What's your theory about 9/11?

[FrankHT]

(Shortly After 9:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Otis Fighters Refueled by Tanker out for Training Mission
Edit event

A KC-135 Stratotanker.A KC-135 Stratotanker. [Source: Boeing]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]

Better? I included the time stamp.

 

[Robrob]

(Shortly After 9:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Otis Fighters Refueled by Tanker out for Training Mission

But previously you claimed:

Now,I claimed a time the refueling actually occurred (9:35)

So exactly how long is a "shortly?"

 

[FrankHT]

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

It's a big "IF" but yes,if it turns out I'm wrong I would. But it's going to have to be done point by point. For example,my belief that the Otis pilots thought they were being scrambled as part of a scheduled drill may be wrong. Yes,NEADS was expecting a hijack drill that morning,but it could be (as someone on here pointed out) that the Otis fighters were loaded with extra weapons & fuel for some other reason (Russian Bear bombers flying off the East coast was mentioned-though I had thought those flights ended with the Cold War & didn't resume until after 911,but I need to research it more). Not that it matters to my theory,Supersonic intercepts were prohibited. But such refinements are always welcome.

 

[FrankHT]

But previously you claimed:

So exactly how long is a "shortly?"

Are you serious? OK,they began "shortly" after 9:35 and were finished by 9:50. How do I know: "While the MAINEiacs were in a holding pattern over New York, they could only watch in horror as the Twin Towers fell, the south tower at 9:50 a.m. and the north tower at 10:28 a.m."[Bangor daily News 9/9/11]
The tankers were in a holding pattern by 9:50. Any time after 9:50 couldn't properly be called "shortly".

 

[FrankHT]

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.

These are actually very good questions. Exactly what does less than 30 minutes of fuel mean? 30 minutes to what point? I don't know. But I do know what was said & that the concern (and attempts to locate a tanker) began far earlier than 9:35 unlike what cjnewson88 said.

 

[cjnewson88]

I stand to correct myself regarding the tankers being organised at 9:09, however I listened to Channel 2 and heard nothing regarding any sort of 'low fuel' call from the Otis fighters, just organisation of several tankers to hold in military airspace to support the fighters. At 9:20 when the report of AA11 heading towards DC came in, the first action was once they located him they were going to send to Otis fighters to "Burn him down". Is that a common thing to do with an aircraft which you claim at this stage would only have 15 minutes of fuel left? A few minutes later, Team 21 calls up after being asked how much fuel he can offload, and asks NEADS if there is a fuel emergency, to which the reply is "negative". I can find no timestamp for the refueling, only that it occurred anywhere between 9:35 and 9:58.

I'm curious as to how this fits into a conspiracy?

 

[DGM]

These are actually very good questions. Exactly what does less than 30 minutes of fuel mean? 30 minutes to what point? I don't know. But I do know what was said & that the concern (and attempts to locate a tanker) began far earlier than 9:35 unlike what cjnewson88 said.

It would be the amount of time they can remain on station before they need to turn back.

Can you explain again how this fits into your "theory"? What exactly do you think they could have done if they got there in time? Do you think they could have shot down UA 175?

 

[beachnut]

These are actually very good questions. Exactly what does less than 30 minutes of fuel mean? 30 minutes to what point? I don't know. But I do know what was said & that the concern (and attempts to locate a tanker) began far earlier than 9:35 unlike what cjnewson88 said.

30 minutes of fuel, means 30 minutes at max endurance, best speed and best altitude for holding, low speed, medium altitude. The rendezvous could take 10 or 15 minutes.

In full burner, the fuel would be gone in less than 30 minutes. With 30 minutes of fuel left, you need to land in 30 minutes.

You are asking silly questions, which lead to more silly questions because your claims are based on a fantasy. You have zero knowledge of flight operations, and your 911 fantasy is based on your ignorance of flying operations.

 

[twinstead]

You are asking silly questions, which lead to more silly questions because your claims are based a fantasy.

It's what they do, beachnut.

 

[DGM]

30 minutes of fuel, means 30 minutes at max endurance, best speed and best altitude for holding, low speed, medium altitude. The rendezvous could take 10 or 15 minutes.

In full burner, the fuel would be gone in less than 30 minutes. With 30 minutes of fuel left, you need to land in 30 minutes.

You are asking silly questions, which lead to more silly questions because your claims are based a fantasy. You have zero knowledge of flight operations, and your 911 fantasy is based on your ignorance of flying operations.

It would be the amount of time they can remain on station before they need to turn back.

Can I assume my assessment is correct? There is always a minimum amount of fuel that is there to "get home". This is considered the "minimum safe fuel" amount. This is not considered (generally speaking) and is there to get you home. They were not going to run out in a half an hour.

 

[beachnut]

Can I assume my assessment is correct? There is always a minimum amount of fuel that is there to "get home". This is considered the "minimum safe fuel" amount. This is not considered (generally speaking) and is there to get you home. They were not going to run out in a half an hour.

I need to hear what they said. They would say they had 30 minutes on station. Saying 30 minutes of fuel, would have different meaning, depends on context.
When we went to Island destinations, we could use 2 hours of fuel as our "alternate" needed for weather conditions. The fuel would be computed based on maximum endurance.

HT thinks the things said by Generals and NORAD all happened during the terrorist attack, or mixes up the time.

 

[DGM]

I need to hear what they said. They would say they had 30 minutes on station. Saying 30 minutes of fuel, would have different meaning, depends on context.

I understand this but, would any pilot allow him/herself to have only 30 minutes actual fuel left without already turning back to home? That would be cutting it really close and taking a stupid risk with a very expensive piece of US property
(pilot first, then aircraft).

 

[beachnut]

I understand this but, would any pilot allow him/herself to have only 30 minutes actual fuel left without already turning back to home? That would be cutting it really close and taking a stupid risk with a very expensive piece of US property
(pilot first, then aircraft).

Flying T-38s, we would show up at bases, if asked to hold for 20 minutes IFR, we would cancel IFR, proceed VFR to the tower, and land. We had less than 20 minutes of fuel left. What is left, includes the fuel we intend not to use. Is the fuel really there? Trust your gages?

In an emergency the pilot could land at the nearest base, or nearest airport depending on his emergency fuel state, and judgement.

It could mean 30 minutes on station, or 30 minutes to flame-out. If the pilots had permission to land at JFK, they could stay on station to emergency fuel, if needed. If they were talking about tanker support, 30 minutes to getting fuel, or return to base. You are on the right track, pilots can't land easy without fuel, there are reserves guidelines.

It's a big "IF" but yes,if it turns out I'm wrong I would. But it's going to have to be done point by point. For example,my belief that the Otis pilots thought they were being scrambled as part of a scheduled drill may be wrong. Yes,NEADS was expecting a hijack drill that morning,but it could be (as someone on here pointed out) that the Otis fighters were loaded with extra weapons & fuel for some other reason (Russian Bear bombers flying off the East coast was mentioned-though I had thought those flights ended with the Cold War & didn't resume until after 911,but I need to research it more). Not that it matters to my theory,Supersonic intercepts were prohibited. But such refinements are always welcome.

On June 1999, TU-95, Bear bombers penetrated the NORAD protected zone. Turns out you are wrong about all 911 related issues.

 

[FrankHT]

Alright,the origin of the claim that there was only 30 minutes of fuel left at 9:09 is this:

"(9:09 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Otis Fighter Jets Running Out of Fuel
Edit event

Because the two fighter jets launched from Otis Air National Guard Base in response to Flight 11 expended a large amount of fuel as they flew toward the New York area (see (8:53 a.m.-9:05 a.m.) September 11, 2001), there are now concerns about getting them refueled. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 24] The fighters are currently flying a “holding pattern” in “Whiskey 105,” which is military training airspace just south of Long Island, over the Atlantic Ocean (see 9:09 a.m.-9:13 a.m. September 11, 2001). Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy, the lead Otis pilot, reports to NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) that THE TWO FIGHTERS HAVE ONLY 30 MINUTES OF FUEL REMAINING . At NEADS, Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility’s mission crew commander, orders, “Find me a tanker!” Weapons controller Major Steve Hedrick quickly calls McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey to see if it has any of its KC-10 tankers airborne, but none are. Nasypany gets on the phone to Colonel Robert Marr, who is in the NEADS battle cab, and requests launching the two F-16s kept on alert at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, so as to provide backup for the Otis fighters. Marr then discusses this over the phone with Major General Larry Arnold who is at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, but neither thinks it is a good idea. According to author Lynn Spencer: “If the battle expands, they don’t want to have all their assets in one place. Nor can they have them running out of fuel at the same time.” Marr and Arnold agree that they will try to find fuel for the Otis fighters. The Langley jets are ordered to “battle stations only” (see 9:09 a.m. September 11, 2001) so they will be ready to launch if a refueling tanker cannot be found. Marr tells Nasypany that he will need to find fuel for the Otis fighters. NEADS technicians then begin searching for a tanker. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 460; Spencer, 2008, pp. 112-113]" -[Quote from History Commons]
Ok,there it is. Find me an 'innocent' explanation if you can.

 

[FrankHT]

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.

Wait a minute. So,you agree with me that at 9:03 the Otis F15s were in a holding pattern in Whiskey 105? or merely that they were flying over Whiskey 105 headed to NYC at 9:03? MagZ's right about one thing,they should have been there to fire a missile & down 175 by 9:03 (Gen. Arnold= Mac 1.5,Pilot Duffy,"Full Blower all the way","I was Supersonic"+ Otis 153 miles from NYC [911 Commission]=They should've been over NYC by 9:03). Either Gen. Arnold,the pilots or the Commission are lying OR the holding pattern came BEFORE 9:03.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Who cares...it means nothing...but we go down the rabbit hole anyway.

 

[cjnewson88]

Your source is not backed by the NORAD tapes (none that you have provided, nor that I have listened to). In fact, the NORAD tapes discredit your claim. Channel 7 (DRM1 DAT2 Channel 7 ID2 OP), takes a call at 0955, 30 minutes after the F-15s arrived over New York, stating Panta 45 is holding over JFK, and asking if there are any immediate missions for him or whether he should refuel. NEADS takes a look to see if they can send him after Delta 1989 (who at this stage is a confirmed hijack), to which the reply is they have already scrambled fighters from Toledo and Selfridge(?). They choose to keep Panta 45 under FAA control and loitering at its current location, as well as give the location (W107) and frequency of the aerial tankers for refueling. The conversation lasts 5 minutes, meaning Panta 45 refueling occurred after 1000. No word on when Panta 46 refueled, or even its location. Judging by the media shot of the F-15 over the towers at 10am after the South Tower collapsed, it is likely Panta 46, and he is yet to refuel while Panta 45 is at that stage refueling. This is what the NORAD tapes reveal. Your source is off. I cannot find any NORAD tape which has a transmission from Panta 45 or 46 that they are low of fuel at 0909. Unless you can provide one, you are wrong.

they should have been there to fire a missile & down 175 by 9:03

Have you learned nothing after 4 pages? How are they going to fire on an aircraft NEADS doesn't even know is hijacked? How are they going to fire on the right aircraft when there are dozens in the immediate vicinity? You claim to know the NORAD tapes, yet must turn your ears off when they are talking about how the FAA is not clearing the fighters direct to Manhattan. You must be living in constant fantasy land if you think two aircraft can fly through one of the busiest airspace in the world at supersonic speeds and not have a midair collision. Acknowledge you are wrong, and acknowledge you are completely ignorant of aviation procedures.

 

[MaGZ]

One hint. If you do not want to present evidence, then just mask your theories as beliefs, atleast it works for my no-plane/nanothermite WTC demolition truth (NPNTWTCDT) belief

Beliefs don't require evidence.

So the correct way of stating your theory would be: "I believe they fired one missile hitting WTC7 on the south side and another missile flying over apparently landing in the Hudson River."

I believe it because I saw video footage of the missile strike taken by the local FOX cameraman when he filmed the crash of the second plane from inside the courtyard at 9:03. The footage was repeated weeks after the event and also world-wide at least a year later on an international news channel from the Middle East shown on Link TV’ Mosaic program.

 

[MaGZ]

Oh, believe me, MaGZ has an even more deliciously crazy "truth" than you do.

Why would you say that? I believe AQ was responsible for 9/11, only the military did their duty that day to bring down the hijacked planes.

 

[MaGZ]

Why didn't anyone in Hoboken or Jersey City see a missile hit the hudson? There would have been hundreds if not thousands of people watching after the first crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtyK3C-QUfo

This video use to show the second missile flying over east to west. Now this second of footage has been censored at 1:31 on the video.
The authorities have it blacked out.