Were The OTIS Fighters Diverted?

[Boone 870]

Something prompted Nasypany to request Langley be scrambled at 9:09. Was that it? If that's the case then keeping those aircraft on the ground waiting for a target makes even less sense. Just as a precaution (Phantom 11 or not) those fighters should have been flying CAP over Washington,DC.

I know this doesn't fit into your deluded conspiracy theory, but Nasypany explained his reasoning in an interview with the commission staff.

Regarding placing Langley on Battle Stations at approximately 9:09 AM, Nasypany commented that the strategy was to "lean forward" incase of another event. He placed Langley on Battle Stations without a specific target, put with the intention of using them in response to another threat. He notes that the Langley Battle Stations order was generated by the events taking place in New York. Nasypany thought to put the Langley scramble over Baltimore, and place a "barrier cap" between the hijack and Washington, D. C.

Note that even if Langley did scramble at 9:09, they would not "have been flying Over Washington, DC.," they would have been over Baltimore.


Col. Marr also explained to the commission why he held the Langley scramble at 9:09.

Langley scramble:
Marr noted that by the point at which he had an indication that another event had occurred in New York, the fighters from Otis were running out of fuel. He noted that it would take a long time for the fighters from Langley to reach New York City, then roughly when the Otis fighters informed NEADS they needed to return to base, the Langley fighters could be launched.. He noted that he does not recall considering a scramble, and only recalls directing Battle stations.

I bolded the important part for you.

Let the spinning begin…

 

[gumboot]

After their little sojourn 60 miles East over the ocean,they were NOT sent directly to Washington,DC

Their confused flight departure plant was 090 for 60mi but they didn't get very far with that. Four minutes after they were wheel's up, NEADS noticed the error and directed back to Baltimore.

"The F-16 pilot codenamed Honey (who is apparently Captain Craig Borgstrom) offers a different explanation. As previously mentioned, he says they are flying toward NEW YORK, when they see a black column of smoke coming from Washington, about 30 or 40 miles to the west. He is then asked over the radio by NEADS if he can confirm the Pentagon is burning. He confirms it. He says that the mission of the Langley pilots at this time is clear: to keep all airplanes away from Washington. The F-16s ARE THEN ordered to set up a defensive perimeter above Washington. [Longman, 2002, pp. 76; Filson, 2003, pp. 66; New York Observer, 2/15/2004]" [Quote-History Commons].

Is your only source of information seriously the complete 9/11 timeline? You do realise that a lot of their entries don't reflect what their own sources actually say, right? The entire document is suspect. Nothing from it can be considered valid evidence of anything.

The F-16s from Langley were scrambled to Baltimore. When they incorrectly flew east, NEADS corrected it after 4 minutes and directed them back to Baltimore. At 0936 they were cleared AFIO direct to Washington DC.

But even so,they weren't sent "towards Flight 77" they were sent East over the Atlantic. The Commission gives several different reasons for this. But at least one was within NEADS control "incomplete mission order" Too bad there was no SOF to review them for accuracy.

Somewhat irrelevant. There's nothing to SOF could have done. The scramble lacked target heading and distance information, which is required to file a flightpath. No flightpath, no clearance. NORAD didn't have heading and distance information for the target because they didn't have an actual target to vector towards.

In hindsight, they probably should have provided a Z-point as they did for the Otis fighters, however the circumstances were a little different. In any event the matter was resolved in 4 minutes and had no bearing on the outcome of the day's events, so it's something of a red herring.

 

[FrankHT]

In any event the matter was resolved in 4 minutes and had no bearing on the outcome of the day's events, so it's something of a red herring.

4 minutes out equals 4 minutes BACK in. 4+4=8. Scramble 9:30. What time was the Pentagon struck? 9:37 ! It made ALL the difference in the world!

 

[gumboot]

4 minutes out equals 4 minutes BACK in. 4+4=8. Scramble 9:30. What time was the Pentagon struck? 9:37 ! It made ALL the difference in the world!

Wrong. To begin with, the fighters would never have flown directly from Langley to Baltimore in any event, but would have flown east (because this is their departure direction) at least until they gain altitude, at which point they would have turned north, followed the coast in W-386, and only headed inland once they reached Baltimore.

This reflects the flight path of PANTA flight, which likewise followed the coast to reach their Z-point (through W-105).

Secondly, even at maximum dry thrust, the F-16s could not have reached Washington DC before AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, let alone in time to perform an intercept and shoot down.

In fact, even at full afterburner, the F-16s could not have arrived in time, even if we ignore inconvenient little details such as exhausting their fuel supply.

 

[Cheap Shot]

Yes, according to the FAA's original time line (revised 2004) they reported as many as 11 possibly hijacked aircraft at 9:09. Something prompted Nasypany to request Langley be scrambled at 9:09. Was that it? If that's the case then keeping those aircraft on the ground waiting for a target makes even less sense. Just as a precaution (Phantom 11 or not) those fighters should have been flying CAP over Washington,DC.

Did he order a scramble or battle stations, two completely different orders scramble is get in your plane and go, battle stations is get in your plane and wait. Don't get to hung up on the original timeline because it is wrong. Where there were blanks in the timeline the FAA and military filled them in. Incorrectly by the way, and when another set of tapes were revealed they corrected them in 2004.

 

[thedopefishlives]

4 minutes out equals 4 minutes BACK in. 4+4=8. Scramble 9:30. What time was the Pentagon struck? 9:37 ! It made ALL the difference in the world!

Let's get one thing straight: Langley AFB and the Pentagon are ~170 miles apart by road. Let's call it 150 miles as the crow flies (this is probably an underestimate, but bear with me). You're telling me that these fighters could get off the ground, up some appreciable distance into the air, find their target, fly a bit over 150 miles (because let's face it, intercepting 77 as it hits the Pentagon wouldn't have done any good), all in five minutes or less, and arrive in a condition to do something about it? Heck, even flying at its top rated speed, covering the 150-mile distance would've taken an F-16 almost 10 minutes. Don't kid yourself, there is no possible way the Langley fighters could've arrived in time.

 

[Reheat]

Don't kid yourself, there is no possible way the Langley fighters could've arrived in time.

He's been told this same thing several times already, but he keeps repeating it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#3SuyXJ9yOyUHZZb6.99

 

[BCR]

He's been told this same thing several times already, but he keeps repeating it.

That is why I gave up. How many times and ways can you say exactly the same thing? If he does not get it by now, he never will.

 

[thedopefishlives]

That is why I gave up. How many times and ways can you say exactly the same thing? If he does not get it by now, he never will.

Yeah, this whole thread essentially boils down to 2 major points:
1) No fighters were in a position to be able to intercept in time;
2) Even if they had been, the procedures of the day would not have enabled them to do anything about it.

Both of these points have been abundantly demonstrated over the last 5 pages. But instead we get yet another dose of the "Col Marr knew about the conspiracy so he vectored the fighters out to sea/ordered the SOF to scramble ON PORPOISE!!!1!one" nonsense. Playing games with minutiae while missing the overall point, as is the conspiracy theorists' wont.

 

[George 152]

Is there a word we can use for those who debate like FrankHT? Blackknightism? Merelyaflshwouldosis? or is it Tisbutafleshwoulndosis?

Kill file works for me

 

[gumboot]

Did he order a scramble or battle stations, two completely different orders scramble is get in your plane and go, battle stations is get in your plane and wait. Don't get to hung up on the original timeline because it is wrong. Where there were blanks in the timeline the FAA and military filled them in. Incorrectly by the way, and when another set of tapes were revealed they corrected them in 2004.

Nasypany and some others (I'm guessing Anderson and Fox, perhaps?) are heard having a discussion about putting Langley up, but in the end they decide to put them on Battle Stations until they have a clearer picture of what's happening.

Somehow that has conflated into the MCC ordering a Scramble and Colonel Marr overriding him.

This never happened, of course.

 

[Cheap Shot]

Nasypany and some others (I'm guessing Anderson and Fox, perhaps?) are heard having a discussion about putting Langley up, but in the end they decide to put them on Battle Stations until they have a clearer picture of what's happening.

Somehow that has conflated into the MCC ordering a Scramble and Colonel Marr overriding him.

This never happened, of course.

That is what I thought happened, not just for FrankHT, but others, it seems the battle station call was the right move based on what they knew at the time, and seems contradictory to any claims of a stand down by NEADS.

 

[cjnewson88]

He's been told this same thing several times already, but he keeps repeating it.

That is why I gave up. How many times and ways can you say exactly the same thing? If he does not get it by now, he never will.

Yup, thats why I gave up 3 pages ago. Its beyond debate now.

 

[FrankHT]

Nasypany and some others (I'm guessing Anderson and Fox, perhaps?) are heard having a discussion about putting Langley up, but in the end they decide to put them on Battle Stations until they have a clearer picture of what's happening.

Somehow that has conflated into the MCC ordering a Scramble and Colonel Marr overriding him.

This never happened, of course.

Really?:

"Okay,this is what I got going. Tell Foxy to SCRAMBLE Langley,SEND THEM in the same location.
Battle--battle stations or scramble? Battle stations only Langley" [Neads Tapes Channel 2]

Nasypany ordered Langley scrambled & Marr from the Battle cab over ruled him. Nasypany even asks to makes sure he heard him correctly.

 

[gumboot]

Really?:

"Okay,this is what I got going. Tell Foxy to SCRAMBLE Langley,SEND THEM in the same location.
Battle--battle stations or scramble? Battle stations only Langley" [Neads Tapes Channel 2]

Nasypany ordered Langley scrambled & Marr from the Battle cab over ruled him. Nasypany even asks to makes sure he heard him correctly.

Ah no, you've got it totally backwards. Think for a moment. Why on earth would Nasypany be telling Marr to tell Fox to scramble Langley? That doesn't even make sense.

That recording is Nasypany repeating what he's being told. Either he's being told to get Langley to Battle stations, and he accidentally says "scramble" and is corrected, OR he's been told to scramble Langley and then the BC immediately changes their mind and says Battle Stations instead.

 

[FrankHT]

Ah no, you've got it totally backwards. Think for a moment. Why on earth would Nasypany be telling Marr to tell Fox to scramble Langley? That doesn't even make sense.

I don't think Nasypany was telling Marr to tell Foxy to Scramble Langley. I think Nasypany was telling a third person to tell Foxy & Marr from the Battle Cab interrupted and over ruled Nasypany ordering battle stations instead.

 

[ozeco41]

Is there a word we can use for those who debate like FrankHT? Blackknightism? Merelyaflshwouldosis? or is it Tisbutafleshwoulndosis?

I dunno.

But an equally significant question must be "Is there a word we can use for those who debate with FrankHT?

I appreciate and respect the input from professionals who can engage Frank at the detail level and show his errors at that level. Thank you fellows.

But isn't it all futile?

Surely the real questions are at the higher level of context and the two big questions are (something like):
1) Was there a widow of opportunity in which shoot-down could have been initiated? AND
2) Could a valid decision to shoot-down have been made?

I suggest the answer to both is "No!" - specifically:
1) There was no adequate "window of opportunity" so all this discussion of detail is irrelevant/moot points.

2) Within the 9/11 timeline the only potentially viable target was Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon and 125 deaths "directly due to Terrorist actions" would legitimately be preferred over an unknown number of "collateral damage" victims is shoot-down had been implemented. (It appears that few members posting either appreciate this aspect or are prepared to discuss it. No wonder we are lost in the truther/troll evasive discussion of details.)

Both are topics worthy of serious discussion. The second one an order of greater importance than the first.

Yup, thats why I gave up 3 pages ago. Its beyond debate now.

Agreed. There is bugger-all reasoned discussion left. Most of the currently active threads are "two way trolling" - i.e. posts which are trolling rather than truth seeking and "debunkers" responding to trolling because there are no deserving truther posts being made to warrant reasoned rebuttals.

It's been fun debating 9/11 technical matters. BUT the issue is dead in the water. And we don't want another 9/11 so we can start over with more "fun".

The truth movement has had opportunity to present a case and has failed.

 

[Reactor drone]

I dunno. [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

But an equally significant question must be "Is there a word we can use for those who debate with FrankHT?

I appreciate and respect the input from professionals who can engage Frank at the detail level and show his errors at that level. Thank you fellows.

But isn't it all futile?

Surely the real questions are at the higher level of context and the two big questions are (something like):
1) Was there a widow of opportunity in which shoot-down could have been initiated? AND
2) Could a valid decision to shoot-down have been made?

I suggest the answer to both is "No!" - specifically:
1) There was no adequate "window of opportunity" so all this discussion of detail is irrelevant/moot points.

2) Within the 9/11 timeline the only potentially viable target was Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon and 125 deaths "directly due to Terrorist actions" would legitimately be preferred over an unknown number of "collateral damage" victims is shoot-down had been implemented. (It appears that few members posting either appreciate this aspect or are prepared to discuss it. No wonder we are lost in the truther/troll evasive discussion of details.)

But in FrankHT's world the people in charge knew what planes had been hijacked and where they were and deliberately ordered the fighters such that they couldn't make successful intercepts. His reasoning is completely circular based on his presumption of guilt.

 

[ozeco41]

But in FrankHT's world the people in charge knew what planes had been hijacked and where they were and deliberately ordered the fighters such that they couldn't make successful intercepts. His reasoning is completely circular based on his presumption of guilt.

I understand.

However "we" don't need to stay within the bounds of his delusions. We have the clear choice of working within the constraints of reality OR humouring Frank by debating within the bounds of his delusions as if those bounds were legitimate. (It isn't a dichotomy either - there are more options - before any logic pedants get the urge to point out that issue. )

From my perspective the two preferred options are:
1) Persuade Frank to discuss the real issues; OR
2) Ignore him as a "technical troll".
Given that we are treating too many persons as truthers who are really trolls.

 

[BCR]

I don't think Nasypany was telling Marr to tell Foxy to Scramble Langley. I think Nasypany was telling a third person to tell Foxy & Marr from the Battle Cab interrupted and over ruled Nasypany ordering battle stations instead.

I'll be darn. For once (ya'll mark this one down) I agree with you.