Flight 77 and intercepts

[mattnapa]

Hi Folks I hope you will forgive me for posting copies from a Thom Hartman discussion board thread, but I do not have the time to retype it all and believe it makes some points maybe some of you are not aware of.

Re: truthers, birthers and other nuts
by mattnapa » Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:26 pm

1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?



Alferd said-

Time.

There simply was not enough time to arm and scramble jets to intercept anything.[/quote]

mattnapa responded

The Otis fighters were scrambled at 8:52 and supposedly sent to New York at top speed according to most military sources. This would have had them arrive at Manhattan at about 9:00 which would have been three minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Supposedly they do not go to New York, but instead to military air space of Long Island because of saftey issues. And of course pilots and military commanders have given completely conflicting statements on what actually happened

The Langley fighters are scrambled at 9:30 in response to some aircraft approaching Washington (presumably Flight 77) and again have plenty of time to intercept the flight before it reaches the Pentagon at 9:37. The reasons given for the Langley fighters going Eastward out over the Atlantic instead of their supposed target in Washington include general confusion, saftey issues, incorrect flight plan, a general belief that threats would come from outside of the U.S and the FAA's insistence on saftey issues.

After the first tower is hit calls in form across the country from bases offering assistance but none of the requests are responded to. Andrew's AFB, traditionally considered the heart of military defense of the nations capital, will not be able to get fighters in the air until around 10;00. It will be claimed that Andrew's mission had been changed, yet their website at the time of 9/11 will claim they keep two units in the highest state of readiness. However this website is changed around the time of 9/11 and now states their mission is much less urgent




Al it did not take you long to hurl insults.Well a rational person would think if they were scrambled they were going after something, and I would think the story of phantom flight 11 would be more of an embarrassment than a help to the official story side. For those who do not know, two years after 9/11 the story changed that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to a report that Flight 11 (which hit the North Tower) was still airborne and headed towards Washington. The story up until that point had been that they were scrambled in response to Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon. Either way the important point is they "believed" they were going after a plane approaching Washington. According to you Al they should have realized at that time that two years later they are going to find out the correct plane is not up there and not have responded. Is that your point Al? They took off at 9:30 so your reference for time to take off is a non starter. Vectoring is part of the story, so is it your claim that flights take off without vectoring first? As to time to intercept, yes that would have taken some time, but the point is we will never know how long intercept might have taken since they did not go where they were supposed to. And yes this crack smoker is claiming they had plenty of time to get there. Langley AFB is 129 miles from D.C, and the fighters top speed is almost 30 miles per minute. The fighters should have arrived at 9:34 to 9:35 tops. The 9/11 Commission and the American media apparently will refuse to acknowledge that the Langley fighters would have arrived in time to "possibly" having been able to do something. Instead they pretend they simply claim they responded to a plane that was not there.

 

[Joe]

which points in particular do you think are important or new?

 

[mattnapa]

Depends on the audience. I think the American people in general remain unaware that both sets of fighters should have intercepted planes if they had gone where they were supposed to. I find the sham around phantom flight 11 quite mindblowing. And the fact that the 9/11 commission sat there with a straight face with the military and told the American people that no flights could be intercepted as even an even further stretching of reason. I do not even no how to describe an excuse that claims the jets could not have intercepted flight 77 because we thought it was flight 11, and since flight 11 was not really there, there was no plane to intercept. i mean this is beyond elementary school simplicity. It perhaps the most absurd logic used in the this mind shattering distortion which seems to have brought the analytical ability of the American people to their knees. Other than that I guess I am not saying anything new

 

[anart]

Hi Calypso, have you read the vast amount of information on this forum yet, regarding this topic? It would be appreciated if you would familiarize yourself with what has already been covered, just to get up to speed.

 

[mattnapa]

Anart- If you would be so kind as to point me to a thread which discusses what I am talking about I would be more than happy to take a look at it.

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi Calypso,

If you look at the main forum, you will see the 9/11 board and that's the discussion Anart is referring too. Now whether you have read the entire board or not, let me ask you some questions.

Each and every aircraft has something called a tech log. In there, any problems with the aircraft and the subsequent rectification is recorded. Take off and landing times are also recorded since periodic maintenance is based on a specific number of hours the aircraft has flown. So when an aircraft has flown a certain number of hours, it must undergo maintenance just like your car has to go in for servicing after a certain mileage has been reached (whether you do it or not is another issue.)

So when you say that someone responded that "Otis fighters were scrambled at 8:52 and supposedly sent to New York at top speed according to most military sources." where is the evidence for it? Can you show me some take off and landing times in the tech log or is it hearsay? Same thing with, "Langley fighters are scrambled at 9:30 in response to some aircraft approaching Washington", where is the evidence? Do we just take someone's words from some website or do we have some hard evidence or do we have some verifiable data?

Until we have some hard evidence and I understand that evidence is not so easy to come by, we have to take everything as, maybe it happened this way or that way, but still it's a maybe. The way you wrote your post, it comes across, to me at least, is that you are accepting that the "fighters were scrambled" without question. My question to you is, where is the evidence for it?

 

[mattnapa]

Vulcan- It is the official record of the 9/11 commission.

Anart- Really hoping you are going to point out the background material I need to be able to post coherently here

 

[vinny]

Vulcan- It is the official record of the 9/11 commission.

ie: the testimony of the accused.

Anart- Really hoping you are going to point out the background material I need to be able to post coherently here

click 'home' then scroll down to '9/11' (about 2/3rds of the way down) - it has it's own dedicated section because, as anart points out, there is a huge amount of info already discussed.

 

[Joe]

Depends on the audience. I think the American people in general remain unaware that both sets of fighters should have intercepted planes if they had gone where they were supposed to. I find the sham around phantom flight 11 quite mindblowing. And the fact that the 9/11 commission sat there with a straight face with the military and told the American people that no flights could be intercepted as even an even further stretching of reason. I do not even no how to describe an excuse that claims the jets could not have intercepted flight 77 because we thought it was flight 11, and since flight 11 was not really there, there was no plane to intercept. i mean this is beyond elementary school simplicity. It perhaps the most absurd logic used in the this mind shattering distortion which seems to have brought the analytical ability of the American people to their knees. Other than that I guess I am not saying anything new

Agreed. I think the American public remain unaware of many claims made by the official report that don't add up or for which there is not enough official evidence. Personally, one that really stands out is the recent suggestion based on data from the flight data recorder for Flight 77 which apparently shows that the -John Thomas--pit door was never opened during the flight - therefore, there could not have been any hijack as claimed in the official report.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

 

[Vulcan59]

Vulcan- It is the official record of the 9/11 commission.

Hi Calypso,
Official doesn't make it true or factual. :)

 

[mattnapa]

Vulcan-Perhaps you could prioritize what you feel most legitimates a fact rather than simply criticizing others? Apparently I cannot even criticize the 9/11 commissions report without at the same time be seen as accepting the facts of the report. Seems like a strange contradiction. Whether the facts are true or not does not change that the explanation used of the supposed facts lacks rationality. I am as much a stickler for legitimate facts as anyone, but when everything is questioned we risk reaching a point of relativistic skepticism which precludes all discussion.

Also Vulcan I am not aware of any flight log information of military aircraft being available to the public. Please correct me if I am wrong. But at the same time we do have recordings of the conversations between the pilots and their controllers. Assumably we also have radar records which showed whether the fighters were airborne or not.

Perceval- thanks for the acknowledgement that some of this information might actually belong in the public debate. Had not heard about the information about the cockpit door, but I assume it comes from pilots for 9/11 truth. I am also not sure who John Thomas is. Burlingame, the pilot of 77, was considered to be quite a tough customer and it seems like quite a struggle would have been necessary for the smallish hijackers to subdue him. No such reports of a struggle ever came from 77.

Nomad- Thanks for the directions to finding the referenced info from Anart

 

[Mr. Premise]

The automatic euphemism bot outdid itself with this one! The "John Thomas-pit door," indeed!

Personally, one that really stands out is the recent suggestion based on data from the flight data recorder for Flight 77 which apparently shows that the -John Thomas--pit door was never opened during the flight - therefore, there could not have been any hijack as claimed in the official report.

 

[Vulcan59]

Vulcan-Perhaps you could prioritize what you feel most legitimates a fact rather than simply criticizing others? Apparently I cannot even criticize the 9/11 commissions report without at the same time be seen as accepting the facts of the report. Seems like a strange contradiction. Whether the facts are true or not does not change that the explanation used of the supposed facts lacks rationality. I am as much a stickler for legitimate facts as anyone, but when everything is questioned we risk reaching a point of relativistic skepticism which precludes all discussion.

Also Vulcan I am not aware of any flight log information of military aircraft being available to the public. Please correct me if I am wrong. But at the same time we do have recordings of the conversations between the pilots and their controllers. Assumably we also have radar records which showed whether the fighters were airborne or not.

I didn't think I was criticizing, merely asking questions but I do apologize if that's how it came across to you.

Generally the tech log (not flight log) for military aircraft are not available to the public but that doesn't mean that it does not exist. Did the commission report attached the tech log take off and landing times of the scrambled aircraft as proof? Did the report also include the tape from the tower control as proof? Were radar echoes from the strike controller included in the report as proof that the said fighter aircraft were indeed scrambled and airborne on that day?

 

[Joe]

The automatic euphemism bot outdid itself with this one! The "John Thomas-pit door," indeed!

Personally, one that really stands out is the recent suggestion based on data from the flight data recorder for Flight 77 which apparently shows that the -John Thomas--pit door was never opened during the flight - therefore, there could not have been any hijack as claimed in the official report.

Damn that auto-euphemism generator! That one has to go! So eh, yeah the "John Thomas--pit door" was in its original form a "c0ck-pit door"

 

[Breton]

The automatic euphemism bot outdid itself with this one! The "John Thomas-pit door," indeed!

Personally, one that really stands out is the recent suggestion based on data from the flight data recorder for Flight 77 which apparently shows that the -John Thomas--pit door was never opened during the flight - therefore, there could not have been any hijack as claimed in the official report.

Damn that auto-euphemism generator! That one has to go! So eh, yeah the "John Thomas--pit door" was in its original form a "c0ck-pit door"

Do you mean you can't write the word for male chickens? So I wonder what a cock-fight looks like?
[Sorry I just HAD to try it for myself! It really does change it! ]