The Norad Stand Down in 2 Minutes

51 minutes from the first impact to the pentagon impact and 34 minutes from the second impact to the pentagon imapact. Nope, I'm sorry to say there is no reason for this that excludes both negligence and conspiracy.

Please tell us exactly how long it takes to get a fighter fully armed. Give us the times when you KNOW something is going to happen, and compare those to going from a cold start. I'm sure you know better than the wing commander and the NCOIC in charge of weapons and can tell us exactly how long it takes to get a fighter armed and in the air.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Your methods, Zaphod, are quite transperant.


Rule 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.


You are guilty as charged.

reply to post by jprophet420

Nope, I'm sorry to say there is no reason for this that excludes both negligence and conspiracy.

And the conspiracy marches on.

Soon thereafter, the Secret Service called back, asking whether the squadron could get fighters airborne. The unit's maintenance section was notified to get several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Anticipating such an order, Col. Don C. Mozley, the 113th Logistics Group commander, had already ordered his weapons officer to "break out the AIM-9s and start building them up." The missiles had to be transported from a bunker on the other side of the base, which would take a while. wtc7lies.googles.com

reply to post by IvanZana


Rule #1. Spam every web site that will allow it.

Rule#2. Reply to all counter evidence with more spam.

Rule#3. Spam cointelpro rules instead of addressing arguments.

Sound about right?

reply to post by IvanZana


Yeah, you're right. The fact that I spent 25 years working around the Air Force doesn't mean anything. I have no clue how they operate or anything else. You're right I'm guilty as hell. I know nothing except what's on google.

I would LOVE to say a few things right now that aren't acceptable, but I'm pretty sure you can figure out what they are if you just search google for them.

Didn't I ask you guys to discuss the topic and not eachother.

This is your last chance.

reply to post by IvanZana

NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes

Your first source states that interceptions happen within 10 to 15 minutes, your second source debunks that.

Norad was instrumental in getting fighter jets -- normally on 15-minute alert -- airborne within eight minutes.

No mention of intercepting aircraft within 15 minutes, only taking off. 0-1

They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 abcnews.go.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.

One of your links is broken, so I'll address the one that is not. "They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000." How did you determine that they were on time? How long did the interceptors reach them before they impacted their intended targets?
They only intercepted 129 out of 425.

Last year, there were 425 unknowns -- pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Jets were scrambled 129 times.Your source.

Notice in the external quote above (your source) that it says scrambled, not intercepted. 0-2

NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases

Otis was the closest base that had NORAD fighters. 0-3

Once airborne,interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds

Your source states that the top speed of an F-15 is 1875 mph. They are wrong. It's 900 mph at low altitude.

High altitude: Mach 2.5+ (1,650 mph, 2,660 km/h)
Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (900 mph, 1,450 km/h)
Wiki

0-4

Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them

That is correct. NORAD was not informed of flight 77 until 9:34 a.m., three minutes before crashing. 0-4-1

You might think that the military couldn't find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off also, listen to this interview).

I addressed this in this thread. 0-5-1



Would you like to address your errors, Ivan?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Please tell us exactly how long it takes to get a fighter fully armed. Give us the times when you KNOW something is going to happen, and compare those to going from a cold start. I'm sure you know better than the wing commander and the NCOIC in charge of weapons and can tell us exactly how long it takes to get a fighter armed and in the air.

Well from my experience in the Air Force i can tell you that most bases can arm a plane in under 30 minutes. Some bases have hot fuel and wepaons area that can arm in a few minutes.

I guess you never heard of a Combat Quick Turn?

I do not care what the wing commander and NCOIC state, they are probly just trying to cover their A**.




[edit on 31-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Thirty minutes? I think that's darn fast - truly. I know squat about Air Force airframes (unless we are talking Blackhawks) but I would have imagined longer if not in what we called a FARP.

I have zero first hand knowledge but I would think it's a fairly complex set of tasks to fuel and arm something like a F-15 or 16.

Our Apaches (in the 101st) would take upwards of 20+ minutes in a FARP to refuel and rearm (cannon, rockets and hellfires).

From unarmed, battery switch circuit breaker pulled, to armed, fuelled and on the throttle in 30 minutes? Kudos to those guys

Self edit for double-post

[edit on 31-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Thirty minutes? I think that's darn fast - truly. I know squat about Air Force airframes (unless we are talking Blackhawks) but I would have imagined longer if not in what we called a FARP.

I have zero first hand knowledge but I would think it's a fairly complex set of tasks to fuel and arm something like a F-15 or 16.

Well i was a crew chief on RF-4C and during alerts and exercises in England we would do whats called Combat quick turns and could turn and Fuel an F-4 in under 30 minutes. (of course you did not follow normal procedures) We aslo ddi hot film download to get the films canisters out while the plane was still ruinning to speed up turn around time.

F-15s and F-16s are set up to only carry a few different missiles so it is pretty fast to arm them.

As stated most bases are set up that they can get wepaons to the plane and loaded pretty fast and some bases are set up with hot pits to fuel and put weapons on while the plane is running.

reply to post by Boone 870

So you're saying you could fly a jet into the pentagon right now? Because if you couldn't then 'we' were negligent that day. If you could today we still are.

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

www.washingtonpost.com...


[edit on 6-4-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Except there were no alert fighters in Washington. All that they could have launched were unarmed fighters that would have had to ram the plane, or sat and watched while it crashed anyway. There were 7 bases around the US that had alert fighters ready to go, and none of them were in Washington.

Are you telling me that around the Nations Capital, one of the most secure places on Earth with some of the most stringent security measures surrounding the Important residents that reside there. That there were no
fighters armed. If that is the case; that fact alone is enough to convince that it was an inside job and not just lax security measures. Please....

[edit on 6-4-2008 by whaaa]

In post-9/11 a teenage boy succeeded in crashing a plane into a building in FLorida even though the military was able to respond in about oh 8 minutes. But they were too late since the civilians in the airport tower failed to inform the military quickly. It happens. Kind of like in D.C.

reply to post by whaaa


It may be considered protected but that don't mean its invincible. Think of that small plane crashing into the White House back in the 90s. I'm sure it sent a message to the terrorists that the White House is in fact reachable.

reply to post by IvanZana


Would you care to address the obvious mistakes in the OP or are you going to continue spamming this thread? What's the matter Ivan, does 9/11Blogger not provide the answers for you to copy and paste?

Once again Ivan is being completely dishonest.

"They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 abcnews.go.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001."


Ivan, please list just one intercept over the continental US that involved a domestic plane and was intercepted in under an hour. And don't try to mislead people by leaving out the time zone difference with the Payne incident to pretend it took an hour less than it did.

reply to post by snoopy

Once again Ivan is being completely dishonest.

I have to disagree with you on this Snoopy. Ivan is doing what Ivan does, he/she is spamming from various 9/11 conspiracy sites and not responding to any critique of the links he posts.