De grote 9/11 topic

[Zeikstraal]

[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/G834pRjVCIGBkO2PDPQ1ymsC0kAAMXC3-ygoi9Ota*rEZlaP5z93dOHQvxUEcf4-ps0n7SPCMHDIa-qKvz18jezHW-DUad5O/911InsideJob1.jpg[/IMG]

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Alboreto

Al hun 'bewijzen' zijn al talloze heren weerlegd

Nietszeggende generalisaties die in deze draad al talloze keren zijn weerlegd.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

kan ik ook

Maar ge checkt niet dubbel na wat ge linkt, en waarschijnlijk begrijp je ook niet waarover het technisch gaat.

Een vbtje van de vele onwaarheden die ge linkt, en het bewijs dat hoe officiëler het wordt ze gewoon met vele minuten spelen alsof het niets is:

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

8 minuten en 13 sec geen primary radar information van AA 77.

Officiele bron: http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.a...bid=99&mid=505

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
84TH RADAR EVALUATION SQUADRON (ACC)
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH 13 Sep 01
MEMORANDUM FOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI)

SUBJECT: Radar Data Analysis of East Coast Terrorist Activities, 11 September 2001 (World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pittsburgh PA).
....

3.3 Pentagon Aircraft (AA 77). The Plains VA ARSR-3 provided radar coverage for the AA Boeing 757 aircraft that impacted the Pentagon at 09:37 ET. Radar data shows AA 77 climbed to flight altitude west of Washington Dulles International Airport. Mode C altitude information was available on the outbound track from the aircraft transponder. The mode 3A transponder code changed at 08:40 ET from 6553 to 3743. Radar data is not available from 08:50 to 09:09 ET because AA 77 left the NORAD radar coverage area. When AA 77 was reacquired, the transponder was OFF. Interior FAA radars may have coverage during the missing portion of flight. Only bearing and range information can be provided on the inbound leg because detection was accomplished by two-dimensional radar systems. Aircraft altitude is estimated at 25,000 feet when reacquired, based on radar horizon screening. At 09:34 ET, the Gibbsboro radar provided search height of 10,000 feet within three minutes of impact.

19 minuten geen primaire radarinformatie van AA 77...
Echt straf, de NORAD die slechtere radardetectie en coverage heeft als de Burgers-FAA !!!

Wat is juist ?
weet ge bvb hoeveel afstand een F15 of F16 kan afleggen in 10 minuten ?
om maar een idee te geven wat zomaar 10 minuten betekenen bij de Airforce:
Langley ligt op 130 miles vogelvlucht van Washington DC.
Op topsnelheid 1500 mph leggen bvb F16 die afstand af in: 5 minuten 12 seconden.
De F15 in 4 minuten 35 seconden.

En volgens mijn deskundige radarervaring (Nato) is geen van de 2 juist ttz dat van de FAA-radar kan waar zijn, maar NORAD verbergt gewoon dat ze tegelijkertijd ook over alle eigen radars beschikken waar ze wel ALTIJD hun primary radarinformatie hebben aanstaan omdat ze verplicht zijn zo te werken, en betreft coverage of rijkweidte overlappen de militaire radars zich allemaal zoals die van de FAA dat ook doen.
Dus eigenlijk heeft NORAD altijd primary-presentatie én -coverage van AA77 gehad.
Die mogelijkheid heb ik bewezen in een vorige post.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Maar ge checkt niet dubbel na wat ge linkt, en waarschijnlijk begrijp je ook niet waarover het technisch gaat.

Een vbtje van de vele onwaarheden die ge linkt, en het bewijs dat hoe officiëler het wordt ze gewoon met vele minuten spelen alsof het niets is:


8 minuten en 13 sec geen primary radar information van AA 77.

Officiele bron: http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.a...bid=99&mid=505


19 minuten geen primaire radarinformatie van AA 77...
Echt straf, de NORAD die slechtere radardetectie en coverage heeft als de Burgers-FAA !!!

Wat is juist ?
weet ge bvb hoeveel afstand een F15 of F16 kan afleggen in 10 minuten ?
om maar een idee te geven wat zomaar 10 minuten betekenen bij de Airforce:
Langley ligt op 130 miles vogelvlucht van Washington DC.
Op topsnelheid 1500 mph leggen bvb F16 die afstand af in: 5 minuten 12 seconden.
De F15 in 4 minuten 35 seconden.

En volgens mijn deskundige radarervaring (Nato) is geen van de 2 juist ttz dat van de FAA-radar kan waar zijn, maar NORAD verbergt gewoon dat ze tegelijkertijd ook over alle eigen radars beschikken waar ze wel ALTIJD hun primary radarinformatie hebben aanstaan omdat ze verplicht zijn zo te werken, en betreft coverage of rijkweidte overlappen de militaire radars zich allemaal zoals die van de FAA dat ook doen.
Dus eigenlijk heeft NORAD altijd primary-presentatie én -coverage van AA77 gehad.
Die mogelijkheid heb ik bewezen in een vorige post.

jongen toch, lees alles he

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Ik vraag waarom men een nieuw onderzoek wil uitvoeren terwijl men de harde bewijzen al beweerd te hebben en dus automatisch ook de waarheid? Als men met deze bewijzen en waarheid nu dus niets doet, of niets kan doen zoals men beweerd...wat heeft een nieuw onderzoek dan voor nut?
Hierop kan geen enkele believer antwoorden?

Om de hypocrisie van de believers even op een rijtje te zetten.

1) Believers beweren al jaren dat ze harde bewijzen hebben en dus de echte waarheid.
2) Ze doen hier al jaren niets mee, buiten het net wat vervuilen.
3) Nu beweren ze er niets mee te kunnen doen door immuniteit ed.
4) Ze willen een nieuw onafhankelijk onderzoek om bewijzen te verkrijgen en de waarheid.
5) Zie punt 1, ze hebben al jaren bewijzen en doen er niets mee of kunnen er niets mee.
6) Wat heeft punt 4 dan voor nut indien je toch bij punt 3 blijft hangen?

Poging 48

[atmosphere]

Zijt maar zeker dat die meermaals bekroonde Canadese journalist - waarom zou juist die een reden hebben om te liegen - die ik citeerde - ook erbij was bij de hoorzittingen toen men 19 dagen lang allerlei gescreende getuigen in het openbaar ondervraagd heeft.

Er zouden zo´n 2,5 miljoen bladzijden bijeen gekomen zijn volgens deze kritische link:

Ik ben niet echt onder de indruk van uw Canadeese schrijver met z'n chemtrails, hij is ook helemaal niet echt bekend , en die bekroningen heeft op op zijn eigen site gevonden! Het presenteert zijn interpretatie van de beschikbare informatie, meer niet . Die informatie is voor meer mensen beschikbaar geweest overigens.

U dwingt ons steeds naar de informatie van dat figuur te gaan kijken , Waarom de andere niet dan ?

@ Micele : Wat u steeds constateert is al lang duidelijk , maar wel aan de hand van soms onjuiste informatie zoals ik eerder heel duidelijk het aangetoond . In uw optiek bestaat er geen andere mogelijkheid dan opzet, en dat vind ik erg kortzichtig . En of u nu 100 jaar ervaring met radar hjebt of niet doet daar niets aan af . Er speelden veel meer zaken een rol , u kunt niet alles herleiden tot de radar .

[atmosphere]

De piloten zelf aan het woord voor de camera over onder andere over de orders die ze kregen :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE...eature=related

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

jongen toch, lees alles he

Ja citeer het dan eens wat ik moet lezen van die gefakete onzin ?

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

De piloten zelf aan het woord voor de camera over onder andere over de orders die ze kregen :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE...eature=related

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

De piloten zelf aan het woord voor de camera over onder andere over de orders die ze kregen :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE...eature=related

BELACHELIJK !
Wat zijt gij toch naief.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

U dwingt ons steeds naar de informatie van dat figuur te gaan kijken , Waarom de andere niet dan ?

@ Micele : Wat u steeds constateert is al lang duidelijk , maar wel aan de hand van soms onjuiste informatie zoals ik eerder heel duidelijk het aangetoond.

Welke andere figuur ?

... onjuiste informatie euhm, citeer me eens de juiste dan aub.

Zo dan leg me eens even uit waarom de F15 van Otis AFB in de verkeerde richting werden gestuurd - niet recht naar New-York - én rondjes moesten gaan draaien over de Atlantische Oceaan, alhoewel ze op tijd de UA 195 konden onderscheppen die op WTC2 crashte als ze rechtdoor en op volle snelheid die 153 miles naar ~ NYC vloog. "Officieel" vertrokken om 8h 52, WTC2 crash was 9h03 of 11 minuten.

Een F15 haalt 1700 mph op grote hoogte - ongehinderd boven het burgerluchtverkeer - , zeggen we nog gemiddelde snelheid: 60 % x 1700 = 1020 mph is /60 = 17 miles per minuut of 153 miles in 153/17 = 9 minuten.

Er zijn sites die van 1875 mph max spreken maar ik neem realistischere 1700 mph max voor een F15. Die site neemt dus puur de rechte afstand en houdt geen rekening met rondjes of omwegen.

Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.

Ik geef U nog eens de figuur met de "officiele" tijden volgens de commissie:


Alhoewel er bronnen zijn dat de OTIS F15 al vroeger vertrokken zijn als 9h 52, namelijk op hetzelfde moment om 8:46 (bron William Thomas - hoorzittingen) als AA11 in WTC1 crashte, anderen zeggen dat ze het order om 9h46 kregen en pas om 9h52 echt airborne waren. Dat zijn 6 minuten.

8:46: Two F-15 fighter jets are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts, intended to intercept Flight 11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_timeline#8:00_AM

Dan de officiele bron van NORAD waar ze de AA11 en UA 175 volledig volgden met hun beste 3D-radar ARSR-4 die dus alle gegevens richting, hoogte en snelheid kan berekenen en weergeven door tracking van enkel de primary blip (offic. bron onderaan), dus ook bij evtuele transponder-off van AA11 en UA175.

http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.a...bid=99&mid=505

3.1 WTC Aircraft One (AA 11). The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided full radar coverage of the AA Boeing 767 aircraft that impacted with the World Trade Center (WTC) at 08:46 Eastern Time (ET). Primary search-only data is available for the entire flight. Radar target reports begin shortly after takeoff at 08:10 ET. Radar data shows AA 11 climbing to flight altitude west of
Boston Logan International Airport. At approximately 08:20 ET, the aircraft’s beacon transponder is turned OFF eliminating mode 3A code reports of 1443 as well as the aircraft’s mode C height reporting. The remainder of the flight information comes from search-only radar returns that include 3-D height. At 08:37 ET, AA 11 deviates from its original flight route and turns towards New York City.

3.2 WTC Aircraft Two (UA 175). The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided full radar coverage for the UA Boeing 757 aircraft that impacted with the WTC at 09:02 ET. Radar data begins shortly after takeoff at 08:16 ET. Radar data shows UA 175 climbing to flight altitude west of Boston Logan International Airport. During this flight, the aircraft transponder mode 3A code changed twice. The initial mode 3A code of UA 175 was 1470. At 08:46 ET, the mode 3A code changed to 3020 and at 08:47 ET to 3321.

8:37
FAA Boston Center contacts NEADS, saying, “We need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.”

“Is this real world or an exercise?” asked the military liaison officer?

“No, this is not an exercise,” responded the FAA official. “Not a test.” [BBC June 18/04]

8:40
But according to NORAD, Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Powell at NEADS headquarters in Rome, N.Y., takes the first call from Boston Center regarding Fl 11 three minutes later. Powell notifies NEADS commander Col. Robert Marr Jr. of a possible hijacked airliner.

6. How did the Air Force respond to word of the first hijacking?
According to his May 23 commission testimony, Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, commander of the Continental U.S. NORAD Region at Tyndall AFB in Florida, was informed by Gen. Marr about the suspected hijacking while in the middle of exercise "Vigilant Guardian."

As acting Northeast Air Defense Commander, Gen. Marr had already ordered two F-15s on alert at Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod to battle stations. "The fighters were cocked and loaded, and even had extra gas on board," Gen. Arnold was told.

Gen. Arnold - who scheduled retirement came soon after Sept. 11 - asked his staff if this was part of the exercise. “We do do hijacking scenarios,” he explained to the commission.

Assured this was no drill, Gen. Arnold testified that he told Gen. Marr “to go ahead and scramble the airplanes and we’d get permission later.”

Otis ANG F-15 “Strike Eagle”

7. Who flew the first interceptions and how fast did they fly?
Personal phone calls to Lt. Col. Timothy “Duff” Duffy and his wingman Maj. Daniel “Nasty” Nash at the 102nd Fighter Wing have already warned the Otis F-15 drivers that an airliner out of Boston has been hijacked. As both pilots don their flight gear, NORAD claims the FAA violates longstanding procedures by waiting 29 minutes after losing radio contact with Fl 11 before finally notifying the air force. At least one Boston Center controller disputes this, saying the air force is notified immediately, as regulations required. [Stand Down]

Both heavily armed “Strike Eagles” lift off as Tower One is hit.

According to Gen. Arnold, instead of following instructions from the ground, Lt. Col. Duffy “self-elected to hit the afterburner and to speed up his way towards New York.”

An airliner pilot in his off-duty time, Duffy “had a bad feeling” about the suspected hijacking. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 miles to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," Duffy later said. [Aviation Week & Space Technology June3/02]

Gen. Arnold confirmed the F-15s from Otis were traveling about 1,200 mph. “Our pilots were coming at about 1.5 Mach, which is, you know, somewhere - 11 or 12 hundred miles an hour.” [Dateline NBC Sept23/01; Aviation Now.com Oct1/02]

8. Did they break many windows?
Flying flat-out, the twin sonic booms from the Otis F-15s would have come like thunderbolts - cracking plaster, shattering windows, and reassuring even the terrified that deliverance from imminent peril was at hand. Alas for the many who died and the many more who grieve them, no one in the most populous flight corridor in the United States reports hearing any sonic booms as the pair of F-15s cruise past, flying slower than the airliner they were supposedly chasing.

It takes the jets 19 minutes to reach New York. Flying at top speed they should have been over Manhattan in less than 12 minutes.

Instead, according to an official Pentagon news release, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds. In a stunning admission, NORAD noted that for all interceptions flown against the hijackers on Sept. 11, “Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach.” [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]

9. Isn’t .9 Mach around 500 miles per hour?
The F-15 can exceed Mach 2! In straight simple arithmetic, America’s air defense chiefs admit in writing that every interception flown by the world’s hottest air-combat aircraft was flown at less than a third of the planes’ top speed.

Air National Guard head, Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver later contradicted “Nasty”, “Duff” and Gen. Arnold, stating, “The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.”[St. Augustine Times Sept16/01]

Scalded ape? Airliners fly at 500 mph. An F-15 can fly almost four-times faster.

"We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker," “Duff”, later lamented.

Pushing their twin throttles fully forward past their detents into afterburner would have helped. Instead, utilizing only 27% of available thrust, both F-15’s were “eight minutes/71 miles” away, according to NORAD, when Flight 175 struck the South Tower with 56 souls and more than ten tons of fuel onboard. [Christian Science Monitor Mar8/02]

10. Even launching as late as they did, flying at top speed, could the Otis jets have intercepted Flight 77 before it struck the South Tower?
911 commissioner John Lehman put this question to Gen. Larry Arnold: “I just wanted to make clear, there was no possibility, given the lateness with which you were notified from FAA of a possible hijacking, that those airplanes in full afterburner, flying supersonic could have gotten there in time to intercept either of those two planes. Is that correct?

“That’s correct. That’s correct,” Gen. Arnold replied. “Even the pilot accelerating to 1.5 mach, moving pretty fast, was still eight minutes out by the time the second aircraft had crashed into the tower.”

But NORAD officially states that both pilots flew no faster than 500 mph.

Launched per regulations as soon as radio and transponder contact was lost with Flight 11, with both sets of throttles hammered to the stops the fastest fighters on the planet would have intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson River at least six minutes from Manhattan. [Boston Globe Sept15/01]

Even launching as late as they did - on the FAA’s first officially acknowledged phone call to NORAD at 8:40 - the Mach 2.5 fighters could have easily reached Flight 175 before it reached the World Trade Center.

Maybe they did. According to Master Sgt. Maureen Dooley, Boston Center was following a blip thought to be Flight 11 as the air force warrant officer “grasped for a way to get the plane’s tail number” from the nearby F-16 pilots she was talking to at the time. If the jets were close enough to read the airliner’s tail number, why are they officially listed as arriving eight minutes after impact? [FSC quoting Newhouse News Service story, “Amid Crisis Simulation We Were Suddenly, No Kidding, Under Attack”]
8:41
United Airlines Flight 175’s last communication with the New York ATC. One minute later, it veers sharply from its flight plan course. [Boston Globe 11/23/01]

With their mandate to monitor developing “situations” using the Joint Surveillance radar system, national military commanders at NEADS and the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the Pentagon would have seen Flight 175 turn abruptly south - just as they had watched on radar in October 1999 when pro golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet strayed off course on a charter flight to Dallas. [CNN Oct26/1999]

In that legendary intercept, a fighter out of Tyndall, Florida was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Lear, whose pilot had become incapacitated, trapping Stewart in the stratosphere. An F16 was reportedly sitting off the left wingtip of Payne’s pilotless business jet within 19 minutes of the FAA alert. [ABC News Oct25/99]

8:46
American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the World Trade Center Tower 1 between the 94th and 98th floors at a speed 500 miles per hour.

8:50.55
The US Military Command Center is on the phone to FAA headquarters asking, “Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?”

“God, I don’t know,” comes the stammered reply. “That’s a decision somebody’s gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.” [BBC June 18/04]

11. With the WTC already burning and another hijacked jet inbound, why this agonized phone debate?
Good question. FAA Order 7110.65M instructs controllers, to "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists [when] there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any aircraft."

Once this decision is made, no higher-level orders are needed for standard fighter escorts to be ordered aloft. "The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center.’ [FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2]

According to a former radar defense operator I spoke with, military radar operators at more than a dozen sites along the US East coast “look at everything in the air.” This former radar tech said his Maine radar outpost “often” scrambled interceptors on its own authority, without waiting to hear from the FAA or their own higher command. Sometimes, he says, they scrambled on flocks of birds. And once on dolphins reflected on clouds. But the jets always went up. [Stand Down]
But instead of following routinely practiced procedures, on Sept. 11, FAA officials had to first contact the NMCC and request air support. The NMCC then had to call NORAD's command center in Colorado and inquire about the availability of aircraft. Final approval to launch fighters had to come personally from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
[American Free Press July10/03]

Instead of launching fighters within minutes of receiving an alert from FAA or military radar operators, this time-consuming procedural maze was put in place by Rumsfeld’s written instruction to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 1, 2001:
" In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."--CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001
[http://www2.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html]

Shortly after Rumie changed the rules for fighter scrambles on rogue aircraft, in July 2001, the FAA also rescinded a 40-year rule allowing guns in cockpits.

8:52
Both F-15s are “wheels up” out of Otis. [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01]

Around this time, the FSC has learned that Major Don Arias in Florida called his brother in WTC Tower 2, telling him that the first plane was a hijacking and that he should get out. No one in the air force advised the Port authority to evacuate everyone from the building.

8:53
Another controller handling Flight 77 calls in, saying, "We may have a hijack. We have some problems over here right now." [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01]

9:02
The first confirmation of trouble onboard Fl 77 is an unauthorized course deviation. As Gen. Arnold told the commission, “Then very shortly thereafter, we got a call on the United 93 flight being a possible hijacking. That aircraft wandered around and flew up over the northern part of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Mixed in with this was a call about a Delta flight that was possibly hijacked.”

FLYING BLIND
12. Weren’t there other fighter planes available - on the ground or already in the air – closer to the hijacked airliners than Cape Cod?

Astonishingly, the general in charge of US air defenses on Sept. 11 informed the 911 Commission, “In the Northeast, at this particular time, we had no other aircraft available.”

In fact, in the most heavily armed nation on Earth, at least two-dozen air force installations are within fast flying time of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Among the air bases that did not respond on Sept. 11 were

The 104 Fighter Wing in western Massachusetts.

The 174 Fighter Wing in Syracuse, New York - directly in Flight 11’s flight-path until it turned south.

The 103 and 118 Fighter Wings in Hartford, Connecticut just 100 miles N/E of Manhattan.

Outside Philadelphia, near the route of Flight 93, the mission statement of the Willow Grove Air Reserve Station’s 111th Fighter wing is “to protect the safety and security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania.”

A “battle-ready” squadron of F-16’s was also stationed with the 177 Fighter Wing out of Atlantic City - less than half the distance from New York City compared to Otis AFB. [www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a]

13. Why weren’t armed fighters on training flights or patrolling Air Defense Intercept Zones just off the Atlantic Coast that morning immediately diverted to intercept the commandeered airliners?

Another good question not pursued by the commission. What about the two Air National Guard F-16s already airborne near Manhattan? Armed with practice bombs for runs over New Jersey’s Pine Barrens near Atlantic City, the intimidating interceptors from the 177th Fighter Wing could have been over the WTC in less than three minutes. Even at cruising speed, the unarmed jets could arrive in time to disrupt Flight 11 and Flight 175’s flight paths with close passes - or even ramming the airliners before ejecting over the Hudson River or Long Island Sound.

Instead, the two Fighting Falcons are not recalled to be refueled and rearmed with by air-to-air missiles until the Pentagon is hit, more than an hour after the Trade Center strikes. "Isn't that something?" commented the 177th's public affairs officer, Lt. Luz Aponte.
[North Jersey Media Group]

Flight 175 impacts WTC

9:03
Word of Fl 175 impacting the South Tower of the World Trade Center brings a shocked pause to the Operations room. Every head turns to Gen. Marr. “Get to the phones, call every National Guard unit in the land, “ Marr orders. “Prepare to put jets in the air - the nation is under attack”.

According to the FSC, air bases at Syracuse, N.Y., Hartford, Conn., and Atlantic City bases had websites “boasting” prior to 911 “that they were on high readiness status.”

But no jets are launched. And none already in the air are diverted – despite reported pleas from military pilots and base personnel to be allowed to intercept threats to their country.
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission.htm

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/EA990/doc...S/ntsb_c~1.pdf
SUBJECT: Analysis of Long Range Radar Data: Egypt Air 990 aircraft mishap 31 Oct 99
1. Introduction. At the request of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES) is releasing radar data from various long-range surveillance radars providing coverage for Egypt Air aircraft crash on 31 Oct 99.
Comprehensive search and beacon radar coverage of the mishap was provided by the air route surveillance radar-4 (ARSR-4) at Gibbsborro, NJ, Riverhead, NY, Oceana, VA and North Truro, MA. This data was recorded at the Northeast Air Defense Sector Air Operations Center, Rome industrial Park, NY.
The enclosed CD contains all radar data and products produced by the 84th RADES in support of this incident. Software to view the recorded data is included along with quick instructions to view the data (attach 1).

2. Radar Accuracy Constraints.
The primary range accuracy limitation for both search and beacon is 1/8 nmi, which is the value of the least significant bit in the radar target reports to end users. Azimuth accuracy, primarily a function of radar beamwidth, is approximately 0.2 degree for both search and beacon. Mode C height naccuracy is primarily limited to 100 feet, which is the value of the least significant bit in the Mode C altitude report. Mode C altitudes may vary from 'true height' depending on atmospheric conditions. The aircraft’s true altitude can be obtained by algebraically adding its corresponding D-value (included in attachment 1) to the Mode C report. In contrast, the ARSR-4 search height accuracy is primarily a function of radar design and the physical world (e.g., propagation conditions and target size). The average search height accuracy, based on specifications, is 3000 ft root mean square (RMS) of the true altitude, but any single radar return height value could far exceed 3000 feet. Therefore, the ARSR-4 height values should be treated as approximate values. A good indication of the relative height error can be obtained by comparing the associated Mode C height (including D values) with the ARSR-4 height measurement. The height measurement values of 102,000 feet indicate the ARSR-4 could not determine the height of the target and are used to represent an invalid height value. In addition to these range, azimuth, and height accuracy factors, the ARSR-4 requires approximately 12 seconds to complete each 360-degree azimuth scan.
These scan rates preclude contiguous aircraft positional information (i.e., prevents a high degree of track resolution).
Because of these intrinsic radar limitations, all radar plots illustrated in this analysis on a scan-toscan basis should be considered close approximations.

Tests, mogelijkheden van de ARSR-4 in Detail:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Ja citeer het dan eens wat ik moet lezen van die gefakete onzin ?

doe wa moeite dat moeten wij ook met jouw onzin

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

doe wa moeite dat moeten wij ook met jouw onzin

Mijn bron is officieel van de USAF.
En de figuur:

http://www.historycommons.org/contex...light11takeoff

A map of the paths all hijacked planes and relevant fighters take on the morning of 9/11.
[Washington Post, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001; ABC News, 7/18/2002; Associated Press, 8/21/2002; Newsday, 9/10/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]

http://www.historycommons.org/aboutsite.jsp
What is the History Commons website?

The History Commons website is run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight ("CGO"), an organization that is fiscally sponsored by The Global Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. CGO was incorporated as a public benefit corporation in late 2006, and is currently applying for its own 501(c)3 status.

Can you briefly describe the website?
The website is a tool for open-content participatory journalism. It allows people to investigate important issues by providing a space where people can collaborate on the documentation of past and current events, as well as the entities associated with those events. The website can be used to investigate topics at the local, regional, or global level. The data is displayed on the website in the form of dynamic timelines and entity profiles, and is exportable into XML so it can be shared with others for non-commercial purposes.

What kind of information is available on this website?
Information about specific events. There are currently 15,093 events profiled in our database. Visitors can view these events by searching the database, or by browsing through timelines.
Information about specific entities. More than 5,000 entities are currently in the database. They include individuals, organizations, businesses, etc. For each entity there is an entity profile page which includes (1) information about the entity; (2) links to related entities; and (3) a chronology of all events in which the entity was an active participant. Visitors can view entity profiles by searching the database, or by clicking on one of the entity links at the bottom of an event.
Who creates the content?
Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called “contributors.” Since the project is still beta, and since we do not have enough editors at this time, membership is restricted to a relatively small group of users.

Who edits the content?
Any qualified individual—an experienced contributor, professional editor, academic, journalist, graduate student, etc.—can become a content editor. Content editors, like all users, are volunteers. They verify the accuracy of entries submitted by contributors. Content editors may reject, approve, or edit and approve, submissions. After approving an entry, the entry is then copy edited.

Who copy edits?
Volunteers.

What is the purpose and significance of this website?
To provide a means for members of civil society to monitor the activities of powerful entities, such as governments, large corporations, and wealthy and influential individuals. In this capacity, the website should be regarded as an IT toolset that enables members of the public to operate as a sort of people’s intelligence agency. To initiate an investigation of a certain issue, entity, or event, a user first creates a timeline project. The user then becomes the project manager of that project and begins adding events, entities, and relationships. The data is displayed as a chronology. Project managers can define an unlimited number of category sets and categories that s/he can use to classify the events. This gives the data some structure and makes it more readable for visitors.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Mijn bron is officieel van de USAF.
En de figuur:

mooi en ga nu met je bewijzen naar de rechtbank

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Alhoewel er bronnen zijn dat de OTIS F15 al vroeger vertrokken zijn als 9h 52, namelijk op hetzelfde moment om 8:46 (bron William Thomas - hoorzittingen) als AA11 in WTC1 crashte, anderen zeggen dat ze het order om 9h46 kregen en pas om 9h52 echt airborne waren. Dat zijn 6 minuten.

Fout ingetikt het moet natuurlijk 8 46 en 8 52 zijn.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

mooi en ga nu met je bewijzen naar de rechtbank

Zijt ge nu nog niet op het Joepi-forum ? ik toon de weg ------------------------------------------------>

[Micele]

Dit bevestigt trouwens nog eens de map http://www.historycommons.org/events...722-9024-1.jpg
... die ik tot vervelens toe toonde, nl de "zotte piloten van Langley" die nog niet eens blind wisten waar hun eigen hoofdstad Washington DC lag: :

Vliegen die met een compas uit de eeuwen toen de aarde nog plat was ?

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.
After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23:

Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area.. . . [i]f they're there then we'll run on them.. . .These guys are smart.
That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30. NEADS decided to keep the Otis fighters over New York. The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area. The mission crew commander explained to us that the purpose was to position the Langley fighters between the reported southbound American 11 and the nation's capital.

Despite the orders to head towards the Washington/Baltimore area, the Langley aircraft headed due east, out to sea "into a military-training airspace called Whiskey 386." The Langley pilots were not briefed as to why they were being scrambled, so they followed their training flight plan, which was premised on Cold War threats. They did not receive information on distance to the target or the target's location when they were ordered to scramble.

Bevel is bevel... NEEN... ze vlogen naar military-training airspace called Whiskey 386...

Ze zochten ook nog naar AA11....

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Zijt ge nu nog niet op het Joepi-forum ? ik toon de weg ------------------------------------------------>

www.erisietsmisinmijnhoofd.com

[Alboreto]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Nietszeggende generalisaties die in deze draad al talloze keren zijn weerlegd.

Waar generaliseer ik?

Na de feiten van 9/11 zijn vrij snel talloze samenzweringstheorieën verschenen op al dan niet betrouwbare websites.

Ik heb die indertijd grondig bekeken en ook de sites die deze theorieën weerlegden.

Het was voor mij al snel duidelijk dat de complot-theorieën gebaseerd waren op half- en volledige leugens (bv dat van de motor was een bekende).

En ik zie hier nog steeds van die verdraaide feiten terugkomen.
Wanneer iemand leugens nodig heeft om iets te bewijzen dan heeft die vrij snel afgedaan bij mij.

Dus tot iemand met straffe bewijzen komt is het mijn mening is dat dit niet veel meer is dan volksvermaak.

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Bevel is bevel... NEEN... ze vlogen naar military-training airspace called Whiskey 386...

Ze zochten ook nog naar AA11....

We hebben het u al tientallen keren uitgelegd, maar ik vrees dat je iets teveel voor die radar van je gestaan hebt die op vol vermogen aan het stralen was.

Het kan er bij u maar niet in dat er de eerste uren van 9/11 volledige chaos was en dat al uw mooie theorietjes dus eenvoudigweg niet opgaan.