1810 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Chezarelli

The Pentagon itself is not specifically protected, but the White House is protected by restricted airspace, P 56 as depicted on all navigation charts.

I'm not sure of the exact distance, but looking at a chart, the Pentagon is very close to P56.  It's been common knowledge for many years that the White House IS protected by SAM and other measures.

While your details are off a tiny bit, your larger point is valid.  Like every other part of the US air defenses that day, the defenses for P56 were "on vacation" and never called into actions.

But hey, the government says it was somebody else, and the government never lies.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 June 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Chezarelli

The Pentagon itself is not specifically protected, but the White House is protected by restricted airspace, P 56 as depicted on all navigation charts.

I'm not sure of the exact distance, but looking at a chart, the Pentagon is very close to P56.  It's been common knowledge for many years that the White House IS protected by SAM and other measures.

While your details are off a tiny bit, your larger point is valid.  Like every other part of the US air defenses that day, the defenses for P56 were "on vacation" and never called into actions.

But hey, the government says it was somebody else, and the government never lies.

Of course it was somebody else. After all, the United States received warnings from other countries that foreign terrorist were in the process of carrying out their attacks and on 9/11/2001, those foreign terrorist did just that.

[chezarelli]

Thanks Forum knew their was some kind of defence systems in place i still believe both air spaces
are heavily monitored tho pentagon being a command hub would have to warrant this.It does show
you guys are prepared to use this type of weapon system

[skyeagle409]

chezarelli, on 21 June 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

Thanks Forum knew their was some kind of defence systems in place i still believe both air spaces
are heavily monitored tho pentagon being a command hub would have to warrant this.It does show
you guys are prepared to use this type of weapon system

Sometimes, things don't always go as planned.

Quote

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House. No one tried to stop it.

Administration officials, who pieced together the flight path, said that the Secret Service agents stationed outside the South Portico had only seconds to scramble out of the way as the two-seat, propeller-driven Cessna 150, its power apparently shut off and only its wing lights on, came straight at them.

http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm


Radar Detected Airplane before White House Crash

The plane that slammed against the White House early Monday morning had been detected by radar at National Airport minutes before the crash, according to federal investigators who are trying to determine why Secret Service officers guarding the mansion weren't warned of the aircraft's approach.

Frank Eugene Corder, 38, a student pilot with a history of alcohol and drug abuse, stole the single-engine Cessna from an airfield north of Baltimore and died in the crash, officials said. Initial interviews with associates of Corder suggest the crash was intentional, federal officials said, but they said they did not believe it was politically motivated.

FBI and Secret Service investigators plan to pore over Federal Aviation Administration records to determine what the FAA's radar showed, whether it seemed to indicate a potential threat, and what was done with the information, federal sources said.

http://tech.mit.edu/.../crash.40w.html

As you can see, intelligence blunders are nothing new.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 June 2012 - 10:07 PM.

[MID]

chezarelli, on 21 June 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

You don't  think its protected air space? or they have the ability to destroy a threat what the hell
has a international airport have to do with protected airspace .Its not a no fly zone it has many
military protocols associated with its existence as a primary command center.The white house
has similar defenses the fact they are in built up areas does not deter the government from
protecting national land marks.All aircraft have transponders that tell them exactly where they
should be hence an airport can exist in close proximity.The pentagon wont send me the
schematics sorry .The preferred plan of attack is interception by fighters which also seemed
to of failed on that day

Chez,

Your knowledge relating to restricted DC airspace is limited.
The Pentagon isn't actually covered by area P-56.  That area encompasses the White house and the Vice President's residences.
There is no "plan of attack" for incursions into that airspace.  , It's generally a report with a radar plot which will get the pilot some remedial action sent his way, and likely a meeting with thr Secret Service...but no shooting down and no intercepts.

This, there could've been no failure of the supposedly agressive plan you mentioned, since the Pentagon isn't in that restricted airspace,  the aircraft's transponder had been cut off before 09:00 that day, and there was no plan for such an event.

You seem to think that fighters should've been dispatched to intercept the plane?

And do what?
Escort them to Andrews, or DCA?
Shoot it down over populated areas?

This whole thing just gets a little crazy.

[MID]

Think about it folks:

An airliner gets hijacked and flown to DC, only to circle around and slam into the Pentagon.
No real good radar contact...not much of anything.

Indeed, nothing like it had ever happened, anywhere.

What sort of plan do you devise for the unthinkable, and for that which there's never been any data on, or  profile on?
Should they have dispatched fighters?  To do what again?
Or fired those SAM missiles at the craft, exploding a jetliner over DC?

How do you plan for something unspeakable and never before seen anywhere like 9-11 was?

[Babe Ruth]

You're right MID that some of the details get crazy, and that's when one must step back in hopes of seeing the proverbial big picture.  Step back from the detail, and consider the big picture, or at least bigger picture.

And I've seen pictures of young USAF officers around a large table top model of the pentagon, smiling for the camera.  Being a former ROTC candidate, I could relate to the posed photo.

Planning a HYPOTHETICAL and academic attack on the Pentagon, for defensive purposes is what they were doing.  It's the military way of doing things, and I went through it for a few years.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

You're right MID that some of the details get crazy, and that's when one must step back in hopes of seeing the proverbial big picture.  Step back from the detail, and consider the big picture, or at least bigger picture.

And I've seen pictures of young USAF officers around a large table top model of the pentagon, smiling for the camera.  Being a former ROTC candidate, I could relate to the posed photo.

Planning a HYPOTHETICAL and academic attack on the Pentagon, for defensive purposes is what they were doing.  It's the military way of doing things, and I went through it for a few years.

Sure.  Been there done that.
But I never knew anyone, from Bird Colonel to ROTC candidate who could've conceived of 9-11.

What's tyour idea of the "big or bigger picture"?

[Babe Ruth]

Bigger picture of ALL the evidence, not just the evidence displayed at the commission hearings.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Bigger picture of ALL the evidence, not just the evidence displayed at the commission hearings.

Yes, there's obviously something gathwered by official investigative bodies which wasn't presented at the official investigative hearings.
Why would that be, and what was it?

[DONTEATUS]

THis seems like a Short Buss thread !  WHat part of Airliners Hitting the Ground,Buildings is hard to understand? THere were no Bomb`s ,No Aliens, No Cruise weapons ! THe bad guys got us  that day Planes and simple!
WHy dont you all Listen to What Mid`s Saying ?

[Babe Ruth]

I am listening to what he's saying Don, adjust your glasses.

I'm listening and commenting, just like you.  I'm suggesting that the Zelikow Commission, or whatever one chooses to call it, did not see all the evidence.  It was spoonfed evidence.  Everybody knows it, and most of the participants talked about it on TV.

The art form is in interpretation of evidence, not the exclusion of evidence.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I am listening to what he's saying Don, adjust your glasses.

I'm listening and commenting, just like you.  I'm suggesting that the Zelikow Commission, or whatever one chooses to call it, did not see all the evidence.  It was spoonfed evidence.  Everybody knows it, and most of the participants talked about it on TV.

If that is the case, where is your evidence that not all of the evidence was seen or was spoofed? You are making claims that you are not providing evidence for.

[Babe Ruth]

It is beyond your perception and your comprehension Sky.  You deny anything that does not fit in with your view of the OCT.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 01 July 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

It is beyond your perception and your comprehension Sky.  You deny anything that does not fit in with your view of the OCT.

On the contrary,  the fact that you lack evidence has closed the case on your argument and the available evidence has sealed the lid in that respect.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 July 2012 - 02:31 PM.