It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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!?
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.
~Tenthedit on 10/24/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
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.
So...manned aerial defense actually REFUSED to intervene in the attack?
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.
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.
There is no amplifying information for the odd, one-time use of the guard channel to communicate with the Panta flight.
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?
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...
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.