990 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Only Wikipedia says the Payne Stewart intercept took more than an hour.

The original NTSB report made it clear that the first intercept way by an A-10 out of Tyndall, along the Georgia-Alabama line.

That  took no more than 20 minutes or so after the Lear went "no commo" and the FAA called in the military.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 05 October 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Only Wikipedia says the Payne Stewart intercept took more than an hour.

The original NTSB report made it clear that the first intercept way by an A-10 out of Tyndall, along the Georgia-Alabama line.

That  took no more than 20 minutes or so after the Lear went "no commo" and the FAA called in the military.

you're going to have to provide proof for that one (you can't).  First of all there were no A-10's involved.  A-10s don't fly out of Tyndall.  I know as I used to be stationed there.  At that time they had F-15s only (they have F-22s now and no F-15s) and NONE were dedicated to air defense.  It is a training base.
Secondly, the NTSB report makes it clear that it was well over an hour before ANY jet reached Stewart.
http://web.archive.o...000/AAB0001.htm
you can see for yourself in the link above the last communication was at 9:33 EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) and it wasn't until 9:54 CDT (Central Daylight Time, 1 hour 21 minutes later) that the first jet was within 200 feet of Stewart's and that jet wasn't even armed, it was already airborne for a training mission.  NORAD wasn't even notified until 9:55 (again Eastern) more than 20 minutes after last contact and 19 minutes after the plane was considered an emergency.  No possible way they could have A-10s intercept (they weren't involved at all) within 20 minutes when NORAD didn't even know yet.
http://www.911myths....p/Payne_Stewart
There was some confusion on various sites because of the change of time zones but all that means is some journalist can't tell time.

Edited by frenat, 05 October 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

I don't expect you to believe it Frenat, but that's how it happened.

We both know they do TDY aircraft at Tyndall and probably every other military installation in the country.  That there are no A-10s BASED there DOES NOT MEAN that some were not there for some reason or the other.

Wikipedia has scrubbed or otherwise edited the story.  Back when the NTSB report first came out, myself and several interested friends went over it and analyzed it.  The A-10 was bingo fuel and could not stay long, but did get a fairly close visual.

If you calculate the time it take a Lear to depart MCO, climb and navigate normally for about 20 minutes or more, then go "no commo" for 15 or 20 minutes steady heading, that's about where he's going to line up.

This never became an issue until those protecting the OCT became embarrassed by the Stewart incident showing how quickly and efficiently the system COULD RESPOND.  That, with the confusion regarding the CDT and EDT times involved in the record, led to an eventual editing of the story, thanks to Wikipedia.  As you know, the Georgia-Alabama line, the site of the first intercept, is also the line between the 2 time zones.

Convert all times to Zulu, and the math works out perfectly.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 05 October 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't expect you to believe it Frenat, but that's how it happened.

We both know they do TDY aircraft at Tyndall and probably every other military installation in the country.  That there are no A-10s BASED there DOES NOT MEAN that some were not there for some reason or the other.

Wikipedia has scrubbed or otherwise edited the story.  Back when the NTSB report first came out, myself and several interested friends went over it and analyzed it.  The A-10 was bingo fuel and could not stay long, but did get a fairly close visual.

If you calculate the time it take a Lear to depart MCO, climb and navigate normally for about 20 minutes or more, then go "no commo" for 15 or 20 minutes steady heading, that's about where he's going to line up.

This never became an issue until those protecting the OCT became embarrassed by the Stewart incident showing how quickly and efficiently the system COULD RESPOND.  That, with the confusion regarding the CDT and EDT times involved in the record, led to an eventual editing of the story, thanks to Wikipedia.  As you know, the Georgia-Alabama line, the site of the first intercept, is also the line between the 2 time zones.

Convert all times to Zulu, and the math works out perfectly.

So in other words you have no evidence for your made up story and the NTSB report that you said backed you up does the opposite and you still stick to your BS.  And of course no explanation for the FACT that your " no more than 20 minutes or so" for the intercept is about the time it took to even CONTACT the military. At the very least you could TRY to find some evidence to support your story.  You could look up your supposed wikipedia article on the internet archive.  Even if it was changed later it would still exist there.  But we all know you won't don't we?

I remember when the CTs started bring up Payne Stewart as their supposed example that it should have happened faster and I looked at the NTSB report then.  It has not changed.  

Even more references that DON'T back you up
http://www.ntsb.gov/...000/AAB0001.pdf
http://web.archive.o...wayward.jet.07/
This article from 1999 doesn't mention A-10s at all
http://web.archive.o...e_ap/index.html
and another
http://www.washingto...t99/crash26.htm
And another
http://web.archive.o...wayward.jet.07/
Notice the dates of those articles and when the internet archive scanned them (for those that are on the archive) and notice NONE of them mention an A-10 or contradict the timing.  You're wrong.

Edited by frenat, 05 October 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Necessity is the mother of invention.  BR and others need this conspiracy to be real so they invent the evidence as they go.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 05 October 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Only Wikipedia says the Payne Stewart intercept took more than an hour.

It was more than an hour after contact was lost.

Quote

The original NTSB report made it clear that the first intercept way by an A-10 out of Tyndall, along the Georgia-Alabama line.

Let's take a look at that report.

Quote

About 0952 CDT, a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air
Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of
2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,

Quote

That  took no more than 20 minutes or so after the Lear went "no commo" and the FAA called in the military.

There was no contact with the Learjet at 0933:38 EDT. At 0952 CDT (1052 EDT) more than an hour later, "a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air
Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA."

Once again, you have made a serious blunder for not differentiating between  EDT and CDT, and real pilots would have known the difference as well. And another thing, the A-10 is not the right aircraft  to use to intercept a Learjet at 46,400 feet.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

How strange then that NORAD appeared to accept it was their responsibility to intercept the hijacked aircraft on the morning of 9/11, and had the necessary procedures in place to react and immediately did so.  Of course it was NORAD’s responsibility to protect America from internal threats even prior to 9/11.

How long did it take to intercept he LearJet carrying golfer, Payne Stewart? It took over an hour after contact was lost for an F-16 to intercept his aircraft.

Quote

No, it is not interpretation that the CIA had two of the future hijackers under close surveillance for their connection to Al Qaeda and involvement in the USS Cole attack, were aware of their illegal presence in the United States and took deliberate and forceful action to prevent the FBI, who were aware of the danger and complained greatly of their hands being tied with coming of the Bush administration, from ending the threat.  It is not interpretation that a Saudi government agent met the future hijackers inside the United States, assisted with opening bank accounts and putting them in contact with flight schools, before passing them on to live in the accommodation of a United States intelligence informant (even kindly paying an advance on the hijackers’ rent).

The only real interpretation I see here, a ludicrous one at that, is your baseless hope that it was all some sort of intelligence accident; a big 'oopsie', rather than deliberate intent, which it would have taken a single order to implement, such as from head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, who we know held daily briefings with Bush and Cheney.

Perhaps, we should take a look here.

Quote

CIA Report Blames Tenet for 9/ll Failure

Former CIA director George Tenet "bears ultimate responsibility" for failing to create a strategic plan to stop al Qaeda prior to 9/ll, according to a review by the CIA’s inspector general that was made public today, more than two years after it was written. The report says that while Tenet wrote he wanted "no resources or people spared" in going after al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, neither he, nor his deputy, "followed up these warnings...

http://abcnews.go.co...ia-report-blam/


The Intelligence Community and 9/11: Congressional Hearings and the Status of the Investigation

Committee Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations and Additional Views of the Vice Chairman

On December 10, 2002, the two intelligence committees released a series of
findings, conclusions, and recommendations pending release of a complete report
when security review is completed. In addition, Senator Shelby, the Vice Chairman
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made public an extensive statement of his
additional views. These documents are available on the web site of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.

In large measure, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations are consistent
with Ms. Hill’s earlier public assessments. The findings emphasize that no agency
had information on the time, place, or specific nature of the attacks. They describe,
however, specific information that was available to agencies and “that appears
relevant to the events of September 11” but was not fully exploited. The findings
further suggested systemic weaknesses of intelligence and law enforcement
communities: an absence of emphasis on the counterterrorist mission, a decline in
funding, limited use of information technology, poor inter-agency coordination,
insufficient analytic focus and quality, and inadequate human intelligence. Above
all, there was a lack of a government-wide strategy for acquiring and analyzing
intelligence and for acting on it to eliminate or reduce terrorist threats.

On the basis of these findings, the two intelligence committees made a number
of recommendations, including the creation of a Cabinet-level position of Director
of National Intelligence, separate from the position of Director of the CIA, who
would establish priorities for collection, analysis, and dissemination throughout the
Intelligence Community and manage and oversee the execution of Intelligence
Community budgets. Also included was a recommendation calling for a
government-wide strategy for combating terrorism prepared by the NSC with an
intelligence component prepared by the Director of National Intelligence.

A number of recommendations centered on the newly-established Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), which should become “an effective all-source
terrorism information fusion center that will dramatically improve the focus and
quality of counterterrorism analysis and facilitate the timely dissemination of relevant
intelligence information, both within and beyond the boundaries of the Intelligence

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31650.pdf

In other words, there was never evidence of a government 9/11 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 October 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[RaptorBites]

skyeagle409, on 05 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Once again, you have made a serious blunder for not differentiating between  EDT and CDT, and real pilots would have known the difference as well. And another thing, the A-10 is not the right aircraft  to use to intercept a Learjet at 46,400 feet.

Exactly!!

The A-10 Warthog is not designed as a air to air intercept aircraft.

Whatever gave anyone that idea?!?!?!?!?

[frenat]

RaptorBites, on 05 October 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Exactly!!

The A-10 Warthog is not designed as a air to air intercept aircraft.

Whatever gave anyone that idea?!?!?!?!?

Yep, not an air-to-air fighter (not even a fighter), not good at that altitude (if it could even make it there), doesn't even have the speed.  A Lear would run circles around it.

And while it is possible it could have been TDY to Tyndall it is highly unlikely as Tyndall is an air to air training base.  Units go TDY to Tyndall to train air-to-air in the massive over water airspaces in the gulf and to train with the F-22s located there (and formerly the F-15s).  Even IF they were TDY in the area they would be far more likely to be stationg at Eglin AFB which is just a little more than an hour down the road and already has A-10s and the infrastructure to support them.  Further, in my total 4 years stationed at Tyndall I never saw an A-10 there for TDY unless it was for an airshow.  Add all of that to the fact that there is no documentation of an A-10 being involved and it is yet another way that BR has stuck his foot in his mouth.

[booNyzarC]

One might think that an actual pilot would be aware of these things.  

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 05 October 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't expect you to believe it Frenat, but that's how it happened.

We both know they do TDY aircraft at Tyndall and probably every other military installation in the country.  That there are no A-10s BASED there DOES NOT MEAN that some were not there for some reason or the other.

Wikipedia has scrubbed or otherwise edited the story.  Back when the NTSB report first came out, myself and several interested friends went over it and analyzed it.  The A-10 was bingo fuel and could not stay long, but did get a fairly close visual.

If you calculate the time it take a Lear to depart MCO, climb and navigate normally for about 20 minutes or more, then go "no commo" for 15 or 20 minutes steady heading, that's about where he's going to line up.

This never became an issue until those protecting the OCT became embarrassed by the Stewart incident showing how quickly and efficiently the system COULD RESPOND.  That, with the confusion regarding the CDT and EDT times involved in the record, led to an eventual editing of the story, thanks to Wikipedia.  As you know, the Georgia-Alabama line, the site of the first intercept, is also the line between the 2 time zones.

Convert all times to Zulu, and the math works out perfectly.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

One might think that an actual pilot would be aware of these things.  

I heard that!!

Not knowing the difference between time zones could activate a missing aircraft alert.

[skyeagle409]

RaptorBites, on 05 October 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Exactly!!

The A-10 Warthog is not designed as a air to air intercept aircraft.

Whatever gave anyone that idea?!?!?!?!?

It is a mystery to me as well?!

[Babe Ruth]

I might be wrong about the A-10 out of Tyndall, Frenat, but notice that the Washington Post article you linked to also mentions Tyndall and 2 F-16's that didn't get there, and that story claims it was an F-15 out of Eglin that made the first intercept.

So my memory does not serve me too badly, after all these years.

The point of contention is the time frame.  It took the Lear about 50 minutes after takeoff to get to Eufala, the time zone split.  So somewhere in that 50 minute window, of which about half was under normal procedures, the FAA and the military responded to the crisis aircraft.  It was not an hour 50, but just 50 after takeoff.



Gotta go right now, but I'll get back with you.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 05 October 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I might be wrong about the A-10 out of Tyndall, Frenat, but notice that the Washington Post article you linked to also mentions Tyndall and 2 F-16's that didn't get there, and that story claims it was an F-15 out of Eglin that made the first intercept.

So my memory does not serve me too badly, after all these years.

The point of contention is the time frame.  It took the Lear about 50 minutes after takeoff to get to Eufala, the time zone split.  So somewhere in that 50 minute window, of which about half was under normal procedures, the FAA and the military responded to the crisis aircraft.  It was not an hour 50, but just 50 after takeoff.



Gotta go right now, but I'll get back with you.

I've never disagreed about Tyndall (though the article is wrong, the F-16 was from Eglin per the NTSB report, you know the one you said backed you up and didn't), just your ludicrous suggestion that A-10s were involved or the timing.  You'll never just admit you were wrong though will you?  It was well over an hour after communication was lost that the first intercept occurred.  That has been proven.  You'll never believe it but it is true and always has been.  No articles say the intercept occurred over Eufaula either.  So it doesn't matter how long it took the Lear to get there as that isn't where the intercept occurred.  the only thing that happened at about 50 minutes after takeoff was when the F-16's (that didn't get to the Lear) were asked to try.  It was an hour after that when the first F-15 got to the Lear.  Also worth noting is the F-16 was ALREADY AIRBORNE.  IF the timing from the Washington Post article is correct (and I don't immediately see why it couldn't be) and the military asked the pilot of the F-16 at 10:08 (Eastern) and it wasn't within 8 miles until 952 (Central) then the intercept still took 44 minutes with an aircraft that was already airborne.  Not really looking good for your side.

Edited by frenat, 05 October 2012 - 09:06 PM.