Did the USAF Help pull off 911?, page 3

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by thedman

---

No, not on alert...on alert I've launched wheels-in-well in 30 seconds, from end-of-runway alert shelters, up to slightly over a minute from further away.

That's pretty fast. What type of aircraft were these and where?

When was the stop watch hacked to begin that 30 seconds? I need more information in order to understand this.

Originally posted by apacheman
the launch I'm referring to wasn't an alert aircraft, it had to be prepped for flight and a crew rounded up: it was in response to what turned out to be a fatal crash.

This sounds as if it took considerably longer to accomplish.

reply to post by trebor451

---

In this debate Please lets leave out “opinions as your facts”

The above was taken from the OP.

I don’t disagree with you on that, however, “in my opinion”

I do believe... .

We all know...

I believe George Bush...

I don’t believe Cheney...

I am convinced...

That is why I believe....

The proof is...

All the above quotes were taken from *one* post in this thread by the OP author.

Too bad, based on his request in his original post to " Please lets leave out “opinions as your facts” he can't follow his own guidance/request.

This thread is not about “me,” please stay on topic.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme

---

I'm sorry, but the link cited from P4T of Col. George Nelson, USAF (Ret) is just loaded with factual errors, and personal opinion not based on any semblance of facts....

Here, just a few samples that jumped out:

This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 16 feet wide.

Seems the good Colonel was just relying on the conspiracy sites for this...there is ample evidence to show a much, much larger area of damage at the exterior wall of the Pentagon. Documented, well-discussed right here on ATS....

Then, this amazing comment:

Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry.

What?!?!? I'd love for 'thedman' to chime in on this one...a real firefighter should comment.

In any event...."identify the aircraft registry"??? Really? from a crash event such as this?? Wow!

It gets worse...who IS this guy, again???

There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site...

Hoo, boy! Wow, again!

Now, the USAF (Ret) so-called "expert" says this:

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001...

He seems to think that a Boeing 757 qualifies as a 'wide-body' jet??? Well, if that's so, since it shares the same fuselage cross-section with the Boeing 737 that makes the 737 a 'wide-body' too!

Wow!!! Crediblity has gone into the negatives, here....

Still...this beggars belief as well...

....yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft.

Oh, for Pete's sake!!!!

Just wondering what planet he has been living on, to say something like that....

That is just the tip of that iceberg, the one that the Titanic hit...and this time the iceberg sank instead of the ship....





[edit on 28 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

---

Lighten up...thats a rich one. Certain people consistently make posts accusing people of carrying out 9/11. And NONE of their theories are backed up by any evidence, but they are accepted without question, despite the fact that the theories can normally be shown to be false quite easily.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

---

EA-6B replacing the C-130 TACAMO bird. So...should I point out that you dont know what you are talking about now or later?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

Yeah I caught that too, but I was not going to say anything about it.
The EA-6B Prowlers are not large enough aircraft to be TACAMO planes, as they're four seat modifications of the A-6 Intruder. The EC-130Q was used as a TACAMO aircraft from 1966 until 1990, when they were upgraded to E-6’s (a modified B707). Only E-6’s would have been flying TACAMO at the time of 911. I think he meant E-6 not an EA-6B.

TACAMO

On a humorous note, these are the same aircraft that get accused to spraying Chemtrails on the chemy threads, due to the cone used for the towed array.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

---

EA-6B replacing the C-130 TACAMO bird. So...should I point out that you dont know what you are talking about now or later?

Please do so now. I don't really want to wait for the movie.

Note*

It doesn't really matter to me if you believe me or not. I have no vested interest in this and was just sharing some experience with the C-130Q. So take it for what it is worth to you. But please consider this, if I were to look for holes in something you had experienced almost 20 years ago, I am certain I could also find some discrepancies. It was a long time ago (nearly half my lifetime) and obviously to expect a crystal memory would be foolish. Try thinking about an experience you had 20 years ago (if you have been alive long enough to do so, not intended as an insult so don't take it that way) and see what I mean.


[edit on 10/28/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

Yeah I caught that too, but I was not going to say anything about it.
The EA-6B Prowlers is not a large enough aircraft to be a TACAMO plane, as it’s a four seat modifacation of the A-6 Intruder. The EC-130Q was used as a TACAMO aircraft from 1966 until 1990, when they were upgraded to E-6’s (a modified B707). Only E-6’s would have been flying TACAMO at the time of 911. I think he meant E-6 not an EA-6B.

TACAMO

On a humorous note, these are the same aircraft that get accused to spraying Chemtrails on the chemy threads, due to the cone used for the towed array.

You may be correct. They were not in service at the time I was there and it could in fact be an E-6. I thought we were told it was going to be designated an EA-6B but this was, after all, over 18 years ago. I do remember the drawings we were shown and it looked like a 727, I believe that a 727 has an engine on the vertical stabilizer and the drawings we were shown did have that. But I have never worked on, around, or with one and have no experience other than the C-130Q with anything that has TACAMO radio equipment.

None the less, the plane in the video does not look like an air force C-130 and it looks to me like the trailing wire is deployed and the only plane I am familiar with that uses trailing wires are the C-130Q and whatever its replacement is designated as; E-6, EA-6B or whatever it is. It does however make perfect sense what you said because a letter in front of the plane designation is a mission modifier so an EA-6B would actually be a second series modification for electronics done to an A-6 intruder. So under that assumption I am going to have to believe that the plane replacing the C-130Q is in fact an E-6 as you said. I do apologize for the mistake; however, I said right from the get go that I worked on C-130Q's not E-6's and that I believe that the replacement was going to be designated an EA-6B. I never claimed to have any knowledge of the aircraft, or experience with it. other than the drawings we were shown in mid 1990 or thereabouts. I got out of the Navy January 29th 1991 and this was relayed to us not too long before that (less than a year).

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

---

B727’s were being phased out of most places by the mid 90’s, so I doubt that is what you saw. Their airframes were starting to wear out, and they were really poor on the fuel performance anyway. The military did get some KC-10 Extenders, made from DC-10’s. Since both the KC-135’s, and the E-6’s were based on the B707 Airframe, maybe they considered using the DC-10 airframe for both refueling and E-6 roles as well. There was also talk of them using MD-11’s for refueling, but I don’t think that ever occurred.

reply to post by Reheat

---

Those were RF-4Cs out of Itazuke. The times are from the sounding of the alert horn. We caught hell if it took longer than that. The record at that base was about 23 seconds or so: we practiced constantly.

The birds launched in 5 minutes were in response to the commander of the 12th TFS shooting himself down over the firing range off Okinawa (ricochet rounds from using the wrong attack angle), went down in the sea.

Who says the Air Force needs permission to go LOOK at a missing airliner? Posse Comitatus doesn't apply unless you are going to shoot at someting. So far as I can tell none were ever tasked to go LOOK and find out what was up.

I find it rather incredible that you think the Air Force so incompetent that after the USSR fell no one bothered to practice alert drills for ten years, that simply beggars belief. No squadron commander would be in charge for long if he neglected to drill his troops to get launch times to under a minute on alert and under 5-10 minutes on non-alert. A ten-minute launch would make the squadron a laughingstock, maintenance crews would hang their heads in shame at such a performance.

reply to post by apacheman

---

Is "10 minutes" really enough time to scramble a plane, then have it reach its target?
Those who suggest this seem to think the air traffic controller picks up the phone, and calls the nearest airbase themselves, but this isn’t quite right.

First ATC must decide that there really is a problem, for instance, and that radio silence or unexpected changes in course aren’t due to some other cause.

If there does seem to be a problem, then ATC will report the issue to their supervisor, and explain why they’re concerned.

If the supervisor agrees then he’ll contact the FAA directly, and ask to speak to the hijack coordinator. (As this FAA manual says, he’s the person who deals with Norad).

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
faa.gov...-1-2

Okay. But then NORAD scramble the planes, right? No, not yet -- here’s a piece of 9/11 Commission testimony where Major General Larry Arnold explains what happens next:

...hijacking is a law enforcement issue as is everything that takes off from within the United States. And only law enforcement can request assistance from the military, which they did, in this particular case. The route, if you follow the book, is that they go to the duty officer of the national military command center, who in turn makes an inquiry to NORAD for the availability of fighters, who then gets permission from someone representing the Sec. of Defense. Once that’s approved, then we scramble aircraft.
www.billstclair.com...

So the FAA hijack coordinator calls NORAD and explains the situation again. That person finds an airbase with an available plane and puts them on alert, but then must also (hopefully in parallel) get permission to scramble from “someone representing the Secretary of Defense”. Once that arrives, they finally scramble the planes.

Now there’s no telling how long the preparatory steps might take, but what we do know is that NORAD fighters were normally on 15-minute alert, and even post 9-11 scramble time might be 8 minutes.

Norad was instrumental in getting fighter jets -- normally on 15-minute alert -- airborne within eight minutes.
911research.wtc7.net...

We also know that there were only 7 bases with fighters at this 15-minute alert level on 9/11, which means the fighters you do get may be a considerable distance from the plane they’re after.

On 9/11, Norad has 14 fighters on alert at seven sites in the continental United States
www.9-11commission.gov...

Put all this together and the “10 minutes” intercept time seems astonishingly unlikely. It could take longer than that to go from ATC to NORAD, longer than that for the planes to scramble, longer than that for them to locate and reach their targets.

Still think we’re being pessimistic? History suggests not.

Elsewhere, for instance, we've discussed the Payne Stewart case (his plane drifted off course and did not respond to radio calls). Time to intercept? 76 minutes.

With many more examples of the REAL intercept times from actual historical events…
Enjoy.

reply to post by impressme

---

Most definitely some of the 9/11 perps were USAF.

Air superiority, or intentional inferiority in this case.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

Certain people consistently make posts accusing people of carrying out 9/11. And NONE of their theories are backed up by any evidence, but they are accepted without question, despite the fact that the theories can normally be shown to be false quite easily.

Like the OS?


[edit on 29-10-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Reheat

---

Those were RF-4Cs out of Itazuke. The times are from the sounding of the alert horn. We caught hell if it took longer than that. The record at that base was about 23 seconds or so: we practiced constantly.

RF-4Cs, HUH. What type of alert were they on? For what purpose? 30 second to wheels up? Do I understand that you contend RF-4Cs were launched in 30 seconds from the alert klaxon? I think you said wheels up was in 30 seconds. Is this correct?

Originally posted by apacheman
Who says the Air Force needs permission to go LOOK at a missing airliner? Posse Comitatus doesn't apply unless you are going to shoot at someting. So far as I can tell none were ever tasked to go LOOK and find out what was up.

The Joint Chiefs of staff say so. There is a lot you don't know, so perhaps you'd like to ask some questions first before spouting off about a subject you know nothing about.

Originally posted by apacheman
I find it rather incredible that you think the Air Force so incompetent that after the USSR fell no one bothered to practice alert drills for ten years, that simply beggars belief. No squadron commander would be in charge for long if he neglected to drill his troops to get launch times to under a minute on alert and under 5-10 minutes on non-alert. A ten-minute launch would make the squadron a laughingstock, maintenance crews would hang their heads in shame at such a performance.

Squadron Commanders have no say so regarding launch time requirements.

I want to make absolutely sure what you are saying about these launch times before I say more. Go ahead.....

reply to post by Reheat

---

Who are you to question this? What are your qualifications? Have you ever pulled alert duty? Obviously not, unless you're one of the incompetents you claim inhabited the Air Force during the Clinton years.

This was during the Pueblo Crisis when my squadron (15th TRS, the Cottonpickers) was the only recce squadron in the Northern Pacific. We scrambled every time anything needed photographed or checked out, which was often. The military has this thing about wanting to KNOW what's going on, you see.

Sounds to me like you're another armchair wannabe military with no flightline experience, wedded to a political agenda. Prove to me that what you claim is true: that for ten years the Air Force couldn't scramble a jet in under 30 minutes.

Tough if you doubt it, but we did that all the time.

The alert pad at Itazuke happened to be just off the end of the runway, so when the klaxon sounded the pilots had only about 15 feet to run to hit the cockpit, by the time they were strapped in the engines were already started and the chocks pulled; we'd slide down the ladder and pull it off as soon as we hit the ground, they'd goose the throttles and had about a 150 foot run to hit the runway, pretty much as soon as they cleared the barn they were turned onto the runway and hit the afterburners and were rolling down the runway. We were fast because lives depended on it.

In Vietnam, it took longer because we were further from the end of the runway, but we could still get a bird off in under a minute.

And yes, squadron commanders are held accountable for their squadron's perfomance: ever hear of an ORI? Judges stand around with stopwatches timing everything during one; failure to meet standards is a black mark on the commander's record, I never knew of a squadron commander whose squadron failed two ORI's to keep his post.

reply to post by Reheat

---

And the 23 second record was obtained because the pilots were already sitting in the cockpits when the alarm went off, just a lucky coincidence.

As far as squadron commanders not determining what was acceptable for a launch time, what military were YOU in? My C.O. blistered us if we lagged; in one squadron I was in (560th TFS, Charging Cheetahs), a weapons crew was summarily sent home from Korea by the C.O. for their failure to meet his standards. What on earth do you think a Squadron Commander does, anyway?

reply to post by ATH911

---

Most definitely some of the 9/11 perps were USAF.

Air superiority, or intentional inferiority in this case.

I totally agree with you, I don’t believe 911 could have happened without the Air Force pulling it off period.

I see some of the GL in here defending the military as if it was a religion. Yet they cannot disprove my post I see the tag team in here doing their work, we just need to ignore them.

I believe “DarrylGalasso” has brought us a lot of good information and it appears he has a good insight and understanding of the main differences of the EA-6B / C-130. I have read numerous reports of eyewitness who saw either one or the other. There is no doubt in my mind that the EA-6B / C-130 was there and the photos prove it. My question is why it was there and why did the military continue to lie and the government continues to lie about the presences of this plane. Thank God that many people had their cameras handy on the morning of 911. Now that the photos are out for the world to see, it seems our government and military who were caught lying have now changed their tune.

A military commander identified the aircraft as an EC-130, which is a C-130 modified for radar “jamming” or drone control.

An electronic warfare aircraft (EC-130) over the Pentagon?
Articles from Harvard academic Elaine Scarry’s shows that the Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on “electronic warfare applications” with the possible capacity to intentionally disrupt the mechanisms of an aircraft in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reported that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry, as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed “electronic suites” in at least 28 of its C-130s — capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.

Why might an EC-130H be used?
Just what can an “electronic warfare” EC-130H do?
• “Jamming” and manipulating of radar signals.
• Broadcast signals or “blackout” most communication devices (radio bands, TV, and military bands thus, disrupt commercial military radio systems).
• Disrupt Command and control, navigation aids and air traffic control.
• Electromechanical “jamming” could disable cell phone and other digital transmissions.
• Drone control.
[Information researched from Gobalsecurity.org]

The presence of an electronic warfare EC-130H would explain many particularities of the Pentagon Attack:
• Why radar operators were confused despite explicit warnings.
• Why some telecommunications were reported inoperative.
• Phone calls allegedly made from the airliner (done from the EC-130).
• “Jam” SAM’s radar from potentially locking on to aircraft.
• The EC-130H could hide an aircraft by “jamming” the radar.
• Airborne “command and control” for the operation.
• Remote control a drone with the DC-130 variant.
•
Despite numerous terrorist attacks and a FAA grounding Andrews AFB launches a routine C-130 across the nation!
Was it a routine flight? The C-130 (call sign: Golfer 06) was at both the Pentagon and Shanksville at the time of each attack. It was highly classified. (Since when is a routine ANG flight so classified that nobody at the Pentagon or NORAD knows!) And most importantly, we know that the government tried to cover it up for as long as they could, 36 days. Was it an EC-130 (electronic warfare version of C-130) on a sinister highly classified mission? How was this C-130 able to take off from Andrews AFB when the FAA issued a ground stop for all planes, including military, five minutes before?

At 9:25, The FAA in collaboration from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable. The order...applied to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff — civilian, military, [and] law enforcement.178

Official Confirms a C-130 crew did see the Pentagon strike.
Witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon had denied the presence of the C-130. However, almost a month and a half later, the Daily Press reported on the (dubbed) October 17th Surprise:

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning… said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon claimed it had no knowledge of the C-130’s encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard…[!][xi]

So their excuse for deceiving us was “We didn’t know because — it was classified!” 208 It’s a bad lie because NORAD and NMCC obviously would have been tracking the C-130, unless it has some type of top-secret Klingon “cloaking technology”.

911exposed.org...

Why would a C-130 need to guide a jet into the Pentagon?
As we previously mentioned, Kelly Knowles, who lived a few miles from the Pentagon saw some sort of plane following the first jet toward the Pentagon, “…[it] seemed to be chasing the first…”199 Her account agreed with what her brother saw: “it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.” Others collaborated their story.199 In a similar account, Allen Cleveland stated, “My brother-in-law also witnessed the same plane following the jet…” He said that he saw a jetliner flying low… And soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.” 200
The C-130 not only guided the “jet” to the Pentagon, but made a full circle above it, before making a course due west. An Arlington National Cemetery worker claimed, “ that a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.”201 A military commander identified the aircraft as an “electronic warfare aircraft” EC-130, which is a C-130 modified for radar “jamming” or drone control.207
This would make sense of why the C-130 was following the other jet, which probably was a remote controlled drone. If the EC-130 was serving as the “eyes and ears” for the drone, then obviously it would want to stay close by, like following above for the best view. The C-130 was noted to veer away about the time of the attack.200 If the C-130 veered away suddenly –– does this indicates that this pilot was taking some sort of evasive action just prior to the collision and explosion?

911exposed.org...

I thought this was some interesting reading and does shed some light to some of the facts that we are talking about.

reply to post by impressme

---

Originally posted by impressme

Air superiority, or intentional inferiority in this case.

I totally agree with you, I don’t believe 911 could have happened without the Air Force pulling it off period.

Air superiority during combat in a war, not against unarmed US domestic flights, which they have no authority over unless asked to intercede by both the FAA and whatever law enforcement branch had jurisdiction. As it has already been clearly shown by FACTS, not truther speculation, the Us Air Force is not the police force of the domestic US Skies.

Originally posted by impressme
I see some of the GL in here defending the military as if it was a religion.

Who are the GL?

Originally posted by impressme
Yet they cannot disprove my post I see the tag team in here doing their work, we just need to ignore them.

You have yet to bring one piece of documented proof of any kind to the table. What you have provided is a lot of speculation, assumption, and opinion, both your own and other peoples.

Originally posted by impressme
I believe “DarrylGalasso” has brought us a lot of good information and it appears he has a good insight and understanding of the main differences of the EA-6B / C-130.

You need to check above, you’ll see that is not exactly correct.

Originally posted by impressme
There is no doubt in my mind that the EA-6B / C-130 was there and the photos prove it.

Really…
So one of these was there?

Please show me the pictures of it, and a trail of documentation of where that photo came from (your rules from our last argument, not mine).

Originally posted by impressme
My question is why it was there and why did the military continue to lie and the government continues to lie about the presences of this plane.

Because it was not there. There was a well documented presence of this aircraft though, including radio communications with it:

A National Guard C-130…

US Consulate Whistleblower Says 9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA
  Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: