Pentagon Intercept; Not even possible in theory?

[BenBurch]

In another topic I used this to respond to the idea that it was even possible to intercept AA-77 given the 40 minute warning that we were under attack;

"Well, let me see, time to get a pilot suited, aircraft armed and fueled and ready for a walk-around is about 20 minutes in these post-cold-war days.

Figure takeoff, and climb to altitude another 10.

That leaves ten minutes to intercept and shoot down the Pentagon aircraft.

Can't be done.

Not even in theory.

Not even were the 757 directly OVER the airfield when the order was given."

And I would add, that assumes zero time for analysis of the situation, and zero time for communications.

Now, I'd especially like discussion of the time required to "scramble" an aircraft. I believe that the 20 minute number is correct based on what I have read in the past, but I can't find a reference of any merit for it.

 

[BenBurch]

Crossposted from the other topic.

And these statements relate to the discussion, how?

Be careful about what you post. Every single statement you've made here is INCORRECT.

It could easily have been said by a troofer as EVERYTHING in it is WRONG!

Well, correct me! I am here to learn. How long does it take to scramble these days? I know that the "Ready Line" that we used to see in the old films on SAC no longer exists. And I know that five minutes is considered to be a respectable scramble time when such a line does exist. I've created a topic to discuss this, and will crosspost this reply there.

 

[MikeW]

NORAD were on 15 minute alert & could manage less, so your first two elements are overlong. But as you say, there's also the time it takes to realise there's a hijacking, then escalate from the FAA to NORAD, then for NORAD to raise the alert, and that's far from instant.

 

[Reheat]

This subject has been discussed at length previously under a NORAD thread. In that thread it was pretty conclusively shown that based upon the Langley Fighter's LAUNCH TIME, even if they had flown directly toward Washington, DC and even if they had "shoot down" authorization it would have been doubtful they could have intercepted and shot down AA77. Not impossible, but highly doubtful.

 

[BenBurch]

Is it fair to say that, had they been ready in that way, and had flown directly to the right point in the sky to shoot down the 757 in the nick of time, that would be an even better anomaly to hang a CT on?

And had the Target been known with that kind of certainty, an evacuation of the building would certainly have occurred as well.

I'm a bit touchy on the Pentagon as a friend lost her father that day; his office was one of those destroyed.

 

[Reheat]

Is it fair to say that, had they been ready in that way, and had flown directly to the right point in the sky to shoot down the 757 in the nick of time, that would be an even better anomaly to hang a CT on?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Reword it please?

 

[BenBurch]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Reword it please?

That had there been a shoot down given the time frame, the Truthers would be using THAT as proof on an inside job.

 

[Reheat]

That had there been a shoot down given the time frame, the Truthers would be using THAT as proof on an inside job.

Don't they use anything and everything that's possible even that which isn't possible. They don't understand because they refuse to understand, so no one with a rational and sane mind can predict what lunacy will be constructed in a "what if" scenario.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

NORAD were on 15 minute alert & could manage less, so your first two elements are overlong. But as you say, there's also the time it takes to realise there's a hijacking, then escalate from the FAA to NORAD, then for NORAD to raise the alert, and that's far from instant.

But it looks so much slicker when we do away with the time it takes to realize there is a hijacking and issue the order through chain o command, and the time it takes the fighters to get there. Much simpler to simply take the proposed scramble time and pretend that includes everything.

It also helps to pretend that at the time everyone was in perfect communication and everyone knew exactly what was going on because everyone had somehow lived through 9/11 and years after, then went back in time and used all that information that wasn't known until long after 9/11.

 

[GT/CS]

Even if they got to it they couldn't shoot it down since it would have crashed into a populated area.

The truthers would then be whining about the government being trigger-happy and killing innocent people.

 

[A-Train]

This subject has been discussed at length previously under a NORAD thread. In that thread it was pretty conclusively shown that based upon the Langley Fighter's LAUNCH TIME, even if they had flown directly toward Washington, DC and even if they had "shoot down" authorization it would have been doubtful they could have intercepted and shot down AA77. Not impossible, but highly doubtful.

I participated in that thread, and that was not "conclusively shown" at all.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I get the gist of your argument. Do you really mean to contend that since the fighters (supposedly) couldn't have gotten there in time, that we should just forget about the evidence that a network had infiltrated NEADS and was sending orders to delay and misdirect the fighters from Otis and Langley? Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned if someone within the air defense network was working to stand down the Air Force and allow the hijacked planes to reach their targets?

Is that really your argument, Overheat?

 

[pomeroo]

I participated in that thread, and that was not "conclusively shown" at all.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I get the gist of your argument. Do you really mean to contend that since the fighters (supposedly) couldn't have gotten there in time, that we should just forget about the evidence that a network had infiltrated NEADS and was sending orders to delay and misdirect the fighters from Otis and Langley? Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned if someone within the air defense network was working to stand down the Air Force and allow the hijacked planes to reach their targets?

Is that really your argument, Overheat?

We should forget about the evidence that a network had infiltrated NEADS because no such evidence exists. The fabrications of deranged, agenda-driven fools do not constitute evidence.

You must be tired of hearing this by now.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

the evidence that a network had infiltrated NEADS and was sending orders to delay and misdirect the fighters from Otis and Langley? Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned if someone within the air defense network was working to stand down the Air Force and allow the hijacked planes to reach their targets?

Care to substantiate that beyond empty conjecture?

 

[Reheat]

I participated in that thread, and that was not "conclusively shown" at all.

Oh, I forgot. It was proven to everyone else, but you. That's to be expected for someone who believes that masquerading hijackers escaped THROUGH A NOSE GEAR DOOR. Bwhahahahahaha.

Pardon me, while I recover from this laughing fit.

<snip> irrelevant BS.
the evidence that a network had infiltrated NEADS and was sending orders to delay and misdirect the fighters from Otis and Langley? Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned if someone within the air defense network was working to stand down the Air Force and allow the hijacked planes to reach their targets?

My bolding.

Then by all means why are you posting in this silly Forum. Take your evidence [snicker, snicker] to the authorities now. Why are you waiting?

Oh, I know why you're waiting. You want to impressed folks here with your ignorance first. And, of course, get in a little name calling, as well. Go ahead spill your guts!

Everyone out of the way. Cover your monitors and move back a couple of feet. A-Frame is getting ready to puke it all out.