|
Post by shred on Aug 16, 2013 12:48:47 GMT -5
Back in 1999 Golfer Payne Stewart tragically died in a Learjet which crashed after it suffered cabin depressurisation. It took one hour 19 minutes for the USAF to intercept after radio contact was lost, despite it's transponder broadcasting it's altitude along with it's course and heading. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crashConspiracy theorists have claimed that because contact was lost at 9:33am and the intercept happened at 9:54am that interception was quick and that intercepts of the hijacked 9/11 airliners should have been quicker, however contact was lost at 9.33am Eastern Daylight Time, interception happened in a different timezone, at 9:54am Central Daylight Time. www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAB0001.pdf
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 18, 2013 2:42:27 GMT -5
Nothing to say about this Bob ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 18, 2013 10:11:28 GMT -5
Nothing to say about this Bob ? Why so you need me to comment on this? It has nothing to do with anything I want to comment on. Once you use the media propaganda term "conspiracy theorist", it renders your post just another worthless typical straw man. Are you looking for attention?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 19, 2013 1:56:07 GMT -5
It has everything to do with why the USAF weren't able to get to the hijacked aircraft in time to shoot any of them down.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 20, 2013 7:07:55 GMT -5
This article disputes the Wiki claim: ... skipping down At a news conference Monday, President Clinton said he was profoundly sorry about the death of Mr. Stewart and the others who died in the crash. "It's a very sad day," he said. "I am very grateful for the work the FAA did and for the two Air Force pilots and the others in the Air Force that monitored this plane and made every effort to try to make contact with it. "They did everything that could humanly be done, and they were looking out for the safety of everyone involved." There was some speculation Monday that the military jets were prepared to shoot down the Lear if it threatened to crash in a heavily populated area. But officials at the Pentagon strongly denied that possibility. Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from." Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact. An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT. Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit. At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., took up the chase, accompanied by a KC-135 refueling tanker. F-16s from Fargo, N.D., later scrambled to intercept the Lear jet , too. At noon Dallas time, the Fargo F-16s reported that the windows of the jet were fogged with ice and there was no evidence anyone was piloting the plane. At 12:14, the Lear jet began to spiral. It crashed about six minutes later. www.wanttoknow.info/991026dmn.orig
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 20, 2013 10:46:40 GMT -5
9.33am Eastern Daylight Time, interception happened in a different timezone, at 9:54am Central Daylight Time. It took one hour 19 minutes for the USAF to intercept after radio contact was lost. Don't ignore the change in timezones. www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAB0001.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 20, 2013 11:03:45 GMT -5
9.33am Eastern Daylight Time, interception happened in a different timezone, at 9:54am Central Daylight Time. It took one hour 19 minutes for the USAF to intercept after radio contact was lost. Don't ignore the change in timezones. www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAB0001.pdfThe article I posted says 20 minutes, it says nothing about time zones. That it took 1.5 hours to intercept is not credible anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 20, 2013 11:59:15 GMT -5
The article you posted is wrong, because the aircraft did cross timezones and the author of the article is obviously not in full possession of the facts (or is deliberately misrepresenting them). Check the facts here: www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAB0001.pdfThe F16 was already on a training flight, so did not have to be scrambled, but it did have to refuel. Rules in place at the time banned supersonic speed for intercepts. Transponder was active making identification and tracking straightforwards but it still took 1 hour and 19 minutes for the fighter to be notified to intercept and it actually rendezvousing with the learjet. By 1996 the ANG only had 20 fueled and ready fighters. By 1999 at the time of the Payne Stewart crash the Air National Guard only had 15 fueled fighters covering your whole country. By 11/9/2001 (day month year) there were only 14 fueled ANG fighters covering your whole country. Reason being, the cold war had ended, threats from Russian bombers were negligible. The idea of hijacked airliners being used as weapons wasn't taken seriously by the powers that be. PNAC were worried about military complacency in 2000 and wrote rebuilding America's defences. www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfLove how conspiracy theorists ignore that.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 20, 2013 12:59:57 GMT -5
Whether it took 20 minutes, 1.5 hours or 6 years, what does that have anything to do with anything? Obviously, you're trying to make some sort of case as an apologist for those in charge of NORAD and the entire $multi-trillion US defense system for their STAND DOWN on 9/11 (or gross incompetence if one is gullible). They don't need you to defend their crimes. Criminals have much better resources than you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 6:59:46 GMT -5
It highlights that there weren't many air defence fighters stood by to protect US skies as the cold war threat had passed and no other threats were taken seriously. Of the 14 fighters that were stood by fuelled on the 11th of sept 2001 none were armed with missiles. Fighters were launched, and given shoot down orders after the south tower had been hit. All were using outdated protocols that took them out to sea after takeoff to keep airways clear. None were able to get to the hijacked aircraft in time.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 7:18:37 GMT -5
It highlights that there weren't many air defence fighters stood by to protect US skies as the cold war threat had passed and no other threats were taken seriously. Of the 14 fighters that were stood by fuelled on the 11th of sept 2001 none were armed with missiles. Fighters were launched, and given shoot down orders after the south tower had been hit. All were using outdated protocols that took them out to sea after takeoff to keep airways clear. None were able to get to the hijacked aircraft in time. So then you're saying NORAD and the entire US defense system are worthless and the $multi-trillion funding is just money down the toilet. Well that money does line the pockets of the military industrial complex. We do know for a fact it was worthless on 9/11. They were too busy conducting multiple "exercises" to make sure they could always be ready to hightail it away from the US whenever there was any kind of attack in the US. It takes a lot of practice to cut and run.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 8:02:11 GMT -5
NORAD looked outwards with a cold war based defence system designed to watch for Soviet bombers. The cold war had ended and budget cutbacks left the Air National Guard with a token force of just 14 fighters fuelled on standby. They did not have commonality with the FAA. They didn't have procedures to deal with hijacked airliners being used as kamikaze weapons. They didn't have authorisation to go supersonic over populated areas. The shoot down order was only given after flight 175 impacted WTC2.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 8:36:49 GMT -5
Yeah NORAD never wanted to look at any part of the US even though it's their mandate. It's that big black hole called North America (part of its acronym) that they're mandated to defend but not peek at. And you learned this from where?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:11:22 GMT -5
They didn't take the threat of hijacked airliners seriously. If you'd been working for them, you wouldn't have either. You still don't take the threat of hijacked airliners seriously.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 10:30:17 GMT -5
They didn't take the threat of hijacked airliners seriously. If you'd been working for them, you wouldn't have either. You still don't take the threat of hijacked airliners seriously. So in your opinion NORAD is not a serious organization then? What is it, a joke? I don't work for NORAD, never have and never will. What you believe in your hypothetical fantasy and your opinion of how serious I take the threat of hijacked airliners is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:35:51 GMT -5
NORAD of the late 1990's and up to 11/9/2001 wasn't a patch on the RAF mate. Back in the 1960's 70's and 80's fair enough, it was a formidable force, but the cuts at the end of the cold war left it almost toothless, a bit like the RNZAF is now. So because conventional air forces like Russia's air force did not pose a threat to the USA it was assumed that there was no airborne threat to defend the USA against. It was a naive and complacent error.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 10:47:19 GMT -5
So again, you feel that it's not serious and absolutely worthless then? How many $billions do you think is wasted on funding NORAD each year that could be put to better use? Why did the 9/11 Commission even question NORAD after 9/11 if it was a worthless joke and everyone knew that?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:53:39 GMT -5
Wrong, cutbacks at the time meant that a lot less was being spent on NORAD than was spent during the cold war or after 9/11 and only 14 fighter jets were fuelled up on standby to cover your whole country, none of which had missiles fitted.
At the time a multibillion dollar proposal for upgraded air defence radar was rejected because of cost.
Look it up. It was not the wonderous thing you purport it to be. It was a victim of cutbacks. PNAC warned about the dangers of these cutbacks in 2000 warning of the risk of a new Pearl Harbour. Read their document, see for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 11:05:29 GMT -5
Ok I got the picture. NORAD is a worthless $multi-trillion joke that is still being funded today even though it does NOTHING. The PROOF it's worthless is that on 9/11, it did NOTHING and the head of NORAD, General Ralph Eberhart, got promoted for doing his job on 9/11, he did NOTHING.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 11:08:30 GMT -5
No, you don't get it. At the time NORAD was an underfunded unprepared air defence system wound down from cold war levels on the assumption that because there was no enemy air force to defend against there was no airborne threat.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 11:26:22 GMT -5
No, you don't get it. At the time NORAD was an underfunded unprepared air defence system wound down from cold war levels on the assumption that because there was no enemy air force to defend against there was no airborne threat. So you're saying the same thing I said but trying to change the words. The word you want to use is WORTHLESS. Why are you being an apologist for NORAD, are they paying you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 23, 2013 7:37:29 GMT -5
I'm pointing out that Bill Clinton cut their budget to such a point that they only had 14 fueled up jets to cover the whole of the USA. I'm not defending that decision, I'm explaining how Clinton's government rationalised it (because there was no threat from the USSR or other conventional air forces), not saying they were right, they ignored the lesson of Air France flight 8969 (which had been intended to be a kamikaze hijacking with a crash into the Eiffel Tower) and the 1999 hijacking of All Nippon airways flight 61 in which Yuji Nishizawa killed a pilot and took controls of a 747 intending to fly it under the rainbow bridge in Tokyo.
There was also a failure of airport security as hijackers were able to take Pocket Knives and Stanley Knives onto flights. Airlines did not learn the lesson of Air France Flight 8969 or All Nippon Airways Flight 61 either, cockpit doors were unlocked in flight and the hijackers had no trouble killing the pilots in their cockpits and commandeering the aircraft to crash them.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 23, 2013 8:00:50 GMT -5
"I'm pointing out that Bill Clinton cut their budget to such a point that they only had 14 fueled up jets to cover the whole of the USA."
NORAD doesn't need you to make excuses for its STAND DOWN. They had enough money to conduct 4 PLANNED simultaneous war games on 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 23, 2013 12:21:44 GMT -5
There was no stand down order you liar.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 23, 2013 13:09:03 GMT -5
"There was no stand down order you liar.
<video of Mineta testifying as to Cheney's STAND DOWN>"
Contradicting yourself yet again, Mr. NORAD apologist? Are you having a temper tantrum?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 24, 2013 6:43:01 GMT -5
Wrong liar, this is the full undoctored video which proves he was testifying about a shoot down order not a stand down order. Once again I've caught you in a lie.
Lee Hamilton: "Erm, I want to focus for just a moment on the er, Presidential Emergency Operating Centre. You were there, er for a good part of the day, I think you were there with the vice President? And er, we had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorised er the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Erm were you there when that order was given?"
Norman Mineta: "No I, I was not, I was made aware of it er during the time that the airplane coming in to the Pentagon, er there was a young man come in and say to the vice President 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out' and when he got down to 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?' ".
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 24, 2013 7:56:08 GMT -5
I don't need to lie, the video speaks for itself. Posting the verbiage yet again only reinforces the STAND DOWN ORDER and your apologist mentality.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 24, 2013 8:52:05 GMT -5
Yes the video does speak for itself, it proves there was a shoot down order given that still stood when the hijacked plane was ten miles out.
This is a direct quote from the video: Lee Hamilton: "Erm, I want to focus for just a moment on the er, Presidential Emergency Operating Centre. You were there, er for a good part of the day, I think you were there with the vice President? And er, we had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorised er the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Erm were you there when that order was given?"
Norman Mineta: "No I, I was not, I was made aware of it er during the time that the airplane coming in to the Pentagon, er there was a young man come in and say to the vice President 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out' and when he got down to 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?' ".
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 24, 2013 9:43:24 GMT -5
Repeat it again a few more times, you never know, I might change my mind and decide to make excuses for NORAD and Cheney's STAND DOWN.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 24, 2013 10:10:30 GMT -5
Where in the video did Norman Mineta say that the fighters were ordered to stand down ?
Nowhere. So how do you come to the conclusion that there was a stand down order, when Mineta did not say there was a stand down order? Admit it, you got it wrong.
|
|