Hijacked planeflight paths and the military/air bases that they flew over.

[Old and In the Way]

Here's a link to an interesting graphic.....the 9/11 flight paths overlaid on a map that shows the location of various bases.

Too bad our radar was pointing the wrong way....maybe they should have pointed it straight up in the air.

<http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-flightpaths-bases.htm>

[Sick of Bullshit]

1. Interesting map there

Especially the part that shows Flt 11 and Flt 175 BOTH flying close to the same two bases in New York

[Abe Linkman]

7. "Hijackers" didn't head directly for targets. Why?

Why would "hijackers" take the risks of heading way out west, rather than heading straight to the targets that would provide them with immediate entrance to that place where all those lovely virgins waited patiently?

[Old and In the Way]

9. Part of the answer lies in 93 being delayed by 40 minutes(?)

on the ground from its original departure time. And that makes it even more odd, IMHO. The 77 and 93 hijackings were probably planned to hit at about the same time.....so that's why 77 was meandering around Kentucky, I suppose. But that should have given our air defense even more time to get aircraft up over Washington.

The one thing that can't be explained away...the Pentagon gets hit 52+ minutes after the 2nd WTC crash. Criminal incompetence or LIHOP, take your pick.

[demodewd]

10. MIHOP

52 minutes and the Pentagon isn't evacuated and no fighters are immediately scrambled to protect the DC area.. Sorry...this is MIHOP.

[Abe Linkman]

17. "Not guilty of murder, your honor. Criminally incompetent, maybe."

What in the world does "criminally incompetent" mean? Sounds like something a Pentagon PR person cooked-up.

[Ergotron]

36. Because they didn't hijack the planes immediately after takeoff...

They waited until the crew had settled into its inflight routine before they made their move.

[Ergotron]

35. How many of these bases were air defense bases?

Even if the U.S. knew the hijacked planes were over their bases, the authority to shoot down civilian airliners was not given until AFTER the two planes hit the WTC and AFTER the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Flight 93 would have been shot down had it gotten much closer to D.C. then it did.

[demodewd]

38. That was convenient

..wasn't it? And when did Bush talk to Condoleesa Rice...about ten minutes before the Pentagon crash and no planes were sent up to cover DC air space for fifty minutes after the WTC South Tower inferno? That's protocol?? That's complicity...no responsible Commander in Chief would respond in that manner.

[Rick Myers]

2. It's a modern myth!

Look at Flight 93... See the triangle representing a "BASE"???

That is a part time ANG base stocked with C-130 cargo planes. The closest base with actual fighters is NOT even on the map. Rickenbacker at Columbus, OH.

Some of those 'bases' are Army reserve bases...

[Old and In the Way]

8. So no planes could have been called up to make a visual

inspection/contact? I assume that any AF/ANG jet could have been scrambled to at least check out the situation.....don't you find that a bit odd?

The fact that no interception was made really bugs me. Especially after the 1st crash....I would have thought that any plane that could intercept would be sacrificed if the hi-jackers were targeting, say, a nuclear power plant....but none were ever scrambled.

[DeadBroke]

12. Rubber band launched ....

... paper clips would have been the only weapons available at nearly all the bases shown. How many reserve centers, material depots, R&Ds, armories and arsenals have radar and fighter jets? Only thing the maps really show is the pork in congressional districts.

[baldguy]

3. Remember Payne Stewart?

Plane takes off. Within one hour, ATC gets F-16s up in the air for escort.

FOR A GOLFER IN A LEAR JET!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.htm

[Rick Myers]

4. Actually, it was 21 minutes

Completely different situation.

[demodewd]

5. Why

Why would it be a completely different situation?

[Ergotron]

37. Because the ATC lost contact with the plane and it was not....

...responding to radio calls.

[Parche]

43. hijacked planes

ATC also lost contact with them, they did not "ident" or squawk
That is standard Air Force policy to intercept any suspicious activity.

[shatoga]

6. no military standown was ordered/ correct!

completely different situation.
Different president who allowed the military to protect American airspace.

different administration.
clinton's service to America bunch vs/
Bush's service to the military industrial complex bunch.

Payne Stewart's flight is the smoking gun that will end Dubya up in prison for his war crimes.
Deliberately letting American civilians die.

May he and his minions burn in hell!

BTW/ Never got a chance to ask a Bush minion-
Perhaps a sympathetic person like yourself could answer on their behalf:
Why do you support the military standown that let 9/11 happen?

Or the coverup that denies tha fact that there was a military stand down on 9/11?

[HarryLime]

14. Clinton was involved too

If we accept that Bush MIHOP then so did Clinton. It took years of planning to pull 911 off and most of that time was under Clinton's watch. Remember that he was in Indonesia when it took place. The farthest place on the globe from NYC he could get. I don't think that was by accident.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Harry.......Clinton was a private citizen, remember?

Do you remember the 8 years of the incessant Republican Inquisition? When they directed 100's of FBI agents to scour Alabama for evidence of Clinton marital infidelities, instead of protecting America's interests? When they screamed "wag the dog" because he was trying to deal with OBL/terrorists before it became fashionable? Do you remember that VP Al Gore had a blue ribbon, bi-partisan commission (Hart/Rudman)to study terror and recommend actions that needed to be taken to address our security? Do you remember that Cheney shitcanned the report immediately and got down to business of dividing up the ME for their Roilist friends?

Clinton is on record that he'd be happy to go in front of Congress and the 9/11 commission to ask any questions under oath about his administration's fore knowledge and actions dealing with terrorists. How come he hasn't been called up? Why hasn't Bush/Cheney made the same offer? Why has this administration slow-walked, underfunded, obstructed, and stonewalled a public investigation into all facts leading up to/during/after the terrorist attackes on 9/11?

Blame CLinton for Bush's actions....it's the Republican way.

[HarryLime]

18. Public enemies, private pals

Clinton and Papa Bush seem to be very public adversaries but behind the scenes cronies. For example, Clinton allowed CIA flights to leave Arkansas to help the Contras.

It is useful to recall that there are many reasons now to suspect whether a single truck bomb caused the WTC explosion. Also, they caught the previous WTC bomber because he went to the rental agency to get his deposit, worth about $225 or so. Not exactly the thinking that many would have after having tried to kill tens of thousands.

I keep thinking that Clinton was in Indonesia on September 11. What a great place for him to be; that worked out well for him.

[DulceDecorum]

20. Harry

are you related to Barbara Olson?

Do you have ANYTHING that links Bill Clinton to the September 11 mess apart from the fact that he was not even in the USA at the time?
Hey if we are going to look at one President, let's look at them all.

Can Ronald Reagan remember what he was doing on September 11?
Where was Poppy Bush?
What was Gerald Ford doing?
You remember Ford, he is the one who signed an Executive Order saying that assassination of other people's presidents is illegal. Maybe Saddam, Ghadaffi, and him were best buds, hmm? Or maybe forgiveness was Ford's middle name.
Jimmy Carter, well according to Daniel Pipes, this whole thing was his fault.
http://www.danielpipes.org/pf.php?id=460
Jimmy Carter builds houses not bombs.
What IS the man thinking?

There were supposedly only FOUR fighter jets guarding the continental USA. How many of those were attached to Juniors plane?
How many fighter jets did Clinton have hanging around? Please recall that Junior et al have listed Indonesia as a terrorist hot spot.

If the whole thing was Clinton's fault, can he at least get some credit for having developed a military that could take both Afghanistan and Iraq?

Can he at least get some credit for having pulled the troops out of the morass in Mogadishu which was instigated by his oil-warrior predecessor?

Can he at least get credit for having left enough money in the treasury to fund all the tax cuts and those "rebate" checks that everyone in America got in the mail?

Can he at least get credit for having won an election fair and square without having had to resort to a Brooks Brothers Riot?

Can Clinton at the very least get credit for being able to chew and swallow a pretzel all by himself and without mishap?

Can you give Clinton ANY credit for ANYTHING EVER, Mr. HarryLime?

[HarryLime]

24. Dulce

"Can you give Clinton ANY credit for ANYTHING EVER, Mr. HarryLime?"

Why should I? I'm not on this forum to give credit to Presidents. I'm here to discuss what's in store for all of us. If we understand that 911 was either LIHOP or MIHOP then we should also conclude something else just as bad is coming.

Sep 11 was accomplished with a great deal of planning. It seems illogical to be convinced that it was accomplished with only nine months of planning. That's because no one knows how long it was planned except for the perps.

Let's also remember that Bush and the neo-cons love to hit Bill Clinton. They do it all the time; everything was BC's fault. So, if we accept LIHOP/MIHOP then it also would seem logical that they would maneuver Bill as close to NYC that day as possible. Maybe offer him a meeting with the Carlyle group. When word gets out that he was there that day the whole country would want to lynch him.

However, they can't have that because Bill has friends and he is famously good at talking. So either they tipped Bill off to be in Indonesia that day or Bill already knew what was going on.

I don't know what Bill's involvement was. Dulce, you seem to be taking my suggestion personally about Clinton. What's your attachment to him?

[Old and In the Way]

26. Is it your point to cover for Bush, by smearing Clinton?

Offer us some facts if you wish to convince us that Bill was involved in 9/11. Just one will do.

If Bill was so gungho about doing in the WTC, why would he have bothered with Commission to look into our security weaknesses?

[HarryLime]

27. Sorry, Judge Judy

"Offer us some facts if you wish to convince us that Bill was involved in 9/11. Just one will do."

Is this a court of law with you the judge and me on trial? I had no idea that I couldn't speculate on things that neither one of us knows for sure.

[DulceDecorum]

28. Attachment?

To the last elected president?

Any opposition to his policies is considered to be no less than an act of treason.

[HarryLime]

34. Treason? All good patriots should have opposed Clinton

Dulce, I think you're saying that any "opposition to policies is considered to be no less than an act of treason." Is that correct? You think we all need to have supported the unnecessary 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia? How about the destruction of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan? Or, how about the economic sanctions in Iraq? How about the military spending? Or, the "free trade" agreements he left behind?

Clinton was a monster. Maybe not the same class of monster as a Bush but damn close to it.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Patriots? Did someone say...

Patriots?

Like these kind of patriots?

http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-index.html

Active 'Patriot' Groups in the United States in 2001

The Intelligence Project identified 158 “Patriot” groups that were active in 2001. Of these groups, 73 were militias, two were “common-law courts,” and the remainder fit into a variety of categories such as publishers, ministries, and citizens' groups. Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order” or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.

These kind of Patriots really hated Clinton. Are you talking about these kind of patriots? Hmmm?

Paging Mr. Eastman...

[leftofthedial]

21. vastly illogical

why would it take "years of planning"?

why would that planning involve Clinton at all?

[HarryLime]

25. thanks for the logic lesson

"why would it take 'years of planning'?"

Read Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid.

"why would that planning involve Clinton at all?"

Because he was President prior to Bush. Because under his watch the WTC was bombed the first time. Because under his watch the Oklahoma City bombing took place. Both events helped him politically.

[DulceDecorum]

29. Lets talk about THIS watch.

And the many bases the hijackers flew over in a Sliver Blaze.
And the dog that never barked.

[leftofthedial]

30. those aren't answers

Clinton actually caught the perpetrators under his watch. The fact that terrorists acts occurred while Clinton was president has zero bearing on whether or not Clinton was involved with MIHOP.

Planning, according to the official explanation, took about a year. This could have been planned in much less time.

[HarryLime]

31. once again

"Clinton actually caught the perpetrators under his watch."

What are you talking about? They said that the guy who bombed the WTC the first time was trying to get his security deposit back from the Ryder truck he allegedly rented. Also, no one should think that Timothy McVeigh acted alone. Both stories have zero credibility.

"The fact that terrorists acts occurred while Clinton was president has zero bearing on whether or not Clinton was involved with MIHOP."

By the same logic it has zero bearing on whether Bush was involved.

"Planning, according to the official explanation, took about a year. This could have been planned in much less time."

I doubt that one could get 10-30 intelligence agents to agree on a plan and implement it in that short of time. Besides, if you agree with Eric Hufschmid's conclusions in "Painful Questions" you'd see they were using WTC7 as a HQ for their operations. That took time.

LeftOfTheDial, methinks you protest too much. I've merely speculated that Clinton was involved. I didn't say I know for sure. Your intolerance for a mere speculation seems to be a waste of everyone's time.

[Abe Linkman]

32. Mr. Lime - out of curiousity, have you also speculated...

that the Bunnypants administration was involved?

What is YOUR basis for speculating about how long the planning might have taken?

What is YOUR basis for doubt about getting 10-30 (or 100, for that matter) intelligence agents to "agree" (btw - they aren't asked for their consent - they are employees who do what they're told) on a plan?

And, what is the point about Clinton? Even if Howard Dean had been president, the same folks who benefited from 9-11 would likely have gotten what they wanted. Clinton, Dean, Kerry, Graham, Edwards - they're all status quo politicians. None would likely have NOT supported "Operation Northwoods".

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old and In the Way]

45. Ken Starr, Judge Judy here

Ken-

You and your Republican political hacks had $70MM and 8 years to investigate every aspect of BC's personal and political life. If he was so evil (Mena. Ark CIA flights and WTC/OKC), why didn't you take him down when you had him under oath? Instead you focused on a busted land deal and politically trumped up charges based on a hack at the RTC, and a tawdry stained dress.

I am all for putting Bill under oath again and discussing his pre-knowledge of 9/11. I wonder why the Republican's aren't eager to investigate what this administration knew about the 9/11 pre-warnings and why 3000 Americans died without so much as a single aircraft making an intercept in those 2 hours.

But let's rehash old ground about BC which, oddly enough, focused on his sexlife. The semen stains of a blue dress are apparently far more interesting to Republicans then the bloodstains of 3000, mostly US citizens who died on 9/11.

[HarryLime]

47. I agree with you

I agree that Clinton should not have been investigated for his sex life. I also agree that he should be investigated about his knowledge of 911.

In fact, I agree with your entire post.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Actually, it was an hour and 21 minutes...

...between last contact and jet interception. The logging of events around Stewart's jet switches from Eastern to Central time, so it only seems to be 21 minutes.

The Stewart incident, far from being a "speedy" intercept, may have given the planners of the 9/11 attacks some valuable insight into how quickly they could expect a jet to intercept during the early part of the attack.

[Robb]

13. B-b-but I read it!

I read it was 21 minutes on the internet! Some long, complicated theory hinges on it! Whaddaya mean it isn't true? Do I have to check all these things myself?!?

(snide, possibly unwarranted sarcasm off)

I think I need to manifest a "Robb's Fourth Rule"... "Fear the validity of all articles that source only the internet."

Let it be done.

[ramblin_dave]

15. I doubt this incident figured into 9/11 plans

First of all an hour and 21 minutes seems hard to believe. I would first want to know if the NTSB log of events is accurate and complete.

Contact with Stewart's plane was lost near Gainsville, FL around 9:33 EDT and the plane crossed into the central time zone near Eufala, AL at 10:10 EDT according to the NTSB report. Then the NTSB report says that a test pilot from Eglin AFB (FL panhandle) was "vectored" to within 8 nm of Stewart's plane at 10:52 EDT and arrived for visual inspection at 11:00 EDT. It's not clear to me just when the Eglin pilot was asked to intercept. Was it at 10:52 EDT or is that when he came within 8 nm? By 10:52 EDT the plane would have been over north Alabama or even Tennessee.

There's seems to be a gap between 9:33 EDT and 10:52 EDT where there is no reporting of what ATC was doing. They knew the plane was off course and not responding. Lots of questions here.

A better picture of how standard procedures were followed and what a typical response time would have been might be obtained by looking at the numerous other incidents prior to 9/11, especially those involving commercial airliners. I don't know if anyone has done this. Are there any cases in which a commercial airliner was off course and not responding and no intercept was ordered after, say 10 minutes or so? Are there any that took 30 minutes or more? That's what I want to know.

[Abe Linkman]

19. Time enough to take a sentimental jaunt out west before ...THE End

"The Stewart incident, far from being a "speedy" intercept, may have given the planners of the 9/11 attacks some valuable insight into how quickly they could expect a jet to intercept during the early part of the attack."

Might as well take the opportunity for a mini "grand tour" before having to go be with all those virgins, I guess. (These gentleman were avid consumers of celebrity news. They probably learned about Paine's pain while they were flying on some "Holy Coke" brand flying candy, and decided, what the Hey, let's see a little more of the land of the Infidels. There'll be plenty of time before anyone gets suspicious.)

[leftofthedial]

22. that's not correct

the request for intercept of Stewart's plane was made about 30 minutes after after takeoff.

It was first intercepted while still in Florida airspace, or over southern Georgia. Not more than an hour away and not in the Central Time Zone.

In all, 8 different jets tracked Stewart's plane from near the Florida-Georgia border to the crash site in South Dakota.

Ironically, SD governor Janklow (the speeding manslaughterer) was widely quoted in press accounts about the crash.

[ramblin_dave]

23. Can you provide a source for your post?

The NTSB report states that Stewart's plane took off at 9:19 EDT and that an ATC call at 9:33 EDT was not acknowledged despite repeated effort for 4.5 minutes thereafter. Then the next entry in the NTSB report says that at 9:52 CDT (10:52 EDT) an Eglin based test pilot was vectored to within 8 nm of the plane.

There is no mention of any request for intercept nor any mention of such intercept over FL or GA.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm

As I mentioned in a post above, the NTSB timeline seems to show a large gap in time, from 9:33 EDT + 4.5 min to 10:52 EDT in which nothing happened. I find this hard to believe but that's what's in the report. So if you have info that the request for intercept came around 9:19 EDT + 30 min and that the intercept took place over FL or GA then please provide a source for that.

[MercutioATC]

40. To me, it shows flights enroute to their original destinations until

they were hijacked, then a direct route to their crash points. Nothing mysterious here.

[LARED]

41. If you tighten

the wing-nuts on the standard issue tin foil hat exactly two turns too tight, everything gets mysterious. :7 Go three turns too tight and well, I'd rather not talk about it.

[Old and In the Way]

46. Lucky for us that all the people in charge who were incapable

of protecting the 3000 Americans with the $300BB/year defense budget from the flying bombs, that we were warned about,were dealt with in our public investigation. I mean, who would have thought to turn the radar around? Or have more than 14 planes covering the continental US on 9/11?

And wasn't Bush/Cheney tireless in getting to the bottom of the facts of 9/11? The resources they spent in seeking justice for those 3000 Americans who died was unbelievable. And lucky for us, they were smart enough to think about taking Cipro before the Anthrax attack on the Democratic Senate Majority leader and selected media outlets.

I sleep better knowing that those in charge were fired and reprimanded and those people are no longer in a position to control our nation's security.

Aren't you?

[RH]

48. in a position to control?

So with so many fired or reprimanded who then takes charge?

Those who used to be old and in the way?

Or what?



;(

[Abe Linkman]

42. To me, it's very suspicious that real hijackers would take such a risk

If the Official Conspiracy Theory is correct that the conspirators were OBL's "boys," and that they had planned this thing very carefully (and not while they were on a toot or atootin'), it defies credulity that they would take the risks of going so far before springing their surprise on those helpless 50+ passengers & crew. Why, some patriotic ATC might notice them and contact the authorities and spoil the whole thing...boxcutters and all.

[MercutioATC]

44. Why would we "notice" them?

If they're on course and at altitude, they're not doing anything to draw attention to themselves. We only get suspicious if that STOPS happening.

Remember also that by the time the aircraft were at altitude, they were some distance from their departure points (planes fly fast).