[CTRL] Fwd: RE: [CIA-DRUGS] Re: Emperors Clothes Web site down as of 9PM Thu 11/15/01 EST

[Kris Millegan]

--- Begin Message ---

Everyone should bear in mind also that the F-16s that took off from Otis and Cape Cod were already airborne well before the third plane got near the Pentagon. They could have kicked in their afterburners and been in DC (about 350 miles) in about 12 minutes. (Remember they were already over NY). That would have put them over the Pentagon about 40 minutes ahead of the hijacked airliner.   CAPs do not take off with half filled fuel tanks. My father was an AF EWO in interceptors during Korea and the F-16s have a combat radius in excess of 1200 miles. Plus KC-130s were available from all over.   There’s no way around this. They AF dragged its feet because it was ordered to do so.   Mike Ruppert   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] Re: Emperors Clothes Web site down as of 9PM Thu 11/15/01 EST   Early reports had F-16's going vertical with a boom- boom from Andrews, but Andrews was quickly spun into Langley AFB in the Norfolk area 225 miles away. Oceana at Cape Cod is correspondingly far away from WTC, when NYC has closer alternatives corresponding to Andrews and Quantico. The conjecture is that someone wants to factor in plausibly deniable lag time before arrival of F-16's with regard to second WTC plane and Pentagon plane. Normally fighters are scrambled to "force" any out of bounds plane down, meaning just appear outside the cockpit window and tell a pilot where to land. Tactics like blowing out burning fuel in front of the cockpit windshield and playing chicken would not have worked, but fighter jets normally show up when a plane is off course or in a restricted area. They should have been there according to SOP, not a helicopter. Physical bumping or nudging is out of the question, though. They just should have been there instead of the helicopter as SOP. AWACs and the Navy's equivalent E2C or whatever they use now, and satellites, would have tracked the plane from Ohio. Air to air, if no ground to air missiles were available and why should we assume there was no ground to air available, could hit as soon as fighters got to Richmond, if they did come from Langley not Andrews. Ground to air missiles might hit from much more than a hundred miles. Instead the spin was that the plane had disappeared from radar. Why didn't we hear a play by play on all of this, instead of that obvious error or lie and the one about NORAD radar and capabilities all being outward looking from shore? Mathias Rust of Germany landed a small plane at the Kremlin when Gorbachev was Soviet premier, and during the Clinton admin a domestic lone nut suicided his small plane into the White House. No adjustments? I would think that White House incident would have been background for stories on the Pentagon plane and air defense policies. -Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob:  Good points on fixed-wing fighter aircraft in Virginia. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there's also a huge Naval and Marine Corps installation at Norfolk, and yes, there are fighter squadrons at Quantico. That makes the most sense to me. Someone surely must have had time to deploy some fighters from Quantico in time to intercept the flight that hit the Pentagon. Maybe not, but it makes for an extremely curious situation. However, someone (perhaps you, Bob) suggested earlier that military aircraft could have either interfered with the commercial flight, or I guess somehow nudged it off course. Given the Kamikazi nature of the events of 9/11, I seriously doubt that either of those suggestions would have worked. They might have caused the airliner to crash in some other --- perhaps more heavily populated --- location, and likely would have caused the fighters to crash as well. Odom Please let us stay on topic and be civil. To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs -Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org OM Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Please let us stay on topic and be civil. To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs -Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org OM Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Please let us stay on topic and be civil. To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs -Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org OM Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- End Message ---