A correction to Mr Zwicker's video. The interception of Payne Stewarts jet ' total elapsed time, 21 minutes' according to Mr. Zwicker. Actual total elapsed time 1 hour and 21 minutes. He is only an hour out - just 300% out. And this was an interception by a plane that was already in the air. You would expect a journalist to get the basic facts right and not to go on constructing an arguement based on them. People make mistakes but this video was put up in Feb 2006. Any chance of correcting it?
@cwlldoran Right the 9:33 and 9:54 times quoted are from different time zones, dealing with a private lear jet flying over the western US. Andrews Air Base is about 10 miles from the Pentagon that has F 16s and F 18s, one of their jobs is to protect Washington, Pentagon attack was 45 minutes after 2nd plane hit the WTC. And 5 weeks after Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in the US" which included info about hijacked planes as weapons on NYC and DC targets......
@cwlldoran Right the 9:33 and 9:54 times quoted are from different time zones, dealing with a private lear jet flying over the western US. Andrews Air Base is about 10 miles from the Pentagon that has F 16s and F 18s, one of their jobs is to protect Washington, Pentagon attack was 45 minutes after 2nd plane hit the WTC. And 5 weeks after Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in the US" which included info about hijacked planes as weapons on NYC and DC targets......
@scrabbleking1965 This video of Mr. Zwicker putting out a false argument based on incorrect information is still there on YouTube - how many people still believe it? How many years was it out there before someone actually looked up the information and saw that it wasn't correct. It's ironic that he says he's dealing with the ' incompetence theory', . The planes at Andrews were not there to defend Washington. This video has a lot of other misleading statements.
@cwlldoran the planes were not at St Andrews were not there to defend washington??????,,,,,,,why were they there then???????,,,,,,,,,,which base was meant to defen washington??????,,,,,,,,,was it the one in florida maybe???????,,,,,,,,you are a fuckin dumb ass!!!!
@bigbopper993 Andrews Airforce base was not a Norad alert base , Langley ,Virginia was. There were seven bases in the US with two fighters in each , Andrews was not one of them.
@cwlldoran SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH THE FACT THAT,,,,,,,,,,,the military,,,,,,,WAS ABSENT TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM ATTACK???
@bigbopper993 The only option Norad had on 911 was to shoot down passenger planes with innocent people in them- what a brilliant option that is. There was nothing they could have done about the plane that hit the frist WTC tower and in the circumstances almost no chance they could do anything about the second one either. It wasn't their fault that the planes were hijacked and if I was a passenger on one of the planes , or had a friend or relative on one of them I would have >>
@cwlldoran >>no problem whatever with the military not shooting the plane down. I hear people talking about intercepting and shooting down planes as if the people on them were just to be disposed of without a thought -they seem to be almost the forgotten victims of 911. I would love to hear what people would be saying though if planes had been shot down - that would undoubtedly be used as more evidence of the big conspiracy, just using different material.
@cwlldoran HEY IDIOT ,,,,,,,,WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING PENTAGON HERE MORON,,,,,,,,,THE MOST HEAVILY GUARDED BUILDING IN AMERICA,,,,,,,,,NOTHING HITS THE PENTAGON THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HIT THE PENTAGON,,,JESUS FUCKING CHRIST,,,,,,YOU ACT LIKE IF THERE WAS 12 PLANES OVER 12 HOURS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPLESS TO DO ANYTHING,,,,,GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY FACE WITH THAT BULLSHIT!!,,,THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY UNDEFENDED BECAUSE THIS WAS A FALSE FLAG STATE SPONSORED ATTACK YOU FUCKIN DUMMY!
@bigbopper993 There were 14 planes in the entire continental United States charged with interception duties. In what way is the Pentagon the most heavily guarded building in America- it is in the middle of a city suburb, surrounded by roads. Pre 911 all you would need would be a socket wrench and you could remove the guard rail and drive a convoy of truck bombs down to the wall of the building. Planes fly past the building constantly ,landing at the airport. >>
@cwlldoran >>The building was constantly within 5 seconds of a plane being crashed into it and there was ,and still is, nothing that could stop that happening. The Pentagon was no more protected that any other building. People keep reciting this mantra and no one ever seems to ask themselves exactly how it was this 'most protected building in America'. It didn't even have blast proof walls, the most basic protection you would expect.
@cwlldoran you keep believing that shit moron,,,,,,,,,but I know better than that,,,,,,,,,,85 videos from the grounds and also the surrounding area confiscated within minutes is all that needs to be said,,,,,,,,,,If a real 767 hit this building ,,,,,,,,we would have seen very clear videos of it numb nuts,,,,,,,,wake the fuck up,,,,,,,,,are you mental?????,,,,,,,,easily misguided????,,,,,,,or just plain fucking ignorant???,,,,,,so what??,,,,,,you think military security was like tissue paper??
@bigbopper993 You still haven't said how the Pentagon was the most protected builiding in the world. 85 or 85,000 cameras do not prevent a plane crashing into a building.
@cwlldoran Well let's see, Andrews Air Force based very close, 2 Jets easily can be scrambled within a few minutes and be in the air within 10. They knew the plane was coming for an hour. The U.S. has successfully intercepted planes very easily, every year.
In Mineta's testimony - the plane is 50 miles out etc - how was it being tracked if no one knew it was coming? How can one plane with no transponder not stand out like a sore thumb amongst other planes that all have transponders? And given the ability to even identify and track low flying missiles anywhere on the planet - what is going on? This cannot be true
Remember that NORAD can defend against cruise missiles? They say they can - "flying at 500 miles per hr it updates its position and corrects its course using TERCOM(terrain countour matching) or DSMAC(digital scene matching area correlator) - the first system compares radar signals, the second optical images with a computer stored map - before closing on the target at an altitude of 100 feet or less" -- perhaps you could tell me how they can defend against this threat - low, and no transponder
to support critical NORAD and US Space command missions. The Cheyenne Mountain Operations center provides warning of BALLISTIC MISSILE or AIR ATTACKS against north america, assists the AIR SOVEREIGNTY mission for the US and CANADA and if necessary is the focal point for air defense operations to counter ENEMY BOMBERS or CRUISE MISSILES - can you explain how this is done with primary radar? because these incomings have no transponders - take your time lol
ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The air defense operations center uses its air defense network to provide surveillance and control of air operations to North America and UNKNOWN traffic. Today the NORAD Combat Operations Center has evolved into the Cheyenne mountain Operations center that collects data from a worldwide system of satellites,radars and other sensors and processes that info on sophisticated computer systems cont
high altitude missiles? lol - get real - they say anything anywhere - which is what you would expect from the best defense ever - and they ain't using primary radar - have a think about all the implications - ha ha
you haven't read what they can do and understood - a cruise missile can fly very low - under normal radar and can find its target via a sophisticated guidance system - NORAD can defend against this , without using primary radar which would be ineffective - they say it and i believe they can - are you calling them liars? How can they defend against a low flying cruise missile ? How can they detect it? are you able to understand this question? get an adult to read it back to you
ANY aerospace threat ---- ANY is fairly all-encompassing - pay attention and try and understand the words - they don't mention transponders coz they don't give a fuck - if it's in the air anywhere , a missile a plane etc they can detect it and track it - high low in space or at ground level - that's what ANY means
are you mad? i quoted you the specific part you wanted - they can track "ANY aerospace threat" and they can track low flying missiles , that don't have transponders - how do they do that dickhead - - answer that dont skip around it answer it - anyone that can read this can tell you're an idiot that can't answer a question - are NORAD liars? tell me how they can do what they say ha ha
you didnt answer the question because you cannot - you can't answer it lmao at you- and you can't even derive comprehension from a passage of words - you cannot comprehend the word 'any' and see the implication of this word and what NORAD says , because of what it means for you - you refuse to grasp it because it would mean that you have to realise that you've been lied to - and you cannot accept that - even though with NORAD's own words they say they can detect ANY threat - you're a joke
911 was not a missle, and icbms are not low fyling.
That NORAD has the MISSION to track it all is NOT the same thing as saying "a low flying airplane with no transponder is just as easy as payne stewart."
HOW many times need that be repeated till your dumb ass gets it?
NORAD says it can identify and track ANY threat - do you understand? be it a missile high or low or a plane with or without transponder - it's what 'any' means- and NORAD tracks EVERYTHING - get it? you're painfully STOOPID- those lyin NORAD eh? dumbass lol
how does it identify and track any threat? it was even used to track scuds in the iraq 'war' - how was this done? low flying missiles? Satellite recognition and tracking that doesn't involve primary radar only but something more sophisticated? given that radar is very old lol - and their maximum capabilities would be classified - how does norad do what it says it does? again - or are they lying and can't - try answering the question - you look a right cunt as it is lol - poor idiot - aw duh
" During the hour or so that AA77 was under the control of hijackers up to the moment it struck the west side of the pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east sdie of the buuilding were urgently talking to law enforcement and airtraffic officials about what to do. But despite elaborate plans that link civilian and military efforts to control the nation's airspace in defense of the country, and despite two other jetliners' having already hit the WTC in NY, the fighter cont
i can think for myself - you just accept the official lie - standard operating procedure is to inform NORAD when there is an emergency - why do you think they weren't informed immediately? atcs are highly trained and very smart - they have a lot to consider and have lives at stake , 'pushing tin' - do you think they forgot what to do in an emergency? was that not on the examination to qualify? was it too difficult to pick up a phone? were they having a bad day? 25 minutes to call NORAD?
Nope. If you could, you wouldnt have to copy and paste word-for-word talking points from Kook sites.
ATC is very smart, but they arent mind readers. Just because a xponder fails does NOT mean its a hijack. Just because a radio fails does NOT mean its a hijack.
So the FAA first has to make its attempts to re-contact the suspect flight, before screaming "hijacks!"
Its not a capability issue, its a timing issue. ur not going to have instant intercepts
" if in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency handle it as tho it were an emergency" faa order 7110.65m 10-1-1-c " consider that an aircraft emergency exists when there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any aircraft" faa order 7110.65m 10-2-5 - the faa hijack coordinator notifies the supervisor on the floor who then immediately notifies the faa's regional operation center who would notify norad -
no answer? pathetic as usual - can't answer my post - this is not a debate - you're a moron - i gave you the rules they have to follow - any one who doesnt follow rules and people die as a result , is liable and culpable - in a just society - no one has been held accountable for not following procedure - i'm quoting their own rules - your shit is not relevant to this and you're just avoiding answering because you cant ,or dont wanna embarrass yourself - but you do in every post sad
so - between a definite hijack situation at 8:24 (according to official sources - voices in cockpit - and the hit at the pentagon - 9:40 there are no time zones here are there?)
atcs trained to alert when an emergency happens - a hijacking - hotlines to the nmcc at the pentagon - but one hour and twenty after the first official hijacking time , a plane hits the pentagon - and the whole world watches on tv at 9:03 but Rumsfeld doesnt know til he feels a 'jarring thing' - are u on drugs?
God DAMMIT kooks are SOOOO uninformed. HAHAHAHAHA.
Point is, however, with the "best" intercept you can find is approx 80 mins, NEITHER plane being hijacked for anything CLOSE to 80 mins sinks any moron theory you can make.
i know exactly which flights i was talking about - my point was that the nmcc would be on alert and like in the case of Payne Stewart would be looking at it on radar screens in the pentagon - and a transponder gives altitude and identification- so don't give me the transponder bullshit- Stewarts plane wasn't hijacked - and did not deviate from course - it was on auto-pilot - given the smart people in charge i would say they had a pretty good idea what was happening
your point is irrelevant. Because the FAA has to tell NORAD if a plane is hijacked, BEFORE Norad can chase it.
Neither the FAA nor Norad are psychics.
Therefor, flight 77 has to do something unusual BEFORE anyone can suspect it of being a hijack. So even with "instant" notification to Norad, its still only 40 mins to get to flight 77,
And as PS learjet proves, 80 mins was the previous fastest you idiots could find.
flight 77 - there had already been hijackings and in the transcript published by the NY times loss of contact was at 8:56 and the atcs were aware that the first tower had been hit and then the second - and still NORAD was not notified til 9:25 officially - yet the NMCC would have been on alert already due to the first hijacking - and there are open hotlines - and loss of contact is unusual - as is change of course - both emergencies as stated in SOP - when did 77 turn around?
with known terrorist attacks - don't you think scrambling planes would be a standard response? to protect the white house and or pentagon? "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way" said Warzinski to Newsday. But NORAD has " redundant and survivable communications hot lines (that) connect the Command Center to the Pentagon,White House U.S Strategic Command ,Canadian Forces HQ etc - PS plane was watched on radar in the NMCC - why not this one non transponder blip?
you don't answer any questions do you - why is that? you haven't answered any of my points for about 4 posts - and if you could understand what should have happened and the hot lines that were open after the first hijacking why would another plane not responding not be called an emergency as in SOP be a hijacking or not? What did Olson say on that plane ? Boxcutters eh? FBI had to report that this phone call did not happen - these are all simple to avoid - avoid and evade and answer nothing
because known hijackings had occurred and America was under attack and a third plane with loss of contact( an emergency in FAA orders) would be hard to not see a correlation even for you - and these guys are trained to handle emergencies - or else what were they trained for? No emergencies? NORAD was aware at 8:40 of hijacking of flight 11 therefore was on alert and in contact with the FAA open hot lines
an emergency is loss of contact - even the president was notified that America was under attack at 9:06 - who told him L.A.? or the Pentagon? The NMCC is in the Pentagon - hijackings had already occurred therefore lines were open all around - what don't you understand? When atcs know that planes have flown into the towers and there is loss of contact of 77 it would not even take a genius like you to realise a problem and highlight it - - you can't accept they are lying can you? only answer
you're blatantly avoiding - i've answered your question - if you can read and comprehend english - more than you do for any of my points - you're a joke - for the nth time
try reading my answer - duuuuuh - lol and you ironically don't answer any points - just don't get it do you - poor guy - thinks bin laden did it because the tv said so - - but still no evidence at all - i havent changed any subject i have answered your question and now you , in fear of mine , have stuck yourself in a loop of nonsense - to avoid answering points that you can't find an answer to - very sad - you're very sad
1 - because SOP is that loss of contact is an emergency - and two other planes had been hijacked and crashed - and this loss of contact was important - and given the view that america was under attack and the whole world watched the second plane hit live on tv - how could anyone on the planet especially the atcs controlling flight 77 ( known to be out of contact at 8:55 or so ) not know that an emergency was happening? only stupid people can't see a problem here - can you? answer my points?
do you think that the pentagon and those in charge are as stupid as you? they knew that america was under attack - why not scramble fighters to protect the capitol? planes were already scrambled at 8:46 - why not fly on to D.C when they arrived late? and get refuelled if need be like in the Stewart case? Why not scramble fighters from Andrews when the world knew america was under attack - do you really think that they thought the capitol wouldn't be a target- you're deluded
yep - the fighters were too late in NY - why circle around? Other planes were not responding - and any one with any sense can see that protecting the capitol would be a priority - i fail to see why you think it is funny people died - i think you are a bit slow - are you ok? you can't follow an argument and you avoid completely questions you can't answer = you're delusional - How was 77 being tracked - in Mineta's testimony? by pigeon? on radar screen in the nmcc like in Stewart's case? tell me
blah blah blah, If you think ur being attacked in NY, you dont send the figthers to CD.
Now again, the next question, but still NOT answered.
If 80 mins was the best they ever did before, under ideal conditions, why pretend the fact they couldnt beat that record by half (even if they had perfect conditions on 911) indicates anything?
did stewart's plane fly into the twin towers in an obvious attack on america , as described by Card as he told Bush - you fuckin idiot? lol lol what might the next target be? duh let me think - and let's evacuate the pentagon? nah
you're so stupid it hurts - good luck crossing the road -
you didnt answer my points on Mineta as usual - and you expect me to answer all yours? lol you dont debate you just avoid and evade - how was 77 being tracked?
a plane hijacking is still a plane hijacking and procedures were in place to deal with a hijacking - the response was in the FAA orders and SOP - you can out manoeuver any one by completely talking shit and not answering any points =and any one who spells probably 'prolly' is deranged - hence you - way to answer my points there sad fuck - you're not worth anybody's time - certainly not mine - blah blah blah - great skills there blah blah blah - out 'manuver' lol lol - such delusion lol
Now, do COTINUE to make the explanation you asked for 4 days ago (and the explanation youve been trying to dodge for 4 days) Answer the question.
If the best you can come up with is an 80 min intercept, under ideal conditions, how can you pretend that since they didnt beat the record by half, something went wrong?
Actually, I double checked. it was over a WEEK ago you asked me to explain this.
so for over a WEEK ive been answering your first question, while YOU keep trying to change the subject to other questions.
So, to continue, answer this question: "If the best time, under ideal conditions, you can find is 80 mins, how is NOT beating that record by half a failure of due dilligence?
Laura Brown the FAA's deputy in public affairs sent the 9/11 commission a memo on May 22 2003 about FAA NORAD communications - according to the memo the 9:24 notification time given by NORAD was wrong - the FAA had established phone bridges that connected the FAA with NORAD and the Pentagon's NMCC immediately after the first strike on the WTC = 8:50 - in this teleconference " the FAA shared real-time info about ALL the flights of interest, including flight 77 cont
NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made a formal notification about American flight 77 at 9:24 but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (which was 9:24) After reading this memo into the record Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste commented on its point that "there was an informal real-time communication of the situation, including flight 77's situation to personnel at NORAD"(911 commission hearing may 23 2003)- get it?
i wonder why this was omitted from the commission report? lol - can you see the lie or shall i point it out a bit more for you idiot- and tell me why the FBI were forced to say in Massoui's trial that the Olson calls did not happen - ? Because they didn't happen - what does this mean to you? The whole boxcutter story came from those 'calls' - can you explain where it makes the whole of 9/11 stand? - and jets were in the air at 8:46 by the way - lets hear your answer
If the best record intercept you could find was a 80 minute intercept, under ideal conditions, how is not being able to intecept planes in under 40 mins proof of anything?
When they only had 40 mins to intercept 77, AND the best example you could find was 80 minutes to intercept, why is NOT breaking that record by 50% somehow proof of something wrong.
why is launching interceptor planes at 8:46 not important? according to the official story they launched at that time - but arrived too late in NY - too late for the second tower hit (9:03) an f-15 from OTIS to NY would be 10 - 12 minutes , 3 times the speed of a 767 - therefore they must have flown between 600 and 675 mph - and could have been there in time if they'd flown at high speed(supersonic) - no records broken there eh? explain
No, we have already been over this. you asked me OVER 2 WEEKS AGO to explain this. I am in the process of doing so. But to explain what YOU DEMANDED be explained, I have to be certain we understand the facts the same way. Which means you will answer these questions.
you do NOT get to change the subject, just because you see yourself being proved wrong.
So, for the 9th time. "If the best you can find is an 80 minute intercept, why is NOT intercepting under 40 proof of something wrong?"
what makes you think 80 minutes is the best intercept time? what proof have you that it is? Stewart was not a hijacking - 9/11 was a different event . The planes were in the air at 8:46 - what don't you understand? are you crazy or just avoiding answering because there is no reason to delay notifying neads for twenty minutes - and no reason that jets would fly at well under top speed - and that the pilots in a bbc documentary said they flew at supersonic speeds - as they would do - who is lyin?
listen fucknut - they were notified at 8:40 and were aloft at 8:46 - that is in itself unusual because it should be 2 and a hlf minutes to scramble - and you are not answering anything - you won't even say why you think 80 minutes is some kind of record - planes are intercepted as a matter of course all the time if they go off course - Stewart's plane did not deviate from its course and was therefore not as big an emergency as a hijacking - do u understand?
Agian fuxknut, AA77 wasnt hijacked at 8:46, so the air Force wouldnt know to chase it then.
And, fuxknut--AS YOU ALREADY ADMITTED--they wouldnt know to go chase 77 until much later. Approx 40 mins before the crash.
So, for the 11th time, if the best you fuxnuts can come up with is a 80 minute intercept under ideal conditions, how does NOT intercepting in 40 minutes somehow prove a failure in the system?
there were open lines at 8:50 between the NMCC and the FAA and NEADS - and all the flights in question including flight 77 were being spoken about - the second tower was hit at 9:03 and the world knew america was under attack - and 77 was being tracked (like the Stewart case) on radar screens in the NMCC. In the commission report they say that flight 175 wasnt known as a hijack til it hit - but on Sep 18 2001 they said it was a known hijack at 8:43 - methinks they are lying -you?
on 9/11 what time was it from launch to NY ? how long? they broke their own record according to you on 9/11 - the point is lost on you - your brain - nada zero - zilch working lol
sigh - the world knew america was under attack when the second tower was hit - 9:03
what makes you think that ,after two planes crashing into the towers and everyone knowing that america was under attack, no one would make a connection with a third plane aa77 and wonder if it was hijacked - it was known to have changed course also - which is a huge red flag to atcs - the NY times transcript of ATCs and flight 77 lists that they were aware of the towers being hit - and that 77 was awol explain
2000 ? where did you get that delusion? @ 8:50 all flights in trouble were being followed - as per Brown's memo - and the same as they did in the Stewart case- follow it on a radar screen - hhmm technology - NORAD tells you it hasnt moved on in 70 years and cant track a plane with no transponder - duh - but can track any missile in the world lol - and NORAD changed the time of hijacking of 175 from 8:46 to 9:03 - hhmm methinks they're lying about a few things here - have you a clue? explain
8:56 is when the transponder signal stopped. it crashed approx 41 mins later.
Any way you cut it, 41 mins was the LONGEST possible lead time to intercept it. Even if the FAA guy says the split second the xponder turns off "Norad! its a hijack! launch the fighters!" its still only 41 mins to impact.
Yet the BEST example you can find is 76 minutes to intercept.
when do you think 77 was hijacked? you are clearly basing your delusion on the idea that no one in the world could possibly link a third plane 77 - as a hijack - given that two planes had smashed into the towers- do you honestly think that no one could make a connection and surmise a link on the day? Is everyone in the NMCC an idiot? Another plane is heading towards DC but everything is ok there's no link? and maybe it's being flown by Bush? on a fly by? Check your excuse for a brain
The critical time is when ATC could possibly know the plane was hijacked.
A plane can be (hypothetically) hijacked at 08:00. But if they a) stay on course, altutude and speed, b) leave the transponder on, and c) if ATC does not call them for anything, ATC isnt going to know its a hijack.
its only AFTER something unusual happens (ie, transponder off, unauthorized course changes, NORDO, et cetera) that ATC will suspect a hijack.
Even AFTER 911 there was a "gojet" airlines plane out of radio contact for over 30 mins--no intercepts launched.
Recently, a Continetal crew from San Diego flew over 100 miles PAST their desitnation withour radio contact. No intercepts.
And with 40 mins being the max possible notice, the fact that it took over 80 mins to intercept Payne Stewart under ideal conditions tells you its not something thats going to happen in a handful of minutes.
planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon" NY Times sep 15 2001 - the second plane hit at 9:03 and the world knew that America was under attack - but no one at the pentagon did? do you really believe that shit? I watched the second plane hit - yet the official story says they had no time to react- in a transcript in the NY times they report that ATC knew it was a hijack at 9:00 - yet official time is at 9:25
So even if we accepted the fact that in the face of TWO planes (never before in history) hijacked and slammed into buildings in NY, youre NOT going to magically assume the next one is a military tgt over 100 miles away.
And with many many thousands of planes in the air at a time, you have to wait until a plane does something irregular BEFORE you can conclude its a hijack.
flight 11 was a known hijack at 8:23 - very relevant given SOP regarding instant notification of NORAD and DOD - you don't know this - clearly- you haven't researched it at all
at 8:24 of official story " we have some planes , just stay quiet"- i think this would indicate a hijacking - flight 11 - i know flight 77 was the flight that was heading for the pentagon - NORAD has hotlines to the NMCC at the pentagon - so when there is an emergency they know about it - faa officially notified norad at 8:40 that 11 was hijacked - do you think no one at the pentagon knew that a plane was hijacked? or knew that after the second plane hit at 9:03 that there was no threat?
GOOD INFORMATION! Only BLIND PROPAGANDISTS IGNORE SUCH FACTS.
Ignorant people dont study or read and have dull discernment when it comes to corrupt dealings like this.........bLIND FAITH IN GOVERNMENT AS GOD IS THE FOUNDATION OF CULTS AND EMPIRES.......................QUESTION ANYONE BUT THE KING!
911 was organized and orchestrated for CORPORATE EXPANISION in the MIDDLE EAST.........NO BIN LADEN, BUT DEFINITELY CORPORATE EXPANSION.....PERHAPS THAT WAS THE WHOLE ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
The FAA report uses local time zones for the events. The plane was intercpeted at 9:54 CENTRAL time. The text clearly says this. Pause at 00:40, and look at the bottom paragrapgh, it clearly says the 9:54 intercept time was CDT.
People who are too stupid to understand time zones are supposed to be smart en
what do you think you know about the timeline and what would you like to be shown the timeline is with proof from independent sources ? the commission report is a lie - and you're an idiot
Sorry, I dont have my gibberish to English dictionary. Get some help from an adult. Maybe have them post for you.
But the timeline from Payne Stewarts plane is irrefutable. Almost 80 minutes to intercept. And THAT was a plane already in the air!
That being said, the fact that the longest flight on 911 was less than 45 mins (from the "first sign" of trouble) Payne Stewarts intercepts ONLY proves twoofers are MORONS who cant understand time zones.
plane was intercepted at 9:54 CENTRAL time. Not 9:54 Eastern. At 00:40 you can see it yourself on the actual report.
9:54 CDT is 80+ minutes after contact was lost at 9:33 Eastern.
Moon <---Duhh! Im too fuxing stupid to understand how time zones work! But I figgered out da inside Jab! Im SmaaaRT! Not like people say! Like Dumb! Im smaaart and i want respekt Mikey!!!"
you haven't even watched the video you're commenting on - ?? in a Will Thomas article in 2003 he quotes ABC News Oct 25/99 in which a F16 was sitting off the wing of Stewart's plane within 19 minutes -- try and listen the video you're commenting on at least - and try not to take the joke commission too seriously - it's so full of shit i think you wrote it
the NMCC watched the jet on the radar in real time - and it was not a hijacking - at 8:13 contact was lost with flight 11- at 8:40 NORAD was contacted - what were they doing at FAA , having a cup of coffee and a cookie? Hmm- loss of contact= emergency - but i'll just wait shall i? lol and the pentagon was hit and 9:40 - terrorists and hijackings and no defense of the capitol - yet with the Stewart case it was watched on radar in the NMCC - defend that - retard how long from initial loss? lol
YOUR post changed the subject to AVOID the original point. I pointed out that Barry Z is a moron, because 9:33 edt to 9:54 CDT is NOT (approx) 20 mins. Its approx 80.
YOU DISAGREED WITH THAT.
So, its a very simple question. How long was it between "loss of contact" at 9:33 ET and 9:54 CDT?
Possible answers.
a) over 8o mins, and Edge was right
or
b) Im a moron, and will change the subject to avoid admitting edge was right.
OCT 26 199 CNN reported that while Stewart's jet was on auto pilot " joint chiefs of staff were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's NMCC" - but amazingly they weren't on 9/11 doin that - i wonder why - ?? - take your time in answering retard - and the truth shall set you free
don't talk shit - do you know NORAD's capabilities as stated by them? do you think russians have transponders? lmao - Chinese incoming planes would be undetectable given their lack of transponders - you're all fucked and NORAD is really shit eh? and i know the stewart case and the time zones - i was quoting an article from 2003 - - in my previous post it said 'on RADAR screens' no transponder is required for a radar blip - it just makes it easier - shall i list NORAD's capabilities?
Just because youre too stupid to understand it, doest make it shit. Just makes you a shit for brains.
Flight that would come over from USSR or China would be polar routes. AND take 8-10-12 hours to get inconus.
Compared to US domestic flights, where there are 87,000 a day. EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND A DAY!
Surely, even a moron like you can see that a system designed to find a high alt bomber flying where only a couple planes usually fly each day is not....
tens of thousands? - the same tens of thousands that Stewart's plane was flyin around in? amazing - your stupidity leaps to unforeseen levels - and having a plane higher up and further away makes it easier to detect with no transponder? you're a fuckin idiot - NORAD provides collision protection for NASA and can identify and track anything in the air on the planet - try looking into their capabilities - they are either lying about them , or about 9/11 - take your pick dicksuck
2) yes, moron, the higher up something is, the EASIER it is to track. Because youre a shit for brains who never does research, you never bothered to research radar.
RADAR 101, for Morons40.
Radars shoot a signal out, and the singal bounces off something and goes back and is received by the radar antenna.
Radar signals also bounce off the ground and come back.
Thats a PROBLEM for radar, because the signal hits EVERYTHING on the ground, then goes back Thats called "ground return."
See, moron, an airplane thats 30k feet in the air is NOT on the ground. so when the radar sees a plane 30k feet in the air, the radar says "Im going to guess that object 30k above the ground is not on the ground!" therefore, that signal does NOT get filtered out--it gets shown on the radar display.
"NORAD provides collision protection for NASA and can identify and track anything in the air on the planet -"
yeah MORON. Nasa flies in space. shithead. They dont fly around the earth at 150 feet.
Get it yet retard? HIGHER UP (ie, high up in space) its easier to track things?
Duh.
So, on 911 you have 2 problems.
First with the xponders off, youre looking for a plane that might be lost in ground return, with no xponder, out of 10s of thousands in the air at the time.
my god - - yes we all know that Boeings fly along the ground - wow - that's how they did it - now i know - but if they had flown higher it couldve been stopped - higher boeings? lol you fuckwit
primary radar works best off large metal objects - like big Boeings perhaps and AWACS were even seen on the day in DC - they filter out any radar interference as you would expect a great defense to do - you fuckin idiot - how do they spot bombers on polar routes? with pigeons as sentries? what tech?
'NORAD was not designed to pick out one flight' - it can detect any missile fired anywhere on the planet at any given time- i can see your backward understanding of this shit is what fuels your madness - how do they detect missiles fired anywhere? please tell me -
A correction to Mr Zwicker's video. The interception of Payne Stewarts jet ' total elapsed time, 21 minutes' according to Mr. Zwicker. Actual total elapsed time 1 hour and 21 minutes. He is only an hour out - just 300% out. And this was an interception by a plane that was already in the air. You would expect a journalist to get the basic facts right and not to go on constructing an arguement based on them. People make mistakes but this video was put up in Feb 2006. Any chance of correcting it?
cwlldoran 1 year ago
@cwlldoran Right the 9:33 and 9:54 times quoted are from different time zones, dealing with a private lear jet flying over the western US. Andrews Air Base is about 10 miles from the Pentagon that has F 16s and F 18s, one of their jobs is to protect Washington, Pentagon attack was 45 minutes after 2nd plane hit the WTC. And 5 weeks after Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in the US" which included info about hijacked planes as weapons on NYC and DC targets......
scrabbleking1965 1 year ago
@cwlldoran Right the 9:33 and 9:54 times quoted are from different time zones, dealing with a private lear jet flying over the western US. Andrews Air Base is about 10 miles from the Pentagon that has F 16s and F 18s, one of their jobs is to protect Washington, Pentagon attack was 45 minutes after 2nd plane hit the WTC. And 5 weeks after Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in the US" which included info about hijacked planes as weapons on NYC and DC targets......
scrabbleking1965 1 year ago
@scrabbleking1965 This video of Mr. Zwicker putting out a false argument based on incorrect information is still there on YouTube - how many people still believe it? How many years was it out there before someone actually looked up the information and saw that it wasn't correct. It's ironic that he says he's dealing with the ' incompetence theory', . The planes at Andrews were not there to defend Washington. This video has a lot of other misleading statements.
cwlldoran 1 year ago
@cwlldoran the planes were not at St Andrews were not there to defend washington??????,,,,,,,why were they there then???????,,,,,,,,,,which base was meant to defen washington??????,,,,,,,,,was it the one in florida maybe???????,,,,,,,,you are a fuckin dumb ass!!!!
bigbopper993 10 months ago
@bigbopper993 Andrews Airforce base was not a Norad alert base , Langley ,Virginia was. There were seven bases in the US with two fighters in each , Andrews was not one of them.
cwlldoran 10 months ago
@cwlldoran SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH THE FACT THAT,,,,,,,,,,,the military,,,,,,,WAS ABSENT TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM ATTACK???
bigbopper993 10 months ago
@bigbopper993 The only option Norad had on 911 was to shoot down passenger planes with innocent people in them- what a brilliant option that is. There was nothing they could have done about the plane that hit the frist WTC tower and in the circumstances almost no chance they could do anything about the second one either. It wasn't their fault that the planes were hijacked and if I was a passenger on one of the planes , or had a friend or relative on one of them I would have >>
cwlldoran 10 months ago
@cwlldoran >>no problem whatever with the military not shooting the plane down. I hear people talking about intercepting and shooting down planes as if the people on them were just to be disposed of without a thought -they seem to be almost the forgotten victims of 911. I would love to hear what people would be saying though if planes had been shot down - that would undoubtedly be used as more evidence of the big conspiracy, just using different material.
cwlldoran 10 months ago
@cwlldoran HEY IDIOT ,,,,,,,,WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING PENTAGON HERE MORON,,,,,,,,,THE MOST HEAVILY GUARDED BUILDING IN AMERICA,,,,,,,,,NOTHING HITS THE PENTAGON THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HIT THE PENTAGON,,,JESUS FUCKING CHRIST,,,,,,YOU ACT LIKE IF THERE WAS 12 PLANES OVER 12 HOURS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPLESS TO DO ANYTHING,,,,,GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY FACE WITH THAT BULLSHIT!!,,,THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY UNDEFENDED BECAUSE THIS WAS A FALSE FLAG STATE SPONSORED ATTACK YOU FUCKIN DUMMY!
bigbopper993 10 months ago
@bigbopper993 There were 14 planes in the entire continental United States charged with interception duties. In what way is the Pentagon the most heavily guarded building in America- it is in the middle of a city suburb, surrounded by roads. Pre 911 all you would need would be a socket wrench and you could remove the guard rail and drive a convoy of truck bombs down to the wall of the building. Planes fly past the building constantly ,landing at the airport. >>
cwlldoran 10 months ago
@cwlldoran >>The building was constantly within 5 seconds of a plane being crashed into it and there was ,and still is, nothing that could stop that happening. The Pentagon was no more protected that any other building. People keep reciting this mantra and no one ever seems to ask themselves exactly how it was this 'most protected building in America'. It didn't even have blast proof walls, the most basic protection you would expect.
cwlldoran 10 months ago
@cwlldoran you keep believing that shit moron,,,,,,,,,but I know better than that,,,,,,,,,,85 videos from the grounds and also the surrounding area confiscated within minutes is all that needs to be said,,,,,,,,,,If a real 767 hit this building ,,,,,,,,we would have seen very clear videos of it numb nuts,,,,,,,,wake the fuck up,,,,,,,,,are you mental?????,,,,,,,,easily misguided????,,,,,,,or just plain fucking ignorant???,,,,,,so what??,,,,,,you think military security was like tissue paper??
bigbopper993 10 months ago
@bigbopper993 You still haven't said how the Pentagon was the most protected builiding in the world. 85 or 85,000 cameras do not prevent a plane crashing into a building.
cwlldoran 10 months ago
@cwlldoran Well let's see, Andrews Air Force based very close, 2 Jets easily can be scrambled within a few minutes and be in the air within 10. They knew the plane was coming for an hour. The U.S. has successfully intercepted planes very easily, every year.
AlwaysSomething 8 months ago
Tres bonne vid tres instructive merci
merzbau1 1 year ago
In Mineta's testimony - the plane is 50 miles out etc - how was it being tracked if no one knew it was coming? How can one plane with no transponder not stand out like a sore thumb amongst other planes that all have transponders? And given the ability to even identify and track low flying missiles anywhere on the planet - what is going on? This cannot be true
mooners40 2 years ago
Remember that NORAD can defend against cruise missiles? They say they can - "flying at 500 miles per hr it updates its position and corrects its course using TERCOM(terrain countour matching) or DSMAC(digital scene matching area correlator) - the first system compares radar signals, the second optical images with a computer stored map - before closing on the target at an altitude of 100 feet or less" -- perhaps you could tell me how they can defend against this threat - low, and no transponder
mooners40 2 years ago
"Remember that NORAD can defend against cruise missiles? "
Remember? does that mean they can interecept one in less than 40 mins from defcon 5?
Idiot
do you STILL not understand that simply repeating the mission statement is NOT proof it can interecept a plane, instantly anywehre?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
how can they defend against a low flying high speed missile -my point is , i would like you to describe to me how this is done - radar?
mooners40 2 years ago
to support critical NORAD and US Space command missions. The Cheyenne Mountain Operations center provides warning of BALLISTIC MISSILE or AIR ATTACKS against north america, assists the AIR SOVEREIGNTY mission for the US and CANADA and if necessary is the focal point for air defense operations to counter ENEMY BOMBERS or CRUISE MISSILES - can you explain how this is done with primary radar? because these incomings have no transponders - take your time lol
mooners40 2 years ago
Again, nothing refutes the previous statements. Nothing refutes #2 being true.
Swing and a miss
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The air defense operations center uses its air defense network to provide surveillance and control of air operations to North America and UNKNOWN traffic. Today the NORAD Combat Operations Center has evolved into the Cheyenne mountain Operations center that collects data from a worldwide system of satellites,radars and other sensors and processes that info on sophisticated computer systems cont
mooners40 2 years ago
NONE of which refutes the facts
1) its still painfully easy to track payne stewart--is xponder was still on
2) Its a lot harder to track a low-level aircraft, without transpoder
3) A system designed to track high alt objects, with or without xponders is NOT going to change #2.
=]
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
high altitude missiles? lol - get real - they say anything anywhere - which is what you would expect from the best defense ever - and they ain't using primary radar - have a think about all the implications - ha ha
mooners40 2 years ago
Sure, and they can do anything anywhere.
Still doesnt change the fact that a high alt with xponder is a LOT easier than a lowalt without one.
LOLOLOL
Thank god we saved ur ass in wwii. too stupid to survive urself. lolol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you haven't read what they can do and understood - a cruise missile can fly very low - under normal radar and can find its target via a sophisticated guidance system - NORAD can defend against this , without using primary radar which would be ineffective - they say it and i believe they can - are you calling them liars? How can they defend against a low flying cruise missile ? How can they detect it? are you able to understand this question? get an adult to read it back to you
mooners40 2 years ago
I did read it. you havent.
Where does it say "if a plane goes nordo, with no transponder, we can track it instantly at low level?"
Where is THAT part of the mission statement?
you say its there, tell me!
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
ANY aerospace threat ---- ANY is fairly all-encompassing - pay attention and try and understand the words - they don't mention transponders coz they don't give a fuck - if it's in the air anywhere , a missile a plane etc they can detect it and track it - high low in space or at ground level - that's what ANY means
mooners40 2 years ago
Ok, so you still cant find it?
cant show me where is says "if a plane goes nordo, with no transponder, we can track it even instantly at low level."
understood.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
are you mad? i quoted you the specific part you wanted - they can track "ANY aerospace threat" and they can track low flying missiles , that don't have transponders - how do they do that dickhead - - answer that dont skip around it answer it - anyone that can read this can tell you're an idiot that can't answer a question - are NORAD liars? tell me how they can do what they say ha ha
mooners40 2 years ago
I know wha tyou quoted.
And no where does it say "payne stewart was just as easy as the flights on 911"
nothing you quoted refutes what I said.
NORAD isnt the liar, YOU are, HAHAHAHAHAH
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you didnt answer the question because you cannot - you can't answer it lmao at you- and you can't even derive comprehension from a passage of words - you cannot comprehend the word 'any' and see the implication of this word and what NORAD says , because of what it means for you - you refuse to grasp it because it would mean that you have to realise that you've been lied to - and you cannot accept that - even though with NORAD's own words they say they can detect ANY threat - you're a joke
mooners40 2 years ago
Ok, so you cant find it.
Understood. We agree. Youre own words there is NO claim--even by norad, that the flights on 93 would be as easy to track as payne stewart.
Well done! youre fnally getting it! =]
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
how does NORAD track a missile? low flying - with primary radar?
answer
mooners40 2 years ago
911 was not a missle, and icbms are not low fyling.
That NORAD has the MISSION to track it all is NOT the same thing as saying "a low flying airplane with no transponder is just as easy as payne stewart."
HOW many times need that be repeated till your dumb ass gets it?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
NORAD says it can identify and track ANY threat - do you understand? be it a missile high or low or a plane with or without transponder - it's what 'any' means- and NORAD tracks EVERYTHING - get it? you're painfully STOOPID- those lyin NORAD eh? dumbass lol
mooners40 2 years ago
how does it identify and track any threat? it was even used to track scuds in the iraq 'war' - how was this done? low flying missiles? Satellite recognition and tracking that doesn't involve primary radar only but something more sophisticated? given that radar is very old lol - and their maximum capabilities would be classified - how does norad do what it says it does? again - or are they lying and can't - try answering the question - you look a right cunt as it is lol - poor idiot - aw duh
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah. We agree its mission is to track.
Is that the same as saying payne stewart would be as easy as tracking AA11 on 911?
Its a very simple questions.
Yet the simple retard cant answer. lolol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
" During the hour or so that AA77 was under the control of hijackers up to the moment it struck the west side of the pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east sdie of the buuilding were urgently talking to law enforcement and airtraffic officials about what to do. But despite elaborate plans that link civilian and military efforts to control the nation's airspace in defense of the country, and despite two other jetliners' having already hit the WTC in NY, the fighter cont
mooners40 2 years ago
::yawn:::
It wasnt under control of the hijackers for an hour or so. From the very FIRST sign of something amiss (xponder off) it was 44 mins to impact.
Why lie? why not just accept the reality?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
and if the best you can do is copy and paste from kook sites, why not just admit youre unable to think for yourself?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
i can think for myself - you just accept the official lie - standard operating procedure is to inform NORAD when there is an emergency - why do you think they weren't informed immediately? atcs are highly trained and very smart - they have a lot to consider and have lives at stake , 'pushing tin' - do you think they forgot what to do in an emergency? was that not on the examination to qualify? was it too difficult to pick up a phone? were they having a bad day? 25 minutes to call NORAD?
mooners40 2 years ago
"I can think for myself"
Nope. If you could, you wouldnt have to copy and paste word-for-word talking points from Kook sites.
ATC is very smart, but they arent mind readers. Just because a xponder fails does NOT mean its a hijack. Just because a radio fails does NOT mean its a hijack.
So the FAA first has to make its attempts to re-contact the suspect flight, before screaming "hijacks!"
Its not a capability issue, its a timing issue. ur not going to have instant intercepts
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
" if in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency handle it as tho it were an emergency" faa order 7110.65m 10-1-1-c " consider that an aircraft emergency exists when there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any aircraft" faa order 7110.65m 10-2-5 - the faa hijack coordinator notifies the supervisor on the floor who then immediately notifies the faa's regional operation center who would notify norad -
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah blah more copy and paste.
Now. REALITY TIME.
Northwest Flight was out of Radio contact for over an hour. No intercept
Feb 2008. Go Jet plane out of contact nearly 30 mins. No intercept.
Explain.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
no answer? pathetic as usual - can't answer my post - this is not a debate - you're a moron - i gave you the rules they have to follow - any one who doesnt follow rules and people die as a result , is liable and culpable - in a just society - no one has been held accountable for not following procedure - i'm quoting their own rules - your shit is not relevant to this and you're just avoiding answering because you cant ,or dont wanna embarrass yourself - but you do in every post sad
mooners40 2 years ago
Yes, you have no answer.
its very simple.
Explain how NW and GoJet went unintercepted.
If youre right, you should have an answer that fits your guesses, as well as those facts.
But you can! lololol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Fact is, the fastest intercept you kooks can find is 80 mins.
NO plane on 911 was "doing something unusual" for more than 45.
any way you want to slice it, you got nothing. =]
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
so - between a definite hijack situation at 8:24 (according to official sources - voices in cockpit - and the hit at the pentagon - 9:40 there are no time zones here are there?)
atcs trained to alert when an emergency happens - a hijacking - hotlines to the nmcc at the pentagon - but one hour and twenty after the first official hijacking time , a plane hits the pentagon - and the whole world watches on tv at 9:03 but Rumsfeld doesnt know til he feels a 'jarring thing' - are u on drugs?
mooners40 2 years ago
youre mixing 2 different flights dolt. Flight 11 hijacked was 8:24. It crashed at 8:46
flight 77 was 8:56. Crashed about 44 mins later.
God DAMMIT kooks are SOOOO uninformed. HAHAHAHAHA.
Point is, however, with the "best" intercept you can find is approx 80 mins, NEITHER plane being hijacked for anything CLOSE to 80 mins sinks any moron theory you can make.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
i know exactly which flights i was talking about - my point was that the nmcc would be on alert and like in the case of Payne Stewart would be looking at it on radar screens in the pentagon - and a transponder gives altitude and identification- so don't give me the transponder bullshit- Stewarts plane wasn't hijacked - and did not deviate from course - it was on auto-pilot - given the smart people in charge i would say they had a pretty good idea what was happening
mooners40 2 years ago
your point is irrelevant. Because the FAA has to tell NORAD if a plane is hijacked, BEFORE Norad can chase it.
Neither the FAA nor Norad are psychics.
Therefor, flight 77 has to do something unusual BEFORE anyone can suspect it of being a hijack. So even with "instant" notification to Norad, its still only 40 mins to get to flight 77,
And as PS learjet proves, 80 mins was the previous fastest you idiots could find.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
flight 77 - there had already been hijackings and in the transcript published by the NY times loss of contact was at 8:56 and the atcs were aware that the first tower had been hit and then the second - and still NORAD was not notified til 9:25 officially - yet the NMCC would have been on alert already due to the first hijacking - and there are open hotlines - and loss of contact is unusual - as is change of course - both emergencies as stated in SOP - when did 77 turn around?
mooners40 2 years ago
yes i KNOW there were already hijacks. That wasnt the question.
How can they know to intercept flight 77 BEFORE its been hijacked?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
with known terrorist attacks - don't you think scrambling planes would be a standard response? to protect the white house and or pentagon? "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way" said Warzinski to Newsday. But NORAD has " redundant and survivable communications hot lines (that) connect the Command Center to the Pentagon,White House U.S Strategic Command ,Canadian Forces HQ etc - PS plane was watched on radar in the NMCC - why not this one non transponder blip?
mooners40 2 years ago
Look, dont answer question with questions.
Its a very SIMPLE question.
How would they know to go chase Flight 77 as a hijack, BEFORE it was hijacked?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you don't answer any questions do you - why is that? you haven't answered any of my points for about 4 posts - and if you could understand what should have happened and the hot lines that were open after the first hijacking why would another plane not responding not be called an emergency as in SOP be a hijacking or not? What did Olson say on that plane ? Boxcutters eh? FBI had to report that this phone call did not happen - these are all simple to avoid - avoid and evade and answer nothing
mooners40 2 years ago
Because youre using your questions to avoid the one Ive been asking over and over, a dozen times time.
If youre going to bitch out, and avoid questions just say so. otherwise, answer the question ASKED FOR TH 5TH TIME.
"How would they know to go chase down flight 77 before it was hijacked?"
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
because known hijackings had occurred and America was under attack and a third plane with loss of contact( an emergency in FAA orders) would be hard to not see a correlation even for you - and these guys are trained to handle emergencies - or else what were they trained for? No emergencies? NORAD was aware at 8:40 of hijacking of flight 11 therefore was on alert and in contact with the FAA open hot lines
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah.
For the 6th time.
"How can NORAD know to go chase AA77, before the flight is hijacked?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
hello mcfly
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah
For the 7th time.
How would they know to go chase down 77 BEFORE it was hijacked?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
i answered that already moron - try reading
mooners40 2 years ago
Didnt answer shit. You just quoted various part of the mission statement, OR asked irrelevant questions to change the subject.
For the 8th time. How would they know BEFORE 77 was hijacked, that they had to go chase it down.
Possible answers
1) They would know to chase it down, even before its hijacked because...(fill in the blank)
or
2) They wouldnt know it was a hijack, until AFTER it was hijacked.
Pick 1 or 2.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
an emergency is loss of contact - even the president was notified that America was under attack at 9:06 - who told him L.A.? or the Pentagon? The NMCC is in the Pentagon - hijackings had already occurred therefore lines were open all around - what don't you understand? When atcs know that planes have flown into the towers and there is loss of contact of 77 it would not even take a genius like you to realise a problem and highlight it - - you can't accept they are lying can you? only answer
mooners40 2 years ago
b;ah bla blah.
answer the question please.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
and remember the Olson calls from 77 ? the fbi had to say they didn't happen - what does that mean to you? it was in Massoui's trial - take your time
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah blah.
Changing the subject to barbs olson doesnt change the question.
Answer the question. For the 9th time.....
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you're blatantly avoiding - i've answered your question - if you can read and comprehend english - more than you do for any of my points - you're a joke - for the nth time
mooners40 2 years ago
Nope, as Ive explained, quoting mission statements, and changing the subject is NOT an answer to the question
11th time now. Answer the question.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
try reading my answer - duuuuuh - lol and you ironically don't answer any points - just don't get it do you - poor guy - thinks bin laden did it because the tv said so - - but still no evidence at all - i havent changed any subject i have answered your question and now you , in fear of mine , have stuck yourself in a loop of nonsense - to avoid answering points that you can't find an answer to - very sad - you're very sad
mooners40 2 years ago
I have read your answers. They werent anwers, they were irrelevant, change-of subject statements.
Only TWO possible answers.
1) They can know, before its hijacked that they need to chase it down because..(finish the sentence)
or
2) They wouldnt know before it was hijacked, that they needed to intercept it.
Until you answer 1 or 2, you HAVE NOT ANSWERED.
For the 12th time, make an answer/
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
1 - because SOP is that loss of contact is an emergency - and two other planes had been hijacked and crashed - and this loss of contact was important - and given the view that america was under attack and the whole world watched the second plane hit live on tv - how could anyone on the planet especially the atcs controlling flight 77 ( known to be out of contact at 8:55 or so ) not know that an emergency was happening? only stupid people can't see a problem here - can you? answer my points?
mooners40 2 years ago
1) Okm so loss of contact was 40 minutes before the crash.
40 minutes.
The best inercept you turds can come up with was 80 minutes--and that was an interceptor that was already in the air--under ideal conditions.
So, explain how 80 mins, under ideal conditions, is the best you could find. And this somehow proves 40 mins was possible how?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
do you think that the pentagon and those in charge are as stupid as you? they knew that america was under attack - why not scramble fighters to protect the capitol? planes were already scrambled at 8:46 - why not fly on to D.C when they arrived late? and get refuelled if need be like in the Stewart case? Why not scramble fighters from Andrews when the world knew america was under attack - do you really think that they thought the capitol wouldn't be a target- you're deluded
mooners40 2 years ago
Let me ask my question a different way.
the BEST time you can find is 80 mins
The Longest time they had to intercept was 40 mins.
They would have to beat their previous record by HALF to intercept a plane on 911.
So the fact that tye couldnt beat their previous record by over HALF is a failure how?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
"why not fly on to D.C when they arrived late?"
LOLOL. Do you think the pentagon is as stupid as you are? "Hey! We are being attacked in New York! Lets send the fighters to DC instead!"
LOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
yep - the fighters were too late in NY - why circle around? Other planes were not responding - and any one with any sense can see that protecting the capitol would be a priority - i fail to see why you think it is funny people died - i think you are a bit slow - are you ok? you can't follow an argument and you avoid completely questions you can't answer = you're delusional - How was 77 being tracked - in Mineta's testimony? by pigeon? on radar screen in the nmcc like in Stewart's case? tell me
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah, If you think ur being attacked in NY, you dont send the figthers to CD.
Now again, the next question, but still NOT answered.
If 80 mins was the best they ever did before, under ideal conditions, why pretend the fact they couldnt beat that record by half (even if they had perfect conditions on 911) indicates anything?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
"and any one with any sense can see that protecting the capitol would be a priority "
Really, Retard?
Did they protect the capital when Payne Stewarts plane went off course?
Did they protect the capital from Frank Corder?
Did they protect the capital when Go-jet and Nowrthwest jets were out of radio contact for an hour?
oooops.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
did stewart's plane fly into the twin towers in an obvious attack on america , as described by Card as he told Bush - you fuckin idiot? lol lol what might the next target be? duh let me think - and let's evacuate the pentagon? nah
you're so stupid it hurts - good luck crossing the road -
you didnt answer my points on Mineta as usual - and you expect me to answer all yours? lol you dont debate you just avoid and evade - how was 77 being tracked?
"
mooners40 2 years ago
"did stewart's plane fly into the twin towers in an obvious attack on america "
Thanks. I was going tomake that point later. Since 911 was a whole new TYPE of hijacking (ie, not a hostage taking) a suicide attack.
As such, the system wasnt designed to respond instantly and defensively against a hijacking as an attack.
Good job moron. If I can out-manuver you so easily that prove my poins BEFORE I ask, you should prolly not call other people stupid. HAHAHHA
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
a plane hijacking is still a plane hijacking and procedures were in place to deal with a hijacking - the response was in the FAA orders and SOP - you can out manoeuver any one by completely talking shit and not answering any points =and any one who spells probably 'prolly' is deranged - hence you - way to answer my points there sad fuck - you're not worth anybody's time - certainly not mine - blah blah blah - great skills there blah blah blah - out 'manuver' lol lol - such delusion lol
mooners40 2 years ago
"a plane hijacking is still a plane hijacking"
And the procedures did NOT include autiomatically covereing Washington DC every time a plane loses radio.
As you admitted. Past events, DC remained uncovered even AFTER 911.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
"you didnt answer my points on Mineta as usual - and you expect me to answer all yours?"
LOL, becuase you change the subject with questions, because you dont REALLY want to have the conversation.
FOUR DAYS ago you asked me to explain why the planes werent intercepted.
FOUR FUXING DAYS AGO.
And as part of my explanation, I ask you questions to be sure you actually understand the reality here.
But you just want toignore the questions, because you dont really WANT the explanation
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Now, do COTINUE to make the explanation you asked for 4 days ago (and the explanation youve been trying to dodge for 4 days) Answer the question.
If the best you can come up with is an 80 min intercept, under ideal conditions, how can you pretend that since they didnt beat the record by half, something went wrong?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Actually, I double checked. it was over a WEEK ago you asked me to explain this.
so for over a WEEK ive been answering your first question, while YOU keep trying to change the subject to other questions.
So, to continue, answer this question: "If the best time, under ideal conditions, you can find is 80 mins, how is NOT beating that record by half a failure of due dilligence?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
double check how many of my points you've answered - blah blah blah etc and try reading and understanding my posts
mooners40 2 years ago
Again, you illiterate moron, I am STILL on the first one, YOU keep changing the subject to different points, to avoid admitting you LOST.
So again.
If the best example you have is 80 mins, under ideal conditions, how is NOT intercepting a plane un under half that time a failure of due dilligence.
for the 5th time....
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Laura Brown the FAA's deputy in public affairs sent the 9/11 commission a memo on May 22 2003 about FAA NORAD communications - according to the memo the 9:24 notification time given by NORAD was wrong - the FAA had established phone bridges that connected the FAA with NORAD and the Pentagon's NMCC immediately after the first strike on the WTC = 8:50 - in this teleconference " the FAA shared real-time info about ALL the flights of interest, including flight 77 cont
mooners40 2 years ago
NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made a formal notification about American flight 77 at 9:24 but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (which was 9:24) After reading this memo into the record Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste commented on its point that "there was an informal real-time communication of the situation, including flight 77's situation to personnel at NORAD"(911 commission hearing may 23 2003)- get it?
mooners40 2 years ago
i wonder why this was omitted from the commission report? lol - can you see the lie or shall i point it out a bit more for you idiot- and tell me why the FBI were forced to say in Massoui's trial that the Olson calls did not happen - ? Because they didn't happen - what does this mean to you? The whole boxcutter story came from those 'calls' - can you explain where it makes the whole of 9/11 stand? - and jets were in the air at 8:46 by the way - lets hear your answer
mooners40 2 years ago
take your time
mooners40 2 years ago
By all means, take your time.
Answer the question asked NOW for the 7th time.
If the best record intercept you could find was a 80 minute intercept, under ideal conditions, how is not being able to intecept planes in under 40 mins proof of anything?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
lol - you're a joke - the planes were in the air at 8:46 officially - and you can't read and answer my point - because you can't
mooners40 2 years ago
Moron40. We have already been over this.
1) All the planes might be in the air at 8:46. BUT NOT ALL WERE HIJACKED AT THAT TIME.
2) Youve ALREADY ADMITTED that there is no WAY to suspect AA77 Was a hijack until AFTER it does something unusual (ie, nordo, loss of xponder, etc)
3) So you have already agreed there was only (77 was the longest hijack) 40 mins AFTER 77 was a hijack to catch it.
YOUR idiot ass cant remember things you agreed to repeatedly days ago? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
So, again, for the 8th time.
When they only had 40 mins to intercept 77, AND the best example you could find was 80 minutes to intercept, why is NOT breaking that record by 50% somehow proof of something wrong.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
why is launching interceptor planes at 8:46 not important? according to the official story they launched at that time - but arrived too late in NY - too late for the second tower hit (9:03) an f-15 from OTIS to NY would be 10 - 12 minutes , 3 times the speed of a 767 - therefore they must have flown between 600 and 675 mph - and could have been there in time if they'd flown at high speed(supersonic) - no records broken there eh? explain
mooners40 2 years ago
try answering for once
mooners40 2 years ago
No, we have already been over this. you asked me OVER 2 WEEKS AGO to explain this. I am in the process of doing so. But to explain what YOU DEMANDED be explained, I have to be certain we understand the facts the same way. Which means you will answer these questions.
you do NOT get to change the subject, just because you see yourself being proved wrong.
So, for the 9th time. "If the best you can find is an 80 minute intercept, why is NOT intercepting under 40 proof of something wrong?"
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
what makes you think 80 minutes is the best intercept time? what proof have you that it is? Stewart was not a hijacking - 9/11 was a different event . The planes were in the air at 8:46 - what don't you understand? are you crazy or just avoiding answering because there is no reason to delay notifying neads for twenty minutes - and no reason that jets would fly at well under top speed - and that the pilots in a bbc documentary said they flew at supersonic speeds - as they would do - who is lyin?
mooners40 2 years ago
Because its the best you douchenozzles can come up with.
for the TENTH TIME.
"If the best time you can find is 80 minutes, under ideal conditions, then why do you think 40 would be possible?"
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
listen fucknut - they were notified at 8:40 and were aloft at 8:46 - that is in itself unusual because it should be 2 and a hlf minutes to scramble - and you are not answering anything - you won't even say why you think 80 minutes is some kind of record - planes are intercepted as a matter of course all the time if they go off course - Stewart's plane did not deviate from its course and was therefore not as big an emergency as a hijacking - do u understand?
mooners40 2 years ago
Agian fuxknut, AA77 wasnt hijacked at 8:46, so the air Force wouldnt know to chase it then.
And, fuxknut--AS YOU ALREADY ADMITTED--they wouldnt know to go chase 77 until much later. Approx 40 mins before the crash.
So, for the 11th time, if the best you fuxnuts can come up with is a 80 minute intercept under ideal conditions, how does NOT intercepting in 40 minutes somehow prove a failure in the system?
tick tock....tick tock....
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you're insane - and can't read and answer a post
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah blah blah.
for the 13th time, answer the question asked,.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
there were open lines at 8:50 between the NMCC and the FAA and NEADS - and all the flights in question including flight 77 were being spoken about - the second tower was hit at 9:03 and the world knew america was under attack - and 77 was being tracked (like the Stewart case) on radar screens in the NMCC. In the commission report they say that flight 175 wasnt known as a hijack til it hit - but on Sep 18 2001 they said it was a known hijack at 8:43 - methinks they are lying -you?
mooners40 2 years ago
14th time
Same question as before.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
no answer? you're a simpleton - you can'y answer because you know they're lying and have no excuse for it - maybe bin laden made them lie? lol
mooners40 2 years ago
15th time.
Same question....
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
genius reply there
mooners40 2 years ago
OK, so you had 15 chances, and 15 times you couldnt answer.
Therefore we must both agree. There is NO reason to think they had enough time to intercept the planes on 911.
As such, the rest of your argument is irrelevant, since you agreed there wasnt enough time to intercept even flight 77. =]
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
lol - if they were in the air flying to NY at 8:46 do you think this important?
mooners40 2 years ago
you have not responded fifteen times - you're crazy and won't answer coz you can't - pathetic
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah blah blah. From the first sign of anything odd about AA77 it was 41 mins to the crash.
Until you kooks can find routine intercepts of well under 40 mins (similar situation) you got NOTHING.
ZIP ZILCH ZERO NADA.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
on 9/11 what time was it from launch to NY ? how long? they broke their own record according to you on 9/11 - the point is lost on you - your brain - nada zero - zilch working lol
mooners40 2 years ago
Launch time dont matter, because there was NO REASON TO SUSPECT AA77 WAS A HIJACK AT THAT TIME.
Youve already agreed to this. sorry.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
sigh - the world knew america was under attack when the second tower was hit - 9:03
what makes you think that ,after two planes crashing into the towers and everyone knowing that america was under attack, no one would make a connection with a third plane aa77 and wonder if it was hijacked - it was known to have changed course also - which is a huge red flag to atcs - the NY times transcript of ATCs and flight 77 lists that they were aware of the towers being hit - and that 77 was awol explain
mooners40 2 years ago
Sigh...right.
But the world (including norad) is not going to know to chase 77 until AFTER its hijacked.
So unless youre telling me NORAD should have shot down all 2000 airplanes that day just incase they are hijacked later, you got NOTHING.
Swing and a miss..ooops.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
2000 ? where did you get that delusion? @ 8:50 all flights in trouble were being followed - as per Brown's memo - and the same as they did in the Stewart case- follow it on a radar screen - hhmm technology - NORAD tells you it hasnt moved on in 70 years and cant track a plane with no transponder - duh - but can track any missile in the world lol - and NORAD changed the time of hijacking of 175 from 8:46 to 9:03 - hhmm methinks they're lying about a few things here - have you a clue? explain
mooners40 2 years ago
77 was operating normally at 8:50.
8:56 is when the transponder signal stopped. it crashed approx 41 mins later.
Any way you cut it, 41 mins was the LONGEST possible lead time to intercept it. Even if the FAA guy says the split second the xponder turns off "Norad! its a hijack! launch the fighters!" its still only 41 mins to impact.
Yet the BEST example you can find is 76 minutes to intercept.
Yet 41 mins is somehow an obvious failure.
100k sperm, and YOU were the fastest?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
when do you think 77 was hijacked? you are clearly basing your delusion on the idea that no one in the world could possibly link a third plane 77 - as a hijack - given that two planes had smashed into the towers- do you honestly think that no one could make a connection and surmise a link on the day? Is everyone in the NMCC an idiot? Another plane is heading towards DC but everything is ok there's no link? and maybe it's being flown by Bush? on a fly by? Check your excuse for a brain
mooners40 2 years ago
The critical time is when ATC could possibly know the plane was hijacked.
A plane can be (hypothetically) hijacked at 08:00. But if they a) stay on course, altutude and speed, b) leave the transponder on, and c) if ATC does not call them for anything, ATC isnt going to know its a hijack.
its only AFTER something unusual happens (ie, transponder off, unauthorized course changes, NORDO, et cetera) that ATC will suspect a hijack.
max time, 41 mins. Sorry.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"you won't even say why you think 80 minutes is some kind of record "
of COURSE i said so, you no-reading, illiterate fucktard. I said it not only 16 mins ago. "Because its the best you douchnozzles can come up with"
If youre too retarded, or too cowardly to READ the answers dont asl the question.
And, for the 12th time. If 80is the best you can find, how is NOT getting an intercept in 40 mins proof of a failure?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Even AFTER 911 there was a "gojet" airlines plane out of radio contact for over 30 mins--no intercepts launched.
Recently, a Continetal crew from San Diego flew over 100 miles PAST their desitnation withour radio contact. No intercepts.
And with 40 mins being the max possible notice, the fact that it took over 80 mins to intercept Payne Stewart under ideal conditions tells you its not something thats going to happen in a handful of minutes.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon" NY Times sep 15 2001 - the second plane hit at 9:03 and the world knew that America was under attack - but no one at the pentagon did? do you really believe that shit? I watched the second plane hit - yet the official story says they had no time to react- in a transcript in the NY times they report that ATC knew it was a hijack at 9:00 - yet official time is at 9:25
mooners40 2 years ago
Umm, geography lesson, idiot.
WTC is in NY. Pentagon is in DC.
So even if we accepted the fact that in the face of TWO planes (never before in history) hijacked and slammed into buildings in NY, youre NOT going to magically assume the next one is a military tgt over 100 miles away.
And with many many thousands of planes in the air at a time, you have to wait until a plane does something irregular BEFORE you can conclude its a hijack.
So PREVIOUS flights are irrelevant to time
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
flight 11 was a known hijack at 8:23 - very relevant given SOP regarding instant notification of NORAD and DOD - you don't know this - clearly- you haven't researched it at all
mooners40 2 years ago
clearly YOU havent reseached shit, and I have.
Flight 11 was NOT the one that hit the pentagon.
And there was NO requirement, at the time, to instantly inform norad of ANY IRREGULARITY,
FAA informs norad when they think its a hijack. BUT that doesnt mean FAA knows instantly that a plane has been hijacked.
Just like Go-Jet. Just like Continental, FAA first makes attempts to re-establish contact with the flight, have other flights visid it. et cetera.
Research refutes kooks.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
sad moron - quote me the FAA orders re hijacks and emergencies
mooners40 2 years ago
lmao. sorry boy. YOURE claiming what the orders are, YUO have to prove that.
Explain GoJet? How did that happen?
Explain Continental? How did that happen?
If YOIURE right, they should have been isntantly interecepted.
Explain!
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
at 8:24 of official story " we have some planes , just stay quiet"- i think this would indicate a hijacking - flight 11 - i know flight 77 was the flight that was heading for the pentagon - NORAD has hotlines to the NMCC at the pentagon - so when there is an emergency they know about it - faa officially notified norad at 8:40 that 11 was hijacked - do you think no one at the pentagon knew that a plane was hijacked? or knew that after the second plane hit at 9:03 that there was no threat?
mooners40 2 years ago
And even if a perfectly timed response, you STILL have to deal with the fact that
1) At Defcon 5
2) Payne Stewart took 80 mins to intercept
3) THAT plane was already in the air.
So to catch flight 11 before it hit, you need to cut down the record intercept time down by 70%.
This isnt the movies dude! lolol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
try and understand the word 'any' - do you have 'any' idea? lol - duh duh
mooners40 2 years ago
Yeah idiot. And it doesnt say "any time a plane is nordo we can instantly track it"
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
do missiles have transponders?
mooners40 2 years ago
OK, so you cant find it.
So we agree. excellent.
BTW< MORORN. as has been explained numerous times. ICBMs and such are high alt.
High alt is not low alt.
Moron.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
GOOD INFORMATION! Only BLIND PROPAGANDISTS IGNORE SUCH FACTS.
Ignorant people dont study or read and have dull discernment when it comes to corrupt dealings like this.........bLIND FAITH IN GOVERNMENT AS GOD IS THE FOUNDATION OF CULTS AND EMPIRES.......................QUESTION ANYONE BUT THE KING!
911 was organized and orchestrated for CORPORATE EXPANISION in the MIDDLE EAST.........NO BIN LADEN, BUT DEFINITELY CORPORATE EXPANSION.....PERHAPS THAT WAS THE WHOLE ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
VisibleEnigma 2 years ago
Inside job, govt. puts a report out than no even a PHD would understand, typical BS.
CPDCFD 2 years ago
norad on 9/11 = duh, you think it was inside?
i'd like to see some proof of andrews airforce base website updates though
WarrenDemontague33 2 years ago
01:32. It proves Barry Zweicker is a moron.
The FAA report uses local time zones for the events. The plane was intercpeted at 9:54 CENTRAL time. The text clearly says this. Pause at 00:40, and look at the bottom paragrapgh, it clearly says the 9:54 intercept time was CDT.
People who are too stupid to understand time zones are supposed to be smart en
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
what do you think you know about the timeline and what would you like to be shown the timeline is with proof from independent sources ? the commission report is a lie - and you're an idiot
mooners40 2 years ago
Sorry, I dont have my gibberish to English dictionary. Get some help from an adult. Maybe have them post for you.
But the timeline from Payne Stewarts plane is irrefutable. Almost 80 minutes to intercept. And THAT was a plane already in the air!
That being said, the fact that the longest flight on 911 was less than 45 mins (from the "first sign" of trouble) Payne Stewarts intercepts ONLY proves twoofers are MORONS who cant understand time zones.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you think it takes 80 minutes to intercept a plane? lol - pathetic
mooners40 2 years ago
LOL, its BARRY ZWEICKERS example!
Pathetic indeed. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
total elapsed time to intercept =21 minutes - are you deaf? pathetic
mooners40 2 years ago
LOL, Idiot, AGAIN.
plane was intercepted at 9:54 CENTRAL time. Not 9:54 Eastern. At 00:40 you can see it yourself on the actual report.
9:54 CDT is 80+ minutes after contact was lost at 9:33 Eastern.
Moon <---Duhh! Im too fuxing stupid to understand how time zones work! But I figgered out da inside Jab! Im SmaaaRT! Not like people say! Like Dumb! Im smaaart and i want respekt Mikey!!!"
learn how time zones work, bitch! HAHAHA
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
you haven't even watched the video you're commenting on - ?? in a Will Thomas article in 2003 he quotes ABC News Oct 25/99 in which a F16 was sitting off the wing of Stewart's plane within 19 minutes -- try and listen the video you're commenting on at least - and try not to take the joke commission too seriously - it's so full of shit i think you wrote it
mooners40 2 years ago
LOLOL,. No, I have watched this. have YOU?
Did you STOP this video and read for yourself what the FAA report says?
Did you, retard? 9:33 EASTERN time contact is lost. Intercept is 9:54.
How much time is that, retard? figure out how time zones work yet? HAHAHAHA
watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A&feature=related
^----Mooners becoming a twoofer. LOLOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
the NMCC watched the jet on the radar in real time - and it was not a hijacking - at 8:13 contact was lost with flight 11- at 8:40 NORAD was contacted - what were they doing at FAA , having a cup of coffee and a cookie? Hmm- loss of contact= emergency - but i'll just wait shall i? lol and the pentagon was hit and 9:40 - terrorists and hijackings and no defense of the capitol - yet with the Stewart case it was watched on radar in the NMCC - defend that - retard how long from initial loss? lol
mooners40 2 years ago
blah blah blah bla hbla hblah blah.
9:33 Eastern time
9:54 Central time.
How long is that, retard?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
wtf are you on about - answer my post - don't avoid it
mooners40 2 years ago
YOUR post changed the subject to AVOID the original point. I pointed out that Barry Z is a moron, because 9:33 edt to 9:54 CDT is NOT (approx) 20 mins. Its approx 80.
YOU DISAGREED WITH THAT.
So, its a very simple question. How long was it between "loss of contact" at 9:33 ET and 9:54 CDT?
Possible answers.
a) over 8o mins, and Edge was right
or
b) Im a moron, and will change the subject to avoid admitting edge was right.
Pick one.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
OCT 26 199 CNN reported that while Stewart's jet was on auto pilot " joint chiefs of staff were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's NMCC" - but amazingly they weren't on 9/11 doin that - i wonder why - ?? - take your time in answering retard - and the truth shall set you free
mooners40 2 years ago
Ok, thats b) "Im an idiot, edge is right, so Ill change the subject.
Thanks for admitting I was right. 80+ mins.
Next?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
next answer my previous post - that refers to the Stewart case -
mooners40 2 years ago
Ohhh! youre from the UK. so you dont really have time zones there.
Youre ignorance is then, understood.
BTW, Stewarts lear would still be transmitting xponder signals. INFINATELY EASIER to track on RADAR than 911--with no transponder.
apples to oranges.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
don't talk shit - do you know NORAD's capabilities as stated by them? do you think russians have transponders? lmao - Chinese incoming planes would be undetectable given their lack of transponders - you're all fucked and NORAD is really shit eh? and i know the stewart case and the time zones - i was quoting an article from 2003 - - in my previous post it said 'on RADAR screens' no transponder is required for a radar blip - it just makes it easier - shall i list NORAD's capabilities?
mooners40 2 years ago
"don't talk shit "
Just because youre too stupid to understand it, doest make it shit. Just makes you a shit for brains.
Flight that would come over from USSR or China would be polar routes. AND take 8-10-12 hours to get inconus.
Compared to US domestic flights, where there are 87,000 a day. EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND A DAY!
Surely, even a moron like you can see that a system designed to find a high alt bomber flying where only a couple planes usually fly each day is not....
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
tens of thousands? - the same tens of thousands that Stewart's plane was flyin around in? amazing - your stupidity leaps to unforeseen levels - and having a plane higher up and further away makes it easier to detect with no transponder? you're a fuckin idiot - NORAD provides collision protection for NASA and can identify and track anything in the air on the planet - try looking into their capabilities - they are either lying about them , or about 9/11 - take your pick dicksuck
mooners40 2 years ago
Do you practice being a moron?
By the way, why is your dateless ass home alone on Friday posting on youtube from moms basement?
All youre doing is shifting the goalposts. taking an answer to one question, and then using it as though it was for a different question.
This is VERY simple, idiot.
1) a plane with a working xponder is easy to follow. thats WHY THEY FUXING INVENTED TRANSPODERS. So there is no prob tracking payne stewart.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
2) yes, moron, the higher up something is, the EASIER it is to track. Because youre a shit for brains who never does research, you never bothered to research radar.
RADAR 101, for Morons40.
Radars shoot a signal out, and the singal bounces off something and goes back and is received by the radar antenna.
Radar signals also bounce off the ground and come back.
Thats a PROBLEM for radar, because the signal hits EVERYTHING on the ground, then goes back Thats called "ground return."
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
3) If you dont filter the ground return out, youre entire radar screen completely snows out, like static on a old TV station.
4) Radars are then desgined to FILTER OUT signals form the ground.
5) Ever hear the phrase "below the Radar?" or have you ever researched how in war fighters and light bombers stay low to "avoid detection?"
Thats why idiot. Because if youre low enough, the radar thinks youre a ground return and filters your signal out.
so, yes, MORON, higher is easier
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
cont---to detect.
See, moron, an airplane thats 30k feet in the air is NOT on the ground. so when the radar sees a plane 30k feet in the air, the radar says "Im going to guess that object 30k above the ground is not on the ground!" therefore, that signal does NOT get filtered out--it gets shown on the radar display.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
"NORAD provides collision protection for NASA and can identify and track anything in the air on the planet -"
yeah MORON. Nasa flies in space. shithead. They dont fly around the earth at 150 feet.
Get it yet retard? HIGHER UP (ie, high up in space) its easier to track things?
Duh.
So, on 911 you have 2 problems.
First with the xponders off, youre looking for a plane that might be lost in ground return, with no xponder, out of 10s of thousands in the air at the time.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
But Norad was not designed to pick out ONE flight, out of 10s of thousands in the air at the time, with no trasnponder, in just a few minutes.
The fact that they CAN spot bombers on polar routes with 8 hours notice doesnt change that.
Pure MORON <----Moron40
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
my god - - yes we all know that Boeings fly along the ground - wow - that's how they did it - now i know - but if they had flown higher it couldve been stopped - higher boeings? lol you fuckwit
primary radar works best off large metal objects - like big Boeings perhaps and AWACS were even seen on the day in DC - they filter out any radar interference as you would expect a great defense to do - you fuckin idiot - how do they spot bombers on polar routes? with pigeons as sentries? what tech?
mooners40 2 years ago
'NORAD was not designed to pick out one flight' - it can detect any missile fired anywhere on the planet at any given time- i can see your backward understanding of this shit is what fuels your madness - how do they detect missiles fired anywhere? please tell me -
mooners40 2 years ago