Norad?

[gumboot]

I'd question the four minutes out and four minutes back. They went east instead of north, they wouldn't have retraced their steps back to the airforce base and then headed north, they would have swung about onto a North North West and gone from where they were.

I used the "4 minutes out, 4 minutes back" figure to maximise the "wasted time" as that works in favour of Conspiracy Theorists. Even making their arrival time adjusted by this excessive time difference still results in the fighters arriving too late.

You are quite right, in that the actual "wasted time" would be much less than 8 minutes.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

Can i ask where you get your extensive knowledge on the NORAD response?
Is this all derived from the Vanity Fair article and the 9/11 Commission?

Cheers!

No, I actually wrote my original NORAD paper without having read the 9/11 Commission Report, although the Vanity Fair article proved very useful (and in fact inspired me to write the paper in the first place). I also got a lot of my information from various other sources, all of which are cited in my paper. These include NORAD and FAA regulations, interviews, other news articles, and so forth.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, Do you have a reference for that arrival time over DC or are you guessing? I thought they pulled the stops out after they realized the urgency.

The 1010EDT is an estimated time for the establishment of a NORAD CAP over Washington DC, as provided by official sources (including radar data) and collaborated by numerous news articles in which various pilots/NORAD staff were interviewed.

The fighters were turned around at 0934EDT, and at maximum speed (1500MPH) they would have only been 6-8 minutes from Washington DC, but it's not as simple as pointing the fighters at Washington DC and hitting the afterburner. For starters, Even "pulled the stops out" (or "break every window, as Nasypany put it) does not mean "full speed". A fighter can only maintain afterburner for a very short period of time before exhausting its fuel supply.

Secondly, until SCATANA was implemented the FAA still controlled the airspace, and the airspace was full of civilian aircraft. The actual flight time was 36 minutes, which seems significantly longer than 6 - 8 minutes. But once you add delays for communication, delays in clearing airspace with the FAA, and the fact that the fighters were more likely traveling at less than 1000 MPH, 36 minutes to turn two fighters around and fly them 150+mi as fast as possible is not really so unbelievable.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

So even given the best situation, NEADS knowing the exact position of Flight 77 when launching the Langley Fighters, they likely still would have only gotten there in time to see Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

 

[Spins]

The Langley fighters were airborne at 9:30 so if they knew the exact position of Flight 77 they had less than 7mins to close within AIM-120 AMRAAM range, which was probably between 45-65 miles. I'm assuming they were armed with this missile because the AIM-54 Phoenix was only used by the US Navy for long range fleet defense, obviously primarily to protect carrier battle groups.

Even given this best situation scenario I still don't see how they could have shot down Flight 77 before it went low and lined up to hit the Pentagon.

Maybe Reheat, Cheap Shot, or Gumboot could confirm this?

 

[gumboot]

So even given the best situation, NEADS knowing the exact position of Flight 77 when launching the Langley Fighters, they likely still would have only gotten there in time to see Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The Langley fighters were airborne at 9:30 so if they knew the exact position of Flight 77 they had less than 7mins to close within AIM-120 AMRAAM range, which was probably between 45-65 miles. I'm assuming they were armed with this missile because the AIM-54 Phoenix was only used by the US Navy for long range fleet defense, obviously primarily to protect carrier battle groups.

Even given this best situation scenario I still don't see how they could have shot down Flight 77 before it went low and lined up to hit the Pentagon.

Maybe Reheat, Cheap Shot, or Gumboot could confirm this?

That's pretty much it. Assuming a host of factors that make an intercept more likely, based on the warnings NORAD was given an intercept of the first three flights was still impossible.

Those factors might include:
1. Confirmed and precise location of hijacked flights
2. Awareness of the nature of the threat the flights posed
3. Authorisation to immediately engage non-responding airliners without prior ID and interception

Of course if you're talking hypotheticals, you could argue "What if NORAD were told about the hijackings immediately, knew what the hijackers intentions were, and had permission to fire?"

To that I usually respond "What if the US Customs officials that met the 19 hijackers when they arrived in the US knew they were members of Al Qaeda and planning to carry out a terrorist attack?"

What ifs are pointless. There's what happened, and that's all.

-Gumboot

ETA. Spin, you're quite correct regarding armament. The AIM-54 Phoenix was specifically designed to be carried by the F-14 Tomcat in conjunction with the AWG-9 radar. No other aircraft is capable of carrying the Phoenix, and even if they had it mounted, without the AWG-9 radar they could not use the weapon.

 

[Spins]

Yeah fair point, as you say the list of "what ifs" is essentially endless, hindsight is a wonderful thing and was one of the things the 9/11 Commission were always careful of not doing in their report.

 

[Big Les]

Actual engagement range would be far less than 45-65 miles, wouldn't it? Even an AMRAAM wouldn't be loosed until <20miles away (or so my many hours on Falcon 4.0 tell me *ahem*), and really you'd want visual ID on the target. I suppose if time was tight (and they'd been able) they might have made speculative launches. Gumboot and Reheat?

 

[Spins]

Then there is the problem of shooting down a large civilian airplane over a populated area like Washington DC, you couldn't just shot the thing down as soon as you were within range because you may end up causing a greater loss of life than if you just let it crash into its intended target, in this case the Pentagon.

Once the plane entered the airspace above Washington DC in hindsight I'd say the only reasonable thing to do, if they knew the target was the Pentagon or White House etc, would have been to evacuate those buildings. Unless, of course, the fighter pilots knew for certain they could bring the plane down in an unpopulated area.

 

[Sabrina]

That is the one thing that REALLY irritates me about the Twoof movement; their harping on "what-ifs" and hindsight. Yeah, looking at it, knowing what we know now, there are a LOT of things we didn't do that we SHOULD have done, but twoofers CONSTANTLY fail to recognize that WE DIDN'T KNOW THESE THINGS BACK THEN!!!!! GAH!!!!

Sorry, but it really angers me to see idiots with no clue of how things were done back then saying "it should have been this way", all the while never acknowledging that if we HAD done things that way they'd be screaming about invasion of privacy or BS like that.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS, TWOOFERS; YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either you have the amount of freedom we all had prior to 9/11, or you accept that you'll have to give up some small things in trade for greater safety. Note I said SMALL THINGS; I don't want a quote-unquote police state any more than anyone else does, but I do realize that some things are worth giving up if it means I can bring up my children and they can bring up their children in a safer, still more free environment than most of the rest of the world.

 

[Spins]

I have had questions for some time about a NORAD incident in 1983. It seems after some failures by personnel to launch their missiles in drill scenerios, the US briefly put the entire system completely under computer control.

I have seen evidence that a young high school student was able to hack into the War Operation Plan Response computer at NORAD and convince it to run a simulation of global thermonuclear war. This began a chain of events that came seconds from ending in the launch of a comprehensive nuclear first strike against the Soviets.

My information indicates that NORAD was utterly unable to control its own systems and, in the end, the same teenager was the only one who could disable the computer.

Can you honestly deny this?

I made this funky little gif for my signature, on another forum I used to post on a while back, of the NORAD "incident" you speak of...

WOPR

 

[Reheat]

Actual engagement range would be far less than 45-65 miles, wouldn't it? Even an AMRAAM wouldn't be loosed until <20miles away (or so my many hours on Falcon 4.0 tell me *ahem*), and really you'd want visual ID on the target. I suppose if time was tight (and they'd been able) they might have made speculative launches. Gumboot and Reheat?

We should not discuss specific AMRAAM ranges or capabilities other than in very general terms.

Yes, you are correct in that the AMRAAM has "beyond visual range" (BVR) capability. You are also correct that even if "shoot down authorization" had been received the pilots likely would have wanted to VISUALLY identify AA77 (in fact, NEADS may have ordered that as a requirement). BVR shots are very dangerous at the best of times for obvious reasons. Consider this - over known enemy held territory with all friendly aircraft under AWACS control and positively identified might be one of the occasions where BVR shoots might be OK and authorized. Even then it's going to take time to ensure both AWACS and the BVR shooter are looking at the same target. During that time the shooter would normally be closing rapidly on the shootee, so it would soon become a moot point.

If you'll recall the UN helicopter inadvertently shot down over Bosnia by 2 F-15's it is apparent that BVR shots are very, very risky.

As has already been indicated the Phoenix was a US Navy Fleet Defense missile. The USAF has never even tested it as far as I know.

 

[Reheat]

So even given the best situation, NEADS knowing the exact position of Flight 77 when launching the Langley Fighters, they likely still would have only gotten there in time to see Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Yes.

To use even close to published MAX Speed of the F-16 is foolish and irrational. Those published speeds are for a CLEAN aircraft at high altitude under optimum temperature conditions. They did have weapons and fuel tanks hanging off the wings or centerline (I speculate on the drop tanks), so they had speed restrictions well below published max speeds because of those "warts". Of course, they could have jettisoned the drop tanks, but that would have been done safely over water, not over land. At that point they still had missiles on the wing mounts, so speed restrictions would still apply.

We are just engaging in optimistic speculation to think that it might have been possible given the launch time. As I said earlier - only in movies.

 

[Reheat]

COME ON TROOFERS, SHOW US YOUR STUFF!


I find it interesting that no troofers have been here since very early in this series. I wonder why?

A further illustration of NORAD's response that day was the launching of UNARMED Fighters. Langley actually launched three aircraft, two armed and one unarmed. Andrews launched at least one or two unarmed and Selfridge launched two unarmed. The Pilots actually discussed FOX-4 kills (RAM) and how they would do it. To even imply that NORAD was "in on it" makes my blood boil.

 

[Spins]

Yeah, it's strange how, according to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, NORAD were complicit in the attacks yet evidence proves they did everything they could to stop the hijackings when they realized what their intentions were, including as you say sending up unarmed fighters!

Don't worry A-Train (and Co.) won't be back when there are people with the necessary experience and evidence on their side ready to counter their "theories" or assertions, although no doubt they'll still regurgitate their nonsense to people less knowledgeable about the subject on other forums.

They truly are agenda driven and dishonest.

 

[RedIbis]

On this thread and others I hear the misconception that "twoofers" say "the whole FDNY is in on it", "the airlines are in on it" "All of NORAD is on it" "victim's families are in on it"

I don't hear anybody claiming that.

Most of the good researchers that I've studied are careful not to generalize. It is possible that a member or a group of members of the gov't might have been in on it.

It's possible that a member or members of NORAD might have had preknowledge.

Especially when it comes to the gov't or military personnel on 9/11, what you have is confusion, distraction, and deception, not necessarily complicity.

Try not to exaggerate and reduce the veracity of your statements.

 

[twinstead]

RedIbis, IMO the only thing that can reduce the veracity of our statements is if they are shown to be in error.

Fire away.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, IMO the only thing that can reduce the veracity of our statements is if they are shown to be in error.

Fire away.

I just did.

 

[Spins]

I just did.

What by starting a sentence with the words "It's possible" like this...

It's possible that a member or members of NORAD might have had preknowledge.

...well if we are going to start speculating (without any evidence or proof) it's also possible a member or members of NORAD were being controlled by space aliens thus allowing the attacks to occur. Prove me wrong!

It's quite obvious, from several posts you've made on this forum, that you're understanding of what happened on 9/11 is based primarily on what you've read on conspiracy websites, I bet you love The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson.

 

[uk_dave]

On this thread and others I hear the misconception that "twoofers" say "the whole FDNY is in on it", "the airlines are in on it" "All of NORAD is on it" "victim's families are in on it"

I don't hear anybody claiming that.

Most of the good researchers that I've studied are careful not to generalize. It is possible that a member or a group of members of the gov't might have been in on it.

It's possible that a member or members of NORAD might have had preknowledge.

Especially when it comes to the gov't or military personnel on 9/11, what you have is confusion, distraction, and deception, not necessarily complicity.

Try not to exaggerate and reduce the veracity of your statements.

What about after the event? Where are the military, fire, police, first responders, investigators etc etc who weren't in on the conspiracy but must by now (since we're always being told by 'truthers' how bleedin' obvious the evidence is) have considered their actions, the actions of their superiors, the orders they were given etc etc on that day and be thinking "Hmmmmm that's strange."

Where are all these people if they're not 'in on it'?

Are they all cowards?

Let's say a fighter plane did bring down 93 over shanksville. Where's the pilot of the fighter? Is he in on it or too scared to admit what took place?

Let's say wtc7 was demolished for humanitarian reasons/to hide secret stuff/just for the hell of it. Where're the people who witnessed it first hand? Where are the fire chiefs who were told it was going to come down even though they couldn't see any big fire or major damage?

The conspiracy is way too big and well publicised for anyone involved in the events to be part of the conspiracy without being aware of it after the event.