tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The plan seems amazingly haphazard if one lone airman could have foiled the whole thing.
Why did the Col. go along with this plan?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Obviously you don't know how true evil works. The higher the risk of failure the more evil it is. True evil has an unbelievable amount of risk, That's why the "regular people" pass it off as non-sense. It takes a special mind to see through this cover.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Frank, why are stuck on this SOF nonsense? It has been explained to you several times that the SOF does not communicate with the alert pilots at all. He doesn’t provide any weather, operations, or target information to the pilots. I stated previously that the only time I ever talked to a SOF during my career was on the phone.
Are you ever going to attempt to answer my questions? If not, you are only proving to all who are reading this sub forum that you have no idea of what you are talking about. As if we didn’t already know that.
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
It's obvious that you know nothing about the subject and yet seem keen on making that fact known to every-one on here.
Oh and maligning the SOF earns you an amount of derision
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Well that's just outright false.
NEADS received word that AA11 might still be airborne and headed to Washington DC at 0921 EDT. Scramble orders were issued for QUIT-25 at 0924 EDT.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
One fairly important point that I think needs to be made is that, while a couple of "suspicious" mistakes were made on 9/11 with regards to the Air Defense, even a brief understanding of what happened makes it absolutely clear that none of these mistakes prevented an intercept, and indeed, in some instances these mistakes actually gave the military a head start by putting planes in the air for future intercepts.
As I've already previously shows, the sad reality is that it would have been impossible for the military to have achieved a successful intercept of any of the flights on 9/11.
As for this talk of "hot guns", I think it needs to be pointed out that even the fighter pilots at NORAD were highly doubtful that it would even be possible to bring one of the airliners down with guns alone, and they had discussed ramming the airliners with their own fighters and ejecting at the last moment as a better option.
As I've already previously shows, the sad reality is that it would have been impossible for the military to have achieved a successful intercept of any of the flights on 9/11.
As for this talk of "hot guns", I think it needs to be pointed out that even the fighter pilots at NORAD were highly doubtful that it would even be possible to bring one of the airliners down with guns alone, and they had discussed ramming the airliners with their own fighters and ejecting at the last moment as a better option.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
After reading through all of the slop that Frank has posted concerning Col. Marr, I decided that I wanted to know exactly what Marr said to Capt. Borgstrum. After searching every link I could find, including Frank’s favorite History commons, I can’t find one reference that says Col. Marr actually spoke to Borgstrum. Can anyone help? Frank, can you help? Frank… Frank? FRANK!
Oh well…
Oh well…
NoahFence
Banned
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
While it's a valid concern, I believe most 9/11 fantasists believe that the flights could/would have been downed with missiles. Were the scrambled interceptors carrying live missiles, or were they guns and drop tanks only? Do we even know? I know it doesn't even matter, as there are a multitude of reasons that have been pointed out in this thread why the fighters were too late.
Air Defense aircraft on alert are loaded with IR and Radar missiles in addition to a loaded 20 mm Cannon... The missiles include AIM - 9's and AIM -120's.
Not all aircraft launched on 9/11 were on alert, consequently not all had missiles. Aircraft not on alert may or may not always have a loaded cannon. None will have loaded missiles. Those are loaded on an as required basis.
The same applies to all weapons whether Air-to-Air or Air-to-Ground. Only guns remain loaded (maybe) on a routine basis. All other weapons remain in secured storage until they are required.
Not all aircraft launched on 9/11 were on alert, consequently not all had missiles. Aircraft not on alert may or may not always have a loaded cannon. None will have loaded missiles. Those are loaded on an as required basis.
The same applies to all weapons whether Air-to-Air or Air-to-Ground. Only guns remain loaded (maybe) on a routine basis. All other weapons remain in secured storage until they are required.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The guns comment is in response to FrankHT's claim that Marr unnecessarily ordered the NY ANG fighters at Syracuse to have missiles loaded, thereby delaying their scramble (they could have been airborne with only cannon rounds in 15 minutes allegedly).
In any event, my understanding is that a call like that is the MCC's, and it was Nasypany who responded to Syracuse' offer with "I want everything", not Colonel Marr.
You're killing me.
Huh? You do realize that frivolous use of the debunking dog results in the death of a kitten somewhere in the world, don't you?
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Aha. Thank you for the illumination, I admit that I have a great deal of trouble following Frank's posts sometimes and the summation was quite helpful. So to boil it down, Frank's conjecture is that they could have arrived in time had they not delayed to arm missiles, but real actual fighter pilots openly stated their uncertainty that the airliners could even be brought down with just a 20mm cannon. Not to mention it's all a moot point, because he has failed to prove that such a delay could have enabled a successful interception.
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Yeah, I wondered about that. An airliner doesn't exactly have a lot of armor. Nevertheless, the shots would have to be fairly well placed, it's not like you can just shoot up an airliner and expect it to crash. Perhaps the pilots doubted if they could do so in a timely and efficient manner?
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
It also depends what type of ammo they have. The "unarmed" aircraft might have training rounds on board which makes for a lot of hole poking rather than exploding.
Pinch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 401
I would like to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I don't care if it is training rounds (TP) loaded up in that thing or if it has HEI (high explosive incendiary) rounds. 75 bullets or cannon rounds per second or 2,000 per minute fired into the cockpit of a non-maneuvering target the size of a 757/767/whatever will definitely spell an end to whatever flight profile the thing was on. Gun systems can be tied into radar locks and you get this nice little diamond symbol on your HUD that the bullets, at that instant, will fly thru with a reticle on the target where they will impact. Engine, cockpit, wings, whatever - those rounds would do some uber-serious damage to whatever it hits. These airliners are obviously not combat aircraft and don't have the redundant systems created for combat. Combat aircrews in fighters - active duty, reserve, air guard, whatever - train for that guns kill against similar or dissimilar fighter/strike aircraft. A 757/767/airliner type aircraft would be an easier target than shooting that banner in the squirrel-cage guns pattern. I have no idea where that quote came from saying a guns-kill on an airline would be difficult or questionable, but I'd throw the BS flag on that in a heartbeat.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
The only way these truthers have a chance in these debates is to take some minutiae in isolation, apart from the preponderance of evidence (which of course heavily favors the "official story") and harp on it for pages and pages and pages of an idiotic thread just like this.
It's what they all do, from JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, to Holocaust deniers, to moon hoax believers and everything in between. It's ridiculous
It's what they all do, from JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, to Holocaust deniers, to moon hoax believers and everything in between. It's ridiculous