Toledo Air Guard and Flight 93

more evidence against 9/11 truth delusional conspiracy theories

MaGZ said:
What are your thoughts fighters from Toledo's Air Guard shot down Flight 93?



Toledo's Air Guard called to defend U.S. on Sept. 11
http://web.archive.org/web/20060208...011209&Category=NEWS28&ArtNo=112090036&Ref=AR
Click to expand...

You posted proof why NORAD did not patrol or take action over the USA domestic air space, and you don't know it because you failed to read the article. You posted evidence for what happen on 9/11, and why the USAF did not have authorization, but relied on being asked by the FAA to help...

Why not read it first, and stop asking questions.

Were the fighters armed?

Plus you posted evidence for the 19 terrorists did 9/11 with four planes. You posted evidence against 9/11 truth.
 
The way I see it, shooting down Fight 93 would have been the right decision anyway. So I wonder what's really more useful to the conspiracy theory: That it happened, or that it didn't happen?
 
MaGZ said:
What are your thoughts fighters from Toledo's Air Guard shot down Flight 93?



Toledo's Air Guard called to defend U.S. on Sept. 11
http://web.archive.org/web/20060208...011209&Category=NEWS28&ArtNo=112090036&Ref=AR
Click to expand...

I think if one bothers to read the article in the link they would find a clear answer:

But, in explaining their mission, Colonel Marr said the Toledo jets "never had a track close enough that they were directed to engage."

"[But] if a valid direction had come from the appropriate level to engage a target, or shoot down a target at some time, they could have done that," he said.

And, at the time, military and civilian officials were scrambling to land all the other commercial planes in the air during the crisis - plus sort out more than a dozen false reports of additional hijackings.

"By the time [Toledo's jets] got in the air, all those four [hijacked planes] were down," Colonel Marr said. "The problem was, we didn't know those were only the four."
Click to expand...

My thoughts are clear. Those who think UA93 was shot down are a dimwits.
 
Axxman300 said:
....Colonel Marr said. "The problem was, we didn't know those were only the four."
Click to expand...


My thoughts are clear. Those who think UA93 was shot down are a dimwits.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The three "big picture" factors are:
1) There was no shoot down - therefore - similar to WTC where there was no CD - discussion of details is moot in the absence of a valid hypothesis supporting the primary claim;
THEN
2) There was no viable window of opportunity for EITHER the physical act of shoot down for any of the four planes OR a point at which a legitimate "cost benefit" based decision to shoot down could have been made;
AND
3) The almost universally overlooked elephant in the room - as per your quote above: ".... we didn't know those were only the four."
 
Of course I read the article. What I find most interesting is none of the pilots at Toledo Air Guard were allowed to talk to the reporter. Do we even know who they were? There have been interviews of other pilots from other air bases but apparently none from the Toledo Air Guard.

Why?
 
MaGZ said:
Of course I read the article. What I find most interesting is none of the pilots at Toledo Air Guard were allowed to talk to the reporter.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they were not allowed to talk. Why would they want to talk to the likes of you?
 
MaGZ said:
Of course I read the article. What I find most interesting is none of the pilots at Toledo Air Guard were allowed to talk to the reporter. Do we even know who they were? There have been interviews of other pilots from other air bases but apparently none from the Toledo Air Guard.

Why?
Click to expand...

Do you know they have the internet on computers now?

https://www.wtol.com/article/news/t...-911/512-d7f3e824-be48-4b68-9a07-a56e4da91253

The North American Aerospace Defense Command wanted two jets up. Newell and Reed were the pilots. 180th maintenance guys had gotten a call, too, and had loaded up their F-16's guns with 500 rounds of 20-caliber ammunition. The pilots call the M-61 cannon "The Vulcan," which fires about 100 rounds a second.

And if the Toledo-based jets encounterd a commandeered commercial jetliner, would they have shot it down? "We detach ourselves as much as we can and look at it as a technical problem to be solved," said Reed.

That was a scenario the Toledo-based pilots were ready to face, but didn't have to on 9/11. During the mission, "I felt pretty good about what we were doing simply because it was the first time in my whole life that I was going to get to do what I thought was protect the homeland," said Newell.
Click to expand...

Took ten second to find this...from 2006...
 
beachnut said:
You posted proof why NORAD did not patrol or take action over the USA domestic air space, and you don't know it because you failed to read the article. You posted evidence for what happen on 9/11, and why the USAF did not have authorization, but relied on being asked by the FAA to help...

Why not read it first, and stop asking questions.

Were the fighters armed?

Plus you posted evidence for the 19 terrorists did 9/11 with four planes. You posted evidence against 9/11 truth.
Click to expand...

Would a fully fueled and armed fighter jet be normally parked out on the tarmac? At a State Air Guard base? A pair of them? With fighter jockeys sitting in the ready room? And nobody would go "this seems odd?"

Putting this puzzle piece on the board just raises more questions, rather than answering any.
 
Some snapshots from the NEADS recordings, MCC channel.

09:45 EDT
We're talking to Toledo right now, and they may be able to get somebody airborne.
Click to expand...

09:49 EDT
Jamie. Jamie. Find out what's going on with my Toledo guys, with Toledo.
Already told them to scramble
Click to expand...

09:56 EDT
Selfridge and Toledo both.
They have been scrambled.
Foxy, I'm sorry.
How many aircraft now?
Two each.
Click to expand...

So Marr is wrong, apparently. But MaGZ also. Toledo is some 300 miles away from Shanksville. No way to get there in time for the Toledo fighters. And, of course, UA 93 is not discussed anywhere in the NEADS Tapes before its crash, nor is there any plane near UA 93 in the radar data during crash time.

Anyway, just some drive-by debunking ... Didn´t step in here for years now. Strange feeling.
 
progge said:
Some snapshots from the NEADS recordings, MCC channel.

09:56 EDT


So Marr is wrong, apparently. But MaGZ also. Toledo is some 300 miles away from Shanksville. No way to get there in time for the Toledo fighters. And, of course, UA 93 is not discussed anywhere in the NEADS Tapes before its crash, nor is there any plane near UA 93 in the radar data during crash time.

Anyway, just some drive-by debunking ... Didn´t step in here for years now. Strange feeling.
Click to expand...

The top speed for the F16 is roughly 1500 MPH. That's 25 miles a minute. 300 miles is 12 minutes. If we figure that they took off at 9:56 they would have arrived at 10:08. Since the flight crashed at 10:03, I doubt they could have gotten cannons on at 125 miles.

Even at 9:49, and allowing 5 minutes to load the ammo, you are still looking at an arrival time of 10:06. I've no actual knowledge of how long it takes to get ammo out and loaded, but 5 minutes would be blazing fast. Even if just bullets. You'd want at least a thousand rounds and those things are heavy. I remember having to pack 50 cal rounds, when I had to, and damn those were heavy. Sure, I did dump them on the A-gunner, and anyone who wanted to shoot, had to pack their own can, but it's not like something you can grab and sprint across the tarmac with.

Basic math makes the theory impossible. But that doesn't stop the theory, does it?
 
Leftus said:
The top speed for the F16 is roughly 1500 MPH. That's 25 miles a minute. 300 miles is 12 minutes. If we figure that they took off at 9:56 they would have arrived at 10:08. Since the flight crashed at 10:03, I doubt they could have gotten cannons on at 125 miles.

Even at 9:49, and allowing 5 minutes to load the ammo, you are still looking at an arrival time of 10:06. I've no actual knowledge of how long it takes to get ammo out and loaded, but 5 minutes would be blazing fast. Even if just bullets. You'd want at least a thousand rounds and those things are heavy. I remember having to pack 50 cal rounds, when I had to, and damn those were heavy. Sure, I did dump them on the A-gunner, and anyone who wanted to shoot, had to pack their own can, but it's not like something you can grab and sprint across the tarmac with.

Basic math makes the theory impossible. But that doesn't stop the theory, does it?
Click to expand...
With the ammunition loading system approximately 13.5 minutes. The F-16's drum holds a maximum of 511 rounds.
 
catsmate said:
With the ammunition loading system approximately 13.5 minutes. The F-16's drum holds a maximum of 511 rounds.
Click to expand...


Yesterday I asked a friend of mine who is a former crew chief in the Indiana Air National Guard about this; at the time he was in, he worked on F-16s. He said that, assuming all of the necessary permissions were given, and all of the proper procedures and safety regulations were followed, it would take about two hours to ready and arm an F-16 with just cannon ammo. One thing he mentioned that struck me is that the ammo cart is not supposed to be driven at more than 5 mph.
 
catsmate said:
With the ammunition loading system approximately 13.5 minutes. The F-16's drum holds a maximum of 511 rounds.
Click to expand...

Each round weighs .56 of a pound. That's 286 pounds of ammo somebody has to sling around. From the munitions dump to the tarmac. A vehicle will be involved. So with a 13.5 minute load time, and a 12 ish minute flight time, We are looking at 25 minutes lead time before shootdown. So the F16s would have had to take off at around … 9:38. Or before. Of course, they hadn't even been tasked until 9:45. And this is with an F16 otherwise all ready to go, sitting on the tarmac, fully fueled.

I'm always amused when people, who have never served in any military, somehow know how it works. Just scramble a plane. You know, unless you are in an active theatre, they aren't kept battle ready. And a Air Guard unit in Ohio wouldn't be on active alert status, with planes fueled, armed, and on the tarmac ready to go. I would doubt that even a major base would have jets in that status. There was no, nor is not now, a need. The fact they could have gotten a jet up and mostly battle ready (no missiles) in half an hour to me is impressive. And dare I take some pride in the actions of others, well done.
 
Interesting though the technical logistics issues are the over-riding bottom line is simple. There was no "space" in the timeline in which a legitimate decision to shoot down could have been taken and implemented.

The only plausible option was as a response to any additional hijacks which may have occurred later in time and at a reachable location. Moot point obviously.
 
There were no planes "set up and trained:" to shoot down a commercial plane. There was not policy in place to allow this. There was no time to break protocol and give it a go.

This is a non starter.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Yesterday I asked a friend of mine who is a former crew chief in the Indiana Air National Guard about this; at the time he was in, he worked on F-16s. He said that, assuming all of the necessary permissions were given, and all of the proper procedures and safety regulations were followed, it would take about two hours to ready and arm an F-16 with just cannon ammo. One thing he mentioned that struck me is that the ammo cart is not supposed to be driven at more than 5 mph.
Click to expand...
Quite probably. The 13.5 minutes I quoted was from a USAF document where the ALS was tested; the parameters were hence rather artificial (the cart was loaded and parked literally next to the plane, et cetera).
Hence the absolute minimum time.
 
Leftus said:
The top speed for the F16 is roughly 1500 MPH. That's 25 miles a minute. 300 miles is 12 minutes.
Click to expand...

Plus a significant time to climb and accelerate to its top speed.

(Checks Wikipedia) A 12+ ton aircraft with 29,000 lb thrust from its afterburner would spend more than a minute accelerating just from f=ma and v=at and that's neglecting the climb and air resistance, which is kind of a big deal when you remember air resistance is basically why it has a top speed.

Still, even if that adds a few minutes, it's probably nothing compared to the time it would take in a real unexpected incident to get permission from the people with the right authority to the people with the keys to get the required ammunition released and transported to the right aircraft. And then load it. And then take off.
 
MaGZ said:
What I find most interesting is none of the pilots at Toledo Air Guard were allowed to talk to the reporter.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're on the cusp of uncovering a giant fraud. Maybe they didn't have any pilots. Or planes. And they were just pocketing the cash. Have you considered that possibility?
 
catsmate said:
Quite probably. The 13.5 minutes I quoted was from a USAF document where the ALS was tested; the parameters were hence rather artificial (the cart was loaded and parked literally next to the plane, et cetera).
Hence the absolute minimum time.
Click to expand...

I once had to work out a plan to set up a mobile military command&control center (the IT workplaces and back-end hardware) in an open but protected work area, such as an empty hangar - within a handful of x hours. This assumed that all the hardware was already next to the work area and unloaded from their trucks, the work area was clear, the necessary power supplies, data links etc ready to plug in, etc.

The idea was to have a rapid deployment anywhere in the world. Before those x hours, of course there would be y days to find the space, secure it, clear it, transport the hardware, deploy the troops to man it. Plus, I was allowed to assume as many hands on site as I needed - literally no limit - to do the carrying and unboxing and setting up tables and sorting cables and plugging. As long as I made sure no one carried too much weight for too long, and no two occupied the same location in spacetime.

Felt awkward. Felt like a load of ******** actually. But in the end (after six weeks of working this out mostly by myself, with hardly any prior experience with this sort of scheduling), the general contractor loved my feasibility study.

This experience reinforced my general belief that military is a strange strange world. I never heard back if this plan ever was tested and worked.
 
Oystein said:
I once had to work out a plan to set up a mobile military command&control center (the IT workplaces and back-end hardware) in an open but protected work area, such as an empty hangar - within a handful of x hours. This assumed that all the hardware was already next to the work area and unloaded from their trucks, the work area was clear, the necessary power supplies, data links etc ready to plug in, etc.

The idea was to have a rapid deployment anywhere in the world. Before those x hours, of course there would be y days to find the space, secure it, clear it, transport the hardware, deploy the troops to man it. Plus, I was allowed to assume as many hands on site as I needed - literally no limit - to do the carrying and unboxing and setting up tables and sorting cables and plugging. As long as I made sure no one carried too much weight for too long, and no two occupied the same location in spacetime.

Felt awkward. Felt like a load of ******** actually. But in the end (after six weeks of working this out mostly by myself, with hardly any prior experience with this sort of scheduling), the general contractor loved my feasibility study.

This experience reinforced my general belief that military is a strange strange world. I never heard back if this plan ever was tested and worked.
Click to expand...
:D:thumbsup:
Done that too. And seen such plans fail implementation because of awkward realities, like the inability to place a converted shipping container in mid air without supports...
 
bknight said:
Gravity is a nasty realism. ;)
Click to expand...
Indeed. And the person responsible hadn't planned for units to be delivered in the "wrong" order, didn't have an alternate plan (like put that unit on the bottom and alter the access arrangements) and couldn't cope. The plan failed....
 
Another place the idea that any part of our military shot down Flight 93 doesn't make sense is that the government had no reason to lie about it had they shot Flight 93 down. Given what three other hijacked planes had done that day, shooting it down would have been a justifiable, if tragic decision. The outcome would have been the same as what really happened: the death of the passenger and crew, who would have died anyway had the hijackers reached their target, but saving whatever the hijackers target was, along with whatever people there that would have died.
 
Originally Posted by Leftus
The top speed for the F16 is roughly 1500 MPH. That's 25 miles a minute. 300 miles is 12 minutes.
Click to expand...

Top speed is achievable only with use of the afterburner, which consumes fuel prodigiously. Listed combat range is 295 nautical miles (which assumes there and back) with bomb load, which also assumes it'll be at cruising speed (subsonic) for most of the mission.

Does anyone have data on fuel consumption with full afterburner? I'm pretty sure that an emergency sprint would require aerial refueling.
 
Redwood said:
Top speed is achievable only with use of the afterburner, which consumes fuel prodigiously. Listed combat range is 295 nautical miles (which assumes there and back) with bomb load, which also assumes it'll be at cruising speed (subsonic) for most of the mission.

Does anyone have data on fuel consumption with full afterburner? I'm pretty sure that an emergency sprint would require aerial refueling.
Click to expand...


Although I don't know exact numbers, I believe if you went full afterburner you would have approximately 15 to 20 minutes of fuel endurance. If we look at the PANTA F-15's out of OTIS, they were using afterburners to get to New York, which took them about 10 minutes. After that they held for about 40 minutes (holding uses minimum fuel) and then had to get refueled midair.
 
cjnewson88 said:
and then had to get refueled midair.
Click to expand...

Which raises a number of other logistical problems. I'm fairly certain that refuelers aren't sitting on tarmacs, fully loaded with fuel, ready to go. Would also take substantially longer to get ready from the word go.
 
Wait, remind me what the point of shooting down Flight 93 and then lying about it is? How is it supposed to relate to a 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Cheney was unable to reach Bush at various points on the day of 9/11/2001, so he gave shootdown authorization initially without explicit authorization from Bush - though Bush reaffirmed the order. But the actions of the passengers and crew made all of that moot.

The ONLY thing regarding United 93 that Cheney and Bush really weren’t truthful about to the 9/11 Commission was the fact that Cheney initially gave the shootdown authorization (emphasis on “authorization” because again, there was no shootdown of any plane) without Bush giving him the go-ahead. If this is the hill that Truthers want to die on...
 
Last edited:
Leftus said:
Which raises a number of other logistical problems. I'm fairly certain that refuelers aren't sitting on tarmacs, fully loaded with fuel, ready to go. Would also take substantially longer to get ready from the word go.
Click to expand...

From memory.... sorry I haven't looked at this stuff in a long time, there were 4 already out on training missions. TEAM 21/22/23/24 were their callsigns. I think...
 
I am fairly certain that, wherever and whenever fighters are on an alert schedule, the Air Force also has the necessary supporting craft on an appropriate alert level - tankers, recon, command&control, etc. They would not be airborne within the same, say 15 minutes, scramble time, but soon enough by the time they can be expected to be needed after a fighter scramble. Venus77 didn't take forever to shadow and augment AF1, for example, and Barksdale had birds up in time to greet the President.
 
Oystein said:
I am fairly certain that, wherever and whenever fighters are on an alert schedule, the Air Force also has the necessary supporting craft on an appropriate alert level - tankers, recon, command&control, etc. They would not be airborne within the same, say 15 minutes, scramble time, but soon enough by the time they can be expected to be needed after a fighter scramble. Venus77 didn't take forever to shadow and augment AF1, for example, and Barksdale had birds up in time to greet the President.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, that a strip alert tanker and crew would be on the hook to launch. Other strip alert crews can roam around the base, and when alerted respond to their aircraft and launch in 20 to 30 minutes. The crew would have an alert vehicle and be ready to respond. The aircraft would be cocked and ready to start engines, taxi and takeoff.
 
By chance I've just been re-reading the Vanity Fair article on the Norad Tapes (I wonder if Marr's remarks on the Toledo fighters were made before or after that article showed how the DoD timeline was largely a work of fiction), and at one point it's mentioned that Nasypany was denied the scrambling Langley fighters towards NYC, as there was concerns both would run out of fuel at the same time, leaving no cover.

What that does for the potential for supporting aircraft also being available on short notice, I'm not qualified to state.
 
KDLarsen said:
By chance I've just been re-reading the Vanity Fair article on the Norad Tapes (I wonder if Marr's remarks on the Toledo fighters were made before or after that article showed how the DoD timeline was largely a work of fiction), and at one point it's mentioned that Nasypany was denied the scrambling Langley fighters towards NYC, as there was concerns both would run out of fuel at the same time, leaving no cover.

What that does for the potential for supporting aircraft also being available on short notice, I'm not qualified to state.
Click to expand...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

I wouldn't call the timeline a work of fiction, I think the article does a great job of detailing how unprepared the USAF, ANG, and FAA were for this kind of event.

The article is here:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

It's from 2006. The full extent of the events of 9-11-2001 has long since been detailed.

Key points from the article re- UA-93:

But by the time neads gets the report of a bomb on United 93, everyone on board is already dead. Following the passengers' counterattack, the plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m., 4 minutes before Cleveland Center notified neads, and a full 35 minutes after a Cleveland Center controller, a veteran named John Werth, first suspected something was wrong with the flight. At 9:28, Werth actually heard the guttural sounds of the cockpit struggle over the radio as the hijackers attacked the pilots.

Werth's suspicions about United 93 were passed quickly up the F.A.A.'s chain of command, so how is it that no one from the agency alerted neads for more than half an hour?

A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. "Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.," he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they'd land and make demands. "There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement."
Click to expand...

And this kind of stands out:

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.
Click to expand...

This is from earlier in the article which lays the entire situation out :

He tells the Battle Cab he wants Fox to launch two more fighters from Langley Air Force Base, in Virginia, to establish a greater presence over New York, but the request is refused. The order from the Battle Cab is to put the Langley jets on battle stations only—to be ready, but not to launch.

"The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," Marr later explained.

Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced norad's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of norad's planes belong to neads and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan—the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.
Click to expand...

The "Official" account of the air defense on 9-11-2001 was published in the 10th anniversary and can be read here:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Sep/05/2001329941/-1/-1/0/AFD-120905-022.pdf

It includes all of the information from the Vanity Fair article and other sources.
 
Axxman300 said:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

I wouldn't call the timeline a work of fiction, I think the article does a great job of detailing how unprepared the USAF, ANG, and FAA were for this kind of event.

The article is here:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

It's from 2006. The full extent of the events of 9-11-2001 has long since been detailed.

Key points from the article re- UA-93:



And this kind of stands out:



This is from earlier in the article which lays the entire situation out :



The "Official" account of the air defense on 9-11-2001 was published in the 10th anniversary and can be read here:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Sep/05/2001329941/-1/-1/0/AFD-120905-022.pdf

It includes all of the information from the Vanity Fair article and other sources.
Click to expand...

As alluded to, this attack was basically unprecedented. Hijackers usually landed and made demands or flew to various countries. Usually, when they wanted to destroy a plane, they would plant a bomb. Crashing it never came up. So if there were a robust military reaction from the moment of hijack, that would be a huge red flag that somebody knew and prepped. The fact we were caught with our proverbial pants down, strongly suggests a surprise.
 
Leftus said:
As alluded to, this attack was basically unprecedented. Hijackers usually landed and made demands or flew to various countries. Usually, when they wanted to destroy a plane, they would plant a bomb. Crashing it never came up. So if there were a robust military reaction from the moment of hijack, that would be a huge red flag that somebody knew and prepped. The fact we were caught with our proverbial pants down, strongly suggests a surprise.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

911 Truthers created a mythology about the US military being this machine of efficiency. There was a time in the late 1980s when this was close to being true, but after Desert Storm the military was gutted, and the average American lost interest. On 911 people were expecting the USAF of 1991, and were shocked that the people they elected to office had sent most of that force to the Bone Yard in Arizona.

Plus, if you ask anyone who has served in any branch of the military they can tell you hours of stories about how anything gets done is a genuine mystery.
 
And again, I ask:

Remind me what the point of shooting down Flight 93 and then lying about it is? How is it supposed to relate to a 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Cheney was unable to reach Bush at various points on the day of 9/11/2001, so he gave shootdown authorization initially without explicit authorization from Bush - though Bush reaffirmed the order. But the actions of the passengers and crew made all of that moot.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom