DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why don't you? How does it support your argument that the people you claim "knew" did?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
At 0909, NEADS called Boston ARTCC to get a tail number for UA175. At that time Boston was on the phone to United Airlines, and reported back that the current status of the aircraft was NORDO (Not in Radio Contact).
NEADS asked if UA175 was still airborne, as they had a report of another impact at the WTC. Boston reported that they didn't know if UA175 was airborne or not.
It wasn't until 0915 that NY ARTCC reported to NEADS that UA175 had hit the WTC.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Why would they do that? They already had two fighter airborne. You would have left the entire eastern ADIZ undefended.
Defended? From what?
He didn't wait until he had a target, he merely declined to unnecessarily waste his very limited assets and leave his entire AO undefended performing functions that are not part of his duties.
No one knew that. The aircraft's transponder turned off before it began its descent, and only the ARSR-4 radars have height-finding capability (and FAA don't have access to that data anyway). Its last known altitude was at FL 290.
It wasn't until the aircraft's flight was reconstructed after the fact that they determined it started to make a rapid descent at 0838.
No one had any idea what AA11 was doing. That means the range of possibilities was virtually endless. The most probable explanation, at that time, was that it was going to land at a NY airport.
With no actionable intelligence, and a matter NORAD isn't particularly concerned with, the only really sensible thing to do was keep trying to gather information.
The reality is, at that point, it wasn't of particularly high importance to NEADS - their primary responsibility is to watch for uncleared entry into the ADIZ from international airspace.
I actually suspect Craig Borgstrom's scramble was a case of miscommunication. The actual AAD Scramble for the Langley fighters was a 2-ship scramble, not a 3-ship scramble.
I suspect Borgstrom misunderstood NEADS' phone call. It was clearly only a query to see how many aircraft they could get airborne if needed. When the scramble came, he assumed it meant him to, so joined in.
Some of the NEADS staff were quite surprised when they learned QUIT was a 3-ship flight instead of a 2-ship flight.
I'll admit the transcript is markedly different from the account in Lynn Spencer's book which is supposed to be based on an interview. In Spencer's account Borgy is told,"Suit up and go fly" (in quotation marks). So,there's a grey area here.
However, NEADS did tell them:
"MALE SPEAKER 6: Okay. So basically what I'm requesting you to do is get those guys ready to go and keep them basically on status. We'll let you know once we know."
It would normally be difficult to imagine that you could reveal any more ignorance than this BS, but I won't be surprised.
Using math, zero right, not more than 100 percent wrong. You are using Balsamo math. Next time ask a pilot, or gumboot. If you ask a pilot for truth idiot, you will remain more wrong, and zero right is hard to be more wrong, but pilots for truth can be.
Good luck with your next 911 fantasy. The SOF fantasy is not funny due to the disrepect and lies. Happy Thanksgiving
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Unlike you, I have actually consulted with Lynn Spencer. As a matter of fact, I actually met a few of the JREF regulars who attended her presentation at the Arlington County Public Library a few years back. If you contact her (her email address is on her website), she will confirm that her book is based on interviews and first person accounts, not hard data (which was unavailable at the time of its writing). As a pilot herself, she will also concede to you that the accounts in her book are 'war stories'. The thing about 'war stories' is that they tend to grow in extravagance over time, always to the favor of the teller.
In other words, you would be wise to stick with facts and data to make your case, not 'war stories'.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Otis is an alert base so they would have atleast two jets ready with the works.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
From memory I think their load-out was 0x2x4.
Which means (again, from memory);
0x AIM-7 Sparrow
2x AIM-9 Sidewinder
4x AIM-120 AMRAAM
The Langley F-16s, meanwhile, were, I think, 2x2x0.
You are making the false assumption that the 9/11 Timeline is an authoritative source. It's a valuable resource as a starting off point but one needs to check its claims against its sources. Here's what the cited article said:
"F-16s were seen taking off from Hancock at least three times Tuesday. Two fighter jets took off at 10:42 a.m., three jets were seen leaving at around 1:30 p.m. and two more took to the sky at 3:55 p.m. ['the unit's public information officer' Lt. Jeff] Brown said he could not comment on 174th Fighter Wing operations."
http://web.archive.org/web/20021104...ews/content.ssf?/newsstories/20010912_rn.html
The phrase "at least" indicated there might well have been other instances, the phrase "seen taking off" indicates the journalist source was some sort of spotter who might have been elsewhere earlier rather than an official source, the latter had 'no comment'.
PS Thanks DGM and Gumboot!
Last edited:
DGM said:
Thanx. Ignoring the rules against supersonic flight, is my assumption that fighters without missiles would have been able to have flown slightly faster because they would have been lighter and more aerodynamic correct?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Yes, The weight is not really the problem, it's the aerodynamic drag. The fuel consumption is also a major factor. A fighter with dry tanks is not an asset.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Not slightly faster. Almost twice as fast. The drag caused by weapons and tanks makes an enormous difference to an aircraft's performance.
There's a good reason WW2 long-range bomber escorts dropped their tanks the moment enemy fighters appeared.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The fuel issue is something most critics of the air defense response really don't seem to grasp, and it's pertinent here because it's the reason Marr pushed back the Langley scramble.
If you listen to the NORAD tapes, for the first hour of the attacks their biggest concern is actually getting tanker aircraft into the Warning Areas to provide support to their fighters. The way the alert role was running in 2001, NORAD was incapable of putting up a CAP, which is really what was needed. You can't CAP without tankers, and preferably you want AWACS too.
Aside from increasing the number of alert sites, the huge change that came about in NORAD's operations post-9/11 was the addition of tankers and AWACS assigned full time to the homeland air sovereignty role.
By my count, before Langley were even scrambled, NEADS had five tankers either in Warning Areas or on their way there. I think that speaks volumes for how critical fuel is on such operations. And it's something Truthers never ever take into account.
Good discussion.... The fuel tanks create the primary drag issue, missiles not so much... In fact missiles not much at all..
Theoretically, if tanker support were available two of the three tanks could be punched off after reaching altitude and the remainder of the mission completed with only one tank or preferably none... Just as the bomber escorts did in WWII they would then fight without tanks and cycle through a tanker as needed... Of course, this is only possible when it's safe for the tankers to be nearby...
If you are familiar with the Langley F-16's during their CAP over DC they cycled individually to the tanker leaving two on patrol at all times...
Indeed, twoofers don't have a clue how limited fuel is. To them it's all a video game with an unlimited supply of fuel and bullets as depicted in movies and video games... In reality if AB is used the fuel supply is gulped at an enormous rate. Fuel management must be foremost in a fighter pilot's hierarchy of priorities at all times. It is ingrained from the very beginning....
In addition, just as has been mentioned, AWACS adds an tremendous force multiplier to the equation. They are a crucial integrated element in today's war fighting capability for all combat operations... Assets are devoted to protect them if needed in order for them to provide their "eyes in the sky" to a typical combat scenario..
As an additional illustration of fuel tank drag one further tidbit... For crucial very long range interdiction mission deep into enemy territory in the F-111, we carried two 600 gallon external tanks. Our contingency plan was to punch off the empty tanks over water at the top of the climb out and complete the mission at 600 kts below radar detection altitudes without using AB. With 5,000 gallons of internal fuel this was quite feasible. Fortunately, this contingency never happened.. This has of course, all changed in today's world with stealth capability and limited fuel in today's fighter/bombers.
A 9/11 is unlikely to happen again, but if there is anything similar you'll see fighters capping over most major US Cities along with all of the support needed. A lot has changed due to the lessons learned in 2001....
Theoretically, if tanker support were available two of the three tanks could be punched off after reaching altitude and the remainder of the mission completed with only one tank or preferably none... Just as the bomber escorts did in WWII they would then fight without tanks and cycle through a tanker as needed... Of course, this is only possible when it's safe for the tankers to be nearby...
If you are familiar with the Langley F-16's during their CAP over DC they cycled individually to the tanker leaving two on patrol at all times...
Indeed, twoofers don't have a clue how limited fuel is. To them it's all a video game with an unlimited supply of fuel and bullets as depicted in movies and video games... In reality if AB is used the fuel supply is gulped at an enormous rate. Fuel management must be foremost in a fighter pilot's hierarchy of priorities at all times. It is ingrained from the very beginning....
In addition, just as has been mentioned, AWACS adds an tremendous force multiplier to the equation. They are a crucial integrated element in today's war fighting capability for all combat operations... Assets are devoted to protect them if needed in order for them to provide their "eyes in the sky" to a typical combat scenario..
As an additional illustration of fuel tank drag one further tidbit... For crucial very long range interdiction mission deep into enemy territory in the F-111, we carried two 600 gallon external tanks. Our contingency plan was to punch off the empty tanks over water at the top of the climb out and complete the mission at 600 kts below radar detection altitudes without using AB. With 5,000 gallons of internal fuel this was quite feasible. Fortunately, this contingency never happened.. This has of course, all changed in today's world with stealth capability and limited fuel in today's fighter/bombers.
A 9/11 is unlikely to happen again, but if there is anything similar you'll see fighters capping over most major US Cities along with all of the support needed. A lot has changed due to the lessons learned in 2001....
From the NYT in 2006:
"When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute... "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?_r=0
Does that sound about right? From what others have said that would also depend on if it had external fuel tanks and/or missiles and I assume just how fast it was going. Is the fuel consumption for F-15s similar?
"When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute... "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?_r=0
Does that sound about right? From what others have said that would also depend on if it had external fuel tanks and/or missiles and I assume just how fast it was going. Is the fuel consumption for F-15s similar?
Last edited: