What's your theory about 9/11?

[000063]

For 50 years the 'big' threat was Soviet nuclear bombers. If one had gotten under NORAD's 'doughnut' of radar coverage,NORAD would have been dependent upon FAA notification at the FAA's leisure? Really? Certainly,if the Secret Service had an 'arrangement' with the FAA after 911 as Cheney let slip,then NORAD had one for the duration of the Cold War.
I have no doubt they wanted the Russians & the US taxpayer$ to believe that,but it's unbelievable to thinking,logical people. The very thought that the screens at Cheyenne Mountain aren't linked to the FAA system,is laughable.

I notice that, oddly, you present not a single scrap of actual evidence for these assertions. Incredulity is not evidence.

There's also the minor fact that the Cold War had been over for a little under ten years by September 2001.

 

[fess]

Exactly,right! The Otis fighters were still in W-105 at 9:03. I'm glad you've come around. We finally agree on something.

I’ve come around? I knew where they were for years, long before you showed up on this forum with your BS. I was addressing the fact that MaGZ thinks they fired a missile at WTC7. That’s a hell of a shot from W-105.

As far as agreeing with the crap you spout, not going to happen.

 

[carlitos]

Unless FrankHT is talking about mid-air child birth, the word he's looking for is "airborne." I find it hard to believe that the "truth" about some grand conspiracy will be discovered by people who can't do basic grammar.

 

[fess]

No, he doesn't. Frank fails at understanding aviation. He thinks Pilots of fighters getting 5th hand information should know exactly what is going on up to the second, that they should know a target from 150 miles away, burn straight for it through the busiest airspace in the world and find the right one out of dozens in the vicinity, shoot it down out of the sky before shoot down authority was given and before anyone knew there was even a second aircraft hijacked.

You claim no one addressed your points? My very first reply to your written diarrhea addressed these moronic fantasy claims of stupidity. You ignore my post, continue as if you're on some smoking gun trail of conspiracy, when your only points are based on ignorance of how the system works, ignorance of SOP, ignorance of aviation, and ignorance of facts in general.

You are exactly right cjnewson, he has no idea what he is talking about. He has no idea how much fuel the aircraft would go through in ten minutes of full military power.

Not to mention the fact that busting through heavily populated airspace at over a half mile per second is ridiculous, especially when you have no viable target to fire at. The turning radius at that speed wouldn’t even allow you to get into a firing position.

 

[NoahFence]

At this point,having posted my theory some time ago,I find it interesting which of it's many claims have been challenged & which haven't. This makes me suspect that those claims which haven't are,perhaps,the strongest. So,I'd like to draw attention to them.
1. I claimed the Otis F15s scrambled at 8:46 (hit radar 8:53-REALLY! 7 minutes to get air born?) But I'll go with 8:53,flew for ten full minutes,"full blower all the way" & yet were still 100 miles out from NYC at 9:03 means they were put into the holding pattern BEFORE 9:03 to wait for 175 to hit.
Ok,so why didn't they make NYC by 9:03 if they really flew as fast as the pilots say they did for as long as the Commission claims? Answer that.
2. I claimed the Otis F15s were only given enough fuel to do a "patriotic" flyover AFTER WTC2 was hit but not enough to be a problem for the other aircraft to be 'hijacked' that day. I based this on the NORAD tapes & Capt. Duffy telling Maj. Nestling (at 9:09) that they have LESS THAN half an hour fuel remaining. F15s have a combat radius of 1,200+ miles,these had traveled LESS than the 153 between Otis & NYC & had been in the air only 16 minutes. Worse,yet,they were reported (by Marr) to be carrying EXTRA fuel.
No one has addressed these claims. Please do.

Ok. claims addressed. Go away now.

 

[DGM]

FrankHT:

I'm curious, If everything went as you would expect it to have, what would have happened on 9/11? Naturally I would expect you to take into account the procedures that would have been in place.

Enlighten us as to what SHOULD have happened.

 

[beachnut]

That's an exaggeration. Truth be told,bombers were really only "THE" threat in the early days of the Cold War. By the middle they were outdated,slow & far too vulnerable to be considered "the" threat because of the ICBM. My generation (born mid '60s) certainly never feared them because we figured we'd be dead because of the ICBMs before they ever arrived (If they arrived at all). It's 'War Games' versus 'Fail safe',but there's still 'Fail safe' there's still the threat & they were thinking about it (all aspects) from the very beginning & there's NO WAY NORAD wasn't linked into the FAA on 911.

Bomber were out dated? Physics and math. What 911 truth don't got.

This is suppose to be the NWO day off, stop posting comedy on my serious Saturday.

FAA don't track ICBMs and Bombers were not outdated, nukes are based on a system, tactics which ... The rest was redacted by the OWO.

Ok. claims addressed. Go away now.

We got an ICBM requesting VFR...

 

[FrankHT]

What's to address? Your "theory" has a major problem. If they were fueled for full combat range, they could not have gone as fast as you claimed.

It's a catch 22. You can claim the extra fuel slowed them down to explain them not having reached NYC (153 miles) by 9:03,but then you can't explain why they should have been dangerously low on fuel at 9:09 (It's on the tapes,less than half an hour remaining).
The Commission knew there was a problem here & has tried to cover it up. That's why the report is written the way it is to hide the fact that it was at 9:09 (BEFORE they ever flew to NYC & 1 just minute into the holding pattern) when the fuel problem came up NOT 9:25 after they arrived in NYC.

 

[DGM]

It's a catch 22. You can claim the extra fuel slowed them down to explain them not having reached NYC (153 miles) by 9:03,but then you can't explain why they should have been dangerously low on fuel at 9:09 (It's on the tapes,less than half an hour remaining).

How much fuel is that? Is it actual flying time? Is it the time before they have to turn back? Is it the amount before minimum safe flying time?

(hint: if it was what you imply, they were already screwed).

The F-15 does not fly supersonic with all it's fuel tanks.


You think you can answer my last post?

 

[FrankHT]

FrankHT:

I'm curious, If everything went as you would expect it to have, what would have happened on 9/11? Naturally I would expect you to take into account the procedures that would have been in place.

Enlighten us as to what SHOULD have happened.

If everything had gone as I expect on 911,Flight 11 would have gotten through anyway and the others would have been stopped. If things would have worked the way they were suppose to (bear in mind I don't believe the official story,but since you do). Beginning with Flight 11 NORAD would have known everything the FAA knew when the FAA knew it. There would have been no radar problems that concealed Flight 77. No false reports about about phantom aircraft based on NOTHING. Etc,etc.
Actually,if thing had gone the way I expected,there would never have been a 911 because unqualified applicants would not have been given Visas,FBI investigations would not have been shut down,warnings wouldn't have been ignored etc,etc.

 

[DGM]

If everything had gone as I expect on 911,Flight 11 would have gotten through anyway and the others would have been stopped. If things would have worked the way they were suppose to (bear in mind I don't believe the official story,but since you do). Beginning with Flight 11 NORAD would have known everything the FAA knew when the FAA knew it. There would have been no radar problems that concealed Flight 77. No false reports about about phantom aircraft based on NOTHING. Etc,etc.
Actually,if thing had gone the way I expected,there would never have been a 911 because unqualified applicants would not have been given Visas,FBI investigations would not have been shut down,warnings wouldn't have been ignored etc,etc.

"Others would have been stopped" how? What legal means at the time are you suggesting?

Do you watch a lot of Bruce Willis movies?

 

[DGM]

Actually,if thing had gone the way I expected,there would never have been a 911 because unqualified applicants would not have been given Visas,FBI investigations would not have been shut down,warnings wouldn't have been ignored etc,etc.

The ticket agent in Portland Maine thought Mohammad Atta "looked like a terrorist" but ended up letting him pass none the less. I agree with his decision, would you? If not, why?

 

[Robrob]

If everything had gone as I expect on 911,Flight 11 would have gotten through anyway and the others would have been stopped.

How...?

Beginning with Flight 11 NORAD would have known everything the FAA knew when the FAA knew it. There would have been no radar problems that concealed Flight 77. No false reports about about phantom aircraft based on NOTHING. Etc,etc..

And this would have stopped the rest, how?

Actually,if thing had gone the way I expected,there would never have been a 911 because unqualified applicants would not have been given Visas,FBI investigations would not have been shut down,warnings wouldn't have been ignored etc,etc.

Using your super powers of 20/20 hindsight, please tell us:

1) Before 9/11, no unqualified applicants ever received visas?

2) Before 9/11, no FBI investigations were ever shut down?

3) Before 9/11, no warnings were ever ignored?

 

[The Platypus]

It's a catch 22. You can claim the extra fuel slowed them down to explain them not having reached NYC (153 miles) by 9:03,but then you can't explain why they should have been dangerously low on fuel at 9:09 (It's on the tapes,less than half an hour remaining).
The Commission knew there was a problem here & has tried to cover it up. That's why the report is written the way it is to hide the fact that it was at 9:09 (BEFORE they ever flew to NYC & 1 just minute into the holding pattern) when the fuel problem came up NOT 9:25 after they arrived in NYC.

It's amazing how much 911 cult kiddies try to support their wild accusations by claiming to absolutely know what someone else, or even groups of people, knew and was thinking at a specific moment. A tactic which reeks of BS.

 

[cjnewson88]

According to Franks theory, therefore no disasters in history should have occurred, because everyone knew exactly what was happening and by chance selected the right course of action out of the possibility of hundreds. There is no such thing as bureaucracy, inefficiency, mismanagement, miscommunication, misunderstanding, confusion or mistakes.

Chaos Theory comes to mind.
The more you speak, the more you become divorced from reality.

As for your fuel insanity.. F-15 have an operating range at most efficient fuel burn ratio, sub sonic. To travel super, like they did, requires dumping gallons of fuel a second into the afterburners. Operational range quickly becomes shortened. Your claim is debunked by the events. If the F-15s said they only had 30 minutes of fuel, then why were they still airborne over 30 minutes later over Manhattan? Because they were not. The first concern about their fuel came at 0935 after they had began to CAP Manhattan. NEADS became concerned at the fuel burn they had done to get there, so they organised aerial refueling tankers (Team 23) who were already airborne on a training mission to hold in military airspace(Whiskey 386). NEADS also put F-16s at Langley at battlestations to be able to flying to New York and relieve the F-15s if needed. Sometime after that, the F-15's refueled over JFK.

 

[cjnewson88]

In addition, at 9:58 this video shows an Otis F-15 still over Manhattan after the South Tower collapses. This is 20 minutes after you claim they should have run out of fuel.

 

[FrankHT]

In addition, at 9:58 this video shows an Otis F-15 still over Manhattan after the South Tower collapses. This is 20 minutes after you claim they should have run out of fuel.

Of course they weren't low on fuel at 9:58,why should they be? They refueled at 9:35: "The two F-15 fighter jets launched from Otis Air National Guard Base in response to Flight 11 (see 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001) are finally able to refuel, after they request to rendezvous with a tanker plane that was scheduled to refuel Otis fighters out on training missions this morning." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; Spencer, 2008, pp. 153] That's 9:35 !
This misdirection on your part (claiming there was NO concern about fuel UNTIL they actually DID refuel) wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't something to see.
It's on the NEADS tapes (less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining) we know who said it (pilot Tim Duffy) and to whom (Maj Kevin Nasypany) and when (9:09). It shouldn't be in dispute there was concern about fuel long before 9:35 (when the refueling actually occurred). I've got lots more quotes with sources I can pull if you like. But I think you'd be better off trying to explain why they were so low on fuel so quickly (specially since they hadn't even traveled the 153 miles between Otis & NYC when the concern began)

 

[cjnewson88]

Of course they weren't low on fuel at 9:58,why should they be? They refueled at 9:35: "The two F-15 fighter jets launched from Otis Air National Guard Base in response to Flight 11 (see 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001) are finally able to refuel, after they request to rendezvous with a tanker plane that was scheduled to refuel Otis fighters out on training missions this morning." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; Spencer, 2008, pp. 153] That's 9:35 !

Unfortunately for you, your quote does not state what time they refueled. All we have is you claiming this occurred at 9:35.

It's on the NEADS tapes (less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining) we know who said it (pilot Tim Duffy) and to whom (Maj Kevin Nasypany) and when (9:09).

Which NEADS tape is this exactly?

 

[FrankHT]

Unfortunately for you, your quote does not state what time they refueled. All we have is you claiming this occurred at 9:35.

The sources are listed anyone who cares to may check them out.

Which NEADS tape is this exactly?

Try channel 2.

Now,I claimed a time the refueling actually occurred (9:35) and I've given my sources that anyone may check out them selves. Now,it's your turn,obviously your claiming the refueling occurred at some point AFTER 9:35,give me a time the refueling occurred and provide your sources.

 

[Robrob]

Try channel 2.

Now,I claimed a time the refueling actually occurred (9:35) and I've given my sources that anyone may check out them selves. Now,it's your turn,obviously your claiming the refueling occurred at some point AFTER 9:35,give me a time the refueling occurred and provide your sources.

And if you turn out to be wrong, you will of course apologize and change your view about 9/11 trutherism?