The timelime you post is sort of accurate enough, but incomplete. You want to blame it all on the FAA I beleive but,...Why is it that the fighters were NOT flying over Washington long before around 09:30 (supposedly). Captain Michael Jellinek, the command director of NORAD, said that at some point not long after the first attack on the WTC (08:46), telephone links were established with the NMCC, Strategic Command, theater commanders, and federal emergency-response agencies in order to have an Air Threat Conference Call. At one time or another, the voices of President N*mbn*ts Bush, Vice President, the Dick Cheney, key military officers, FAA, NORAD leaders, the White House, and Air Force One were all heard on the open line. Brigadier General Montague Winfield, head of the NMCC, said, "All of the governmental agencies there, that were involved in any activity that was going on in the United States at that point, were in that conference." The call reportedly continued right through the Pentagon explosion. One implication of this admitted fact is that all of these individuals and agencies would have known since 8:56 that Flight 77 was presumed to be hijacked and also that all airplane takeoffs from Washington were stopped shortly after the crash of Flight 175 at 9:03. Why is the emergency considered important enough to stop all takeoffs from Washington at this time, but not important enough to scramble even a single plane to defend Washington? So more like 50 minutes since the first plane crashed to defend Washington. Not 2 hours nor even 80 minutes. Ok. Fair enough. We'll call it 50 minutes (though one could argue Flight 11 should have been suspected highjacked prior to 08:46..but ok..50 minutes) As it stands,the planes were said to arrive 15 minutes too late, even IF one believes their ridiculous claim of not knowing until 09:30 (which is absurd). and if it took the F-l6s half an hour to cover 150 miles, they could not have been traveling at more than 300 mph.... at 20 percent capability. NONSENSE. BOLONEY. But ok..for arguments sake, had the jet fighters been ordered from Andrews, as they should have been, they would still have had ample time to intercept, even with the FAA's pants down, as is claimed, the F-l6s from Langley were airborne by 9:30, as "officially" told in this fable, they would have to travel slightly over 700 mph to reach Washington before Flight 77 does. The maximum speed of an F-16 is 1,500 mph. Even at traveling 1,300 mph, these planes could have reached Washington in six minutes, before any claim of when Flight 77 crashed, and certainly not 15 minutes even later than that. Then there is the problem with Minetta's testimony concerning Cheyney and the countdown he was aware of with the plane coming into Washington and "Do the orders still stand?" fiasco. Contrary to the Pentagons claims, the military thus knew perfectly well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capitol. Yet the military did not react and the Pentagons anti-missile batteries did not function. Why? The close-range anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon are conceived to destroy missiles that attempt to approach. A missile should normally be unable to pass. As for a big Boeing 757-200, it would have strictly no chance. Whether an airliner or a missile, an explanation, there is none..."Officially". Then there's Hanji "Luck of the Irish" Hanjour. According to the reported radar data, the aircraft, given its trajectory, was able to hit the west wing only by executing a very difficult downward spiral, or to use your words "hard". In other words, it was actually technically difficult to do as little damage to the Pentagon as was done. Maybe Hanji was just showing off. This downward spiral was so difficult and so perfectly executed, according to professional pilots (not according to me) is that NO PILOT with the minimal training the hijackers evidently had could have executed this maneuver. The pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.... When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. This argument is made even stronger by the fact that the man who was supposed to be the pilot, Hani O'Reilly, was reportedly not just an amateur but also an especially incompetent one. According to a story in the New York Times: Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, a former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." And according to a report on CBS News: Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA. They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad.... They didn't think he should keep his pilots license. "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager. How could anyone believe that this pilot could have handled the perfect maneuver executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon? That's like believing a building is reported to have already fallen down, LIVE as it still stands over the reporters shoulder, then the feed.........oh wait....that DID happen.. I'll stop here and allow you to respond and then ask me anything you like....since you were decent enough to respond to me in a decent enough manner.
Let's be clear. I am not blaming anybody other than the terrorists who attacked us that day. You are the one playing Monday Morning Quarterback. You have studied the subject extensively and expect that the decision makers on that dreadful day have the same knowledge that you do after the fact. You are completely ignoring the mental and emotional aspect of the attacks. The initial shock of seeing the WTC on fire lasted about 10 mintues for me personally. I can only imagine the confusion, fear, and logisitical nightmare that these attacks created. You on the other hand are asking why fighter jets were not scrambled 5 mintues after the first attack. Well guess what Tom, fighter jets were scrambled in Manhattan. Look at the time. 8:52: The F-15s at Otis Air National Guard Base are airborne. Still lacking an intercept vector to Flight 11 (and not aware that it has already crashed), they are sent to military controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13. That is 9 minutes prior to the second plane crash into the ST of the WTC. The government was doing everything in their power to address the situation, there simply wasn't enough time. Even if all of those agencies were on a conference call which you haven't provided a time frame for, it means nothing without documentation of when they were given information by their subordinates. You are a worker bee, you should know this. The people at the top don't work, they make decisions. The Director of the FAA was powerless to convey information to NORAD until his own staff provided him with the information. By the timeline, it appears that nobody in the FAA knew the location of flight 77 until approximately 9:30AM. Stopping planes from taking off is a "no brainer". If you are searching for planes that are highjacked, you don't add more planes to the mix. On the other hand, you don't send fighter jets up without a credible theat. The only threat at the time was in Manhattan. You assume that they had to know flight 77 was hijacked and on it's way to Washington. The facts show that they didn't know that. You don't even consider the possibility that the percieved lack of response was the result of operation incompetence. You jump right to the ridiculous assumption that the goverment was actually responsible for the attacks. The truth is that they tried to stop the attacks but couldn't. You can quote the capabilities of an F-16 all you want, but if the fighter jet does not have and intercept vector it will just be flying around. Without the exact location of the target (flight 77), the fighter jets are irrelevant. They found the flight at 9:30AM and it crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37AM. And your upset that the military did not stop the plane in 7 minutes. You have not proven that the military knew an unidentified aircraft was headed for Washington and you certainly haven't proven the context of Minetta's testimony regarding Cheyney's comment. You are making Cheyney's words mean what you want them to mean, the "truth" be damned. So the Pentagon's air defense countermeasures didn't work. I don't believe that it is even possible to equip a building of the Pentagon's size with that type of defensive capability. Until you can provide proof that the coutermeasures even exist, I will assume they don't. I never even disputed the qualifications of Hanjour. I believe that he was not a great pilot. But the plane executed the maneuver. If Hanjour didn't do it, then who did? The airline pilot? Remote control? There is no use harping on why Hanjour couldn't do it if you are not prepared to say who did! And if you are going to choose remote control, you need to prove at least that it was possible.
Response to Lehigh's last post. Sooo..they were too upset, too emotional..so much so that NOBODY on the conference call thought that maybe putting a fighter in the air over Washington might be a good idea? Given 2 had already crashed, intentionally, and at least 2 others were "unaccounted" for? They had a good half hour (conservatively) to stick a bird in the air (which could have been accomplished easily within 5 minutes). Except it didn't happen because it never occurred to anyone? It DID occur to someone to ground all flights OUT OF WASHINGTON as well. Someone DID think that moving the lead coordinator...I mean the Dick Cheney safely below ground was a prudent move. But.the most secure airspace in America (that is the Pentagon airspace...which one would THINK might just warrant some consideration) was left undefended during a terrorist attack, with flights grounded and the VP underground. Perhaps you think that's believable..I DO NOT. US officials have explained why the US military did not prevent the attacks. The problem, however, is that they have given three explanations, each of which is contradicted by the others and none of which is a satisfactory explanation. According to standard operating procedures, if an FAA flight controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller is to contact a superior. If the problem cannot be fixed quickly (within about a minute), the superior is to ask NORAD—the North American Aerospace Defense Command—to send up, or "scramble," jet fighters to find out what is going on. NORAD then issues a scramble order to the nearest air force base with fighters on alert. Mineta's Report about Cheney: The attack on the Pentagon, as well as the attack on the World Trade Center, was said to be a surprise, even though it occurred over a half hour after the second strike on the Twin Towers. A Pentagon spokesperson, in explaining why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, claimed that "the Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way." The 9/11 Commission claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only "one or two minutes" before the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. During the first few days, the public was told that no fighter jets were sent up until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38. However, it was also reported that signs of Flight 11's hijacking had been observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within "10 or so" minutes after signs of trouble are observed, in this case 80 or so minutes had elapsed before fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a "stand-down" order had been issued. Within a few days, however, a second story was put out, according to which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because notification from the FAA had been very slow in coming, the fighters arrived too late. On September 18, NORAD made this second story official, embodying it in a timeline, which indicated when NORAD had been notified by the FAA about each airplane and when it had scrambled fighters in response. Hoping to overcome this problem, The 9/11 Commission Report provided a third account, according to which, contrary to NORAD's timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did not notify NORAD about Flight 175 until after it had struck the south tower or about Flight 77 until after it had struck the Pentagon. But there are serious problems with this third story. One problem is the very fact that it is the third story. The military told one story right after 9/11, another story a week later, and a third story through The 9/11 Commission Report in 2004. A second problem with this third story is that it contradicts several features of the second story, which had served as the official story for almost three years. For example, NORAD's timeline of September 18, 2001, had indicated that the FAA had notified it about Flight 175 exactly 20 minutes before it hit its target and about Flight 77 some 14 minutes before the Pentagon was struck. The 9/11 Commission maintains that both of these statements were "incorrect"—that, really, there had been no notification about these flights until after they hit their targets. This, it claims, is why the military had failed to intercept them. But if NORAD's timeline was false, as the Commission now claims, NORAD must have been either lying or confused. But it is hard to believe that it could have been confused one week after 9/11. So it must have been lying. But if the military's second story was a lie, why should we believe this third one? The jet fighters at NORAD's disposal could respond very quickly: According to the US Air Force website, F-15s can go from "scramble order" to 29,000 feet in only 2.5 minutes, after which they can fly over 1800 miles per hour.50 Therefore--according to General Ralph Eberhart, the head of NORAD—after the FAA senses that something is wrong, "it takes about one minute" for it to contact NORAD, after which, according to a spokesperson, NORAD can scramble fighter jets "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States." These statements were, to be sure, made after 9/11, so we might suspect that they reflect a post-9/11 speed-up in procedures. But an Air Traffic Control document put out in 1998 warned pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes." If these procedures had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 would have been intercepted before they could have reached Manhattan, and AA Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached the Pentagon. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony about an episode that occurred in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House. In open testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Mineta gave this account: During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President . . . said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Mineta said that that this final exchange occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26. According to Mineta's account, therefore, Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more than 12 minutes before 9:38, when the Pentagon was struck. Assuming that Cheney would not have kept this information from his good friend Donald Rumsfeld, Mineta's testimony contradicts the claim of the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission that there was no advance knowledge, at least not sufficient advance knowledge to have evacuated the Pentagon, which would have saved 125 lives. Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, says that it would have been "totally impossible for an amateur who couldn't even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner." A second major problem with the official story: There are reasons to believe that the Pentagon was struck only because officials at the Pentagon wanted it to be struck. For one thing, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes. And yet the US military, which by then clearly knew that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons, has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, "does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace." The idea that a large airliner could have slipped through, especially during a time of heightened alert, is absurd. Also, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet. It is not only within the P-56-A restricted air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, but also within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all times. (The claim by The 9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible, as I have explained in my critique of this report.) The Pentagon, moreover, is reportedly protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles, so if any aircraft without a US military transponder were to enter the Pentagon's airspace, it would be shot down. Even if the aircraft that hit the Pentagon had been Flight 77, therefore, it could have succeeded only because officials in the Pentagon turned off its missiles as well as ordering the fighters from Andrews to stand down. A third major problem with the official story is that there is considerable evidence that it could not have been Flight 77 because it was not a Boeing 757. For one thing, the strike on the Pentagon, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, reportedly did not create a detectable seismic signal. Also, the videos from security cameras on the nearby Citgo gas station and Sheraton Hotel, which would show what really hit the Pentagon, were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI, and the Department of Justice has to this day refused to release them.96 If these videos would prove that the Pentagon was really hit by a 757, most of us would assume, the government would release them.
Douglas F. Cochrane August 4, 2010 Phone Interview with Douglas Cochrane by Jeff Hill Cochrane:"Hello?" Hill: "Hi. Mr. Cochrane?" Cochrane:"Yes." Hill: "My name is Jeffrey Hill. I'm glad I got a hold of you sir. The reason why I am calling you is because I was hoping you could help me out with a few questions I had for you? " Cochrane:"Okay" Hill: "Well, I have been reading some stuff on the internet lately and I came across your name reading through some articles and forums, and stuff like that. " Cochrane:"Okay" Hill: "And it was talking about how you were in the Emergency OP Center with Cheney, and you asked him "if the orders still stand?" I was just wondering. What orders were you referring to?" Cochrane:"Okay. I'm ah. I'm really not. Ah, I'm not prepared to talk about this subject at all!" Hill: "Oh no?" Cochrane:"No." Hill: "Oh. Have you read all that stuff on the internet? You must have seen all that stuff about the 9/11 conspiracies and stuff like that?" Cochrane:"Well, tell you what ah. That was. That was a long long time ago, and really most of the work that I did as a naval aide to the President , I'm sorry, naval aide to the Vice President, during that time, is ah, is well documented and I really don't have anything else to add to it" Hill: "Well I understand that. I don't want to impose on you. It's just that there is so much disinformation out there and I was just hoping you might be able to help me out a little bit? I'm just trying to figure it out." Cochrane:"Sure, I appreciate, you know I really appreciate your inquisitive nature, but ah, but like I said its, you know, the actions of ah, of that day, and the other stuff , its just, its very well documented. Uhm." Hill: "Are you allowed? Is it okay for you to say what the orders were that you were asking about? You remember Norman Mineta obviously?" Cochrane:"I do. I do remember Secretary Mineta." Hill: "And he made that, I guess it is a popular thing on the internet, where he says; "I remember going into the P.O.C. and I heard a guy saying, "sir, the plane is 80 miles out , the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 10 miles out, do the orders still stand? A lot of people assume they know what you were talking about when you asked Cheney if the orders still stand?" Cochrane:"Well, like I said , everything that happened that day has been meticulously documented and the 9/11 Commission Report I think universally is seen as uhm, the Official Account of that, and I really don't have anything to add above and beyond that. I think I'm being exceedingly polite and I do not want to be rude. Like I said, I, ah, I appreciate your inquisitive nature. Uhm. I'm somewhat of a history buff myself and I appreciate your quest for knowledge but uh, but I really don't have anything else to add and frankly, this is, it's kind of an imposition to call me on my government cell phone. Really not. I don't think it's appropriate, and it is certainly not appreciated." Hill: "I don't mean any disrespect sir. Is this stuff classified or something?" Cochrane:"What? Like I said. You seem like a very nice man. I do not want to be rude. I have told you 4 times now. I have nothing further to add." Hill: "Can you at least tell me when Mr. Mineta entered the P.O.C.?" Cochrane:"I have nothing further to add." Hill: "Well, I don't understand. It has been 9 years sir. Where are the orders that you were asking Cheney about?" Cochrane:"The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritive [sp] narrative on that, on that day . On that. On that series of days. On that, on that incident . And I really have nothing to add. I answered every question that the 9/11 Commission asked both in a public forum and later on in a classified forum and I have nothing further to add." Hill: "Well, sir, do you believe we have been told the truth about 9/11?" Cochrane:"I have nothing further to add." Hill: "Well, what about the 9/11 Commission Report. It talks about there was an incident about a shoot down order from the President at 10:20 a.m.?" Cochrane:"I have nothing further to add." Hill: "So you can't ease my mind and tell me what those orders were that you were asking Cheney about?" Cochrane:"You know. You know. I'll say it again. You seem like a gentleman. I am certainly a gentleman. Ah, I am not. I am not going to be rude to you but I am simply going to tell you. That, I have told my story. I have answered all the questions. And I have nothing further to add " Hill: "Okay. Can you at least tell me. Those orders you were asking about. They were stand down orders. Were they not?" Cochrane:"I have nothing further to add." Hill: "Can you tell me how a plane was able to enter the most secure air space in the whole world at the Pentagon? And strike the Pentagon with no reaction from the military?" Cochrane:"I am answering you as a gentleman and as a naval officer. But I have nothing further to add about the events of 9/11 or anything that happened before, or after that. The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritive [sp] narrative on that series of events. I've given you. I've answered every one of your questions" Hill: "You haven't answered any of them sir." Cochrane:"You know the 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11. I have nothing further to add" Hill: "Okay. About the 9/11 Commission report, can you tell me why there were no shoot down orders to NEADS [North East Air Defense Sector] until 10:30 a.m. that morning?" Cochrane:"The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11." Hill: "Do you think if you were to answer my[cutoff] " Cochrane:"I have nothing further, I have nothing further to add" Hill: "Okay, but do you think if you were to answer my question about the orders, do you think that would get Cheney in trouble?" Cochrane:"The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11. I have nothing to add." Hill: "Okay sir. I am very sorry to take up your time. Thank you very much for talking to me. Thank you very much for not answering any of my questions. I promise I will never call you again sir" Cochrane:"I appreciate that." Hill: "And I would really appreciate if you would find it in your heart to get the truth out about what really happened that day. It would help 6.5 billion people in this world right now. Okay?" Cochrane:"Good night Jeff." www.pumpitout.com Transcribed by Miragememories
What?????????????????? That was a whole lot of nothing. This guy Hill is interviewing a guy whom someone else said he was next to Cheney and getting orders from him. Yet Cochrane never confirms anything. How in the !#%& is that proof of anything? Oh and the Uhs and Uhmm are a nice touch. Like the guys scared or something.
You asked who he was. There ya go. Should've realized your question wasn't genuine and you'd fly off the handle into lemming land. ANALYZE. Pretend you're looking for the truth instead of diversion, and try being intellectually honest. ANALYZE.....in the same manner that you attack the truth, if you're genuinely seeking answers. I know that's not on the agenda but, in case you ever really want to be honest with yourself in quiet moments alone.
Me? The guy Cochrane didnt admit to anything. I asked you who he was because you hand Cheney giving him orders. but in that interview you posted he doesnt confirm anything or admit to anything. For chrissakes you could replace his name with mine and it be just as true.
Oh. Yeah. Crass. Funny. What a poor sport you are. How'd it be for you to be called Rim job. All in good, that.
If you are trying to say that McKinney (you have to be kidding me siting her) accusations are accurate (that $2.3 T went missing in 1999 and $1.1 T in 2000), you need to get some facts. $2.3 T was 35% greater than the entire federal budget and 10 times greater than the DOD budget. BTW, those were also Clinton's budgets. Come on Tom. Really! Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
McKinney had the b*lls to to ask what noone else would. She was doing her job. If you find fault with that, then not much one can say to you. Maybe Rummy's own words in this link were just mistaken facts too I guess??? Cooked books...corruption. Lemmings refusing to acknowledge it. Any wonder why we're in the shape we're in? I'm sure the subjects discussed in this link are all just good "business practices"...right? Oh....and no doubt you'll attack the book keeper delivering the message. Republicans make me vomit.
Because she had the idiocy to ask does not make it a fact - nor that "rummy" also misspoke do the same. It still does not explain how they "misplaced" 135% of the total federal budget. It cannot be done.
