911 Pentagon Video Footage

[skyeagle409]

Another in the long list of poor Popular Mechanics 'debunking'.

That doesn't work! I can find other sources that are singing in harmony to the same tune. In fact, the communication transcript provides evidence the military was unaware of the location of United 93 and unaware that United 93 had crashed until notified by ATC controllers. President Bush granted commanders the authority to order pilots to shoot down the airliners, which didn't come until 10:18, but United 93 crashed at 10:03 AM.

The shootdown of Flight 93 does not clash with the F-16 taxiing of Jacoby to New York which occurred later in the morning.

There is no evidence of a shoot down and never was. If you still don't believe me just call the folks at Langley AFB and Andrews AFB. To prove my point, provide your evidence for all to see. I don't deal in speculation and far too many 9/11 conspiracist harbor the idea that Hollywood actions movies can be applied to the 9/11 attacks. In other words, they deal in fantasy, not facts.

10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft.

http://www.washingto...cODK_story.html

The F-16s out Andrew AFB were not even armed and the F-16s from Langley AFB were nowhere near United 93.

There was sufficient time for that F-16 to shootdown Flight 93 and relocate to collect Jacoby (I can dig out the sources if needed).

Go right ahead and post your sources and if you do, I have sources to provide as well.

Edited December 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Skyeagle, I would respond more thoroughly but it is apparent that you are a complete moron or otherwise out to troll and it’s impossible to have a rationale discussion with you. All you do is drag down every thread (and board, from what I hear) with repetitive denial and avoidance of facts and disrupt flow of the discussion, it’s ridiculous and I don’t know why it is allowed to continue. I was pointing out error of the Popular Mechanics debunking – the fact that Gibney did not taxi Jacoby to New York until later in the morning after Flight 93 was down in Pennsylvania, i.e. Gibney’s presence at either location is not necessarily exclusive to the other. Not a single thing you posted is actually focussed on that point, and your raising of the unarmed fighters as an argument, ignoring those that were armed, is utter baloney. What sort of idiotic argument is that? Anyhow, try to address the point next time instead of spinning off on a tangent. Though I doubt you even understand what I’m saying now, do you? Hello, Earth to skyeagle? Anyone there? No, didn’t think so.

Just one other thing, because I shouldn’t miss an opportunity: -

There is no evidence of a shoot down and never was.

There is a significant body of corroborating evidence from NORAD, ATC, emergency dispatchers, the USAF, mainstream media, eyewitnesses and even the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that suggest a shoot down took place. To say there is “no evidence” is absolutely ignorant and/or deceptive. Such is the evidence that even many who generally accept the official story of 9/11 question whether a shoot down of Flight 93 may have occurred – it is palatable to them as it does not auto-imply an ‘inside job’ after all. Please see my post #1997 & #1999 for summary of the information and sources : -

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4157141

Again, try to focus on and address the points raised rather than spamming and confusing every thread with spiel and irrelevant tangents in response.

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle, I would respond more thoroughly but it is apparent that you are a complete moron or otherwise out to troll and it’s impossible to have a rationale discussion with you.

Let's face it. Reality of the evidence is not with you.

I was pointing out error of the Popular Mechanics debunking – the fact that Gibney did not taxi Jacoby to New York until later in the morning after Flight 93 was down in Pennsylvania, i.e. Gibney’s presence at either location is not necessarily exclusive to the other. Not a single thing you posted is actually focussed on that point, and your raising of the unarmed fighters as an argument, ignoring those that were armed, is utter baloney.

I focused on certain points for a very good reason. There was no way that F-16 flew near United 93, and furthermore, the military did not receive an order to shoot down any airliner until after United 93 had crashed, which throws cold water of such claims because no pilot received the authority to shoot down any aircraft before all four airliners were destroyed. In addition, radar did not detect any F-16s in the area nor near United 93 and the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed,which was evident in the released communication tape, so what is all of this hoppla about United 93 being shot down? They were to establish CAP over Washington, which is not anywhere near Shanksville.

To recap, you implied the F-16 could have made it to United 93 yet there was no order given to shoot down any aircraft before United 93 crashed, which simply means that up to that time no pilot had the authority to shoot down anything that was related to the hijacked airliners.

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Let's hear from the F-16 pilot.

Nothing there about his F-16 shooting down anything. You were simply duped by those conspiracy websites into thinking there was a possibility he could have shot down United 93. What it is, you create conspiracies from disinformation and misinformation and when I see you doing so, I respond the way I do.

Edited December 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Skyeagle, if you took your head from your rear end and actually clicked the link I provided in my last post (perhaps, God forbid, take on the information within) then you might realise the extensive and continual mistakes that you are making and the falsities that you are spreading.

There was no way that F-16 flew near United 93,

Wrong

The Langley fighters were certainly in range to intercept Flight 93 prior to the shootdown and that was indeed NORAD’s intention – you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information. There is also potential for Gibney to have reached the crash zone prior to taxiing Jacoby to New York.

the military did not receive an order to shoot down any airliner until after United 93 had crashed,

Wrong

What you are actually referring to is that fact that none of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld provided shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down. But the fact is that Major General Arnold of NORAD had made the decision that Flight 93 would not be allowed to reach Washington, had discussed shootdown options and USAF pilot Anthony Kuczynski would report that he held shootdown orders on his way to intercept Flight 93 - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

The 9/11 Commission report discusses the issue: -

"It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.

NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93 [in lieu of a shootdown order from higher up the chain].

"

Given NORAD’s potential ability to act alone upon initiative of their own commanders, the fact that Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld did not provide shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down is irrelevant.

radar did not detect any F-16s in the area nor near United 93

Wrong

ATC comments indicate that F-16s were in the area - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed,

Wrong

The record indicates that it took 9 minutes for one chain of command within NORAD, of which there were multiple chains of command directing fighters, to receive confirmation that Flight 93 was down. This does not constitute “the military” as a whole and does not preclude that other chains of command were involved in and aware of a shootdown as it occurred.

They were to establish CAP over Washington, which is not anywhere near Shanksville.

Wrong

The Flight 93 crash location was a brief approximately 10 minutes flight time from Washington (which rubbishes your claim here and further above that F-16s were “not anywhere near” Flight 93) - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information. Whilst CAP was established to protect Washington, NORAD’s intention was to stop Flight 93 before it got there, not allow the threat to get over the capital only then moving to intercept. The threat was already within such proximity that it was now or never for NORAD.

Let's hear from the F-16 pilot.

This doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know. Or, do you mean, you are waiting for the pilots to confirm that one of them took the shot? And you don’t see the problem with that? Oh dear.

You were simply duped by those conspiracy websites into thinking there was a possibility he could have shot down United 93. What it is, you create conspiracies from disinformation and misinformation and when I see you doing so, I respond the way I do.

Wrong

Seriously, take your head out of your ass. None of this is based on ‘conspiracy websites’. It’s just plain fact that you are too ignorant and/or deceptive, to yourself and those around you, to take onboard. You really need to readjust your views to accept reality (if that’s possible for you) because your current position is an embarrassment of ignorance for which you should be ashamed - you are wrong over and over when it comes to the basic facts. You respond the way you do because you are too blissfully ignorant to take onboard additional information or learn beyond what you think you know.

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle, if you took your head from your rear end and actually clicked the link I provided in my last post (perhaps, God forbid, take on the information within) then you might realise the extensive and continual mistakes that you are making and the falsities that you are spreading.

The mistakes are on your part.

Wrong

The Langley fighters were certainly in range to intercept Flight 93 prior to the shootdown and that was indeed NORAD’s intention – you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information. There is also potential for Gibney to have reached the crash zone prior to taxiing Jacoby to New York.

Right

The Langley fighters were not in range. What is the range of a Sidewider missile? Please post for all to see; if not, then you have no case.

Wrong

What you are actually referring to is that fact that none of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld provided shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down.

Right

Since when does anyone, other than the President of the United States, have the authority to order the shootdown of airlners? As it was, President Bush issued the order ONLY after United 93 had crashed; in other words, there was no standing order to shoot down airliners before the United 93 crashed near Shanksville.

But the fact is that Major General Arnold of NORAD had made the decision that Flight 93 would not be allowed to reach Washington,...

What have I said about an air defense CAP over Washington D.C., which is nowhere near Shanksville?

...had discussed shootdown options and USAF pilot Anthony Kuczynski would report that he held shootdown orders on his way to intercept Flight 93 - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

Right

The F-16s would not have left their CAP over Washington, D.C. to shoot down an airliner over Shanksville. What is the purpose of a CAP? In addition, no one other than the President of the United States has the authority of order fighters to shoot down airliners within the borders of the United States. The president can pass down the order, but not the other way around.

As I have said before, the order from President Bush did not come until after United 93 had crashed; in other words, there was no standing order to shoot down any airliner before all four airliners had crashed.

The 9/11 Commission report discusses the issue: -

"It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.

NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93 [in lieu of a shootdown order from higher up the chain].

"

Once again, you are ignoring the facts that were handed to you on a silver platter. Other than the fact the order was not passed down until after United 93 had crashed, the military did not know of the whereabouts of United 93 until it was told it crashed. In other words, the communication tape shows the militlary was unaware of the current status of United 93 until it was told by civilian ATC controllers that United 93 had crashed. In other words, the military was not in a position to direct any interceptors toward United 93.

Given NORAD’s potential ability to act alone upon initiative of their own commanders, the fact that Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld did not provide shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down is irrelevant.

It is relevant! Check it out.

10:10 Having no knowledge either that United 93 had been heading toward Washington, D.C., or that it had crashed, the NEADS Mission Crew Commander explicitly instructed that the Langley Air Force Base fighters that had been deployed did not have "clearance to shoot" aircraft over the nation's capital.

So where did you get the idea that interceptors had the authority to shoot down airliners before United 93 crashed?

Wrong

ATC comments indicate that F-16s were in the area - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

Right

Check it out.

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.

NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

NEADS: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...

FAA: He did not land.

NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

The NEADS air defenders never located the flight or followed it on their radar scopes. The flight had already crashed by the time they learned it was hijacked.

10:17 Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed.

Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93. Nor did any manager at FAA headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93 to the military.

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=1962910

So once again, it has been shown the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed until after the fact and not in a position to direct any aircraft toward United 93 because of lack of information.

Edited December 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Wrong

The record indicates that it took 9 minutes for one chain of command within NORAD, of which there were multiple chains of command directing fighters, to receive confirmation that Flight 93 was down. This does not constitute “the military” as a whole and does not preclude that other chains of command were involved in and aware of a shootdown as it occurred.

Right

Let's take a second look at the communication transcript.

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.

NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

NEADS: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...

FAA: He did not land.

NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

So once again, the millitary was unaware that United 93 had crashed. In other words, there was no shootdown of United 93 by the military.

Wrong

The Flight 93 crash location was a brief approximately 10 minutes flight time from Washington...

Once again, how far is Washington D.C. from Shanksville? You must know that F-16s are not going to fly all the way to Shanksville in full afterburner while flying CAP over the Capitol.

...

(which rubbishes your claim here and further above that F-16s were “not anywhere near” Flight 93) - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information...

The closest aircraft to United 93 when it crashed as American 1060, which confirmed the crash site.

Whilst CAP was established to protect Washington, NORAD’s intention was to stop Flight 93 before it got there,...

The magic words: "before it got there." In other words, the F-16s would not have left CAP over Washington D.C. to fly all the way to Shanksville to shoot down United 93, but how could they when they were unaware of the fact that United 93 had crashed?

10:32 AM0 minute, 41 seconds

Mission Crew Commander (M.C.C.) gives the fighter pilots permission to shoot down civilian planes

...not allow the threat to get over the capital only then moving to intercept. The threat was already within such proximity that it was now or never for NORAD.

A CAP is flown over the local Washington area, which did not include Shanksville.

Combat air patrol (CAP) is a type of flying mission for fighter aircraft.

Two F-15 Eagles from the Massachusetts Air National Guard's 102nd Fighter Wing fly a combat air patrol mission over New York City in support of Operation Noble Eagle

A combat air patrol is an aircraft patrol provided over an objective area, over the force protected, over the critical area of a combat zone, or over an air defense area, for the purpose of intercepting and destroying hostile aircraft before they reach their target. Combat air patrols apply to both overland and overwater operations, protecting other aircraft, fixed and mobile sites on land, or ships at sea.

Known by the acronym CAP, it typically entails fighters flying a tactical pattern around or screening a defended target, while looking for incoming attackers. Effective CAP patterns may include aircraft positioned at both high and low altitudes, in order to shorten response times when an attack is detected. Modern CAPs are either GCI or AWACS-controlled to provide maximum early warning for defensive reaction.

The first CAPs were characteristic of aircraft carrier operations, where CAPs were flown to protect a carrier battle group, but the term has become generic to both Air Force and Navy flight operations. Capping operations differ from fighter escorts in that the CAP force is not tied to the group it is protecting, is not limited in altitudes and speeds it flies, and has tactical flexibility to engage a threat. Fighter escorts typically stay with the asset they are supporting and at the speed of the supported group, as a final reactive force against a close threat.

When an escort engages, the supported force is left unprotected.

http://en.wikipedia....mbat_air_patrol

The CAP was to be established over Washington, D.C., not over Shanksville. Fighters flying CAP over Washington, D.C. would not have taken action to intercept an airliner over Shanksville. How far is Shanksville from Washington D.C.?

This doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know. Or, do you mean, you are waiting for the pilots to confirm that one of them took the shot?

A shot at what? The communication transcript shows the military was unaware of the fact that United 93 had crashed; In other words, the miliary was not trackng nor knew of the precise whereabouts of United 93 to provide the proper coordinates to the interceptors, but as it was, the shootdown order was not issued until after United 93 had crashed.

Wrong

Seriously, take your head out of your ass. None of this is based on ‘conspiracy websites’. It’s just plain fact that you are too ignorant and/or deceptive, to yourself and those around you, to take onboard. You really need to readjust your views to accept reality (if that’s possible for you) because your current position is an embarrassment of ignorance for which you should be ashamed - you are wrong over and over when it comes to the basic facts. You respond the way you do because you are too blissfully ignorant to take onboard additional information or learn beyond what you think you know.

Right

And, I will reiterate what I have said. You were duped and your own post is that proof because you are unaware of the way things work in the real world of miliary and civilian aviation.

Edited December 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

You now have 2 feet in Sky. Are you going for 3?

[skyeagle409]

You now have 2 feet in Sky. Are you going for 3?

Apparently, Q24, was unaware that the order to shoot down airliners was issued, not from Rumsfeld nor from the vice president, but issued by President Bush. The order was issued AFTER United 93 crashed and no one had the authority to shoot down airliners before the crash of United 93, which was the last airliner to crash.

The order was the result of a presidential-level decision and neither Vice President Cheney nor Secretary of Defense Rumfeld had the authority to issue that order over the head of the president.

It was all very simple to understand but there are those who like to concoct conspiracies from the book cover without reading the rest of the story.

Edited December 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

There is a significant body of corroborating evidence from NORAD, ATC, emergency dispatchers, the USAF, mainstream media, eyewitnesses and even the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that suggest a shoot down took place.

Think again!

At 9:36, FAA Cleveland called FAA Command Center at Herndon to ask whether the military had been notified - FAA Command Center told Cleveland that "FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command had to make the decision to seek military assistance and were working on the issue". At 9:49, the decision about whether to call the military had still not been made, and no one from the FAA did call them until 10:07, four minutes after Flight 93 had crashed near Shanksville, PA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

Had Flight 93 made it to DC, National Guard pilots Lt. Col. Marc H. Sasseville and Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney were prepared to ram their unarmed F-16 fighters into it, perhaps giving their lives in the process

http://govinfo.libra...1Report_Ch1.htm

The leaves the question:

Where did 9/11 conspiracist get the idea that United 93 was shot down despite the fact the order wasn't given until after United 93 had crashed near Shanksville, where it was tracked on radar to the location of the crash site and confirmed by other aircraft in the area such as American 1060, and a National Guard, C-130?

As I have said before, there is no room for speculation because specuation is not considered hard evidence.

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

You now have 2 feet in Sky. Are you going for 3?

Feet? This guy has his head firmly buried in the ground.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Q24

[Q24]

Right

Since when does anyone, other than the President of the United States, have the authority to order the shootdown of airlners? As it was, President Bush issued the order ONLY after United 93 had crashed; in other words, there was no standing order to shoot down airliners before the United 93 crashed near Shanksville.

The order was the result of a presidential-level decision and neither Vice President Cheney nor Secretary of Defense Rumfeld had the authority to issue that order over the head of the president.

The following directives show that you don’t have a clue: -

CJCSI 3610.01A: AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS

: -

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

Your first mistake: under routine circumstances, authority is not restricted to the President but extends to the Secretary of Defence. Of course, apart from, as stated above, “with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d.”.

Reference d of the directive above, refers to the directive below...

DOD Directive 3025.15: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

: -

Immediate Response

. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1.

Which in turn refers to the directive below...

DOD Directive 3025.1: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

: -

Imminently serious condition resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as “Immediate Response.”

Your second mistake: under circumstances requiring “immediate response” (which Flight 93 certainly fell under according to the above definition), authority is not restricted to the President or even Secretary of Defence but extends to, “local military commanders and responsible officials”. On basis of the above directives, there is certainly a strong legal case to be made for action, in cases, in lieu of Secretary of Defense approval. The directives effectively authorise all manner of rank to use their common sense when it comes to immediate and severe threat to lives and property.

The clue that you should have picked up from my previous post to save my time here was when the 9/11 Commission stated, “It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...”

Now, do you understand this issue regarding authorisation, skyeagle? Do you understand that where pressing circumstances dictate, it is not absolutely necessary for the military to seek authorisation from the President or Secretary of Defense to act? If you disagree, can you structure any argument, in opposition to the above directives, as to why this is not the case? These questions are to test if you actually read my posts, so please do respond to them.

In addition, from my link that you apparently refuse to click on, read or take onboard: -

Major General Arnold explained to the commission that the military had been

tracking

United 93 and the fighters were in position if United 93 had threatened Washington. "It was our intent to intercept United

Flight

93," Arnold testified. "I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it."

Colonel Marr, the commanding officer at neads on 9/11, had made similar comments to ABC News for its one-year-anniversary special on the attacks, saying that the pilots had been warned they might have to intercept United 93, and stop it if necessary: "And we of course passed that on to the pilots: United

Airlines Flight

93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."

When I interviewed him recently, Marr recalled a conversation he had had with Arnold in the heat of the attack. "I remember the words out of General Arnold's mouth, or at least as I remember them, were 'We will take lives in the air to save lives on the ground.'"

So it sounds like the decision had already been taken to stop Flight 93, authority from up the chain of command or not.

Here is the important quote from Colonel Marr above: -

"United

Airlines Flight

93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."

Indeed, it was stopped 10 minutes short of its destination.

The CAP was to be established over Washington, D.C., not over Shanksville. Fighters flying CAP over Washington, D.C. would not have taken action to intercept an airliner over Shanksville. How far is Shanksville from Washington D.C.?

Of course fighters would engage an enemy outside of the CAP. The CAP is just created over the defensive objective as a base position to intercept incoming threats. You aren’t just going to sit over (or circle) the defensive objective and wait for an incoming threat to get right on top of you. It’s too late by then and defeats the point. Even your link states: -

“A combat air patrol is an aircraft

patrol

provided over an objective area, over the force protected, over the critical area of a combat zone, or over an air defense area,

for the purpose of intercepting and destroying hostile aircraft

before

they reach their target.

”

And I refer again to the quote from General Marr above - read it.

How far is Shaksville from Washington? Approximately 120 miles or 10 minutes flight time as I have already told you (don’t you read?). How much longer could NORAD afford to wait? I have researched all of this in some detail – there was a will within NORAD to stop Flight 93 and fighters were certainly within range and time to make the intercept at the Flight 93 crash time and location.

The further evidence this did occur is presented in my posts #1997 & #1999: -

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4157141

And finally, why start your post #3056 with an immediate cut and paste of exactly the same information that ended your post #3055? It is pointless repetition and literally a waste of space.

PS You have still not even attempted to explain how Jacoby refutes that Gibney could have been at the Flight 93 crash location earlier in the morning. I guess that you had no real argument to begin. That's what happens when you rely on parroting of Popular Mechanics rather than independent research to make your case for you.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

The following directives show that you don’t have a clue: -

CJCSI 3610.01A: AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS

: -

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

Your first mistake: under routine circumstances, authority is not restricted to the President but extends to the Secretary of Defence. Of course, apart from, as stated above, “with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d.”.

Your mistake is not recognizing the fact the Secretary of Defense is not authorized to order shootdowns over CONUS and do so over the head of the President of the United States.

You don't seem to understand what I have been posted. The military did not know the whereabouts of United 93 to do anything and the FAA did not inform the military in a timely manner on the fate of United 93, and once again, the order was not issued until after United 93 had crashed, which simply makes it very simple to understand why there was no way, that United 93 was shot down.

Radar did not track any F-16s near United 93 nor were they vectored toward United 93. You posted the following:

Major General Arnold explained to the commission that the military had been tracking United 93 and the fighters were in position if United 93 had threatened Washington. "It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93," Arnold testified. "I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it."

The aircraft established a CAP, which does not translate interceptors chasing down airliners; only if the airliner continued to approach Capitol in a threatening manner because there were many aircraft airborne which included American 1060 and other large aircraft that were not hijacked. Please show us communication transcripts where civilian controllers vectored the F-16 toward United 93.

]Colonel Marr, the commanding officer at neads on 9/11, had made similar comments to ABC News for its one-year-anniversary special on the attacks, saying that the pilots had been warned they might have to intercept United 93, and stop it if necessary: "And we of course passed that on to the pilots: United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."[/b]

Nothing there about F-16s flying to Shanksville to intercept United 93. How would they have known if the aircraft was even United 93 or for that matter or a hijacked aircraft without assistance from ATC? As ATC transcripts have shown, the military was NOT aware on the whereabouts of United 93, which simply means that the military was NOT tracking United 93. Let's do a review.

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.

NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?

That portion of the transcript shows the military WASN'T tracking United 93 because it is asking for information from civilian controllers on United 93.

...

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

NEADS: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...

FAA: He did not land.

NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

That last portion of the transcript proves beyond any doubt the military WASN'T tracking United 93 after all. As you can see, they were asking the FAA what happened to United 93 so with the point made, how could the military have been tracking United 93 when it had to ask the FAA for information on United 93 from civilian controllers?

It is very clear that you do not understand how things work in the real world of military and civilian aviation.

PS You have still not even attempted to explain how Jacoby refutes that Gibney could have been at the Flight 93 crash location earlier in the morning.

There was no way he could have been at the scene. First of all, there was no shootdown orders issued at the time that Unted 93 was airborne and there is no radar data depicting his F-16 near United 93 and no communication tapes nor transcripts placing any F-16 near United 93, which is important because an F-16 would have been traveling in controlled airspace and under the control of civilian controllers.

Without vectors from ATC controllers, how is he going to find United 93 and differentiate the aircraft from other aircraft beyond visual range? How is he going to identify the aircraft as United 93? How is he going to differentiate between United 93 and other airliners without vectors? How is he going to know if the aircraft is hijacked or not, or simply, if the aircraft is following instructions on a particular heading?

Now, let's take a look here.

Interview with Vice President Cheney

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."

--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001

Without support from civilian controllers there was no way he could have identifiy the aircraft as United 93 nor even be aware the aircraft was hijacked. These are just a few examples outlining your lack of knowledge on the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

There was no vectoring support from ATC nor radar data tracings depicting any F-16 near United 93, and of course, the absence of shootdown orders during the time that United 93 was airborne, and remember, the military was unaware on the whereabouts of United 93, as noted in the communication transcript. Sorry, but you have to first, get up-to-speed on the way we do things and then, you will understand why you are wrong!

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Feet? This guy has his head firmly buried in the ground.

Since you think that United 93 was shot down, show us the evidence that will stand up in a court of law and evidence that news agencies can use, but remember, pure speculation is not considered hard evidence. Short of that, you have no case.

[Q24]

I’ll keep it short because you seem to have difficulty with focus and keep repeating the same lines over and over no matter what information proves you wrong, and frankly because you're not worth the effort...

Your mistake is not recognizing the fact the Secretary of Defense is not authorized to order shootdowns over CONUS and do so over the head of the President of the United States.

Provide a source for that which would override the DoD directives and show the 9/11 Commission opinion, “It is possible”, all as set out in my last post, to be incorrect.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Q24

[Babe Ruth]

Finally, a point for Sky.

What IS the proof that it was shot down? And have you considered the difference in wing mounted engines regarding missle damage?

FF employs deception as a military tactic.I am working with the pure luxury of 11 years later information, and that's an advantage.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[skyeagle409]

I’ll keep it short because you seem to have difficulty with focus and keep repeating the same lines over and over no matter what information proves you wrong, and frankly because you're not worth the effort...

Evidence is what counts, not speculation, which is why I have asked you to provide evidence.

Provide a source for that which would override the DoD directives and show the 9/11 Commission opinion, “It is possible”, all as set out in my last post, to be incorrect.

Let me put you in the drivers sit.

* Who authorized you to take off and shoot down aircraft when no such orders were handed down at that time?

* By whom, were you briefed?

* How did you determine from many airborne contacts which aircraft was United 93 and do so without assistance from civilian controllers?

* Who provided vectors toward United 93?

* Since jet aircraft use less fuel at high altitudes, who controlled your flight in Class A airspace?

* Who will take responsibility should you shoot down the wrong aircraft in the absence of orders from the President of the United States?

Those are just a few of many questions to let you know that air intercepts are not as simple as you think.

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Provide a source for that which would override the DoD directives and show the 9/11 Commission opinion, “It is possible”, all as set out in my last post, to be incorrect.

I will make it easy. Who is the Commander-in-Chief?

FORMER US President George W Bush has spoken emotionally about the agony of living through the 9/11 terrorist attrocity and feeling powerless to save the lives of his people.

He has also relived the moment he thought his order to shoot down any commercial airliner that refused to land had led to further loss of innocent lives.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3797215/.html#ixzz2Fj67dgnL

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Finally, a point for Sky.

What IS the proof that it was shot down? And have you considered the difference in wing mounted engines regarding missle damage?

What difference does that make? Let's take a look at some pictures of missile strikes on aircraft.

F-18 that survived a missile hit to one of its engines

A-10 80-0258 lands after being struck by an Iraqi missile during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Battle-damaged C-5 repaired, ready for duty

A US Air Force C-5 cargo plane carrying 63 passengers and crew members apparently hit by a surface-to-air missile today as it took off from Baghdad international airport managed to land safely, a senior US defence official said.

On December 9 2003, a McChord crew flying C-17A 00182 managed to safely land the aircraft after it was struck by an anti aircraft missile shortly after takeoff from Baghdad IAP, Iraq. Pictured from left: Capt. Paul Sonstein, 1st Lt. Andrew Oiland, Capt. Anne Lueck, Technical Sgt. Jim Alexander and Staff Sgt. Eric Olsen.

On 22 November 2003, shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, Iraq, an Airbus A300 cargo plane owned by European Air Transport ("DHL") was struck on the left wing tip by a surface-to-air missile.

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

[/b]

The following directives show that you don’t have a clue: -

CJCSI 3610.01A: AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS

: -

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

Your first mistake: under routine circumstances, authority is not restricted to the President but extends to the Secretary of Defence. Of course, apart from, as stated above, “with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d.”.

Reference d of the directive above, refers to the directive below...

DOD Directive 3025.15: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

: -

Immediate Response

. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1.

Which in turn refers to the directive below...

DOD Directive 3025.1: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

: -

Imminently serious condition resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as “Immediate Response.”

Your second mistake: under circumstances requiring “immediate response” (which Flight 93 certainly fell under according to the above definition), authority is not restricted to the President or even Secretary of Defence but extends to, “local military commanders and responsible officials”. On basis of the above directives, there is certainly a strong legal case to be made for action, in cases, in lieu of Secretary of Defense approval. The directives effectively authorise all manner of rank to use their common sense when it comes to immediate and severe threat to lives and property.

The clue that you should have picked up from my previous post to save my time here was when the 9/11 Commission stated, “It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...”

Now, do you understand this issue regarding authorisation, skyeagle? Do you understand that where pressing circumstances dictate, it is not absolutely necessary for the military to seek authorisation from the President or Secretary of Defense to act? If you disagree, can you structure any argument, in opposition to the above directives, as to why this is not the case? These questions are to test if you actually read my posts, so please do respond to them.

Flight 93 most certainly also falls under a circumstance involving an event of "employment of active duty military forces in domestic civil disturbances" or the "employment of U.S. military forces in response to acts or threats of domestic terrorism". Both of these are also covered in

DOD Directive 3025.15: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

4.7.4. Support for Domestic Civil Disturbances. The employment of active duty military forces in domestic civil disturbances may be requested only by the President or Attorney General and authorized only by the President. When requested by the Attorney General and approved by the Secretary of Defense or when authorized by the President, the Secretary of Defense shall employ active federal military forces under rules of engagement approved by General Counsel of the Department of Defense (GC,DoD) and the Attorney General. The Secretary of the Army, as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the DOMS, shall direct the required DoD assistance, in accordance with DoD Directive 3025.12 (reference (e)), DoD Directive 5160.54 (reference (f)), and DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference(g)), unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall at all times maintain contingency plans, with rules of engagement approved by the Department of Justice, for use in civil disturbance situations.

and

4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counterterrorism Operations. The employment of U.S. military forces in response to acts or threats of domestic terrorism may be requested only by the President (or in accordance with Presidential Decision Directives) and must be authorized by the President. All requests for assistance in responding to acts or threats of domestic terrorism must also be approved by the Secretary of Defense.

It doesn't necessarily take the "immediate response" circumstance out of the picture, but it also doesn't make SkyEagle wrong, and would seem to be dependant upon whether the incidents that day had been officially deemed "terrorist attacks" at the time the decision(s) were made. And while it seems that the "immediate response" exception would take precidence over requests that require Presidential approval, there is nothing in 3025.1 that deals with the authorization to use deadly force against civilians, aside from the following blanket definition

E2.1.18. Immediate Response. Any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander, under the authority of this Directive and any supplemental guidance prescribed by the Head of a DoD Component, to assist civil authorities or the public to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions occurring where there has not been any declaration of major disaster or emergency by the President or attack.

and this list of priorities:

4.9. Emergency Priorities. When guidance cannot be obtained from higher headquarters on a timely basis, due to attack on the United States or other emergency circumstances, the DoD Components should apply DoD resources to MSCA in the following order of priority:

4.9.1. To save human life and mitigate human suffering, a

nd to protect essential U.S. Government capabilities

, including:

4.9.1.1. Continuity of the U.S. Government.

4.9.1.2. Protection of U.S. Government officials.

4.9.1.3. Prevention of loss or destruction to Federal property.

4.9.1.4. Restoration of essential Federal functions.

4.9.2. To preserve or restore services of State and local government.

My emphasis added. But is that enough to justify deadly force against US civilians...?

Your mistake is not recognizing the fact the Secretary of Defense is not authorized to order shootdowns over CONUS and do so over the head of the President of the United States.

The document that Q has provided specifically refers to "actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States". This is “special aircraft jurisdiction” defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2) as follows:

In this chapter—

(1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding—

( A ) through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or

( B ) until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft.

(2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight:

( A ) a civil aircraft of the United States.

( B ) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States.

( C ) another aircraft in the United States.

( D ) another aircraft outside the United States—

(i) that has its next scheduled destination or last place of departure in the United States, if the aircraft next lands in the United States;

(ii) on which an individual commits an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) if the aircraft lands in the United States with the individual still on the aircraft; or

(iii) against which an individual commits an offense (as defined in subsection (d) or (e) of article I, section I of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation) if the aircraft lands in the United States with the individual still on the aircraft.

( E ) any other aircraft leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business is in the United States or, if the lessee does not have a principal place of business, whose permanent residence is in the United States.

So... as mentioned above, there are some instances where Presidential approval is needed before military action can be taken or requested, but outside of those few instances or instances where "immediate response" is required, the Secretary of Defense is the go-to person, and based upon the stated definition, UA93 was definitely within the “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States". However, there is nothing in the document that defines who is responsible for issuing the "shoot-down" order, or if deadly force against US civilians is justified in an "immediate response" circumstance.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

Provide a source for that which would override the DoD directives and show the 9/11 Commission opinion, “It is possible”, all as set out in my last post, to be incorrect.

I will do better than that. Here are communication tapes on United 93, which shows the shoot down order was not issued until after United 93 crashed. The order was issued by President Bush and passed on down the chain-of-command. Click on the areas relating to United 93 and note that at 10:09 AM, there was no shootdown order issued.

10:09 AM1 minute, 57 seconds

"The fighter pilots do not know if they have permission to shoot down planes. A commander tells them they do not. (Warning: profanity at the end of the clip)"

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

At 10:32 AM, you will notice these words:

"The Region Com, the Region Commander has declared that we can shoot down aircraft that do not respond to our direction. Copy that?"

You will also notice the words; "negative clearance to fire."

**** the code words, that’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire, ID, type, tail. (they are only to identify the type and tail number of the plane).

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

Edited December 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[turbonium]

I will make it easy. Who is the Commander-in-Chief?

FORMER US President George W Bush has spoken emotionally about the agony of living through the 9/11 terrorist attrocity and feeling powerless to save the lives of his people.

He has also relived the moment he thought his order to shoot down any commercial airliner that refused to land had led to further loss of innocent lives.

Bush also relived the moment he saw the first plane hit the tower - live on TV!!

His handlers must have cringed in sheer agony!

Feeling powerless to save him from saying it again!

He exposed 9/11 as an inside job with his flubberoo. Being that he's an utter moron, it's hardly a surprise.

Suppose it's just an honest mistake in 'reliving' it? No way.

The timeline is only valid if he saw it live. In his limo.

But the clincher is saying how he first thought it was some kind of accident, it must've been a terrible pilot.

If he didn't see it live, he would not make up such a story. He was told about the second plane, that it was no accident.

A terrible pilot. He saw it live on the school's TV set !!

Why oh why anyone buys this garbage.... is simply baffling

[frenat]

Bush also relived the moment he saw the first plane hit the tower - live on TV!!

His handlers must have cringed in sheer agony!

Feeling powerless to save him from saying it again!

He exposed 9/11 as an inside job with his flubberoo. Being that he's an utter moron, it's hardly a surprise.

Suppose it's just an honest mistake in 'reliving' it? No way.

The timeline is only valid if he saw it live. In his limo.

But the clincher is saying how he first thought it was some kind of accident, it must've been a terrible pilot.

If he didn't see it live, he would not make up such a story. He was told about the second plane, that it was no accident.

A terrible pilot. He saw it live on the school's TV set !!

Why oh why anyone buys this garbage.... is simply baffling

That, or you assume he spoke perfectly when he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower. Nah, much better for you to assume he needed a live feed of everything right? He probably steered it in himself? Hilarious that you call him an utter moron but at the same time want him to be the indispensible mastermind of the operation.

Edited December 22, 2012 by frenat

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Thanks for the various pictures of the heat-seeking missle damage to various aircraft. My point was that such missle damage is seldom fatal, and especially with wing mounted engines.

Back in the days of the Korean and Vietnam wars with single engine fighters, yes the damage was almost always fatal. But with newer designs, with engines mounted off center line, not so much.

Ditto with the fabulous 93. If it took a missle, those skillful pilots could have flown it on forever, or at least to its mythical target in Washington DC.

There is no proof a Boeing was in Shanksville, shot down or otherwise.

Q engages in one of his very rare flights of fantasy, claiming it was shot down.

[skyeagle409]

Bush also relived the moment he saw the first plane hit the tower - live on TV!!

His handlers must have cringed in sheer agony!

Feeling powerless to save him from saying it again!

What did he say?

He exposed 9/11 as an inside job with his flubberoo. Being that he's an utter moron, it's hardly a surprise.

No he didn't, because 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Thanks for the various pictures of the heat-seeking missle damage to various aircraft. My point was that such missle damage is seldom fatal, and especially with wing mounted engines.

Back in the days of the Korean and Vietnam wars with single engine fighters, yes the damage was almost always fatal. But with newer designs, with engines mounted off center line, not so much.

Ditto with the fabulous 93. If it took a missle, those skillful pilots could have flown it on forever, or at least to its mythical target in Washington DC.

There is no proof a Boeing was in Shanksville, shot down or otherwise.

First of all, I knew that United 93 was not shot down. Secondly, people got the wrong idea that all air force fighter pilots are trained to intercept and shoot down airliners, but they thought wrong. Not all fighter pilots are trained to shoot down large aircraft and some pilots involved in flying CAP over Washington D.C., were not trained either.

Large aircraft have backup systems and backup systems for the backup systems and can sustain massive damage and continue to fly and if all engines are lost a good pilot can glide the aircraft to a landing if in range of an airport. I might add the C-5, which was struck by that missile, was from my base (Travis AFB, CA).

The field near Shanksville is where wreckage from United 93 and human remains from passengers and crew of United 93 were recovered. In addition, radar tracked United 93 to the crash site whereas, American 1060 confirmed smoke rising from that location.

Q engages in one of his very rare flights of fantasy, claiming it was shot down.

He seem to think that any F-16 pilot could have jumped into his aircraft and intercepted United 93 on his own, but he hasn't a clue on what it takes to intercept an aircraft. First of all, how would the pilot have known which aircraft was hijacked? How would the pilot have known the location of the hijacked aircraft in the first place? Who would have provided vectors for the pilot in the absence of a shootdown order?

Edited December 22, 2012 by skyeagle409