• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 commission lies about flight 175 timeline

Mutton-Head

Critical Thinker
M
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
270
The 9/11 commission's claim that NORAD didn't know about flight 175 until after it crashed into the WTC is contradicted by NORAD's first statement, by Captain Michael Jellinek, a Canadian who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD's headquarters in Colorado, and by Laura Brown of the FAA.
 
So the one thread wasn't working out the way you hoped and you started another with an equally weak point?

Did you know that on the dial-knob for old televisions there is no Channel One? ...and go!
 
I have found something interesting about the 9/11 Commission report:

It is clear that no one knew what was going on, and that no one really knows when various things happen.

For example the 9/11 Commission claims the Langley AFB F-16's were launched to intercept AA11 because it turned south for Washington DC. The Commission claims they were never intended to intercept AA77 at all.

This is combined with reports that 2 aircraft had hit the WTC, and a third (AA11) was turning south for Washington DC.

This is (obviously) ridiculous. AA11 was the FIRST plane to hit the WTC. There is no WAY the Langley F-16s could have been scrambled to intercept it, and there is no WAY it could have been airbourne, headed for Washington DC, AFTER two aircraft had already hit the WTC.

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

-Andrew
 
CptColumbo said:
So the one thread wasn't working out the way you hoped and you started another with an equally weak point?

Did you know that on the dial-knob for old televisions there is no Channel One? ...and go!
Click to expand...


I'm still involved in the Mineta thread. It's going exactly the way that I knew it would. No one has an answer. The point on this thread is not weak.
 
gumboot said:
I have found something interesting about the 9/11 Commission report:

It is clear that no one knew what was going on, and that no one really knows when various things happen.

For example the 9/11 Commission claims the Langley AFB F-16's were launched to intercept AA11 because it turned south for Washington DC. The Commission claims they were never intended to intercept AA77 at all.

This is combined with reports that 2 aircraft had hit the WTC, and a third (AA11) was turning south for Washington DC.

This is (obviously) ridiculous. AA11 was the FIRST plane to hit the WTC. There is no WAY the Langley F-16s could have been scrambled to intercept it, and there is no WAY it could have been airbourne, headed for Washington DC, AFTER two aircraft had already hit the WTC.

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
You mean they were human beings! :o
 
gumboot said:
I have found something interesting about the 9/11 Commission report:

It is clear that no one knew what was going on, and that no one really knows when various things happen.

For example the 9/11 Commission claims the Langley AFB F-16's were launched to intercept AA11 because it turned south for Washington DC. The Commission claims they were never intended to intercept AA77 at all.

This is combined with reports that 2 aircraft had hit the WTC, and a third (AA11) was turning south for Washington DC.

This is (obviously) ridiculous. AA11 was the FIRST plane to hit the WTC. There is no WAY the Langley F-16s could have been scrambled to intercept it, and there is no WAY it could have been airbourne, headed for Washington DC, AFTER two aircraft had already hit the WTC.

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

The claim that AA11 was being followed by fighters instaed of AA77 was a fabrication. But that's off topic. Perhaps I'll start a "Phantom flight 11" thread.
 
CptColumbo said:
You mean they were human beings! :o
Click to expand...


Exactly! My main point is people at the time weren't even sure which flights they were talking about.

Yet Mutton-Head expects their recollection of what time they were doing what to be exactly right (not to mention that people have their watches set to different times - it's not totally odd in a random collection of people to have a variation of 15 - 20 minutes in the total range of different times on their watches, cellphones, etc).

Take right this moment... my PC says it is 1722. My phone says 1716. My clock in my room says 1721, and my wristwatch says 1723. That's a range of SEVEN MINUTES! And I'm only one person! AND I am completely calm and relaxed, with nothing else to think about, as I carefully look at each device and record the exact time.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover people's estimates of when a given action occured on 9/11 varying by 30 or 40 minutes.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
Exactly! My main point is people at the time weren't even sure which flights they were talking about.

Yet Mutton-Head expects their recollection of what time they were doing what to be exactly right (not to mention that people have their watches set to different times - it's not totally odd in a random collection of people to have a variation of 15 - 20 minutes in the total range of different times on their watches, cellphones, etc).

Take right this moment... my PC says it is 1722. My phone says 1716. My clock in my room says 1721, and my wristwatch says 1723. That's a range of SEVEN MINUTES! And I'm only one person! AND I am completely calm and relaxed, with nothing else to think about, as I carefully look at each device and record the exact time.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover people's estimates of when a given action occured on 9/11 varying by 30 or 40 minutes.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Assuming they were wearing watches, mine is currently broken.
 
Mutton-Head said:
The 9/11 commission's claim that NORAD didn't know about flight 175 until after it crashed into the WTC is contradicted by NORAD's first statement, by Captain Michael Jellinek, a Canadian who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD's headquarters in Colorado, and by Laura Brown of the FAA.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting myself, since no one seems to be able to stay on the topic. The commision is trying to shift the blame for lack of fighter intercepts to the FAA.
 
Mutton-Head said:
I'm quoting myself, since no one seems to be able to stay on the topic. The commision is trying to shift the blame for lack of fighter intercepts to the FAA.
Click to expand...
I think your expectations are a little high for intercept times. It took 76 minutes to intercept Payne Stewarts Learjet. The F-16 was also scrambled unarmed. There were relatively few armed interceptors on alert the morning of 911.
The 911 flights time from takeover(contact lost) to impact were as follows

AA11 -8:14 to 8:47 - 33 minutes
UA 175 - 8:42 to 9:04 - 22 minutes
AA77 -8:51 to 9:38 - 47 minutes
UA 93 -9:27 to 10:04 - 37 minutes

Courtesy 911Myths

The unarmed intercept of Stewarts jet took 30 minutes longer than any of the 9/11 flights would-be armed intercepts.

It should also be noted that the flights were flying with their transponders off while Stewarts' was still operating making the Lear easy to find; susequently AA77 vanished when it flew through a hole in the primary radar coverage. This would make it difficult for the intercepting fighters to locate the airliners outside of their internal radars range of 90 miles or so..

If you can come up with a single intercept(unarmed) of a civil aircraft within the US that took less 47 minutes, I might concede that its possible a stand down of some sort couldve been ordered. Just one is all I'm asking. I think its a reasonable request.
Can you do it?
 
apathoid said:
I think your expectations are a little high for intercept times. It took 76 minutes to intercept Payne Stewarts Learjet...
Click to expand...
Here's the timeline of another example, from 2002, where jets from Andrews were scrambled to intercept a Cessna flying by the White House. So this was with tighter, post-9/11 security; a problem occurring in what CTs tell us should be the most highly defended airspace, over Washington; jets flying a minimal distance; a slower-moving target with its transponder turned on; and nothing else major going on, so you'd expect the system to work at its best. What happened?

7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles"
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs "a few minutes later."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/plane.intercept

This should have been the simplest of intercepts, in tighter, post-911 security, yet it still takes 18 minutes from a problem occurring to jets taking off, and "a few minutes" more for the intercept to occur. How many? If it were 5 then that takes us to 23 minutes, longer than the time available to tackle Flight 175. If even this ideal example can't deliver anything like the ten minute intercept time that people like David Ray Griffin talk about, then why do some seem to expect that to have happened on September 11th?
 
Gravy said:
That interception actually happened within minutes of loss of contact with Stewart's plane, but it was apparently by an F-16 test pilot who was already airborne. http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm
Click to expand...

Gravy, there is a timezone change in that timeline.

NTSB report timeline said:
At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response

About 0952 CDT,7 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
Click to expand...
At first glance, it would appear that the intercept took possibly less than 20 minutes and I think the CTs latched onto to that at some point as if helped prove their point about intercepts.
But, as you mentioned, the Learjet was intercepted by an unarmed fighter that was already in the air.
 
Gravy said:
That interception actually happened within minutes of loss of contact with Stewart's plane, but it was apparently by an F-16 test pilot who was already airborne. w ww.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm
Click to expand...
[de-lurk]
Gravy, the time zone changes between the EDT and CDT. Contact was lost @ about 9:30EDT, while the interception occured at about 9:50CDT. That's 80 minutes.
[re-lurk]

edit: blasted, beaten by apathoid for link edit. Gotta get to those 15 posts :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom