Andrews AFB wasn´t on alert on 9-11

"The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas."

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm

Note that this article is from 1999.

Are we able to know if anything changed (assuming it is accurate reporting) from when that article was published until September 10, 2001?

cause you´re making a lot of mysteriums out of that question...

The DC Air National Guard is located at Andrews, though. Even if it wasn't part of NORAD's air sovereignty mission, surely it should have been protecting the capital, independently of NORAD. For example, the Air National Guard says that under State law, its mission is to provide "protection of life, property," and preserve "peace, order and public safety." Surely defending Washington on 9/11 would have fallen under its remit, to protect "life" and "property." It also says that one of the ways it accomplishes its mission is through "support to civil defense authorities."
See: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=160

What should it have been protecting DC from?

There are no aerial threats that can get into the US without being detected hundreds of miles away, hence, they can be intercepted by fighters from airbases in other parts of the world.

If Russia decides to attack the US, it is not going to be with a fleet of bombers using conventional bombs. The threat to the US from conventional aerial bombardment simply does not exist in the modern world.

The US is sure to answer any nulear ICBM attack with a salvo of its own.

So what exact purpose would jets on "Ready 5" serve on the US mainland?

There is no aerial force in the world that can reach the US undected between having the resources to mount the attack, refuel in the air, sortie the attack force, fly several thousand miles, etc.

The threat does not exist.

you would think they could have redirected at least of few of them? Well, guess what they did but they pretend they didn't.

At the Pentagon, a C130 flew over about 35 secs. after 'Flight 77' crashed into it.

At Shanksville, 2 planes arrived. One a C130 and another smaller jet that was privately owned with no markings.

At the WTC, fighters arrived after the towers were hit. I think one fighter claims to have gotten there just a few minutes too late (don't quote me on that one, yet.)

So planes were redirected to intercept these flights. Why does Rummie and BushCo prefer to let people believe that no one did anything until after the Pentagon got hit?

If you look at everyone that was in a key position that day, almost all of them watched the attack on TV and sat and did nothing until after the Pentagon was hit. They all pretend that for almost an hour, even though they all knew about the attack before 9:00 AM and watched some of it, that in the words of Paul Wolfowitz, 'there didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was.'

And how many were armed?

Just because a fighter jet is flying an excercise does not mean:
1) It is armed
2) Armed with the proper weapons to take down a 767

Show me where you see the answers to the above 2 questions.

they still should have intercepted.

If need be, I'm sure the pilots would have given their own lives under the circumstances. That is what they train for, right? To defend your country even if it means giving your own life?

How many potential threats were in the air during the period of the attacks?

How do they select who is a threat and who isn't?

there were a lot fighters in the air along the east coast practicing because it was such a beautiful day for flying.

It seems the flight controllers had a pretty good fix on who was going off course and where they were. It certainly was obvious after the 1st tower was hit, that there were other hijacked aircraft flying and that the WTC might be a location that could still use some coverage, since it was apparently a real target?

Then of course, there Flight 93 that was allowed to fly around where they please for another HOUR after the 2ND TOWER was hit and a HALF HOUR after the PENTAGON was hit. There is no excuse for Flight 93 to not have been intercepted.

N/T

9/11 lore requires that you keep five or six mutually-contradictory ideas in your
mind at the same time. This is what makes Dr. Griffin's long experience as an
epistemologist so useful in helping him sort out the data.

Welcome to DU!

n/t

there wouldn't be anything to intercept. Maybe that's why 93 flew around for almost an hour, because they weren't in the air that whole time?

Finally you have proof that UA 93 didn't fly around.

The AF couldn't pick that one flight out of the hundreds in the air at the same time with the 14 jets it had on alert around the country.

Even though, the last time the AF scrambled a jet to intercept a civilian plane, it took over an hour. And they knew where that plane was going and which plane to follow.

Think Payne Stewart.

Again, how can they pick out which plane to follow from those hundreds/thousands in the air at that time?
Also, what do you think the process is to designate an aircraft to follow? Do you think the ATC has a direct line to NORAD?

FAA set up a phone bridge with NORAD "within minutes" after the first strike. There was
discussion in this conference about flight 77.

http://mujca.com/flighttales.htm

The AF couldn't pick that one flight out of the hundreds in the air

If you want the truth, Step One would be: Don't Make Up Your Facts

1) That there were hudreds of flights in the air at the time?
2) That there were several suspected hijacked planes?
3) That is woul dbe extremely difficult to select which airliner to intercept?

What facts did I make up and show me where I made it up.

FAA and NORAD had a phone bridge set up before 9:00 in which they discussed the aircraft
of interest, including flight 77. Laura Brown's memo said that they discussed flight 93 by
9:35.

http://mujca.com/flighttales.htm

...is the operative word.

What is the flight time from where the fighters were to Western PA? Let's say the fighters were up and looking for targets, wouldn't they be initially directed toward where the attacks were taking place, i.e. New York and D.C.? Then when the decision was made to intercept, they would have to be redirected (through the chain of command)and fly to the area to find the specific target (without a transponder signal directing them).

But again, "discussed" does not mean decision. Ho many discussions have you had in your life without any definitive decision.

Small number of fighters in the air. Where do you spend your resources?

Direct them to cover the location of the ground targets, instead of toward an unconfirmed target airliner, would be the more logical step.

It doesn't get any truer with repetition.

According to Richard Clarke (pp 4-5), FAA's Jane Garvey told him "We have reports of eleven
aircraft off course or out of communications."

Presumably only a fraction of those were off course AND out of communication.


According to Norm Mineta, Cheney knew about flight 77's approach.

But what I mean by hundreds of targets is all of the aircraft in the air. Okay so my terminology is wrong.

Interested to see Norm Mineta's comments. Can you point me to those.

P 4-5 of what?

I would like to see the source prior to formulating an answer to those specific points.

Before that though, let's look at the time-line.

This whole thing happened between 8:45 am and 10:06 am. So how long would it take to gear up the system after the first attack, which could have been mistaken for an accident.

Let's say about 9:00 am (second attack), or more realistically about 9:15a when the FAA shut down NY airports. (The FAA didn't even shut down all US airports until about 9:40.)

So, now you have a window of 45min, before UA 93 hits the ground. Is this is honestly enough time to pick from those targets and retask aircraft to intercept the targets?

Key questions to help answer the situation would be:
1) If there were fighters on excersises (armed or not) where were those excersises taking place?
2) What was the flight time from where they were to where the suspect planes were?
3) How soon after the attacks became evident were planes tasked to head to NYC or DC?

where was the Secretary of Defense? Where was the Chief of Staff of the US Military? Where were the people in the Pentagon who should have known as soon as the first tower was hit, that Houston - We have a problem?

The system couldn't possibly respond appropriately when you have a stand down of the people in the top leadership positions.

According to 9-11 testimony from Major General Larry Arnold, SOP is to have the ATC controller notify a supervisor who must then call the FAA and speak with a hijack coordinator, who must then speak with a duty officer at the NMCC, who then talks to NORAD to find out what fighters are available, who can then only task fighters to intercept with the permission of a representative of the Secretary of Defense.

Now the original story that the controller gives about why the aircraft is suspect has to be told through the chain, with each person asking for their own set of facts to justify the next step.

Then if the fighters are scrambled, the controller has to direct them through the traffic to the specific aircraft in question from wherever they are.

Can we see how this might all add up to greater than an hour? Even when a target is evident, there has never been a history of NORAD sending fighters to intercept this target in less than an hour.

Jeez, I would certainly hope so.

What were spending billions on national defense for, if we weren't even doing the easy stuff?

is the responsibility of NORAD, not internal ones. They have to rely on FAA ATC to monitor internal airspace.

Edited for piss poor typing

with contact info.

http://www.norad.mil/contact.htm

Wouldn't be hard to look up their number if you didn't have it on speed dial.

However, in 2001 it seems they were very busy tracking Santa.

I accidently deleted it from my cell phone when we were issued new communication hardware.

What is the point of your post anyway, that they have a simple PR program?

to get a direct line to NORAD.

Granted, I'm sure those numbers won't get me someone in Command and Control but then again, I don't work for the ATC.

Well, I suppose the ones that are showing indications that they were hijacked such
as reports from passengers and crew, strange radio transmissions ("We have some planes"
and "there is a bomb on board") and turned-off transponders might be a place to start.

So you think a show of force would have had no influence on the hijackers and so
intercepting the planes with an unarmed fightet would have been pointless?

They were on a suicide mission. What would a show of force have done? Caused them to crash the plane into the ground? Okay, the best alternative of the possible outcomes, crashing in an unpopulated area.

I am not saying it was pointless, I am saying it does not happen that quickly.

a total grasp of the situation, wouldn't it be to the military's benefit to have a set or two of eyes in visual contact to relay information? Whether they were armed or not, they could still be an asset. And, as stated before, we do not have a clue as to the limits one of these pilots would have gone to in order to avert a disaster such as 9/11. Thanks.
quickesst

Just saying it takes longer than you think to get the fighters there.

Sure they could have crashed into the jets to bring them down, but that is not the point of this.

They could have done a whole bunch of things. But they had to get there first.

And you know this how?

Even if they were, air power might have convinced them they could not
fulfill their mission, and thus induced them to surrender. What's the
point of putting the plane into the ground just to kill a few
random passsengers? That would be immoral.

How much more than their co-conspirators crashing into buildings do you need to show they were on a suicide mission?

So the other three were on suicide missions, but this was the one that wasn't?

These people were not morally equivalent to any rational moral human being. They selected a random group of people and began systematically murdering them by crashing into buildings. How is that moral? Or are we arguing relative morality now?

This mission as a whole was immoral.

Now you are asking me to argue ridiculous points, i.e. prove they were on a suicide mission.

And you know that how?

I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm simply rejecting your assumption
that you know what was inside the hijackers' heads, assuming there were
hijackers, and your assumption that the hijackers flew the planes into
the buildings. Since Hani Hanjour appears to have been incapable of
flying the 757 in that maneuver and the guy in the Dulles photos doesn't
look anything like him, there's a great deal of doubt about who flew those
planes.

They selected a random group of people and began systematically murdering
them by crashing into buildings.

There's a big difference between killing innocents for a reason (to attack a
selected target) and killing them for no reason except to kill them. Supposedly
these guys had their eyes on paradise, that being the case, you would expect them
to give some thought to the morality of their earthly actions before they die.

makes it clear that unbelievers are animals to be killed. Killing an infidel in Jihad is not an immoral act.

ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

God loves no infidel. 2:276

9.73: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

You are right about Hanji Hanjour, he didn't fly the plane into the Pentagon, the autopilot did. As for the pictures, I have not seen those. Can you point me to a link where a govt. agency identifies him in an airport surveillance photo or video?

Your entire argument, such as it is, is based on 100% UNproven premises. Who is the "they"? How do you know "they" are who YOU (and Bush) say they are? How do you know "they" were on any airplane on 911 (have you seen airport security video that is being withheld from view by the public?)? What makes you sure "they" crashed a plane? How do you know the planes weren't being remotely controlled?
How do you reconcile your claim (unproven, uninformed opinion) that "they" were on a suicide mission, in light of all that's known about them being party-loving, topless bar-loving, fairly typical young men? What (credible) information do you have about them that is consistent with your claim they were suicidal? Besides, given their carnal appetites, what makes you think they'd rather give up their lives in the belief that thru death they would get what they already have right here on Earth (wine, women, song, COCAINE, good times etc.)?

Why would such people take the NEEDLESS near-certain risk of being captured, thus preventing them from EVER AGAIN being able to enjoy the carnal pleasures they were able to enjoy right here on Earth?

How many young people do YOU know who could be persuaded by a bearded old man that lives in a cave, to kill themselves?

Wouldn't it be better to make sure you have air-tight answers to the above BEFORE you post anything more that smacks of the 911 fairy tale promoted by the Bush administration?

Thanks for the laugh.

nt

You have to be careful, you are dangerously close to exposing the plot of the Bushies, Fundies, media networks, and the Cantor 6.

Their typical MO is car "accident." In case you needed ideas to keep your car from being remotely taken over...



Keep yourself safe. We need your rational thinking in this world.

Must be awfully embarassing to have to try and deflect attention with those kind of tactics (I'm assuming that's the best you could come up with on the spur of the moment). The questions I asked you are very basic ones. Sometimes that's all it takes to smoke out people who may not realize they don't know much about what they're talking about.

It is fairly easy to deflect with the outlandish claims that you have made.

That is what really is going on here. Nice try at the vicitm role friend.

Care to post any proof of the outlandish comments you made since you made the affirmative statements here.

Let's start with proving that the planes were indeed romote controlled. Show me that simple little item. Oh, and the statement that they could have been or that I have to show you they weren't does not fly (pun intended).

You make nebulous comments or statements and ask for proof that they didn't happen. Nice defelction tactic.

nt

Are you still here?

Let me put your answer through the translator.........

............RESULTS.........................
I have no clue how to prove or one scintilla of evidence for, my wild theory. Which I won't even pose in a concrete manner. That way I can keep claiming someone hasn't proved me wrong yet.
...................END...........................


Please lay out a coherent theory of the crime so we can see what you are proposing happened. Seems like you have done allot of "research."

Until then, adults are talking here.

Your statement: "Until then, adults are talking here." might surprise those people who don't know that a standard technique of disinformation is to try and discredit critics in the manner you used here.

As you probably know (I assume you've studied or were told) about the famous CIA Document (April, 1966) in which a propaganda campaign was discussed for how to discredit criticism of the so-called "Lone Nut Theory" that Oswald was solely responsible for the assasssination of President Kennedy. One of the suggestions in the CIA document was to make repeated references to the Warren Commission. The idea was that most people are uninformed and would have a tendency to believe whatever the WC said. After all, the members of it were all "distinguished" Americans. We see similarities in the case of 911, where we often see references to NIST, FEMA, 911Commission reports. It's very easy for a BUSH911 CT'er to cite a Report or some Government Commission and say that THEY did an exhaustive study etc., rather than actually answering the question asked or point made. A variation on that is to give a very short answer without any context or explanation and say if you want to know more, there's plenty to be found in the NIST, FEMA etc. reports.

As a self-described "adult", you've been around the block enough times to know all this, but plenty of ordinary DUers may be unfamiliar with how these kinds of things have been in use for a long time, for a wide variety of situations in which the initial story sounded plausible, but after studying the matter, it became clear that the initial story was not the truth.

Still no concrete theory of the crime.

Glad to see you are the shepard for all ordinary DU'ers, protecting them from people like me who ask for such complext things like "evidence" or even say a concrete theory with supporting facts.

I don't need to make any effort to discredit you. You are doing a good job of that yourself.