Sept 11th

No doubt that the plane was right above sensitive military installations. Was there any place in that country where there weren´t any? It will take a long time to get the truth about it. What is the most weird, do you think?

 

they couldn't have reacted in time , after the third jet hit the pentagon , that's when they caught on. That's my theory , when all aircraft were not-permitted over u.s airspace , like 40 airliners landed at the airport in my town. my town has 10,000 people , over 8000 people from the diverted planes stayed in my town over the crisis.

 

I´ll repeat myself: How long time passed from flight control (or some other, maybe military observation systems) saw that the airliners were off their course till the planes were above urban areas. Anybody here knows that? How much time was there to intercept each of the planes?
In´t it crucial? They didn´t demand permission to land, so one couldn´t defend not shooting them down on suspicion, that they were heading toward and airport....

 

comments on things

1- at the time bush was reading the book the first plane had already hit the tower and it was thought to have been an accident. his finishing the story had nothing to do with any response.
2- flight 007 was downed because the ruskies thought it was an amercian 707 electronics snoop plane.
3- the aircraft downed over PA. was crashed by the terrorist pilot when he realized the passangers were about to overpower him. the black boxes prove this. there were no military aircraft within attack range nor is there any evidence that an attack was ever ordered.

 

But how come that nobody cared that the planes left their routes??? And if someone did care, Bush shouldn´t have continued with the book (or was it real interesting for Him)? :roll:

 

Because hindsight is 20/20 and just because we know now that those planes were in effect being used as huge missiles does not mean that you can justify shooting down civil airliners just because they're off course.

Besides, these planes were over densely populated areas at rush hour, even shooting them down would cause huge casualties on the ground anyway, and that's assuming that the missile doesn't miss.

Even if fighter aircraft were scrambled the instant it was realised the aircraft are off course I repeat you cannot just blow up an airliner because it's off course. There would have to be telephone calls to the military and senior commanders, radio calls to Air Traffic Control, the military, the jet itself, visual confirmations to go through by which point the plane would probably have hit its target anyway.

Let me turn this on it's head slightly. Who is going to authorise the scrambling of fighter planes (And not forgetting the associated $$$ involved) to intercept every airliner that's off course or initiates a go-around at an airport? How many fighter pilots are going to risk death-row for multiple murder for destroying a passenger jet with up to 330 people on board when it could be something as simple as a defective transponder/radio/nav-aid?

Hindsight is always 20/20, after every tragedy there is a mass outcry of "Why wasn't this prevented?" by people who are looking back on it with all the power of hindsight, usual followed closely by conspiracy theorists for whom it's obviously all a government cover-up!

September 11th is no exception.

 

I am not crying out. I repeat: I am not crying out. Nor am I concocting conspiract theories. I repeat.....
But, somehow, nobody seems to know here, how much they were off courses. That´s all I´m asking to know. And, if the time was not so short: what the heck do they have their interceptor standby for? I am not talking of shooting. I repeat......

 

I never said you were, that was just a general observation.

Interceptors are on stand-by for obviously hostile planes, such as bombers or reconnaisance planes that wont leave despite warnings, not civil airliners.

 

Izaak stern wrote:

In the US the only people that seriously criticize Bush for not instantly reacting to the news are his diehard political opponents (who would then criticize him for overreacting). A US President has to be able to multi-task. He gets many reports at all hours of the day, some of which may turn out to be important, most of which will not.
He did exactly the right thing.."keep me informed" then he continued with his agenda.
What could the President conceivably do anyway... before the full facts were known? The US President does not monitor civil aviation expecting at any times to have to give the order to shoot down an airliner..not prior to 9/11.

 

Considering what kind of agenda it was, the only explanations of his behavior are:
1. the man has ice in his veins,
2. he was totally disoriented and didn´t know what to do next ,
3. he had known everything in advance

Nr. 3. I discard right away. Even if planned by American Evildoers, the Doode would be the last to know.

But seriously: I can´t disagree. But how come nobody cared the deviations from routes? And if somebody did care, how did they react? And how much time the individual planes were off routes? How much time went before someone detected the deviations? I am asking ´cause I don´t know. Contrary to the majority of other themes here, I have no hidden agenda or conspiracy theories here. Strange but true.

 

bush

i'm sure they did'nt tell bush much at the school probley just
that a plane had crashed in the WTC. and there was not much bush could have done anyway. you don't want to drag the President out in the middle of a school that could have made things worst and caused panic. i'm sure Clinton or Gore or anyone else would have done the same thing

 

You may be interested to know, that according to my Brother-in-law, a Wing Commander in the RAF In the U.K it has been common practise since the cold war years, to have two jet fighters, fully fuelled and armed, ready for take off, at different airbases around the U.K 24/7. For just such an eventuality.

 

You mean in case somebody hijacked civilian airliners?
Or in case somebody flew them into a building?

Modern interceptors cannot be 'scrambled' in quite the same speed as they once were...

Izaak - the knowledge that a/some planes are off course is not going to spring the President out of what he is doing. I'm pretty sure most countries have proceedures to follow in case of possible hijack, and I doubt many of them require the constant personal attention of the President/Prime Minister/etc.

What I am not clear on - did he keep reading after he heard about the first crash? If he did; again, I'm fairly sure that there are proceedures in place for dealing with such disasters as a plane hitting a city, which once again do not require the constant personal attention of the President/Prime Minister/etc.

I do wonder what people think Bush could have done.

Shot down the airliners the moment they deviate from course? Over urban areas? And with what planes/missiles?
To me, the only one that could possibly have been shot down was the one that hit the Pentagon.

Remember, historically, hijacks have always been more about hostages and/or a free plane ride somewhere unusual or difficult to get to. Not turning the plane into a missile.

 

Another thing to consider is that the WTC was about 10 minutes airtime from the NYC airports and the Pentagon is about 5 minutes airtime from Reagan Airport.

The vast amount of planes in the air over the USA is almost mind boggling anyway. Imagine how many planes fly around NYC and DC everyday.

 

Sure. But the planes have been flying for some time, before they were returned towards their new destinations.

This is precisely, what I was asking about. Procedures in such cases. Nobody knows? I don´t, why I´m asking.

Bush: sure, he continued with the book. The expression of his face upon hearing (I ´ve seen it on TV) was such funny that I couldn´t help joking about him. I do know that it was not himself who should have rush to NY or Wherever and shoot any suspicious planes with his Colt.

 

I believe there wasn't any automatic course tracker for flight control. So if a plane does change its course, it might go unnoticed. Especially if flight control has hands full of other planes which need his/her attention.

 

prior to 9/11

an airliner that left its assigned route and altitude would be questioned as to why but only after sombody noticed the excursion. once an aircraft is flying some distance away from airports and other planes it was not watched that closely. the system relied heavily on the pilots doing what they were supposed to. the failure of a plane to answer would have been put down to problems with on board equiptment first and other planes warned to stay clear. a highjacking would wave been the next thing to come to mind and since up to 9/11 they had never constituted a threat to anyone on the ground there would have been no reason to scramble fighters. in eather case the crew was pretty much allowed to do whatever thay thought was necessary to deal with the situtation and everybody stayed out of the way.

 

Thank you!

 

According to french chief of staff, General Henri Bentégeat, barely a day goes by without jets taking off to check on a plane that has veesed of it's path or does not respond by radio.

 

From Popular Mechanics magazine article: