NORAD Question

[A-Train]

In the North East Sector there were FOUR (4) Fighters on alert. If you know of more then please inform your waiting audience of proof that there were. The lies of your hero DRG are not sufficient.

The issue is not how many fighters were on alert, it is how many were available for NEADS to scramble. 9:40AM was more than an hour after the first plane was hijacked, and almost an hour since the second plane was hijacked. It is more that 35 minutes since the second plane hit the WTC. It is impossible to believe that at 9:40 there were no fighters in the Northeast Sector available for NEADS to scramble.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The issue is not how many fighters were on alert, it is how many were available for NEADS to scramble. 9:40AM was more than an hour after the first plane was hijacked, and almost an hour since the second plane was hijacked. It is more that 35 minutes since the second plane hit the WTC. It is impossible to believe that at 9:40 there were no fighters in the Northeast Sector available for NEADS to scramble.

"on alert" and "available for scramble" pretty much mean the same thing

 

[Reheat]

Gosh, I don't remember ever making such a "statement." Maybe you could refresh my memory by providing us a link to the post in which I made this alleged statement.

It's not alleged. How convenient, that you forget. Find it yourself, it's here. Hint:It's quoted in part in AMTMAN's signature.

I'm not interested in a dialog with you. Your nonsense is a total waste of time. I only responded because you made a feeble attempt to insult gumboot with more of your nonsense. Go away...post at LC or the pilots loon site where you'll be more appreciated. Here, your nonsense is simply lunatic buffoonery.

 

[SDC]

Atrain, are you saying that you do not contend that Israeli commandos perpetrated the hijackings and left the planes before they crashed? Have you changed your views?

 

[Blender Head]

Here's the post where AMTMAN quotes A-Train from:

forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2859481#post2859481

 

[chillzero]

OK, perhaps we can put that derail behind us, or take it to a new thread if it warrants further discussion?

 

[Reheat]

"on alert" and "available for scramble" pretty much mean the same thing

They mean EXACTLY the same thing on a short term notification basis.

I suggest you not feed his nonsense with rational responses. He has never listened to accurate explanation and never will. He is a waste of time.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

They mean EXACTLY the same thing on a short term notification basis.

I suggest you not feed his nonsense with rational responses. He has never listened to accurate explanation and never will. He is a waste of time.

well i did keep my response to a one-liner, rather than explaining why they cant just jump in a fighter and take off on a moments (or even an hours) notice, lol

 

[funk de fino]

The issue is not how many fighters were on alert, it is how many were available for NEADS to scramble. 9:40AM was more than an hour after the first plane was hijacked, and almost an hour since the second plane was hijacked. It is more that 35 minutes since the second plane hit the WTC. It is impossible to believe that at 9:40 there were no fighters in the Northeast Sector available for NEADS to scramble.

Do you know how long it takes to arm aircraft with live weapons to enable them to be used for an intercept.

I've done it before, I know, I bet you have no clue. I bet you have no clue what type of tests need done prior to doing it either.

 

[tanabear]

Quick question I have about Military Notification with regard to UA93:

At 09:32am: A radio transmission came from United 93, which was picked up by Cleveland Center as saying:

By 09:34am: Word of the hijacking had reached FAA headquarters.

At 09:39am: another transmission was picked up as saying:

I've noticed there was first mention of possibly seeking military involvement with UA93 at 09:36am, and again discussed again 13 minutes later at 09:49am, yet NEADS didn't hear of the hijacking till 10:07am, 3 minutes after United 93 crashed in PA.

My question is why was the information not passed onto the military sooner, seen as there was knowledge that a second plane had hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center?
My understanding that FAA/NORAD protocols were not favored to the events as they unfolded, but I was wondering if anyone had a specific answer to the hesitation with regard to NORAD notification?

Thanks!

Well, it depends on which story you want to believe. On September 18, 2001 NORAD released their, "NORAD’s Response Times." This showed when they were informed about each flight and when fighters were launched to deal with each of the hijacked aircraft. For Flight 93 they listed the notification time as, "N/A ***** The FAA and NEADS established a line of open communication discussing AA Flt 77 and UA Flt 93." This would imply that there was no formal notification, but they were being continually updated on the events through open lines of communication. Colonel Alan Scott testified to the 9/11 Commission that, "9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. That's the last flight that is going to impact the ground." Larry Arnold, in his testimony gave a different reason why fighters were launched from Langley. He stated, “we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, DC, not in response to American Airline 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way... I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it.” He also stated to the Commission that at 9:24Am, "Our focus...was on United 93 which was being pointed out to us very aggressively I might say by the FAA." In the book Air War Over America, put out by the US Air Force it reports, "We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.” This would have occurred around 9:36AM. So NORAD clearly knew about Flight 93 before 10:07AM. However, if they had known about it for all this time and didn't launch fighters then this opens themselves up to the possibility that there was some type of stand-down order in place. So they decided to make up a new story and say that they didn't even know about United 93 until after it crashed. It was also useful in helping to remove suspicion of a shoot down.

"We must look for consistency. Where there is a want of it we must suspect deception." Indeed.

Your Welcome

 

[PhantomWolf]

"We must look for consistency. Where there is a want of it we must suspect deception." Indeed.

Whoever said that has no idea about Eyewittness testimony. GO and look up the claims about what the Titanic did as it sank, or virtually any other incident that has ever occured, there are multiple claims about what happened, most not entirely correct. For instance we had a police shooting here a few months ago. Some wittnesses claimed that the shooting was unjustified because the person shot was doing anything, others stated that he was actually running towards the officer brandishing a hammer when shot. These are obviously not consistant. In the end the crime scene evidence proved that the victim had indeed been approaching the officer with a weapon, a hammer that was located there. When it left the man's hand it had had enough momentum to carry it past where the officer was standing and over the other side of the road. It took time and effort evaluating the evidence and putting those eyewittness accounts in perspective with that evidence to come to the truth. That doesn't mean that those wittnesses that were wrong were lying though.

Another case that comes to mind (another police shooting) had a witness that claimed that the victim was unarmed when shot. He discribed the victim as wearing a dark blue top with a silver stripe across it. Further evidence showed that the witness' eye sight was poor and that he was a distance from the victim and in poor lighting. The reality was that the victim had a blue top, but the sliver "stripe" was really a silver baseball bat.

In the NORAD case people said eary on what they thought was right, that doesn't mean it was. Cheapshot has commented that he tried to create a timeline and couldn't, that he know what happened but finds it hard to put timing to each event. Why would it be any different for others? The tapes are the definitive standard to what happened that day, and after reviewing them it appears that NORAD did a lot better than they would have under their own given timelines. Why, if they were going to lie, would they make themselves look worse that they really were? That doesn't make sence.

 

[tanabear]

Whoever said that has no idea about Eyewittness testimony. GO and look up the claims about what the Titanic did as it sank, or virtually any other incident that has ever occured, there are multiple claims about what happened, most not entirely correct.

In the NORAD case people said eary on what they thought was right, that doesn't mean it was. Cheapshot has commented that he tried to create a timeline and couldn't, that he know what happened but finds it hard to put timing to each event. Why would it be any different for others? The tapes are the definitive standard to what happened that day, and after reviewing them it appears that NORAD did a lot better than they would have under their own given timelines. Why, if they were going to lie, would they make themselves look worse that they really were? That doesn't make sence.

My previous post had nothing to do with eyewitness testimony. Individuals were describing what they were doing that day. If a police office asks a suspect, "Where were you at 7:00pm last night?", and he responds, "I was eating at my favorite cafe." The police check out the story and it turns out to lack credibility. Then the suspect changes his story and says, "Oh Yeah, I was at the movies." Then the police look into that story and it also turns out to be false. Then he says, "I was at church." If this scenario occurred it would be perfectly legitimate for the police to be suspicious of this man. There is a difference between eyewitness testimony and individuals changing their stories. The situation with NORAD has to do with suspects changing their stories, not eyewitness testimony.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My previous post had nothing to do with eyewitness testimony. Individuals were describing what they were doing that day.

Now that could almost be a Stundie.

If a police office asks a suspect, "Where were you at 7:00pm last night?", and he responds, "I was eating at my favorite cafe." The police check out the story and it turns out to lack credibility. Then the suspect changes his story and says, "Oh Yeah, I was at the movies." Then the police look into that story and it also turns out to be false. Then he says, "I was at church." If this scenario occurred it would be perfectly legitimate for the police to be suspicious of this man. There is a difference between eyewitness testimony and individuals changing their stories. The situation with NORAD has to do with suspects changing their stories, not eyewitness testimony.

However if the police ask the person what did you do last night and he says "I went to the movies at 6:15pm then after the movie at 7pm I went to my favourite cafe and had a meal before heading to church for a prayer meeting at 7:30pm" it is still a possible conclusion of mistaken time telling if the police discover that the movie started at 6pm, went for one and half hours and that people at the prayer meeting recall the person in question arriving sometime between 8:20 and 8:45pm. If they then go to the security footage of the movie theatre, cafe and church and find that the person went into the movies at 5:45pm, arrived at the cafe at 7:40pm and left at 8:15pm arriving at 8:25pm, are the inconsistancies in his story still enough to have legitimate suspisons? Most of the errors in the NEADS timelines were timing issues and in several places assumptions were made about why things were done at the believed times.

For instance early on it was assumed that the Langley Fighters were scrambled to intercept Flight 77 because of the fact that the assumed timing corresponded to about when that plane was hijacked, that the plane was heading for Washington, and because Langley being called by Cleveland to report 77's crash at about that time. It wasn't until the tapes were reviewed that it was found that the fighters from Langley were send after a phantom Flight 11 which was believed to be headed to Washington. This is far from unique. G. W. Chimp reported seeing TV coverage of the first plane hitting, something he couldn't have based on where he actually physically was at the time the plane hit (and that there was no TV coverage of the first plane.) Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commision is constantly 20-30 mins out of snyc with everything else including the live TV footage. People at GZ have reported strange inconsistancies as well, including Firefighters inside WTC 1 mistaking the collapse of WTC 2 as the second plane, and even in one high profile case getting the collapses about the wrong way (WTC 1 first followed by WTC 2.)

The thing is that it was a chaotic day, people weren't looking at their watches every second to figure out what was happening when. Often after the event people got confused over what was done, especially when trying to sort it all out and put together what everyone did (one of the reasons that the NY ATC recorded their thoughts before creating their written statements. Even in a few hours the memory starts to fail on things.) Expecting people to get it right first time, especially when recounting the events 2-3 years later, is rather hopeful. Unless you have a rigid routine, I bet you'd have trouble telling me exactly what you did on the 22nd January this year and at what time you did it, heck I have trouble doing that for last week!

 

[Cheap Shot]

Been away for a few weeks. A couple of things I was the one who made the incorrect call on DAL1989, and that was based on a missed frequency. It is common that an airline will miss a frequency transfer, it happens daily. You call the next sector or facility and ask if he got there. Sometimes they do sometimes they don't. In this case Cleveland did not receive DAL1989 at least not right away. On this given day with everything else thst was happening a missed frequency call and the aircraft was assumed hijacked. I also called the aircraft once I don't know if it was in response to NEADS mistake but one of us called the aircraft DAL89 as well. This takes on another spin as well, there was never any DAL89, none, zippo, it wasn't taken to end of a runway at Cleveland and hidden in any hangar and the people on it shipped to some remote island.

Somewhere around this time 0940 Boston Center was evacuated. While everything else was going on we had a tractor trailer sitting outside broken down on the highway, considered by the Center to be a possible threat on our building, a bomb scare called into the the Boston Center Day Care facility, and supposedly a B757 heading directly at Boston Center with an impact being reported as iminent.

So we left the building and returned around 10:00 AM, never heard about UAL93, but I came back on to NEADS and continued to tell them about DAL1989, my mistake, but you went with what you had.

I had requested that NEADS find other fighters from other bases, Toldeo, Selfridge, a bunch more prior to 9:40, and they did, some were not armed but they got them up and they did intercept DAL1989.

As far as Military Liaisons at every Center that is not correct. Each Center does it differently, Cleveland does have someone like myself at thier facility, but my normal postion is upstairs behind a desk writing Letters of Agreements and writing ATC procedures, not on the operational floor. It was Dan Bueno the TMU supervisor who called me down that morning and put me at the position. I don't know who else from what other Center's got called into that position. It was good in one way that I was there to help, and my knowledge of military procedures was better than most TMU specialists at TMU. But I also wan't comfortable using the Land Lines which are recorded, I was more comfortable using the DSN phone since I had most of the numbers memorized. But that phone wasn't recorded at Boston Center it was at NEADS, atleast some of the phones that I called.

Those conversations wouldn't be heard for over two years.

I guess my biggest point to refute some of the CT's is that when the Justice Dept. went looking for those tapes 2 1/2 years later why did the military not destroy them if you really wanted to cover something up?

 

[tanabear]

For instance early on it was assumed that the Langley Fighters were scrambled to intercept Flight 77 because of the fact that the assumed timing corresponded to about when that plane was hijacked, that the plane was heading for Washington, and because Langley being called by Cleveland to report 77's crash at about that time. It wasn't until the tapes were reviewed that it was found that the fighters from Langley were send after a phantom Flight 11 which was believed to be headed to Washington. This is far from unique. G. W. Chimp reported seeing TV coverage of the first plane hitting, something he couldn't have based on where he actually physically was at the time the plane hit (and that there was no TV coverage of the first plane.) Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commision is constantly 20-30 mins out of snyc with everything else including the live TV footage. People at GZ have reported strange inconsistancies as well, including Firefighters inside WTC 1 mistaking the collapse of WTC 2 as the second plane, and even in one high profile case getting the collapses about the wrong way (WTC 1 first followed by WTC 2.)

The thing is that it was a chaotic day, people weren't looking at their watches every second to figure out what was happening when. Often after the event people got confused over what was done, especially when trying to sort it all out and put together what everyone did (one of the reasons that the NY ATC recorded their thoughts before creating their written statements. Even in a few hours the memory starts to fail on things.) Expecting people to get it right first time, especially when recounting the events 2-3 years later, is rather hopeful. Unless you have a rigid routine, I bet you'd have trouble telling me exactly what you did on the 22nd January this year and at what time you did it, heck I have trouble doing that for last week!

I suppose if you believe the official 9/11 story then there is no way for George Bush to have seen the first plane, but I don't necessarily believe the official story. What time Norman Mineta got down to the PEOC is also a matter of debate. You are assuming that he is wrong. I could just as easily assume that the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.

However, when we are dealing with the hijacked airliners and NORAD's response to them, the situation is completely different. We are not talking about one person being slightly off in remembering what time something happened. We are talking about a lot of people having the same "false memory", not just one person. This is a list of the people who remembered hearing about Flight 93 before it crashed: Colonel Alan Scott, General Larry Arnold, David Bohrer, Dick Cheney, Jane Garvey, Richard Clarke, General Montague Winfield, NEADS Commander Colonel Robert Marr, General Richard Myers, Paul Wolfowitz etc.

So how could all these people have remembered something that, according to the tapes, could not have happened? In fact, several people stated that planes were scrambled to shoot down Flight 93 if the circumstances called for it.

Regarding Phanton Flight 11, Richard Ben-Veniste asked General Larry Arnold, "General Arnold. Why did no one mention the false report received from the FAA that Flight 11 was heading south during your initial appearance before the 9/11 Commission back in May of last year?"

Larry Arnold replied that he, "didn't recall those facts in May of last year." Why didn't he recall those "facts"? If the NORAD tapes had been unchanged since day one then when he reviewed the tapes for his testimony in 2003, the Phantom Flight 11 story should have been obvious. As Michael Bronner wrote, "Over the next quarter-hour, the fact that the fighters have been launched in response to the phantom American 11—rather than American 77 or United 93—is referred to six more times on Nasypany's channel alone. How could Colonel Scott and General Arnold have missed it in preparing for their 9/11-commission testimony?" The most likely reason is that those "facts" hadn't been invented yet. The 9/11 Commission states,

"this response to a phantom aircraft, American 11, is not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by FAA or DOD. Instead, since 9/11, the scramble of the Langley fighters has been described as a response to the reported hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of the two.”

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton write in their book, Without Precedent,

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused
on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action
reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and
NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

Governor Kean stated in a Washington Post article, "we, to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied".

As well, to say that a day is chaotic is a lot different than saying that the day was forgettable. I can remember the details of what I was doing on 9/11 better than I can remember some days last week. It was one of those days when everyone remembered where they were and what they were doing. Nevertheless, explain to me how so many different people remembered something that didn't happen? Kean and Hamilton can't explain NORAD's false statements, but maybe the folks on this forum can.

 

[beachnut]

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton write in their book, Without Precedent,

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused
on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action
reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and
NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

Governor Kean stated in a Washington Post article, "we, to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied".

As well, to say that a day is chaotic is a lot different than saying that the day was forgettable. I can remember the details of what I was doing on 9/11 better than I can remember some days last week. It was one of those days when everyone remembered where they were and what they were doing. Nevertheless, explain to me how so many different people remembered something that didn't happen? Kean and Hamilton can't explain NORAD's false statements, but maybe the folks on this forum can.

9/11 truth members have no ability to tie things like your post to a conclusion that makes sense. All 9/11 truth does is make a statement, usually hearsay, and then repeat the mantra, "inside job", over and over...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I suppose if you believe the official 9/11 story then there is no way for George Bush to have seen the first plane, but I don't necessarily believe the official story. What time Norman Mineta got down to the PEOC is also a matter of debate. You are assuming that he is wrong. I could just as easily assume that the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.

See this is what I find funny, you'd rather take the assumption that Cheney, ABC, the USSS, and a number of others are all lying than that Mineta might have gotten his timing out because his timeline doesn't agree with virtually everyone else's, including an event that occurred on live TV. In the same way, even though there are multiple witnesses to where Bush was and what he was doing at the time of the first crash, you'd rather believe they were all lying and he used some super secret remote TV to watch the crash and then just accidentally oops it on international TV.

However, when we are dealing with the hijacked airliners and NORAD's response to them, the situation is completely different. We are not talking about one person being slightly off in remembering what time something happened. We are talking about a lot of people having the same "false memory", not just one person. This is a list of the people who remembered hearing about Flight 93 before it crashed: Colonel Alan Scott, General Larry Arnold, David Bohrer, Dick Cheney, Jane Garvey, Richard Clarke, General Montague Winfield, NEADS Commander Colonel Robert Marr, General Richard Myers, Paul Wolfowitz etc.

And it has been shown how easy it is to do too. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad. Memory is a terrible thing. Have you watched the news lately? Remember the sniper fire and mad rush to the cars that Hills made 12 years back? She apparently does, but guess what... it never happened! Now's here's a problem. How would NEADS have known about the Hijacking of UA93 at 9:16am if the plane wasn't hijacked until 9:28am and the FAA or the Airline wouldn't know for at least another 8 mins after that? You're essentially pointing to testimony of people saying that they were told about UA93 being hijacked 12 MINUTES BEFORE IT HAPPENED and then you are saying it can't possibly be erroneous. Your suggestions here lead to them not only being told about UA93 before it crashed, but before it was hijacked! Doesn't this sort of make you wonder if someone got their either their times or their planes wrong?

So how could all these people have remembered something that, according to the tapes, could not have happened? In fact, several people stated that planes were scrambled to shoot down Flight 93 if the circumstances called for it.

Planes were, but later then the times they gave for it.

Regarding Phanton Flight 11, Richard Ben-Veniste asked General Larry Arnold, "General Arnold. Why did no one mention the false report received from the FAA that Flight 11 was heading south during your initial appearance before the 9/11 Commission back in May of last year?"

Larry Arnold replied that he, "didn't recall those facts in May of last year." Why didn't he recall those "facts"? If the NORAD tapes had been unchanged since day one then when he reviewed the tapes for his testimony in 2003, the Phantom Flight 11 story should have been obvious. As Michael Bronner wrote, "Over the next quarter-hour, the fact that the fighters have been launched in response to the phantom American 11—rather than American 77 or United 93—is referred to six more times on Nasypany's channel alone. How could Colonel Scott and General Arnold have missed it in preparing for their 9/11-commission testimony?" The most likely reason is that those "facts" hadn't been invented yet. The 9/11 Commission states,

"this response to a phantom aircraft, American 11, is not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by FAA or DOD. Instead, since 9/11, the scramble of the Langley fighters has been described as a response to the reported hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of the two.”

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton write in their book, Without Precedent,

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused
on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action
reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and
NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

Governor Kean stated in a Washington Post article, "we, to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied".

You are making one huge assumption here, at least your authors are. That the tapes were reviewed prior to the testimony. The US Justice Dept has categorically stated that this did not happen, that no one thought of reviewing the tapes until after the testimonies, it was the timing issues in the testimony that caused the DoJ to go and get the tapes and review them. Cheapshot can tell you more since he was one of those the DoJ interviewed after they got the tapes and reviewed them. Why they didn't would be a good question, though the answer is likely that everyone at NEADS were simply far too busy protecting the country to sit down and listen to hours and hours of tapes. As to the Phantom Flight 11, well again CheapShot is the one to talk to since it was him that passed that message on to NEADS. If you want to follow your author's example and say it never happened, then I guess you better be prepared to tell him to his face that he's lying about that incident. Good Luck on that.

As well, to say that a day is chaotic is a lot different than saying that the day was forgettable. I can remember the details of what I was doing on 9/11 better than I can remember some days last week. It was one of those days when everyone remembered where they were and what they were doing. Nevertheless, explain to me how so many different people remembered something that didn't happen? Kean and Hamilton can't explain NORAD's false statements, but maybe the folks on this forum can.

I never said they were forgettable, I said they were confusing. I have no doubt that much of what they said did happen in some form or other throughout the day. I also have no doubt that their timing of events is well and truly out and that they have mixed up flight numbers and what happened with what planes through out the morning. You say you can recall 9/11 better then you can recall some days last week, but there is likely a reason for that, you weren't doing much more than watching TV. The people we're talking about didn't have that luxury, they were dealing with multiple situations, at least 5 or 6 reported hijackings and crashes in the first 3 hours, more as time when on. They were rushed, stressed and trying to make sense of the non-sensical, and you expect their memories of those chaotic events to 100% perfect 3 years later? Perhaps you better go and learn up on memory and how easily it can be altered, even subconsciously, throughout time. Perhaps in another 4 years they'll be remembering how they had to do their work under sniper fire too....

 

[A-Train]

Cheapshot can tell you more since he was one of those the DoJ interviewed after they got the tapes and reviewed them. Why they didn't would be a good question, though the answer is likely that everyone at NEADS were simply far too busy protecting the country to sit down and listen to hours and hours of tapes. As to the Phantom Flight 11, well again CheapShot is the one to talk to since it was him that passed that message on to NEADS. If you want to follow your author's example and say it never happened, then I guess you better be prepared to tell him to his face that he's lying about that incident. Good Luck on that.

It is totally laughable that NEADS scrambled fighters off of Langley, then couldn't figure out why they had done so for six months. Almost as laughable as believing that these same Langley fighters were sent over the Atlantic because of some "confusion" between the lead pilot and the local ATC controller-- confusion that has never been explained in public or even discussed. Oh yeah, then there's the fact that in all the 100+ hours of NORAD tapes, the moments covering the commands from NEADS to Langley for that scramble have mysteriously disappeared....

As for Cheap Shot, you say he is the one to talk to, and confidently prop him up as the official defender of your story. Why would Cheap Shot know anything about the NEADS handling of the "Phantom AAL11" or the subsequent Langley scramble? Cheap Shot-- aka Colin Scroggins-- was and is the military liaison at Boston Center. It was he who relayed information about AAL11, including the mistaken phantom flight, to NEADS. What NEADS did with that information is completely unknown to Cheap Shot. He is not part of their organization, and is not privy to any of their communications to the facilities and fighters they control. That the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to Phantom AAL11, and not to AAL77, is something CheapShot believes on faith, not knowledge.

In other words, when it comes to the NORAD standdown, Cheap Shot is just another JREFer who chooses to believe the official story. Ask him, he'll tell you the same himself.

Note to tanabear: Great job on your previous posts. Keep it up.

 

[Reheat]

In other words, when it comes to the NORAD standdown, Cheap Shot is just another JREFer who chooses to believe the official story. Ask him, he'll tell you the same himself.

You again?

Have you listened to all of the NORAD tapes? I didn't think so.

What you fail to get through your twoofer skull is that it doesn't matter why the Langley Fighters flew a standard departure out of Langley. You have been told why and it has been explicitly stated publicly why by the lead pilot. You just don't accept the answers. It's irrelevant anyway as they would not have been able to intercept AA77 based upon their launch time even if they had gone direct to Washington.

What is the pwoof of a "stand down"? Neither you nor anyone else have never been able to substantiate that. It's just another twoofer fantasy without evidence.

There's as much pwoof of a "stand down" as there is for your imaginary Israeli Commando's parachuting from the nose wheel well of a B-767! Evidence - got some?

Bwhahahahahaha!

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is totally laughable that NEADS scrambled fighters off of Langley, then couldn't figure out why they had done so for six months.

Who says that they were trying to figure it out? It seems the guys up top assumed that they were scrambled to go after 77, I believe one even claimed that. It was only after it would pointed out to them that what they believed didn't work right that someone when and checked. Before the timeline was created and it was found that NEADS was well out there was no need for anyone to figure anything out, so claiming that it took them 6 months to figure it out is laughable. What took them six months was for someone to realise that what was believed was wrong and do something about it.

Almost as laughable as believing that these same Langley fighters were sent over the Atlantic because of some "confusion" between the lead pilot and the local ATC controller-- confusion that has never been explained in public or even discussed. Oh yeah, then there's the fact that in all the 100+ hours of NORAD tapes, the moments covering the commands from NEADS to Langley for that scramble have mysteriously disappeared....

Obviously you haven't bothered reading up on what Gumboot has been working on. He's gone over the NEADS tapes NORAD protocol and found out the answer to that. It involves the difference between scrambles and requests and people getting mixed up based on what seemed to be two different orders. It seems that he didn't have any troubles with finding it.

As for Cheap Shot, you say he is the one to talk to, and confidently prop him up as the official defender of your story. Why would Cheap Shot know anything about the NEADS handling of the "Phantom AAL11" or the subsequent Langley scramble? Cheap Shot-- aka Colin Scroggins-- was and is the military liaison at Boston Center. It was he who relayed information about AAL11, including the mistaken phantom flight, to NEADS. What NEADS did with that information is completely unknown to Cheap Shot. He is not part of their organization, and is not privy to any of their communications to the facilities and fighters they control. That the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to Phantom AAL11, and not to AAL77, is something CheapShot believes on faith, not knowledge.

He also relayed the DAL1989 information to them. NEADS acted on his information, ie that there was a plane, Flight 11, headed to Washington DC. It doesn'ty really matter what he knows about after that point, that point was what I was interested in because it is the point that NEADS got the wrong infomation, and that he can stand as a defender of, that he unwittingly gave NEADS incorrect data that they then had to deal with. What NEADS did with that data is clear from the tapes, we don't need CheapShot to back that up. He can however help to authenicate the tapes by agreeing that at least the parts he was on are undoctored which would add serious weight to the rest being true.

In other words, when it comes to the NORAD standdown, Cheap Shot is just another JREFer who chooses to believe the official story. Ask him, he'll tell you the same himself.

And when it comes to the some called NORAD standdown you are in as much of a cookooland as you are with your Isrealies jumping off the plane before they crashed.