1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why were no jets scrambled on 9-11?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sims2789, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    - Introduction to Summary of Evidence -

    Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.

    On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter took off (or scrambled) to protect the city.

    The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.

    Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:

    "Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
    --'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1)

    Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is a lie.

    Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are everyday emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules.

    The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and air defense systems.

    The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:

    " 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
    --'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)

    'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next:

    "'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'"
    --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)

    U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

    Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.

    The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.

    In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect.

    The summary of evidence covers the following areas:

    * Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'

    * The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;

    * The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

    * The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

    * The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th.
    Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating.

    Part 1: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.?

    Lie #1: 'No Combat Ready Fighters Were Stationed Near The Pentagon'

    As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The media has mainly avoided talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in America. On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:

    FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY:

    "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
    --'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4)

    SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:

    "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
    --'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)

    Both stories are false.

    Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':

    "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

    "But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
    --'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6)

    Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

    * the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;

    * the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped with
    F/A-18 fighters.

    These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel.

    THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING

    "…as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force"
    --DC Military (7)

    THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321)

    "In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB.

    "Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "
    --DC Military (7)

    So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons.

    (www.dcmilitary.com is a private Website authorized by the military to provide information for members of the armed forces. Please see note just before "Footnotes.")

    Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers and TV news departments have full-time research staffs. The important media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from the Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported the truth: that Andrews job was to protect DC?

    This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.:

    For example:

    " Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
    --'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 (8)

    And:

    "WASHINGTON - …an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…

    "A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments before."
    --'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (9)

    And:

    "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
    --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10)

    The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit.

    Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily available. (An AWACS is a flying communication center equipped with radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American Air Flight 77 turned around before flying back to DC.) Both General Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did not go into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit.

    Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September:

    "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked."
    --Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 (11)

    And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press':

    "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

    "MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?'

    "VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16 September 2001 (12)

    As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House.

    From Solving the Mystery of 9-11
     
  2. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    also, the USA scrambles fighters about two dozen times a year to protect planes that may have been hijacked.
     
  3. ShiplordAtvar

    ShiplordAtvar Texan by the grace of God

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    894
    Location:
    Bell County, TX
    No jets were scrambled so that the CIA and Mossad operatives (who really perpetrated 9/11) could escape, thus leaving open the way for blaming those innocent Egyptians and Saudis. It really makes sense once you consider that Cheney and Bush were both looking for an excuse to start wars and grab oil profits for their industry cronies.

    Afghanistan alone should net the US about 10 million barrels per day of sweet black crude oil. If we're lucky, maybe we'll find oil in Iraq someday, so as to finance our bloodthirsty massacre of the innocent Iraqis.
     
  4. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    i actually wouldn't be suprised if terorists really did do 9-11 and that the Bush Administration just let it happen.
     
  5. Toaae

    Toaae Rogue

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    Somehwere between here and there...
    Ok, this is it. I didn't think a human could be that stupid, but you proved me wrong.
     
  6. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
  7. ShiplordAtvar

    ShiplordAtvar Texan by the grace of God

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    894
    Location:
    Bell County, TX
    Toaae, consider the veracity of the first sentence and first part of the second sentence in my second paragraph. That should clue you in as to what my motives were when posting.
     
  8. De Lorimier

    De Lorimier North American Scum

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,845
    Location:
    Île de Montréal
    Do you really need a smily to get that he's being sarcastic?
    Here, just for you:
     
  9. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    They were scrambled....just.....really late.
     
  10. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    Were jets following the third plane that crashed?
     
  11. vonork

    vonork Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    No matter why is it a bit suprising that the worlds most powerfull military power could not scramble a singel Military-Jet to protect the Capital of the US after the second plane crached into WTC and it was surtend it was an attack of some sort.
     
  12. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    no, none were scrambled. i could have thrown a paper airplane at the hijacked jets and it would have had a better chance at downing the planes than the US jets had, or lack thereof.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    why weren't they scrambled after the first one hit the trade center(even if it was an accident, it's better safe than sorry)? the reason why(if) they were following the third plane is because that way the Bush Administration could say, "See! we did scramble jets!" even if it was following the third plane(which i doubt) why didn't it shoot it down? better to have 100 or so people on a plane die than to have the same 100 die but in addition ot the Pentagon getting blown up.
     
  13. Shadylookin

    Shadylookin master debater

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6,719
    Location:
    eternal damnation
    if i'm not mistaken Bush wasn't in DC that day and congress wasn't in session(is this correct) If what i said is correct then DC wouldn't be a primary target in the eyes of most people since other than killing the pres. or killing congress one wouldn't much consider DC a target. Assuming I didn't see everything after it all happend I would have guessed the empire state building, sears tower or statue of liberity a target worth protecting as opposed to the pentagon. Perhaps everyone was so dumbfounded as to what the hell is this, that they weren't thinking about protecting the pentagon. I don't see Bush letting this happen had he known prior, think about it he could have stopped it been the hero who saved hundreds of lives and still he would have got to attack afghanistan.
     
  14. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    why did Rummy and Cheney want to go into Iraq 5 hours after the jets hit, but Bush said that it wasn't a good time now?
     
  15. AceChilla

    AceChilla Goedheiligman

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    Nijmegen - Netherlands
    They weren't scrambled because the governement wanted it to happen.

    They made a deal with the Saudi royal family. They both wanted Iraq and Osama out of the way.

    Did I mention that George Bush sr. and the Bin Laden family were watching the event of 9-11 togheter, along with the heads of the Carlyle group who would make a lot of money from the upcoming wars? (thats true by the way)

    Maybe it's that or I just love conspiracy theories. ;)
     
  16. Laughing Gull

    Laughing Gull charts, graphs, databases

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    Southern California, U.S.A.
    because those 2 have been salivating over that idea for over 10 years, and they were waiting for an excuse.
     
  17. Archer 007

    Archer 007 Rebirth

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,687
    Location:
    The Empire State of the South
    The best question is why did Bush not let Congress investgate the attacks?
     
  18. Marla_Singer

    Marla_Singer United in diversity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,877
    Location:
    Paris, west side (92).
    :lol:

    Well anyway, seriously speaking :), they are actually real reasons to believe the attack on Iraq was planned before the Sept. 11th. The book of Paul O'Neill talks about it. Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld really wanted to invade Iraq during Bush's mandate.

    However, they didn't let happen the Sept. 11th just for that ! That would be a truely stupid and counterproductive move to me !
     
  19. AceChilla

    AceChilla Goedheiligman

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    Nijmegen - Netherlands
    No not just for that.

    They also wanted to have an excuse to go after Osama as a favor for the Saudies.

    An unstabele Saudie Arabia is very dangerous, it could stop the oil supply and be a disaster to all western economy's. And toppling the Saudi regime is the top priority for Osama.

    reason enough to go after him.
     
  20. eyrei

    eyrei Chieftain Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    9,162
    Location:
    Cary, NC USA
    To continue with the absurdities in this thread:

    Because congress cannot be trusted to do anything that requires thought.

    Either that, or they were far too busy showing signs of solidarity and singing out of key, while pondering the downfall of Western Civilization.

    :eek:
     

Share This Page