Andrews Air Force Base on 9/11

[SpitfireIX]

It seems that whenever debunkers start losing an argument-- whether it be about the standdown, or the reports of a gun-- you start throwing the word confusion and all its conjugations about in a very liberal manner.

No. People have merely attempted to educate you about the fact that evidence of traumatic events can frequently be contradictory. Like all other conspiracists, you frequently attempt to seize on the slightest anomaly in the evidence as "proof" of a sinister conspiracy, rather than accept that there are bound to be a certain number of anomalies in the record of any real event.

There was nothing confused about Deena Burnett's report of Tom's witnessing a gun. She called 911 and on this recorded call, she said, "They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane." Later, she told the London Times,

Very straightforward and deliberate. Absolutely nothing confused about it.

No one disputes that she likely heard this. The issue is whether her husband was confused in the stress of the moment. You have no idea whether Burnett actually saw a gun. He might have heard one of the other passengers say that one of the hijackers had a gun, or perhaps one of them falsely claimed to have a gun.

 

[beachnut]

No. I'm sure they're really smart when it comes to flying their planes. I'm just saying that when these pilots say "there was no standdown..." what they mean is they were never ordered to standdown. They were never given an order to not do anything. They were simply given no orders at all. And if you're a USAF pilot, you don't do anything without orders, no matter how badly you may want to.

Wrong, pilots have degrees in diverse areas and most "fighter pilots" I know personally are smart on subject you seem to lack any knowledge on. It looks like there are a few military pilots who lack knowledge, but they have exposed their failure to use judgment and have joined the failed p4t group. Looks like you have not talked to many pilots.

Wrong again, there was no stand down, and there was covert stand down. I was on active duty on 9/11; no stand down, and you lack evidence to even talk of it. Why? You do not even know there were on alert birds at Andrews, not too good at this 9/11 stuff. How long will you prove your ignorance on this topic?

Pilots will not act without orders!? Wrong again, Pilots are trained to use judgment. Sorry, but most the USAF pilots I have worked with (hundreds), use initiative to make good decisions based on knowledge. Unlike you, who makes up junk ideas based on hearsay and lies.

Take your stand down and stuff it with the 9/11 "ample evidence" petition; basically a big lie.

 

[beachnut]

... and am positive LHO didnt kill JFK. ...

Your off topic stuff is indicative of your lack of knowledge on 9/11 and being wrong across the board on 9/11 topics. Like this thread, where you are unable to comprehend there were no tactical alert birds at Andrews on 9/11. Sad, a fellow veteran being wrong on an event, 9/11. Why do you do it? Even the terrorist and UBL get this right! Are you not as good at using logic and evidence as UBL?

 

[Reheat]

Pilots will not act without orders!? Wrong again, Pilots are trained to use judgment. Sorry, but most the USAF pilots I have worked with (hundreds), use initiative to make good decisions based on knowledge. Unlike you, who makes up junk ideas based on hearsay and lies.

Apparently, this guy (based upon what he says) thinks that Fighter Pilots or any USAF Pilot for that matter are as dumb as he is to even suspect that they wouldn't know they were not allowed to do their job. He apparently thinks that he is only smart guy in the world to suspect that something was remiss and they were not allowed to do the thing that is near and dear to them. It's not only preposterous it's a supreme insult to anyone who has ever worn a flight suit.

Take your stand down and stuff it with the 9/11 "ample evidence" petition; basically a big lie.

I would personally like to help him stuff it, without lubrication!

 

[gumboot]

So getting back to the OP...

Andrews AFB was not an alert site, and had two squadrons based there on 9/11 with fighter aircraft - VMFA-321 of the USMC Air Reserve (F/A-18) and the 121st FS of the DCANG (F-16C/D). It should be pointed out that both of these squadrons are part time squadrons, and that both were focusing on the close support role during this time (i.e. ground attack, not air interception). In addition VMFA-321 was not on duty on 9/11, and had no staff at the base or aircraft in flight-ready preparation. Two aircraft from the 121st FS were airborne conducting strike training flights armed with bombs, with an additional two preparing to take off.

Upon report of the incidents at the WTC the commanding officers of the 121st FS, on their own initiate decided to recall their aircraft and begin arming them with air to air weapons.

Additionally, off-duty personnel from both squadrons, on their own initiate left their regular civilian employment and made their way to the base.

Shortly after 0937 the USSS contacted Andrews AFB and demanded that the 121st FS get aircraft in the air immediately. Two unarmed fighters were airborne over Washington DC about 20 minutes later, with two armed fighters following about 10 minutes after that. Over the course of the day additional aircraft from the 121st FS took to the air with armament.

VMFA-321, meanwhile, also prepared six fighters and pilots to provide CAP duties on the day of 9/11.

And this somehow proves that the military stood down on 9/11?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I meant to do this earlier, but I had forgotten to. Anyway:

To say a plane became "invisible"because it turned its transponder off is fantasy.


Confirm this by visiting the Canadian Defense website again,
"Canada-United States Defense Regulations."

http://www.dnd.ca/menu/canada-us/bg00.010_e.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad

"NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter
jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to
the continent."

Well, I went there to "confirm" that the transponder issue was a "fantasy", and what do you know? I see that the information actually points in the opposite direction and confirms what everyone else has been saying, which is that NORAD's attention is oriented outwards:

The North Warning System (NWS) provides surveillance of potential attack routes via Arctic airspace. The NWS consists of 15 long-range radars (11 in Canada, four in Alaska) and 39 short-range radars (36 in Canada, three in Alaska) along the northern edge of North America. The state-of-the-art radars form a 4,800-Km-long and 320 Km-wide "tripwire" stretching from Alaska to Newfoundland.

And

Airborne radar coverage is provided by the E-3 AWACS aircraft when necessary. Canada contributes military personnel to AWACS operations. The United States Air Force AWACS provides a significant improvement over ground-based radar stations, and extends the perimeter radar system in times of increased alert. AWACS aircraft can detect targets from about 580 Kms, then guide Canadian or U.S. aircraft to visually identify unknown aircraft.

Also

Counter Drug Mission
Since 1991, NORAD has assisted in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking. In cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and U.S. drug law enforcement agencies, the Canadian NORAD Region monitors all air traffic approaching the coast of Canada.

Just what about this agreement says that NORAD has good radar coverage within the continental US and Canadian borders? From the paragraphs I've excerpted above, it's obvious that the agreement is postured towards intercepting threats approaching from the outside, not originating from within the borders. Read it yourself and see; the link is here. At any rate, note as well how the only mention of radar coverage clearly states that it's oriented outwards ("The North Warning System (NWS) provides surveillance of potential attack routes via Arctic airspace"..., and "... radars form a 4,800-Km-long and 320 Km-wide "tripwire" stretching from Alaska to Newfoundland".

None of this supports Roundhead's contention that there was enough radar coverage within the US to detect Flight 77. Not a single bit of it. Roundhead's contention that "...NORAD must have known when each of the transponders in the four "suicide" jets was turned off, and must have known immediately" is not only unsupported by the very link he cites as proof of it, it's actually contradicted by it. NORAD had to depend on the civilian ATC system for it's information. Which has been pointed out over and over again.

 

[gumboot]

Let's be clear. NORAD radar coverage in the CONUS was provided exclusively by two radar systems; the Joint Surveillance System (JSS), and the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS).

JSS consists of 43 ARSR-4 long-range height-finding Primary Surveillance Long Range Radars located around the perimeter of the United States and fed to both the FAA and NORAD. These radars have an effective altitude of up to 60,000ft and a maximum range of 200nmi (at 35,000ft). Each is coupled with an ATCBI-5 (Air Traffic Control Beacon Interrogrator 5) secondary radar.

TARS consists of ten aerostat (balloon) mounted radars positioned along the south-east coast of the United States and along the USA-Mexico border, and provide long range low altitude radar coverage. Maximum effective altitude is 15,000ft. TARS is a joint system utilised by NORAD and the Department of Justice for Drug Interdiction.

This is the only radar coverage NORAD had.

They did not utilise the FAA's hundreds of other primary and secondary radars.

Furthermore, due to the higher sensitivity settings which NORAD utilised for their ARSR-4 feeds, the level of ground clutter on the eastern seaboard rendered the ARSR-4's over-land coverage unusuable, thus for over-land aircraft NORAD had to rely exclusively on the ATCBI-5s at each site. These can only pick up aircraft with an operating transponder.