Could have 9/11 been prevented?

[joevberry3]

On October 25th, 1999, golf pro Stewart Payne's Learjet lost radio contact with flight control at 9:44 A.M. At 10:08, just 24 minutes after losing radio contact, two F-16 fighters were sent to intercept.

Yet, on 9-11-01, a total of one hour and 53 minutes elapsed between the time the first jet lost radio contact with flight control at 8:13 A.M. and the last jet went down in a rural Pennsylvania field at 10:06. Norad was informed of the first hijacking at 8:31. So why, with so much time on their hands, was standard protocol ignored?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...meline&timeperiod=0:10am-11:50pm 11 Sept 2001

This is really a strawman, cause they didnt blow up the plane with Payne Stewart now did they? They waited for it to crash in the country...

Joe

 

[Blindfaith]

Didn't I mention not to get personal? I could swear that I did - like twice already. Huh.

 

[Jacey]

This is really a strawman, cause they didnt blow up the plane with Payne Stewart now did they? They waited for it to crash in the country...

Joe

Huh? The pertinent fact is the loss of radio contact

 

[Satisfied]

This is really a strawman, cause they didnt blow up the plane with Payne Stewart now did they? They waited for it to crash in the country...

Joe

Yes, Joe, you missed the point.

The point was a comparison of intercept time, not blowing anything up.

An intercept occurs when an aircraft has either lost radio contact with ATC or has veered off course. The intent of intercept is determine if an emergency condition exists, and if so, to gather information as to the type and degree of the emergency. Intercept does not mean that an aircraft will be shot down. That would only occur after an intercept, and only if conditions warranted such measures.

Why was an interceptor scrambled in a mere 24 minutes for Mr. Paynes charter, yet with the four hijackings, no interceptors were scrambled from the closest bases in time to intercept any of the aircraft, even though they had much more time to respond? One such failure is unlikely, but four in the same day is preposterous.

Satisfied

The links that I posted earlier will help fill in the blanks regarding standard intercept protocol and what should have occurred on 9-11.

 

[jameseb]

Yes, Joe, you missed the point.

The point was a comparison of intercept time, not blowing anything up.

An intercept occurs when an aircraft has either lost radio contact with ATC or has veered off course. The intent of intercept is determine if an emergency condition exists, and if so, to gather information as to the type and degree of the emergency. Intercept does not mean that an aircraft will be shot down. That would only occur after an intercept, and only if conditions warranted such measures.

Why was an interceptor scrambled in a mere 24 minutes for Mr. Paynes charter, yet with the four hijackings, no interceptors were scrambled from the closest bases in time to intercept any of the aircraft, even though they had much more time to respond? One such failure is unlikely, but four in the same day is preposterous.

Satisfied

The links that I posted earlier will help fill in the blanks regarding standard intercept protocol and what should have occurred on 9-11.

Ooookay.... let me just get this straight on record ~ are you saying you believe that Bush arranged for 9/11 to take place?

 

[Satisfied]

Ooookay.... let me just get this straight on record ~ are you saying you believe that Bush arranged for 9/11 to take place?

No, I'm not saying that, one way or the other (although he did exhibit some rather strange behavior on that day).

The OP asked if 9-11 could have been prevented, and if so, how? My answer had nothing to do with president Bush. My answer had to do with the standard intercept procedure being interrupted, not once, but four times. Why was an age old, established protocol all-of-a-sudden abandoned? Why weren't jets scrambled from Andrews AFB (they have two fighter squadrons there for the specific purpose of protecting DC), which is a mere 12 miles from the Pentagon? These and many other questions have yet to receive an honest answer from the U.S. regime.

Satisfied

 

[Jacey]

I'd like to know what Bush was watching when he saw the first plane crash into the WTC like he said. Interesting. He was either lying, or he was watching some special CIA monitor hookup.

I'd also like to know why when he said that he knew immediately we were under attack, that he stayed in the classroom in no apparent hurry to leave.

 

[jameseb]

This is just getting too good to miss out on.....

*camps and waits for the next post*

 

[Starscream]

*ponders curiously why all those that don't play nice come from one side of this issue.... things that make you go, hmmmmmm*

I've already had to ask one poster from the 'other side' of the issue to show me the same polite consideration I was showing him.

Sadly, the rudeness that accompanies annoyminity comes from all angles and from people of all walks of life.

Come one guys, let's do better. America was founded on the great debate.

 

[jameseb]

I've already had to ask one poster from the 'other side' of the issue to show me the same polite consideration I was showing him.

Sadly, the rudeness that accompanies annoyminity comes from all angles and from people of all walks of life.

Come one guys, let's do better. America was founded on the great debate.

I commend you on your utter respect for your fellow posters here... I hope civility can be maintained by all members.

 

[Starscream]

I'd also like to know why when he said that he knew immediately we were under attack, that he stayed in the classroom in no apparent hurry to leave.

I realize there are a lot of unanswered questions about Bush's time table on the morning of 9/11 but I would rather we return to the topic at hand, namely, could 9/11 have been prevented.

I think it could have; for if it wasn't then why are we even trying to prevent terrorist attacks now?

 

[Starscream]

I commend you on your utter respect for your fellow posters here... I hope civility can be maintained by all members.

I think civility can be maintained by all members though sometimes it takes a little extra effort on your own part from time to time. In general, people tend to back off their sometimes aggressive behavior if you keep asking nicely. The hard part (really hard!!) is not biting back when you feel unfairly attacked.

Anyhow, I think this topic (the OP) is interesting and I'd wish to return to it.

 

[jameseb]

I think civility can be maintained by all members though sometimes it takes a little extra effort on your own part from time to time. In general, people tend to back off their sometimes aggressive behavior if you keep asking nicely.

Anyhow, I think this topic (the OP) is interesting and I'd wish to return to it.

Indeed.....I reciprocate what is given to me so I hope we'll both enjoy civil discussions in the future.

 

[Jacey]

I think it could have; for if it wasn't then why are we even trying to prevent terrorist attacks now?

Thank you

I've never said it should've been, I'm saying it could've been. Weren't 3 hijackers on the watch list? I'm going to have to look that up.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

I find it difficult to believe Bush so evil that he would willingly sacrifice thousands of lives to kick off some neo-conservative agenda.

It's not just a neo-con agenda. It goes much deeper than that. It's the Globalist/Zionist agenda to institute a New World Order/One World Satanic Government, unite/enslave humanity into one universal empire of darkness, and force everyone to accept the Red Dragon as their god. This is what 9-11, Patriol Act I & II and the 'Global War on Terror' are all about.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Updated my empty previously empty post. Sorry about that. Now feel free to call me a 'conspiracy theorist' and other such things.