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

994 posts in this topic

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

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Dancing_baby.gif

:rolleyes:

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I heard that!!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Frenat, it is POSSIBLE that humans typing up the NTSB reports can make small errors, and it is POSSIBLE that those errors will make it to the final report.

I did not say plural A-10s sir, I said a single A-10. Though you are willing to say the WaPo article is in error, and it might be, the story WAS out back when the incident occurred, and that general recognition was what my earlier posts were based upon.

I have no problem admitting I was wrong. Maybe it was not an A-10.

That there was an aircraft out of Tyndall is corroborated by WaPo. Maybe they were wrong. In the end it doesn't matter, except for generating glee on the part of those who want to make this all about me. No problem, I can handle it.

The major point in this particular discussion is THE RESPONSE OF THE SYSTEM to an off course or NORDO aircraft, as it compares to the response of the system on 11 September.

No matter what kind of aircraft they were, or where they were out of, the point is that FAA & NORAD communication was working fine that day.

We know that the flight was cleared from Cross City to Dallas, which would have taken it through the Tyndall/Eglin complex of airspace in the Gulf and over the Panhandle of Florida, generally south of I-10. It seems the flight never made the turn at CTY, and of course it had not communicated in more than 10 minutes.

And the FAA called the military at about that time. And the military responded, it appears before the aircraft even left Florida airspace. So the system worked as designed, and as it had numerous other times before.

But that day the controllers did not have injects lighting up their screens. They were not in the mindset of being pawns in some kind of training exercise, at least that we know of.

And THOSE are the differences in the comparison with the events of 11 September. On that day, Boston called NEADS at 0840 and the military responded 6 minutes later, which is consistent with what happened in the Stewart incident.

The problem was that the FAA was confused about what was happening with the 2 Boston flights, and by the time they notified NEADS of the problem, the first aircraft was in the process of striking the first tower.

Confusion and delay by the FAA, as they were sorting out injects and other problems within the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Frenat, it is POSSIBLE that humans typing up the NTSB reports can make small errors, and it is POSSIBLE that those errors will make it to the final report.

I did not say plural A-10s sir, I said a single A-10. Though you are willing to say the WaPo article is in error, and it might be, the story WAS out back when the incident occurred, and that general recognition was what my earlier posts were based upon.

I have no problem admitting I was wrong. Maybe it was not an A-10.

That there was an aircraft out of Tyndall is corroborated by WaPo. Maybe they were wrong. In the end it doesn't matter, except for generating glee on the part of those who want to make this all about me. No problem, I can handle it.

The major point in this particular discussion is THE RESPONSE OF THE SYSTEM to an off course or NORDO aircraft, as it compares to the response of the system on 11 September.

No matter what kind of aircraft they were, or where they were out of, the point is that FAA & NORAD communication was working fine that day.

We know that the flight was cleared from Cross City to Dallas, which would have taken it through the Tyndall/Eglin complex of airspace in the Gulf and over the Panhandle of Florida, generally south of I-10. It seems the flight never made the turn at CTY, and of course it had not communicated in more than 10 minutes.

And the FAA called the military at about that time. And the military responded, it appears before the aircraft even left Florida airspace. So the system worked as designed, and as it had numerous other times before.

But that day the controllers did not have injects lighting up their screens. They were not in the mindset of being pawns in some kind of training exercise, at least that we know of.

And THOSE are the differences in the comparison with the events of 11 September. On that day, Boston called NEADS at 0840 and the military responded 6 minutes later, which is consistent with what happened in the Stewart incident.

The problem was that the FAA was confused about what was happening with the 2 Boston flights, and by the time they notified NEADS of the problem, the first aircraft was in the process of striking the first tower.

Confusion and delay by the FAA, as they were sorting out injects and other problems within the system.

All that and you STILL haven't proven that the times are quicker than what is in the NTSB report. The truth is it took over an hour after communication was lost for an aircraft already airborne to intercept a non-maneuvering plane. You still haven't proven otherwise.

Edited by frenat
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say plural A-10s sir, I said a single A-10.

Even if it was in a report, I would have known that an A-10 is not the aircraft of choice to intercept a Learjet above 46,000 feet.

I have no problem admitting I was wrong. Maybe it was not an A-10.

An A-10?. What is the service ceiling of an A-10? At what altitude was the Learjet when intercepted by the F-16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

I'm bored. You as a military man know what TDY is, but maybe you don't know that Eglin is home to weapons testing for USAF. Because of that, Eglin gets alot of aircraft in there TDY to conduct tests, and that INCLUDES A-10. Anti tank weapons, ya know?

Tyndall not so much, but they are only about 70 miles apart.

The point is that whether an A-10 or F-15, the Eglin-Tyndall complex has a bunch of trafffic, and in the Stewart case, there were already aircraft airborne doing their test missions, and one or several of those ALREADY AIRBORNE aircraft were dispatched to investigate the errant Lear.

That airplane was climbing, so we can assume that IAS was 250-300 knots, not an impossible mission for an A-10, but you're right--certainly not its ideal mission. On several occasions I've seen A-10 flights in the high 20's.

As Frenat's links show, the Tyndall flight got close, but went bingo fuel.

You guys want to make this all about me and what I said, rather than about the issue--FAA & NORAD response to off course civilian aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Frenat, it is POSSIBLE that humans typing up the NTSB reports can make small errors, and it is POSSIBLE that those errors will make it to the final report.

I did not say plural A-10s sir, I said a single A-10. Though you are willing to say the WaPo article is in error, and it might be, the story WAS out back when the incident occurred, and that general recognition was what my earlier posts were based upon.

I have no problem admitting I was wrong. Maybe it was not an A-10.

That there was an aircraft out of Tyndall is corroborated by WaPo. Maybe they were wrong. In the end it doesn't matter, except for generating glee on the part of those who want to make this all about me. No problem, I can handle it.

The major point in this particular discussion is THE RESPONSE OF THE SYSTEM to an off course or NORDO aircraft, as it compares to the response of the system on 11 September.

No matter what kind of aircraft they were, or where they were out of, the point is that FAA & NORAD communication was working fine that day.

We know that the flight was cleared from Cross City to Dallas, which would have taken it through the Tyndall/Eglin complex of airspace in the Gulf and over the Panhandle of Florida, generally south of I-10. It seems the flight never made the turn at CTY, and of course it had not communicated in more than 10 minutes.

And the FAA called the military at about that time. And the military responded, it appears before the aircraft even left Florida airspace. So the system worked as designed, and as it had numerous other times before.

But that day the controllers did not have injects lighting up their screens. They were not in the mindset of being pawns in some kind of training exercise, at least that we know of.

And THOSE are the differences in the comparison with the events of 11 September. On that day, Boston called NEADS at 0840 and the military responded 6 minutes later, which is consistent with what happened in the Stewart incident.

The problem was that the FAA was confused about what was happening with the 2 Boston flights, and by the time they notified NEADS of the problem, the first aircraft was in the process of striking the first tower.

Confusion and delay by the FAA, as they were sorting out injects and other problems within the system.

fine_troll_dancing.gif

:rolleyes:

Cz

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Frenat, it is POSSIBLE that humans typing up the NTSB reports can make small errors, and it is POSSIBLE that those errors will make it to the final report.

I did not say plural A-10s sir, I said a single A-10. Though you are willing to say the WaPo article is in error, and it might be, the story WAS out back when the incident occurred, and that general recognition was what my earlier posts were based upon.

I have no problem admitting I was wrong. Maybe it was not an A-10.

That there was an aircraft out of Tyndall is corroborated by WaPo. Maybe they were wrong. In the end it doesn't matter, except for generating glee on the part of those who want to make this all about me. No problem, I can handle it.

The major point in this particular discussion is THE RESPONSE OF THE SYSTEM to an off course or NORDO aircraft, as it compares to the response of the system on 11 September.

No matter what kind of aircraft they were, or where they were out of, the point is that FAA & NORAD communication was working fine that day.

We know that the flight was cleared from Cross City to Dallas, which would have taken it through the Tyndall/Eglin complex of airspace in the Gulf and over the Panhandle of Florida, generally south of I-10. It seems the flight never made the turn at CTY, and of course it had not communicated in more than 10 minutes.

And the FAA called the military at about that time. And the military responded, it appears before the aircraft even left Florida airspace. So the system worked as designed, and as it had numerous other times before.

But that day the controllers did not have injects lighting up their screens. They were not in the mindset of being pawns in some kind of training exercise, at least that we know of.

And THOSE are the differences in the comparison with the events of 11 September. On that day, Boston called NEADS at 0840 and the military responded 6 minutes later, which is consistent with what happened in the Stewart incident.

The problem was that the FAA was confused about what was happening with the 2 Boston flights, and by the time they notified NEADS of the problem, the first aircraft was in the process of striking the first tower.

Confusion and delay by the FAA, as they were sorting out injects and other problems within the system.

Just noticed yet another thing that shows you are not a pilot. Whether the airspace over the gulf is active or not, commercial traffic is most often routed AROUND the warning areas off the coast and generally stays North of I-10. At the time of the incident the airspace would have been active so it would definitely have been routed around. It is typically only changed in emergency situations. This is why there are so few contrails in the area and so many days with completely clear skies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BR flight experience perhaps?

w18190237.jpeg

Looking more and more like it to me... :hmm:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

I'm bored. You as a military man know what TDY is, but maybe you don't know that Eglin is home to weapons testing for USAF.

What is that suppose to mean? On another note, I have been on many TDYs around the world and within CONUS.

Because of that, Eglin gets alot of aircraft in there TDY to conduct tests, and that INCLUDES A-10. Anti tank weapons, ya know?

What is that suppose to mean? A Learjet is not a tank and an A-10 is not an interceptor.

The point is that whether an A-10 or F-15, the Eglin-Tyndall complex has a bunch of trafffic, and in the Stewart case, there were already aircraft airborne doing their test missions, and one or several of those ALREADY AIRBORNE aircraft were dispatched to investigate the errant Lear.

Tell me, what is the max speed of an A-10? What is the cruising speed of a Learjet? At what altitude did the F-16 intercept the Learjet? What is the service ceiling of an A-10?

Why don't you just admit that you not familiar with aircraft?

Edited by skyeagle409
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trivial pursuit is your game Sky, not mine. I prefer the Big Picture. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all try to remember that nothing's really trivial. The devil is in the details...and science is what strips back the BS uncovering those details. I'm sticking with what the engineers and physics guys have to say.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all try to remember that nothing's really trivial. The devil is in the details...and science is what strips back the BS uncovering those details. I'm sticking with what the engineers and physics guys have to say.

... and the people who have real experience with military aircraft and / or are actual real pilots (not just someone who thinks he can come here and pretend to be one) and knows which aircraft are used for specific roles / missions.... :yes:

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trivial pursuit is your game Sky, not mine. I prefer the Big Picture. :gun:

A "Big Picture" from whom? From websites that are notorious for spreading disinformation and misinformation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all try to remember that nothing's really trivial. The devil is in the details...and science is what strips back the BS uncovering those details. I'm sticking with what the engineers and physics guys have to say.

Right you are! The Devil IS in the details.

And certain details are ignored by those defending the official narrative, and in discussion are swept under the rug and dismissed.

And it is those details that have caused many thousands of people to come together to discuss those details and attempt to interpret what those details mean. But one group is Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

For example, how can the detail that the FDR provided by the government was not assigned to ANY aircraft be dismissed as meaningless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, how can the detail that the FDR provided by the government was not assigned to ANY aircraft be dismissed as meaningless?

Question for you. What other means are used by the FAA and the NTSB to verify FDR data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, how can the detail that the FDR provided by the government was not assigned to ANY aircraft be dismissed as meaningless?

Or like when the initial analysis of the FOIA release of the FDR data was found to be incorrect because of a mis-managed datamine of the information.

Especially the hilarious "cabin door was never opened" incident.

Those CT's that ran off with that must have felt sheepish when it was later found out that the aircraft the FDR was assigned to was not updated to include that information at all.

Or the "missing flight time" incident

Those CT's must have felt sheepish after running off with that information and later finding out that the software used to datamine was not updated.

Yes, when it comes to crap being spouted off from those conspiracy websites, most of the time it needs to be disregarded because of its foolish intent.

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.