NEADS in Rome NY was patheticly equipped.

[Java Man]

ummm you do realize that the DoD encompasses a lot more then just "minding the homefront", right?

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. And your point would be? Are you trying to justify something here? You're telling us that it isn't the DoDs responsibility to mind the security of the Pentagon? 30 minutes after it is known that a second aircraft hit a tower in New York City?

What does the DoD encompass that isn't taking care of the Pentagon? I mean we all understand that Wall Street isn't all that important for the US as a whole and that the WTC was really really really far away from Wall Street (like five blocks away). So not really a strategic point to defend. But the Pentagon?

 

[Reactor drone]

No obviously not. What I'm saying here is that based on the response time between the last response of the airplane to the control tower and the impact on the tower a Mig could have flown from Bermuda to New York City at full military power (no afterburner) and dropped ordnance on Central Park.

I'm also saying that a Mig could have flown from Halifax (not that it would, just to put distance in perspective) to New York in the time between the first and second tower hit.

There is also a 34 minute time difference between the second tower hit and the impact on the Pentagon. That's also enough time to have a Mig fly from Bermuda to Washington DC at full military power (once again, no afterburner).

So 2001 technology, as underfunded as it may have been could not handle scenarios presented by 1970's aviation technology? And this is the country that spends more in defense than the next 16 countries on the defense spending list (combined).

I didn't even realise Bermuda even had MiG-25s or that they were considered a hostile country. In that situation the US air defence system was woefully under prepared to counter the threat of a preemptive Bermudan military strike.

Of course if Bermuda wasn't hostile and didn't own the reconnaissance/ bomber version of the MiG-25 then it would be a massive waste of resources setting up your air defences to counter that imaginary threat.

PS- I'm pretty sure a MiG-25 can't maintain maximum speed with dry thrust.

 

[beachnut]

Dear Maverick beachnut, the Mig-25 is a) an 1970s design, b) very able of traveling said distance at said speed.

At full military power the Foxbat can maintain 2.83 Mach. "High altitude: Mach 3.2[6] (3,500 km/h, 2,170 mph); Mach 2.83 (3,090 km/h, 1,920 mph) continuous engine limit[6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25)

You are aware that the only aircraft capable of continuous afterburner usage is the SR-71 (at least that I know of). So 2.83 Mach @ continuous engine power means no afterburner usage.

At lower altitudes it would max out at 1200 km/h "Low altitude: 1,200 km/h (650 knots, 740 mph)" That's without burners and it's still considerably faster than the jetliner.

BTW range: 1,730 km (1,075 mi) with internal fuel.

Trying to pull a high g spin on the argument there beachnut?

Where is your FOXBAT taking off from? lol

In pilot training I know of no reason I could not use the AB for the whole flight except the flight would be minutes long. You are so FULL of BS it hurts.

The FOXBAT used afterburner to reach top speeds, you are making up BS as you go, no wonder you spew 911 delusions at supersonic speeds. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Why did the FOXBAT have afterburners, to go 2.8 MACH; but the darn thing would overheat. The darn thing was HEAVY! They had to limit speeds to 2.5 MACH to save the engines, in the real world, not wiki were anyone can post any thing.

On the deck they were stuck at 650. Unless you want to burn up your engines.

Where does your FOXBAT come from? It would run out of fuel. How does the FOXBAT get from USSR to the US? How big are your bombs; do you have to drop fuel to add bombs? How fast can you go with bombs?

To go fast the FOXBAT used afterburners.

I refueled the SR-71. They would laugh at the poor FOXBAT, his engines would overheat. You know how fast the SR-71 could really go? No.

You are proposing a suicide FOXBAT mission; you are a perfect cult member for 911 truth, making up stuff due to lack of knowledge. You meant no afterburner; that was neat, just making it up because you don't understand what the note meant.

...
You're claiming 50 minutes between the second tower hit and realizing they're under attack? It's also 20 minutes after an aircraft hit the Pentagon. The Pentagon!!!!! You're claiming it took them 20 minutes after the Pentagon was hit to figure out there was an attack?

Seriously, you're not helping much.

How are they suppose to know the Pentagon will be attacked? No one had a clue where 77 was, and 93 was out over PA. There are no aircraft on alert to shoot down airliners on 911. You have no clue what you are talking about. I think you are off topic anyway.


I said the time it took to figure out 911 and take action was minutes, and only the Passengers on Flight 93 were able to do that. ACTION being the word. You may have problems keeping up since you have had 9 years and have not figured out 911, and you have not taken action to try. ACTION being the key word.

... I claim the time to figure out 911 and take action, is the exact time the Passengers on Flight 93 stood up and took action. ...

Holy FOXBAT, I did say, what I said. The key word was, ACTION. This is a standard 911 truth problem, failure to read with comprehension. Then make up any meaning to fit some moronic delusion, and fire away.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Gotta love Monday morning quarterbacks. I've never lost a football game whenever I did it. "Coulda' Shoulda', Woulda'" is a well worn truther mantra that is nothing but pure Monday morning quarterbacking. Any professional who has ever been involved in high pressure situations where split second decisions have to be made with less than adequate information can understand why 9/11 played out in the skies the way it did. The more complicated the situation is, the easier it is to miss something crucial especially when it's buried in 1,000 other pieces of information and you don't have the time to sort it all out.

 

[Java Man]

Ouch I guess I just hit a nerve in beachnut.

Once again Maverick, I'm using Bermuda as a reference. Meaning that a 40 year old aircraft could have flown into New York from the great wide ocean with nothing more than military thrust. And the defenses would have been too slow to respond that day. Something that just seems unbelievable.

Get it? Unable to respond to technology 30 years old by then (40 today).

Flight 77 was hijacked after the first impact. It turned around and flew back to the capital of the United States of America for 40 minutes without the transponder on. You understand that? From 08:56 to 09:37 it was flying towards Washington DC. That's 40 minutes and on top of that crashes into the Pentagon. Lets put the timeline:

WTC north tower 8:46
Flight 77 headed to DC 8:56 (without transponder on now)
WTC south tower 9:03
Flight 77 Pentagon 9:37

You're telling us the US doesn't have a single aircraft able to intercept a subsonic jet liner in a whole 30 minutes? That's 540 km radius at Mach 1. Even the Foxbat can do that without overheating.

 

[Java Man]

Any professional who has ever been involved in high pressure situations where split second decisions have to be made with less than adequate information can understand why 9/11 played out in the skies the way it did.

You mean split hour? 30 minutes is half an hour or 1800 seconds. My coffee gets cold in half that time. What are you talking about split second decisions? You mean it takes 30 minutes to decide if you're scramble a plane to take a look?

 

[Oystein]

Java Man, how is the abstract of your complete theory of 9/11 coming along? Does it have a sentence on NEADS?
I was under the impression that you wanted to have it ready yesterday...

 

[beachnut]

You mean split hour? 30 minutes is half an hour or 1800 seconds. My coffee gets cold in half that time. What are you talking about split second decisions? You mean it takes 30 minutes to decide if you're scramble a plane to take a look?

You make up BS about the MIG-25. Which you have not fixed.

... flown into New York from the great wide ocean with nothing more than military thrust....

Do you know what military thrust is? With that in mind, the flight is subsonic, it means the pilot swims. He will be shot down at 30,000 feet. Good one. Takes over an hour. Shot down short in about 30 minutes. A long swim.

Below the RADAR the FOXBAT would hit the water many miles off shore. If he wants to make it to NYC, he will be seen on RADAR hundreds of miles away because he will be at 60,000 feet, just over MACH 2. F-15 will meet him and slash him; either mission your FOXBAT pilot has to swim, either 12 miles, or more, if he survives ejection at MACH 2!

Now you make up BS about 911 and have no clue it is BS. The only thing your posts do is expose your complete ignorance of NORAD, USAF procedure, airspace, FAA, FAA procedures, flying, and more.

You can't comprehend what I said about time and action, and now you spew nonsense that is off topic and moronic.

You are so unprepared you can't post without making up BS on BS. What are you talking about? Go start your thread and please have a topic instead of spewing BS tangential about no afterburner, and other failed ideas.

Where did your FOXBAT land after dropping bombs?
What is your point? Do you have a theory about 911?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Yes. Split second decisions had to be made that day. Some were right and others weren't through no fault of the people making those decisions at the time. You're confusing making a decision with those decisions being fully implemented. There's a huge difference between the two that a professional would know but a Monday morning quarterback wouldn't.

You apparently live in a fantasy land where there is no lag time between an order being given and an order being fully carried out. You'd make a lousy commanding officer.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Those unidentified planes would have a smaller radar cross section than a jet liner. The wouldn't have a transponder on either. And would be doing their best to fly below radar.

Where, as you've pointed out, they wouldn't be able to pull Mach 2.5; 740mph, if I remember correctly, is a little below Mach 1. And that's clean speed; I doubt you have any idea how an external bombload would affect that.

Lets clarify this. If unidentified planes were detected over Bermuda the response time would not be enough to stop two Mig-25 from dropping steel bombs on Central Park.

Which is about all that two Mig-25s would be able to carry over that distance. Big deal.

But anyway, now that you've established that the air defence capability on 9/11 was insufficient to deal with a forseeable, though insignificant, threat, how does that refute the claim that the air defence capability was also insufficient to deal with an unforeseen threat?

Dave

 

[MikeW]

Flight 77 was hijacked after the first impact. It turned around and flew back to the capital of the United States of America for 40 minutes without the transponder on. You understand that? From 08:56 to 09:37 it was flying towards Washington DC.

The FAA didn't know that at the time, however, and neither did NEADS.

 

[CompusMentus]

Does 'Touching History' speak much about the post 9-11 upgrades? I haven't read (and to be honest, searched) much about them. Or is there a better source for the changes that where made?
Thanks -H

I'm in the middle of the book Hz. From what I've read so far it's more concerned with the events on the day of the attacks. It does seem though that the US, at that time, was woefully unequipped, both in ready machines/personnel on the ground and in the communications needed to deal with the situation. Very much a case of the arse not knowing what the elbow was doing.

I would imagine that given the wake-up the US millitary recieved on that day much has improved somewhat. To what extent I don't know. Also it's likely that they would be very cagey in revealing current capabilities in this regard.

And who could *********** blame them? They were caught pants-down arse-out on the day, I think they would have definitely buckled up a lot since.


Compus

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. And your point would be? Are you trying to justify something here? You're telling us that it isn't the DoDs responsibility to mind the security of the Pentagon? 30 minutes after it is known that a second aircraft hit a tower in New York City?

What does the DoD encompass that isn't taking care of the Pentagon? I mean we all understand that Wall Street isn't all that important for the US as a whole and that the WTC was really really really far away from Wall Street (like five blocks away). So not really a strategic point to defend. But the Pentagon?

once again, as with most truthers, you look at it with a pre-9/11 20-20 hindsight mindset.

(A) what kind of defenses do you think they had for the Pentagon.
(B) outside of what you THINK they should have had, what proof do you have of their defenses pre-9/11
(C) You do realize their was a civilian airport, one of the busiest in the world, VERY NEAR BY.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm in the middle of the book Hz. From what I've read so far it's more concerned with the events on the day of the attacks. It does seem though that the US, at that time, was woefully unequipped, both in ready machines/personnel on the ground and in the communications needed to deal with the situation. Very much a case of the arse not knowing what the elbow was doing.

I would imagine that given the wake-up the US millitary recieved on that day much has improved somewhat. To what extent I don't know. Also it's likely that they would be very cagey in revealing current capabilities in this regard.

And who could *********** blame them? They were caught pants-down arse-out on the day, I think they would have definitely buckled up a lot since.


Compus

exactly, but once again, as we see all to often with the truthers, there is this attitude of,

"How could 19 arabs from caves possibly have defeated the worlds military superpower on home soil".

TAM

 

[danrush]

So 2001 technology, as underfunded as it may have been could not handle scenarios presented by 1970's aviation technology? And this is the country that spends more in defense than the next 16 countries on the defense spending list (combined).

Java, Imagine you're a 19 year old USAF Specialist trying to decypher one target from hundreds on your screen and they switched off the transponder, how long would it take you now to check each target?

Not too mention that Boston ATC gave you some unclear information and you can't tell where the target is.

America's national ATC radar system has an average age of 45 years on it, it's needed updating since the 1980's. You don't just send fighter jets screaming through commercial traffic, that's insane.

 

[danrush]

You mean split hour? 30 minutes is half an hour or 1800 seconds. My coffee gets cold in half that time. What are you talking about split second decisions? You mean it takes 30 minutes to decide if you're scramble a plane to take a look?

From battlestations to scramble it took Otis AFB 9 minutes. But with poor information from Boston ATC, no transponder mode 3 information and only one last location finding that airplane in hundreds of targets would take time.

"Oh great, we got one! "BANG!" oops....uh.....Huntress we uh.....wow....uh..
Just.....shot.....the wrong target...."

Oh that would have been nice to hear. You don't send jet fighters screaming around a civilian flight corredor on their own, I wouldn't want an F-15 doing mach when it slams a 767, not pretty.

 

[stewster89]

What you got to remeber is that there had to be a dissemenation of data from the FAA and NORAD/NEADS and that i believe this critically failed on 9/11...

I have heard the doughnut analagy used to described the military's radar field meaning it was facing outwords and there was a deadspace in the middle.

Java... this system was dealt to deal with the kinda attack you are talking about (maybe not from a foxbad though) but an outside from evil faceless, russians. Instead the attack came from inside.

Another problem they had was identifying which planes were which. I think the figure is just over 4000 civil flights were airborne that morning... Some of them could be discounted easily but others would be harder to identify.

does anyone know whether NORAD could even coralate thier radar data with the transponder codes from the FAA radar network?

 

[danrush]

does anyone know whether NORAD could even coralate thier radar data with the transponder codes from the FAA radar network?

On the NEADS MMC 2 Battle tape you can hear Major Eusiphany referring to fligth 11's Mode 3 transponder. "Do we have a mode 3? If we can have a Mode 3 it will make things alot easier."

 

[Java Man]

Where, as you've pointed out, they wouldn't be able to pull Mach 2.5; 740mph, if I remember correctly, is a little below Mach 1. And that's clean speed; I doubt you have any idea how an external bombload would affect that.

Exactly, so I handed the benefit of high altitude flight for better radar detection. Which is what you'd expect from a huge airliner. Thus making the comparison fair.

Which is about all that two Mig-25s would be able to carry over that distance. Big deal.

Unless they happen to drop on you.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You're telling us the US doesn't have a single aircraft able to intercept a subsonic jet liner in a whole 30 minutes?

I guess the Cold War slipped your mind! Our fighters were still in "Cold War" phase before 9/11. That's why they went East towards the Atlantic!

DUH!