Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

reply to post by turbofan

....explain the procedure for an aircraft entering Class Bravo airspace.

I have. So have many others We have provided links, so you could see it your yourselves.

BTW...not to stray OT, but the SAME CLASS B airspace also exists (asnd existed back then) in the NYC Metropolitan area. Procedures are the same, restrictions are the same, as in the requirement for contacting ATC and having an operating transponder before entry.

Problem is IF you violated this airspace?? You get a "Violation" on your Pilot Record. I really doubt the suicide terrorists cared a whole heckuva lot about that.....

For those not aware, the airspace around the Pentagon is restricted airspace (no...not a "no fly zone"...restricted) and monitored heavily. This should raise some red flags for those who believe the official story.

NO!!! Wrong, more pablum being fed to you. The mere fact that airplanes fly PAST the Pentagon, EVERY DAY, in and out of the KDCA Airport should show you how wrong that is....

There ARE two "prohibited" Areas nearby, P-56A and P-56B. They extend from the SURFACE to 18,000 feet MSL. They cover the White House, and parts of the Mall to include the Washington Monument, AND the Nav al Observatory, traditonal "residence" of the VP.

BUT, the overall Class B Airspace isn't any different than any OTHER Class B Airspace anywhere else in the country, usually around very very busy large airports....

Frankly, on 9/11/2001, the WHITE HOUSE and the CAPITOL, and other locations actually IN DC would have been more of the focus for protection, assuming that an attack was anticipated that quickly, after the events in NYC.

Sorry, but then, and now...there are no magic Star Trek-type sensors to pinpoint an incoming threat by air, such as a relatively small passenger jet, WHEN the entire thing caught everyone off guard.....

reply to post by scott3x


This is going to be difficult to explain....because for those who are not in the Airline Industry, terms may not make sense at first.

I want everyone to understand the term "codeshare". This is primary, in order to try to decode the BTS statistics. We also (and this is the most difficult part) MUST know exactly how each airline that reports to the Government codes for their own purposes...because IF you think it's as simple as it appears, then you don't understad the competitve nature of the Industry.

I mention this BECAUSE....an "N" Number, for US-registered airplanes, is NEVER MORE than five digits, after the "N"....NO LESS than two....AND, thre are NEVER more than TWO letters, at the end. "Standard"-issued N-numbers are ALWAYS 'N'+five. "Personalized" numbers can be requested, much like 'personalized' license plates for your car.

IF your request is going to be just two digits after THE 'N'...then only ONE can be a letter, and it MUST be the last digit. Examples: N1A, N2Z

IN NO CASE may you have MORE THAN two following letters, after the "N". EVER! AND, they must be at the end.

This is not secret, it's not bull pucky, it is something that every pilot knows, and is also available online, with a effort of searching.

OK.....now, I looked at what scott posted, and did some searching on bts.gov for myself....

The last scheduled flight to arrive that day, as per the BTS database was American Airlines Flight 684 (N3ATAA) from Miami....

OK. RIGHT THERE we have a problem.

Indeed, the "N"-number entered into the bts database shows as "N3ATAA"

However, that is NOT a valid "N"-number, as I've explained above, and as a simple "N"-number registry search will confim.

Guess what else??? I looked up a few more...."N399AA", a MIA-SEA flight that day (identified as Flight "27"). De-registered, used to belong to a Beechcraft BE-99 ....a commuter-type airplane, variation on the King Aire.

"N557AA"?? A home-built "KitFox".

THAT airplane was reported to have departed MIA for IAH...as "Flight 393"

Now....my point here is simple:

American Airlines likely used "some" fake "N"-numbers, especially to track flights that they did NOT operate directly, but they may have had some sort of marketing arrangement with.

Just to make this make more sense, I ALSO looked up more recent activity, and see similar patterns.

SO, unless you wish to think that the ENTIRE day, and ALL flights leaving Miami somehow are part of thei grand "conspiracy"....I suggest you do some of your own research, and stop listening to the people who say they've "found" something.....!!!!



There is more....

WHICH DIRECTION was the arport operating, that morning? (Sept.11th)

NORTH!!!!! This means, for any pilots in the audience, they were using Runway 1 (Primary) and Runway 33 (for smaller airploanes, such as Commuters).

Short aviation lesson alert!!! ~Runways are numbered according to the general magnetic heading they align with, to the nearest ten, dropping the last zero. Example: "Runway 1...or, more correctly '01'....is very close to North. IN FACT, and this is the truth....the Runway currently designated as '01' at KDCA USED TO BE Runway '36', back in the 1990s.

More accurate surveying, and "voila!" instead of the ACTUAL magnetic heading being 003.49 degrees (rounds down to 360)....SUDDENLY it is determined that the magnetic heading is more like 005.015...or whatever. NOW rounds UP to 010 degrees.

(One-half of one degree, to a pilot, is totally insignificant). The Earth's magnetic poles shift, very, very slightly over time....hence, the continued persistence...and some job security for someone.....)....but, again, the Runway heading is good UP TO a ten-degree limit....and still, for us, it sin't all that big of a deal...the charts are printed with the most accurate info...but again....WHO CARES???

HERE is the reason for Runway numbers, based on magnetic headings:

WHEN we land, we get wind information in velocity and DIRECTION according to where it (the wind) is coming FROM. Can you picture this, yet? WHEN we are landing (or taking off) we wish to have some sort of headwind component, as a preference. (An exact 90-degree crosswind has, of course ZERO component, as applies to Head- or Tail-wind)

Knowing the general Runway, and the reported winds, we can VISUALIZE the effects that the wind will have on our flight.

WHY write all of this?? Well, I warned it was a "lesson"....and here is the reason:

The National Airport was operating on the morning of 9/11 in the 'northern configuration'....they don't just allow an airplane to suddenly land (or take-off) AGAINST the established flow of operations!!!!!

That would CERTAINLY draw some attention, to say the least!!!

I have tried my best to explain this, in words...something that is best LEARNED by experience, and can be SHOWN in about five minutes of example, rather than on this limited venue.....

...it arrived at 9:29 a.m., just prior to the Pentagon’s explosion. Could this flight have landed on runway 15?

NO!~!!!! This is why I tried to explain so much, to refute this nonsense.

Did this American Airlines jet approach over the Pentagon or fly over appear as if it crashed and exploded, if it disappeared behind a billowing smoke cloud? Also, a low flying aircraft, like one coming in for a landing would not show on primary radar since it is below the tracking limit of the radar.

NO!!!!! This person has NO IDEA what they are writing about. Yet, it gets attention....very sad.



[edit on 7 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Perhaps, as you say, the author of that link doesn't really know what he was talking about. I don't believe the same can be said about turbofan's points, though.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Wow, more stars from people that don't know what they are talking about perhaps?



Look at KDCA. Find the Pentagon.

Pentagon airspace is not controlled you say?

EDIT: Clarify incorrect terminology. Used Restricted instead of Controlled. My apologies.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by weedwhackerNO!!! Wrong, more pablum being fed to you. The mere fact that airplanes fly PAST the Pentagon, EVERY DAY, in and out of the KDCA Airport should show you how wrong that is....

Wrong? I don't think you understand. The Pentagon is within Class D
airspace. Hani must abide by Class B airspace regulations prior to...

So, what are the requirements to enter this space? At least, but not
limited to:

1. ATC Clearance Required - Yes
2. Radio Contact Required - Yes
3. Mode C Altitude Reporting Transponder required - Yes

Did Hani do any of the above?

Sorry, but then, and now...there are no magic Star Trek-type sensors to pinpoint an incoming threat by air, such as a relatively small passenger jet, WHEN the entire thing caught everyone off guard.....

Caught everyone off guard? Towers were hit by 2 jets over 30 minutes
prior, and RADAR was tracking "AA77" for over 50 miles.

All of ATC knew your country was under attack.

You call that off guard?



[edit on 8-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan

Pentagon airspace is not controlled you say?

NO. I never said that.

Why is it that what I write gets misinterpreted???

reply to post by turbofan

Wrong? I don't think you understand.

The misunderstanding is entirely on your side of this.

The Pentagon is within Class D
airspace. Hani must abide by Class B airspace regulations prior to...

Hani did NOT have to comply with anything!!!! He did not have to "abide by" the regulations.....can you not see how silly that sounds? They have already committed crimes....Air Piracy, possible murder, (well, ultimately murders did occur, in the crash, whether committed beforehand or not), accessory to murder, assault...etc, etc, etc. He wasn't going to "worry" about violating some FAA regulations!!

FIRSTLY, Class B airspace trumps Class D. "Class D" was, in the past, referred to as the "Control Zone" and usually extended for a radius of five statute miles around every airport with an operating control tower. AND up to 3,000 feet above the field elevation.

"Class B", as it's known now, USED to be called the "TCA", for 'Terminal Control Area'. This concept was implemented, in the United States' Airspace, back when I was learning to fly. The "upside-down wedding cake" description as apt, since that's what it resembles...with various sectors and segments sometimes altered, for specific locations.

The intent was to have a requirement for positive radar identification of all traffic in the immediate arrival and departure corridors, especially for very busy large airports.

Sometime in the late 1980s, I believe, (might have been the early 1990s), the classifications were changed to more accurately comply with ICAO standards worldwide. BOTH for U.S. pilots operating internationally, and for the international pilots IN the U.S.

NOW, back to the chart you linked showing the Washington Area TAC (Terminal Area Chart)...

The outlines denoting the Class B airspace are blue, in the FAA Government-published charts. Red certainly stands out, and I susupect that's why you chose to show that one. It looks like it was issued to point out certain CHANGES, and highlight for clarity.

In any event, IF you'd care to look at the extent of the Class B airspace, you'd see that it extends to a maxmum altitude of 10,000 feet MSL.

Any airplane can operate VFR above the area encompassed by the Class B, up to 17,500 feet....because above FL180 is the "Positive Control Area" airspace, extending up to FL600. This is now called "Class A", again to comply with ICAO standards.

So, what are the requirements to enter this space? At least, but not limited to:

1. ATC Clearance Required - Yes
2. Radio Contact Required - Yes
3. Mode C Altitude Reporting Transponder required - Yes

Did Hani do any of the above?

You are still showing a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world....by criminal terrorists who don't care a fig about the rules....

Caught everyone off guard? Towers were hit by 2 jets over 30 minutes prior, and RADAR was tracking "AA77" for over 50 miles.

Most controllers, working the various positions at the various ARTCC locations had NO IDEA of the events in NYC....they wouldn't ALL immediately know of these things, within the first 30 minutes!!! It is just not logical to think that were the case.

I'm glad you mentioned the 50 miles, also. Just how many minutes does it take for the jet to cover those 50 miles?? Think it through, perhaps it will make better sense to you.

All of ATC knew your country was under attack.

The NOTAM with effectivity of 0930 EDT had JUST been issued, a mere few minutes earlier!!! There was mass confusion, and disbelief. Uncertainty, and possible communications breakdowns as well....this looking back and attempting to put it in a different, fantastic context is silly.

They were STILL confused as to exactly which airplanes had been hijacked, and which ones weren't.


[edit on 8 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, but then, and now...there are no magic Star Trek-type sensors to pinpoint an incoming threat by air, such as a relatively small passenger jet, WHEN the entire thing caught everyone off guard.....

Caught everyone off guard? Towers were hit by 2 jets over 30 minutes
prior, and RADAR was tracking "AA77" for over 50 miles.

All of ATC knew your country was under attack.

You call that off guard?

I think we should elaborate on why the pentaplane and 2 of the other planes (the ones that hit the Twin Towers) were successful anyway:

From whatreallyhappened.com's article titled War Games: The Key to a
9/11 USAF Stand Down:

On 9/11 there was no reaction from the USAF as hijacked aircraft flew through US airspace and plowed into buildings. This lack of response is inconceivable unless the USAF was stood down.
Careful planning made this easy to achieve.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) changed the protocol so that any requests for "potentially lethal support" had to come explicitly from the secretary of defense, leaving commanders in the field unable to respond to hijackings in any meaningful fashion.

Five military exercises were held on 9/11, and this resulted in flight controllers, commanders and pilots being unable to distinguish real world events from exercise scenarios.

Even if a hostile plane was identified it couldn't be fired upon because secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was "out of the loop" during the attacks (as was the acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

Chaos reigned supreme on 9/11 thanks to the above...

VOICE TWO: Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?
VOICE ONE: Oh, God, I don't know.
VOICE TWO: That's a decision somebody's going to have to make probably in the next ten minutes.
VOICE ONE: Oh, you know, everybody just left the room.

-whatreallyhappened.com...

...and this effectively stood down the USAF when it was needed most.

Dr. Robert Bowman, a man so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree, has joined the ranks of those who are declaring that the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job. As right wing world comes tumbling down, more prominent individuals are coming forward with their doubts and concerns with the official report. Some have little more than the powers of their own deduction, others are expert engineers and physicists.

Dr. Bowman has inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September 11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses. The person who headed those exercises? None other then Richard Cheney, otherwise known as Dead-eye Dick.

-www.choicechanges.com...

"If a stand down order were given it probably would have to come from at least as high as the vice president."

-WMV video download (453kB)

There was a young man who came in and said to the vice president "The plane [Flight 77] is 50 miles out" [from Washington], "The plane is 30 miles out", and when it got down to "The plane is 10 miles out" the young man also said to the vice president "Do the orders still stand?", and the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

WMV video download (1.8 MB)

[edit on 8-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


The problem with finding the source that you cited is, there are OTHERS here who dispute a lot of their "facts" and have pointed to some twisting of events, and ommisions and errors.

This is NOT a subject I've studied at any length. I'm a civilian, and know how to describe the ATC system, and how it works especially from a user's (pilot's) standpoint, but I don't have in depth knowledge of Military operations that day...so I trust those others who have chimed in.

I find, on the surface, many of the claims have a hint of complete lunacy, though. Innuendo, troubled and distorted "facts", etc.

The most glaring problem is trying to accuse the Military of the "stand-down" for all FOUR airplanes....and that's just not understanding how the confusion of uncertainty of the onset of the event would play out, and how slowly the communications could be passed on, between all the various people involved.

ALSO, the articles linked keep talking about the USAF, and its alleged 'stand-down'...in fact, as I undertand it, it is the duty of the ANG to be called up and respond in this sort of situation.

We also should clear up the concept of how our air defenses were focused, Pre-9/11....outward versus inward....



[edit on 8 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

The problem with finding the source that you cited is, there are OTHERS here who dispute a lot of their "facts" and have pointed to some twisting of events, and ommisions and errors.

What source are you referring to? If you're thinking of my mention of seeing someone talk of a secretive program at Reagan National, let's drop that one; I can't find it anymore, and the truth movement site that responded apparently had heard nothing of it. I think the sources that were linked to in my previous post are another matter, however.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is NOT a subject I've studied at any length. I'm a civilian, and know how to describe the ATC system, and how it works especially from a user's (pilot's) standpoint, but I don't have in depth knowledge of Military operations that day...so I trust those others who have chimed in.

Perhaps it's your trust in others regarding military operations that is the problem here? Also, did you click on any of the links in the post you're responding to?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I find, on the surface, many of the claims have a hint of complete lunacy, though. Innuendo, troubled and distorted "facts", etc.

Why is that? I can say that everything you believe regarding 9/11 is "distorted facts", but unless I back it up with something, it's just a I say/you say. Surely we can do better than that?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The most glaring problem is trying to accuse the Military of the "stand-down" for all FOUR airplanes.... and that's just not understanding how the confusion of uncertainty of the onset of the event would play out, and how slowly the communications could be passed on, between all the various people involved.

Weedwhacker, how much of the post I'm responding to did you actually read? Because it seems clear to me from the post you're responding to that the USAF did just that. What problem with their logic do you see? Please, be specific. Furthermore, some have said that one of the 4 planes (the one that allegedly "crashed" in Shanksville) was actually shot down.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ALSO, the articles linked keep talking about the USAF, and its alleged 'stand-down'...in fact, as I undertand it, it is the duty of the ANG to be called up and respond in this sort of situation.

From everything I've read, including the material I've cited, that's not the case. Can you cite some material backing up your claim?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
We also should clear up the concept of how our air defenses were focused, Pre-9/11....outward versus inward....

Pre-911, planes going off course were intercepted all the time. -On- 9/11, at best, 1 out of 4 planes were intercepted. I sincerely believe that you're not examining the information that I provided in my last post closely enough. You didn't quote a single thing I wrote in it, and you seemed to respond to almost nothing in it as well. I personally think that you strongly abhor the possibility that I and many others are right; that the USAF was essentially unable to act, due to a host of circumstances that put together makes it hard to believe that it wasn't planned that way.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x



I did scan the links, and it is the same stuff that has been presented over and over again, sometimes right here on ATS.

Pre-911, planes going off course were intercepted all the time.

That is another of those sorts of almost-but-not-quite-correct fallacies that people throw out as "facts" when, in fact they are nothing more than hyperbole.

By using the phrase "all the time" it makes it seem as if it was a daily occurence, and EVERY time there was a magical successful "intercept".

How about showing the data, the histories of all of these intercepts?

The ONE that keeps getting pointed to is golfer Payne Stewart's LearJet....it was a very unusual cirmcumstance, it was both pilots incapicitated because of unfortunate chain of events, AND the airplane continued, on autopilot, as programmed before the pilots lost consciousness...AND the transponder was still merrily squawking away...rather EASY to find an airplane like that. Rather more difficult to find ones that don't WANT to be found....

You didn't quote a single thing I wrote in it, and you seemed to respond to almost nothing in it as well.

I didn't have time to parse your entire post, nor ALL of the cited sources to do it justice. Still don't have that kind of time, at the moment.


I just cannot understand how people can seriously think of this as reality...it is fiction, based solely on hints of truth and unconnected co-incidences.

BUT, it also is well off the topic, here.

You see, AS TO the path of American 77, as it approached the Pentagon, that is fairly well established and described.

NOW, a tiopic of some intentional "stand-down" that was orchestrated at the very highest levels, with foreknowledge???

Back to the old Tom Clancy novels, again.

What we have, it seems, are a set of computer geeks who scour the web and find these unconnected bits, and then cobble them together into the Clancy scenario....ignoring any and all holes in the story, in the logic and in the facts when confronted with them.....

A litle focus would be nice, but again these claims range all over the map.

"The airplanes were remote controlled, and the USAF was in stand-down because of the 'Plan'. "

"NO!" someone else says, "They weren't remote controlled, the Gov't knew ahead of time that Arabs were going to hijack, so they laid this out months in advance, setting up a scenario of Command and control that NO ONE ELSE in the military would notice as being odd, just so those evel, evil Gov't criminals could sit back and let it happen..."

Another person says, "Nope! I have the answer, they weren't commercial jets at all, but were cruise missiles that were secretly 'switched' by fooling the ATC radar people...."

The stories are endless, they keep weaving back and forth, and the entire issue is hopelessly muddied by now, BECAUSE of the junk that keeps getting put out there.


here, read this:

It is topical...

Air defense is the most problematic element of the War on Terror. One of the major questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks (and one of the seeds of many paranoid conspiracy theories) is, where were the defenses? It took nearly three hours for U.S. air assets to respond to the attacks, to the grave puzzlement of many taxpayers, who believed that at least some of the Defense Department's multitrillion—dollar purse must have been applied to direct defense of the country. They were unaware — and would have been shocked to learn — that on 9/11, the United States possessed virtually no air defenses to speak of.

Some years ago I managed an office in Clifton, New Jersey, about fifteen miles west of Manhattan. A few blocks away stood a building ( memory fails me here, though I seem to recall it being a recruiting center) which featured as a lawn ornament a very long, very thin, and very white missile. It was, in fact, a Nike Ajax, and the building had once been a Nike site, one of several surrounding Manhattan. For years that missile had stood ready for launch in case of attack against the New York metropolitan area. Now it lay on its side, warhead long disposed of, engine stripped, little more than a hollow shell.

On 9/11, one of my first thoughts was, 'If that missile had been on a launch rack, things would have turned out very differently.'

That remains true today. Despite the fact that the sole successful mass terror attack against the U.S. was carried out by air, no effort has made to upgrade or bolster national air defenses. Airliners are viewed — very much mistakenly — as being the sole threat, countered only by the TSA's absurd and ill—designed airport gauntlets. That, for all practical purposes, is the sum total of U.S. air defense. Apart from Air National Guard units placed on alert around major metropolitan centers, the U.S. remains as undefended as it was before 9/11.

www.americanthinker.com...#





[edit on 8 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I've now moved my response over to a new thread; as weedwhacker mentioned, we were branching off into another topic. Here is the thread where I will bring up the subject of evidence that the USAF/ANG were essentially ordered to stand down on 9/11:

Were Stand-Down Intercept Orders Given On Morning Of 911?

[edit on 8-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't think you're getting this "Weed".

Both Towers were hit by planes.

Everyone knows your country is under attack

There is an aircraft tracked on RADAR entering Class B airspace
and not establishing Radio Contact, not getting clearance from ATC
and no transponder.

Guess what Weed?

As an ATC, knowing your country is under attack and y ou have a
suspected hijacked plane heading toward TWO PROHIBITED zones,
what should have happened?

Are you going to tell me that your military and government left P-56
unguarded on 9/11 ...which was just miles away from the Pentagon.

Imagine that, Prohibited airspace left wide open

Thank goodness they had those war games happening at the very same
moment to practice for such an event ... you know, in case a hijacker
really did take over a commercial airliner.

Oh wait...let me guess, that was a coincidence too?

reply to post by turbofan


I don't know why YOU aren't "getting it"....

(Pertinent timeline events

ALL times EDT---

8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector about suspected hijacking of United Flight 175.


8:46 a.m.: American Flight 11 crashes into north tower of World Trade Center.

SO FAR, there is no connection made in anyone's minds. Confusion reigns. The first impact (AA 11) is though to be a mistake, a small airplane, etc. Confusion, uncertainty.

Seventeen minutes...that is NOT a long time in this sort of situation, when you're trying to figure out what, or even IF anything is happening....

Seventeen minutes, THEN:

9:03 a.m.: United Flight 175 crashes into south tower of World Trade Center.

OK....NOW it's getting obvious. ONCE is a fluke, TWICE is an attack. BUT, from where is next? (IS there a next???) And what target?

NYC is in disarray, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, Wall Street...etc....ALL thought as possible additional targets.

9:08 a.m.: FAA bans all takeoffs nationwide for flights going to or through airspace around New York City.

9:21 a.m.: All bridges and tunnels into Manhattan closed.

Now, remember that this is just a timeline of events, but does NOT show all of the interconnectivity of the various players, where they are, what they're hearing, how soon they hear it...it is very complex.

By this time the FAA Command Center, in Herndon, VA (near Dulles Airport) is trying to fit a mental image in their minds of what's happening, and what might happen next, based on scattered reports they're getting from various controllers at various ARTCCs.

AA 77 gets noticed as a 'possible'....

9:24 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector about suspected hijacking of American Flight 77.

Remember up there, NORAD alerted about UA 175? At 0843?? AT THAT POINT, it was just a "hijacking"....until the two impacts on the Towers. After the second hit, NOW realization of the need for a more pro-active response is setting in.

Surely everyone knows that, in the world of pre-9/11, just the fact of a suspected hijacking did NOT mean that NORAD jumped into full battle mode, or something. They were routinely notified, along with the FBI...because it falss under FBI jurisdiction as soon as a hijacked airplane lands in the US (which was the goal of the crew onboard, if possible, to convince the hijackers to land).


NYC and Washington, DC, are NOT right next door to each other!!! Focus had been up in NYC.

9:26 a.m.: FAA bans takeoffs of all civilian aircraft.

Actually, this NOTAM has been discussed, it was issued at a few minutes before 0930, with an effective TIME of 0930 (1330 GMT)

9:31 a.m.: President Bush, in Florida, calls crashes an "apparent terrorist attack on our country."

9:40 a.m. (approx.): American Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon.

I think we've narrowed this down to be closer to 0938.


Let's review: NORAD is notified about AA 77 at 0924. By 0930 (approx) Bush and Co. have guessed it's a terrorist attack.

AA 77 is still "suspected" as being hijacked, there is still confusion in the very short time that has elapsed...remember Delta 1989?? IT TOO was "suspected"...

When EIGHT minutes away from the Pentagon, AA 77 was maybe just being spotted. Where are the interceptors? Enroute, having been dispatched to NYC, THEN it seems sent Eastbound (because, remember, the primary focus of NORAD was for intrusions into the ADIZ. Perhaps it was protocol, and no one had the authority or notion to alter for the type of emergency they were facing).

SO, fighters in NYC, and AA 77 is eight minutes away from the Pentagon, to the West. NO altitude information, spotty primary radar returns...radar, remember, is most accurate the closer you are to the antenna that is transmitting signal and receiving the return "skin paint".

Even IF an inflight intercept had occured, and IF the responding fighters had been armed (many reports about UA 93 talk about an F-16 pilot who was being vectored to intercept, and that he was unarmed --- he was considering his options, which included ramming the passenger jet, and hopefully ejecting safely)....

Even IF the intercept had occured, THEN what? Shoot it down? Certainly killing those onboard, but scattering the debris over a wide range in the populated areas?

Why does no one understand this? The airplane, even if spotted FIFTY miles away from the Pentagon, would have been able to evade....and either still hit the Pentagon, or done a UA 93, or picked another target of opportunity on the ground....

The ONLY way an inflight intersept has a happy conclusion is IF the intercepted pilot complies. And lands. As instructed. (Oh, and BTW...these guys didn't train to land the B757).

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't agree with your timeline. Instead of wasting time on that, let's
focus on the point you totally overlooked:

P-56 was left unattended. A Prohibited airspace.

Isn't it funny that no fighter jets were around to protect the prohibited
airspace?

Hmmm...from 50 miles out, a fighter jet could intercept "AA77" from either
of the three airforce bases in proximitiy to the Pentagon.

Too many coincidences on 9/11...

reply to post by turbofan


You "don't agree" with my timeline?? It came from the Washington Post!!!

The times are not made up!! Try again...

P-56 was left unattended. A Prohibited airspace.

"unattended"??? is THAT what you think???

Then, you simply don't comprehend the intent of the Prohibited Airspace classification. OH, and by the way, neither P-56A or -56B cover the Pentagon, anyway.

Isn't it funny that no fighter jets were around to protect the prohibited airspace?

No. Not funny (if by "funny" you mean unusual) at all. As I mentioned above, you seem to have an incorrect idea of how the Prohibited Areas work. IF you think that there is 24-hour fighter 'protection' for them!

Hmmm...from 50 miles out, a fighter jet could intercept "AA77" from either of the three airforce bases in proximitiy to the Pentagon.

"three" bases? "proximity"??

You didn't read what I wrote at all, did you?

50 miles...exact position and altitude unknown. That is a LARGE chunk of airspace to look for a little 200-foot long airplane that doesn't wish to be found.

Oh, and just how long to you think it takes a jet to cover those 50 miles???

Oh, and do please explain the "proximity" of those "three" USAF bases.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Q24-7

 

Something similar happened to me when I still had posting privileges over there, Q24-7. I was called a racist because I didn't believe what some of the NOC/ONA eyewitnesses claim they saw. And then I was put on moderated response by the Grand Poobah himself.

The concept of free speech eludes that bunch. You'll find that the moderators here at ATS are much fairer.

Me three. They don't like dissenting views over there - its tow the party line of hit the highway. You either agree with them or you are out. Some "discussion board". More like a bunch of inter-breeding hillbillies with few teeth and fewer brain cells. That's why that whole place is really a club rather than some sort of formal "organization" or "association".

And the arrogance...is amazing. When TF brings it over here its just hilarious.

Originally posted by turbofan
What we do know is that the Pentacon is not happy that this file has been
made public; nor are they happy that it has been decoded.

Really? How do you "know" this? I believe it is more of your trumping up a story to make yourselves sound better.

Please provide proof that the Pentagon is "not happy" that this file was made public and that it was decoded by a group of amateur aviation-sleuthologists.

And....would this be the same Pentagon you claim had "stood-down surface to air missiles" on 9/11? Boy...your sources inside are great!

[edit on 9-10-2009 by trebor451]

The only 911 aircraft story still standing.
These retro-fit A3's are the ones for the Job

This article comes from
Tom Flocco.com
tomflocco.com...

Witnesses link missile to small military jet parts found at Pentagon on 9/11
Date: Monday, May 23 @ 01:59:41 EDT
Topic: 9-11 Attacks

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact, b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify and they have been strangely gagged from speaking out.

One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."
Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

Part two to follow
visit the web site to see photographic evidence

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Baloney.

You keep flooding these threads with this "source", although it's been noted over and over again that...

This article comes from
Tom Flocco.com

....is a website full of lies, misconceptions and intenional misdirection. It is patently obvious, and has been shown that this "Tom Flocco" is nothing more than an insitgator with no credibility.

This "wive's tale" has been floating around on the blogosphere...and just won't go away, because that is the very nature of the Web.

Lies, gags and hoaxes that get started, then grow into having a life of their own.

Of course, a simple search into the veracity of this "person" will reveal that it is a load of bull flop.