Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Anomalies of The Air Defense On 9/11

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I found this interview today and learned something that I didn't know so I started looking around to get some info about why the Panta flight abandoned the holding pattern but can't find anything other than what I quote below.

I'm sure somebody here know all about it. I would love to know more. Can somebody share some knowledge please?

audio with author of Inside 9/11 Paul Schreyer on the 9/11 Air Defense




Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11

Miles Kara, one of the air defense investigators of the 9/11 Commission´s Team 8 wrote about this in 2010: Flight paths of the four hijackings and the fighter jets on 9/11 6 „We have no primary source information that informs us as to why the Panta flight abandoned the holding pattern. There is no amplifying information for the odd, one-time use of the guard channel to communicate with the Panta flight.“ 35





9-11: The Otis Scramble; a puzzling event, explained

Let’s step back a moment and assess what we have. We have Panta 45 with FAA (ZBW Hampton Sector) approval to move to a holding pattern over New York City. That approval was modified to be a controller direction to navigate to the Kennedy VOR. We have the Panta pilots angry and, from their view, headed in the direction from which they came, not the direction of the visible evidence of the attack. We know that they knew about both crashes into the World Trade Center. We have the MCC under the assumption that the fighters are at his tactical direction in Whiskey 105, and we have NEADS broadcasting on guard for the Panta flight not to go to New York City without FAA approval. They knew that FAA’s New York Center had issued an order for no more planes to enter its airspace.
edit on 24-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


ETA: Now that I read it again I realized that these articles explain it pretty well. So if you didn't know about it check it out>
edit on 24-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
So...manned aerial defense actually REFUSED to intervene in the attack? That's the impression I'm getting from the OP. They got mad and turned around despite the visual evidence of attack in the area they were directed to approach, or something like that.

Then again, it also says that further aerial activity in the New York vicinity was prohibited at the time. Not a puzzling call - I can imagine they wanted to reduce the confusion and panic as much as possible, which would have been difficult with defense aircraft swarming the skies.
edit on 24-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Didn't Cheney order those military planes to Stand down on 911?


Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted in their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…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!?


'Source

Now I don't know if that's been debunked, but if true, this does mean that they knew what was going on and let it happen, pure and simple.

But there were odd things going on that day, like the war games.

~Tenth
edit on 10/24/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Didn't Cheney order those military planes to Stand down on 911?


Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted in their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…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!?


'Source

Now I don't know if that's been debunked, but if true, this does mean that they knew what was going on and let it happen, pure and simple.

But there were odd things going on that day, like the war games.

~Tenth
edit on 10/24/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


Cheney ordered to shoot down.

What happened was Osama bin Laden confused the crap out of them with all the training exercises that day.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Now I don't know if that's been debunked, but if true, this does mean that they knew what was going on and let it happen, pure and simple.

But there were odd things going on that day, like the war games.


Ever seen "Tower Heist", with Ben Stiller?

Maybe 9/11 was the U.S. "sacrificing the queen". Or some smaller equivalent, but you get my point. I'm trying to say that 9/11 could have been part of those war games they were playing, and the queen bit was one possible strategy.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





So...manned aerial defense actually REFUSED to intervene in the attack?


No one of them left the holding area and headed for the city without orders, I think...

honestly I'm confused about what happened already.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


What's confusing about a hijacked plane headed on a trajectory for a highly populated business district? Did the time elapse between notification of the hijacking and the arrival on scene allow for any chances to blow the planes out of the sky?

That's the deciding factor: being able to shoot down the plane without ground casualties.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


But there was no plane that entered the pentagon.
The freedom of information act that was filed showed this when they released the 4 photos from the gas station footage.

NORAD was lied to the whole time.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JrDavis
The freedom of information act that was filed showed this when they released the 4 photos from the gas station footage.


Care to show us these "4 photo's"?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


www.puppstheories.com...

I thought everyone has seen these frames. As you can see there is white tail streak.

It's actually 5 frames. Also, Within these 5 frames that I assume isn't even a second. You would see a boeing easily in that time frame.

Not only that, There was a round hole in the pentagon. No wing marks and the ground had debris easy enough to be picked up.

The grass was even untouched..



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JrDavis
 


The grass was unscathed, because the plane hit the building first, not the ground. The impact area, was roughly 98 feet across and far from the neat little hole you think it was. In addition, there was wreckage ALL over the place, including the grounds of Arlington National Cemetary across the highway. Better yet, look up the transcript or video of Jamie McIntyre from CNN reporting from the Pentagon shortly after, and see how he talks about seeing the wreckage.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by maxella1
 


What's confusing about a hijacked plane headed on a trajectory for a highly populated business district? Did the time elapse between notification of the hijacking and the arrival on scene allow for any chances to blow the planes out of the sky?

That's the deciding factor: being able to shoot down the plane without ground casualties.


Maybe nothing, but it took sometime for them to realize it was real didn't it?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by vipertech0596

You probably know this.. Can you say what this means?


There is no amplifying information for the odd, one-time use of the guard channel to communicate with the Panta flight.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Yet you cannot see a plane.....you'd think you would see a rather large aircraft if it hit that building, no?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Yet you cannot see a plane.....you'd think you would see a rather large aircraft if it hit that building, no?


If you were expecting to see a jetliner sticking out of the Pentagon like a dart in a dartboard I suggest that is pretty unrealistic.

There were many eyewitnesses at the Pentagon that morning who saw a plane. Here are some of them :-

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


The first F-15s arrived over the city either just as, or just after the second plane hit. There was nothing they could do.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Yet you cannot see a plane.....you'd think you would see a rather large aircraft if it hit that building, no?


If you were expecting to see a jetliner sticking out of the Pentagon like a dart in a dartboard I suggest that is pretty unrealistic.

There were many eyewitnesses at the Pentagon that morning who saw a plane. Here are some of them :-

911research.wtc7.net...


This is not a new response to the "eyewitness argument" by any means, but it never gets answered as it should in my view: Where are the videos of the plane aproaching the Pentagon? There would be dozens or possibly hundreds of cameras showing every angle of the grounds and the airspace and roads aproaching one of the most heavily secured buildings on the planet. Why have not even one clear picture been allowed into the public domain?

What legitimate security reason could they have to not make a clear shot of an aproaching plane public?
edit on 25-10-2012 by crawdad1914 because: spelling



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Why would they film the airspace? They would get lots of landings taking up lots of space on either tapes or hard drives, since a few hundred, or more, planes fly almost over the building daily. When they set up the cameras the thought was that the building would be hit by a nuke, so filming the airspace around it wouldn't matter. The other perceived threat was a car bomb, so the parking lots, and ground around the building are taped.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Why would they film the airspace? They would get lots of landings taking up lots of space on either tapes or hard drives, since a few hundred, or more, planes fly almost over the building daily. When they set up the cameras the thought was that the building would be hit by a nuke, so filming the airspace around it wouldn't matter. The other perceived threat was a car bomb, so the parking lots, and ground around the building are taped.


Even if they did not want to film the airspace aproaching the Pentagon, with the amount of cameras as you say focusing on the grounds themselves and every corner of this huge, parking structures, guard shacks and the building itself it stands to reason I would think, that in view of many of those camera shots you should see a plane aproaching in the distance head on coming at the building. It just makes no liogical sense that there are not some pretty clear shots of a plane aproaching the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Why can't people buy the O.S?

A bunch of Arabs with very little experience of flying, hi-jacked 4 planes. Two of which were flown with pinpoint accuracy into the twin towers, one into the pentagon and one brought down due to the passengers overwhelming the hi-jackers and crashing into a field.

Then, because of the amount of Jet Fuel involved in the unprecendented catastrophies, it melted the iron girders resulting in a pancake effect collapse of both buildings.

On top of that, a building, which was set on fire due to falling debris from the larger buildings became so unstable it collapsed into its own footings. No evidence of Fire from the front, but images from the rear does show fires on a number of floors. In fact this building was reported to have collapsed prior to it actually collapsing. Nevermind that though, it was a confusing time and things like this happen in the chaos.

The part of the pentagon that the plane crashed into happened to be empty due to maintenance works that were taking place and it just happened that good old Secretary of Denfence Don Rumsfield was holding a meeting on the dangers of reducing the defence budgets, in case of, yes you guessed it, a terrorist attack on U.S soil. On the very day that this occured.

However, even though the U.S Government was not sure if the Penatagon would come under attack again, Don was photographed at the scene assisting people to ambulances. That was brave of old Don and my respect for him has increased enormously since I discovered that.

There are a number of other anomolies, but let's overlook them.

I don't know what the problem is.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join