Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Pulsar_J

911

991 posts in this topic

Dropped the ball is putting it very lightly.... seeing as NORAD was on a stand down, and told not to do anything or intercept the aircraft in question

No stand down. That is a myth.

http://video.google....516028875682825

What transpired on 9/10 could be the very reason why the pentagon was hit.....

Apparently the area of the Pentagon that was hit had computer's/record's of such information that shed light on the missing money, and could be the reason why

Because government computers NEVER have backups. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provide evidence implicating the United States in the 9/11 attacks please! No evidence, and you have no case! :no:

^^Weaker sauce.

There is NO case to be made against the "United States"...you're being obtuse.

Now, a case against individual criminal actors is quite another matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it was known before 911 that the various intelligence agencies had communications issues when communicating between each other. But that doesn't count right?

I am not stating that there is no communication issues between department's/agencie's....

No stand down. That is a myth.

If that is a myth as You state, then why did they not do anything ?

Because government computers NEVER have backups. :rolleyes:

The computer's may have had back up's....

But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not stating that there is no communication issues between department's/agencie's....

Then they're not as good as you think they are, are they?

If that is a myth as You state, then why did they not do anything ?

They did. How quickly do you think they can respond to a threat INSIDE the nation when NORAD previously only looked outward and previous intercepts took well over an hour (Payne Stewart)?

The computer's may have had back up's....

But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility

So your theory is they had all their backups in the same room (laughable) and everything was destroyed for a problem that nobody knew about until they brought it up in the first place? Do you have any idea how absurd that all sounds?

Edited by frenat
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What transpired on 9/10 could be the very reason why the pentagon was hit.....

Assuming here that you're talking about Rumsfeld mentioning that $2.3 trillion in transactions cannot be tracked during his speech on Sept. 10, 2001:

This has been discussed several times before.

First of all, notice that I said "cannot be tracked" not "lost", "missing" or "stolen" because "we cannot track" is actually what Rumsfeld said. There were a multitude of different accounting systems used between departments, and a lot of times those different systems were incompatible. Due to this incompatibility, some transactions could not be tracked properly. While they knew the money was spent and it was accounted for, they couldn't trace the transactions properly / easily. This is what Rumsfeld was addressing during his 9/10 speech.

Here is the relevant excerpt from that speech:

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....

http://www.defense.g...px?speechid=430

Second, it was known for at least a year and a half before 9/11 that those problems existed between the various department and that there were transactions that could not be properly tracked.

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY

The Associated Press

03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.

http://hv.greenspun....l?msg_id=002hxm

July 11th 2001

Testimony before the House Budget Committee on the FY 2002 Defense Budget

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI): ... I find it interesting, and we've done a lot of work on another committee that I sit on, taking a look at the Department of Education, which, for the last three years hasn't been able to get a clean audit. Then I understand that the Department of Defense shares many of the same problems that we have with the Department of Education. I think the IG just notes that in one of the audits that you went through of the 1999 financial statements included adjustments of $7.6 trillion -- that's trillion -- in account adjustments, of which 2.3 trillion were supported by un -- by reliable documents -- were unsupported by reliable documentation.

http://www.defense.g...px?speechid=408

There are more sources available from before 9/11 that show that this problem was known and acknowledged, that the funds were not "stolen" or even "missing", but were improperly tacked.

Apparently the area of the Pentagon that was hit had computer's/record's of such information that shed light on the missing money, and could be the reason why

Quoting from the 911Myths.com "Missing Trillions" page:

We still have the supposed motive of "destroying information" and "killing personnel" with the Pentagon attack, though. As we were told above, "the impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." CooperativeResearch report on the consequences of this:
The Department of the Army will state that it won’t publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of “the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.” [insight, 4/29/2002]

http://www.cooperati...01defensebudget

What did the lack of "a stand-alone financial statement for 2001" mean? No need to guess, the military have already told us.

The “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,” Public Law 101-576, November 15, 1990, as amended by the “Federal Financial Management Act of 1994,” Public Law 103-356, October 13, 1994, requires the annual preparation and audit of financial statements. The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the September 11 terrorist attack. Therefore, we did not audit Army financial information for FY 2001 financial statements. However, Army financial statement information was included in the DoD FY 2001 Agency-Wide Financial Statements.

http://www.dodig.mil...fy02/02-073.pdf

This, then, is the "benefit" of the Pentagon attack: Army financial statements for 2001 were only provided in an overall Department of Defence document, not stand-alone, and therefore they could not be audited. No reported impact on the $2.3 trillion, nothing more at all. We don't even know for sure if this information was released later, because the document only talks about a loss of personnel, not data: if so, the most effect (on the budget issue) the attacks had was to partially delay the production of one particular document from one part of the Department of Defence.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they're not as good as you think they are, are they?

Apparently they are NOT worth the money that they cost the American taxpayer....

Seeing as they knew of the attack and they was warned of it before it happened (apparently)

They did. How quickly do you think they can respond to a threat INSIDE the nation when NORAD previously only looked outward and previous intercepts took well over an hour (Payne Stewart)?

Is it not NORAD's job to defend North America in the case of attack where ever it may come from ?

As far as I am aware, NORAD did indeed respond, but could not do anything due to the Vice president telling them not to (as far as I am aware)

Prior to 9/11 in may of that year the rule's were changed about hijacking's and the military/NORAD could not respond without clearence from the President or Vice President (as far as I am aware)

So your theory is they had all their backups in the same room (laughable) and everything was destroyed for a problem that nobody knew about until they brought it up in the first place? Do you have any idea how absurd that all sounds?

It is not my theory, I stated that it was a possibility....

"But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility "

Why is it laughable ??? did they expect an attack to happen like what happened that day ? No ? then I do not see why such a thing is laughable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming here that you're talking about Rumsfeld mentioning that $2.3 trillion in transactions cannot be tracked during his speech on Sept. 10, 2001:

This has been discussed several times before.

Cz

Yes that is what I was referring to with the 9/10 comment....

I never stated that it was stolen or otherwise...

Just that it is a possibility of why the pentagon was hit during 9/11...

It doesnt really matter now what happened to the $2.3 trillion dolllar's, as it cannot be tracked anymore (as far as I am aware)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it not NORAD's job to defend North America in the case of attack where ever it may come from ?

Technically,yes, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that NORAD's responsibilities changed to include aircraft within the borders of the US and Canada, not just the monitoring of aircraft coming into North American airspace:

From NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Complex webpage:

The Air Warning Center (AWC) is the focal point for providing aerospace warning and aerospacecontrol for North America. It provides command and control of the air surveillance and defense network, using air and ground-based radars inside and along the periphery of North America. The AWC closely monitors the airspace of Canada and the United States to detect any aircraft or cruise missiles that might violate our airspace or represent a threat.

Approximately 7,000 aircraft per day or 2.5 million aircraft a year enter Canada and the United States. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the AWC's mission of Aerospace Warning and Aerospace Control has expanded to include the interior airspace of North America. Today, the AWC monitors approximately 5,000 aircraft flying inside Canada and the United States in addition to monitoring aircraft entering North America.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never stated that it was stolen or otherwise...

True, but typically when this issue is brought up it is in the context of or with the intent to show that the funds were indeed actually stolen or actually missing.

Just that it is a possibility of why the pentagon was hit during 9/11...

And evidence has been presented that shows that this is unlikely and would not have had any effect on the funds even if they have been "stolen"

It doesnt really matter now what happened to the $2.3 trillion dolllar's, as it cannot be tracked anymore (as far as I am aware)

Actually, it can be, and has been, at least as far back as Feb, 2002.

Quoting again from the 911Myths.com "Missing Trillions" page:

And there's another point that you might consider relevant. While most people act like the talk of an unaccounted-for $2.3 trillion is still accurate, that's not actually true. A February 2002 story reported that more than two thirds of that expenditure had now been reconciled:

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

By Gerry J. Gilmore

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.

"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded.

http://www.defense.g...e.aspx?id=43927 {correct, current link inserted - Cz}[/background]

Now p Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings. There's no clear reason given why the Bush adminstration would need to go to such efforts to conceal the problem, for instance. They didn't, either, and it was covered on several occasions before 9/11, so the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion again on 9/10 seems to have no special importance. While the Pentagon attack did have an effect on the production of some DoD financial statements, it's not clear how significant this was, and another report suggests the DoD is reducing the “missing” amounts by taking steps to improve its accounting procedures. It's hard to see how any of this constitutes foreknowledge, or a motive for the 9/11 attacks.

Again, evidence presented that shows that the funds were not missing or stolen or were a likely or feasible reason for the attacks on 9/11.

The three possibilitie's that I have posted are the only three thing's that I currently believe are possible due to the various numerous bit's of evidence that I have seen so far, if there is ANY evidence that contradict's my belief's then I will adjust my belief's/view's accordingly, due to evidence and nothing else

Does any of this evidence I have presented help in "adjusting your beliefs"...?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People would prefer to believe that agencies were incompetent (even though not a single head has rolled for their incompetence. i.e the CIA preventing the FBI from arresting the terrorists) rather than accept that people in positions of power allowed US citizens to be murdered for their own gain.

It has been shown time and time again that the US government has experimented on their own people with syphilis and other deadly illnesses, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. To say that the government would never kill its own citizens for its own benefit is directly contrary to the evidence of history.

Even in the last few weeks a government spokesman stated that a false flag attack on US warships (or a crisis initiation) in the Persian Gulf could be used as a reason to invade Iran to stop their nuclear program.

But of course, the US govt agencies couldn't have known anything about 9/11 before that horrific day...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, evidence presented that shows that the funds were not missing or stolen or were a likely or feasible reason for the attacks on 9/11.

Does any of this evidence I have presented help in "adjusting your beliefs"...?

Cz

While I do believe that it is a possibility why the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, I still believe that it is only a small part of the reason or possibility of why the whole 9/11 attack took place....

At the moment the evidence You have presented does not help in adjusting my belief's, it would be stupid of me not to investigate further, and as such I will be taking the evidence You provided into consideration

At this current time I still stand by the three possibilities of the 9/11 attack's, that I posted previously...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a bit of an Edit Fail just now... my fault for editing so close to the end of the one hour limit.

Anyway...

Now p Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings.

from my above post should read

"Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings."

and the article excerpt just prior to that should be in its own quote box (which is what I was trying to fix when the hour limit expired... )

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People would prefer to believe that agencies were incompetent (even though not a single head has rolled for their incompetence. i.e the CIA preventing the FBI from arresting the terrorists) rather than accept that people in positions of power allowed US citizens to be murdered for their own gain.

There is no evidence implicating the United States and in fact, such incompetence and turf fighting between the FBI and the CIA is nothing new to us and has been going for years before the 9/11 attacks. Seems to me that 9/11 conspiracist were unaware of that fact.

It has been shown time and time again that the US government has experimented on their own people with syphilis and other deadly illnesses, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. To say that the government would never kill its own citizens for its own benefit is directly contrary to the evidence of history.

Not in the case of the 9/11 attacks, and it seems the. 9/11 conspiracist have been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Even in the last few weeks a government spokesmanstated that a false flag attack on US warships (or a crisis initiation) in the Persian Gulf could be used as a reason to invade Iran to stop their nuclear program.

I don't think so. The USS Cole was attacked and we didn't go to war.

USS_Cole_%28DDG-67%29_Departs.jpg

The USS Stark was damaged in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi jet and we didn't go to war over that incident.

800px-USS_Stark.jpg

The USS Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine and we didn't go to war.

800px-Ffg58minedamage2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they are NOT worth the money that they cost the American taxpayer....

Seeing as they knew of the attack and they was warned of it before it happened (apparently)

No argument there. They are good at some things and not so good at others, just like EVERYTHING else in the world.

Is it not NORAD's job to defend North America in the case of attack where ever it may come from ?

They did. However, they traditionally looked for threats from outside the US (didn't I say that already?) and because of that were unprepared for a threat from within. Their radars looked outward and they had to rely on civilian ATC to get info from within. They also had to relay their communications through civilian channels. But there was no stand down.

As far as I am aware, NORAD did indeed respond, but could not do anything due to the Vice president telling them not to (as far as I am aware)

You're aware wrong.

Prior to 9/11 in may of that year the rule's were changed about hijacking's and the military/NORAD could not respond without clearence from the President or Vice President (as far as I am aware)

You're aware wrong.

http://www.911myths....charge_of_NORAD

It is not my theory, I stated that it was a possibility....

"But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility "

Why is it laughable ??? did they expect an attack to happen like what happened that day ? No ? then I do not see why such a thing is laughable

Why is it laughable that a networked computer system that undergoes regular backups across the network stored its backups in the same room as the offices? Most likely that the network for those offices was not even near those offices. The backups by design would be in different parts of the building. That's why.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, according to facts on the ground, and this is another case where you’ve come out with a pointless off the cuff response without taking onboard the information I've provided. Yes, elements of U.S. and foreign intelligence assisted the 9/11 hijackers, who even beforehand were known Al Qaeda linked terrorists, there's no doubt about it. People only need research the comments and movements of FBI agent Steve Bongardt, Congressman Bob Graham, Saudi operative Omar al-Bayoumi and hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar to confirm these actions.

Yes according to you. Or rather, according to your interpretation of the facts on the ground. Forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the same conspiratorial conclusions that you have from the same facts, but I have the impression that intelligence operations can be messy and unpredictable. Intelligence assets probably don't always do what you expect them to do and could be playing you as much as you might be trying to play them. Just linking names isn't enough to condemn. It is the job of people in the intelligence business to interact and intertwine with terrorist suspects in order to gather more intelligence and develop deeper ties of trust. It's quite a game of cat and mouse and the cat can get their nose caught in the mousetrap while the mouse gets away.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I have the impression that intelligence operations can be messy and unpredictable.

:innocent:

(ps...I agree with what you say in your post...)

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically,yes, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that NORAD's responsibilities changed to include aircraft within the borders of the US and Canada, not just the monitoring of aircraft coming into North American airspace:

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. That is why even back in July 2001 the Amalgam Virgo 02 exercise was planned to simulate multiple internal airliner hijackings. It is all a bit of a defensive myth propagated by official story adherents that NORAD were not poised to respond on 9/11, likewise that claim that it was a unimagined attack – it was nothing of the sort when we look at the previous comments, exercises, documents and intelligence warnings on record.

I would go so far as to say NORAD’s response was admirable given the fast pace with which the hijackings unfolded and the one road block they encountered. The first two crashes into the WTC occurred too fast, fighters were on route and at the scene shortly after, but no procedures could have prevented those attacks. The third crash, into the Pentagon, could have been intercepted had NORAD’s clear request for coverage over Washington been followed, but there was a communications breakdown... or conceivably an order override... in the chain of command, meaning that fighters headed in the wrong direction (this was unacceptable, though no fault of NORAD). The fourth crash, that of Flight 93... there is strong evidence to suggest that fighters under NORAD control got that one.

Yes according to you. Or rather, according to your interpretation of the facts on the ground. Forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the same conspiratorial conclusions that you have from the same facts, but I have the impression that intelligence operations can be messy and unpredictable. Intelligence assets probably don't always do what you expect them to do and could be playing you as much as you might be trying to play them. Just linking names isn't enough to condemn. It is the job of people in the intelligence business to interact and intertwine with terrorist suspects in order to gather more intelligence and develop deeper ties of trust. It's quite a game of cat and mouse and the cat can get their nose caught in the mousetrap while the mouse gets away.

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).

Now I’m going to say those types of demonstrated actions and assistances are highly questionable, deserve the highest level of investigation, and suggest the appearance of an intelligence guided operation, which rather than shutting down the threat, actually laid the hijackers an open pathway to 9/11... because it did...

To reiterate and bring it into focus, it is intelligence agents who to all intent said to the hijackers, “Here is access to money, here are flight schools, here is a place to live”, all in the United States, whilst holding back the FBI who were understandably livid. Surveillance and a lack of action based on intel are one thing, but this was something else; direct interference, guidance, assistance and aid to the 9/11 hijackers.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/doclib/reports/2000/AAB0001.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20080323141834/http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/25/wayward.jet.07/

This article from 1999 doesn't mention A-10s at all

http://web.archive.org/web/20000817024444/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/pga/news/1999/10/25/stewart_plane_ap/index.html

and another

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

And another

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818170315/http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/25/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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It was more than an hour after contact was lost.

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.

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,

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?!?!?!?!?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.