is capable of tracking aircraft without transponders otherwise how did we track aircraft in WW2 ( and the modern radar is significantly better than what we had then)

Modern radar is dependant on the return from the transponder, this is called secondary radar, once the transponder was shut down the aircraft blends into all the other garbage that the radar picks up and is only returned on the primary radar display. Primary radar is about the same as the radar used in WWII, except its range has increased. It is very difficult to tell clutter from aircraft on the primary radar.

Originally posted by jprophet420
from 1997 till june of 2000 there were standing orders to take out any hijacked plane with military aircraft.

found the info on a podcast on

BS! There were never such orders. The standing order pre-911 was to get the aircraft on the ground and deal with it there. The crew was to be compliant as possible with the demands made to them, but to make every attempt to get the aircraft on the ground and keep it there.

Of course you need to consider your source…

Originally posted by jaehkimx
It is difficult to understand why SS agents were talking about SAM placement to a tourist.

Actually the last time I was in DC, I got held-up by an agent while a motorcade was disembarking for somewhere. The agent was very polite, talking with several of us, and answering our questions about what was going on.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:25 AM

Actually the last time I was in DC, I got held-up by an agent while a motorcade was disembarking for somewhere. The agent was very polite, talking with several of us, and answering our questions about what was going on.

But you do see the point don't you. Telling you why you are stopped in traffic is different from telling a guy on the White House tour there are SAM batteries placed outside. Presumably since no one has ever actually seen these batteries, they are carefully hidden, then why would an SS agent be telling a civilian on a 35 minute tour of the White House that there are hidden SAM cites.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:02 AM
i dont know why, but it did happen, thats beside the point, i was asking IF they were there and discussing the Implications IF they are indeed Real.

not only did they (the ss agents) mention that, but one of them was on the phone, and once he got off he started bragging that he was dating Sharon Stones Sister...and thats private stuff too,

they were just cops doing their job basically, bored and chatting with civilians, and i was a KID too at the time

what do u think the SS guy was gonna tell me anyways?

"Oh we have No protection for DC, were sitting ducks here"
ya right lol

anyhow, i can understand your concerns for questioning my credibility, but this is the internet and these days no one has crap for credibility anyways

i dont wish to argue about if my Memory that cauesed me to ask the questions about Air defense at the capital should NOT be the subject of the discussion

please understand that its trivial if my story is true or not, from Your perspective
because the questions im asking have Nothing to do with me, and only have to do with wether there was AIr defense at the capitol on 911, and if there was why wasnt it used

thanks for everyone else staying on topic,

PS - theres almost no info on the internet about air defense at DC, ive been looking around a bit and havent found anything

Please explain to me why its rediculous to consider if AA defense existed at the central point of our nations infrastructure?

i personally would consider the idea "theres no defense" a wild conspiracy theory and the idea "there is defense" a rational expectation

think of all the wasted tax $$$ , if we actually had no last ditch AA defense in DC....i just cant believe it lol

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Please explain to me why its rediculous to consider if AA defense existed at the central point of our nations infrastructure?

i personally would consider the idea "theres no defense" a wild conspiracy theory and the idea "there is defense" a rational expectation

think of all the wasted tax $$$ , if we actually had no last ditch AA defense in DC....i just cant believe it lol

Again, the reason is that defense was set up against a foreign country aggressor. In that instance, you intercept the enemy over the coast, before entering population centers. That way when you knock them down they hit nothing important below. This type of setup gave the maximum coverage, using minimal forces, during the cold war when the enemy would be approaching with waves of bombers. This is part of the problem I see with a lot of the truth movement speculation, its based on the way folks “expect things to be”, not on “how they really are”...

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:25 AM
I was playing around with Google Earth and looking at Washington DC. When I looked at the Washington Navy yard I saw the USS Barry sitting there at the pier, it dawned on me that you wouldn't have to put SAM launchers around DC, just park a Burke class Destroyer at that pier. The entire DC area easily falls within it's missile envelope.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in