Is this
article out of time? - now, one year later, the USAF forgot about OTIS
Hayden doesn`t even mention it anymore.
No. It is not outdated. The
9/11 panel and so the public heard: "Two NORAD generals, testifying
May 23,(2003) said there were significant delays in NORAD learning about
the hijackings from the Federal Aviation Administration and in mobilizing
fighter jets to escort or shoot down the airliners.
They said fighters took off about the time the
first plane crashed into the North Tower and were eight minutes from New
York City when the second airliner struck the South Tower. "
#
NORAD Response Times still available in January 2004
ergänzt um einen email-Briefverkehr (s.u.)
background -information
the funny legend in aviationweek/aviationnow.com
with
comments
and
AA11 timeline http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAf11.htm
andhttp://www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/ithought21.htmwith
comments
(supplements, see bottom)
OTIS Airfield (google earth):
Since October 2001 you can read on http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/finger.html
the following simple facts and questions without recourse to any
conspiracy theories. Use your search engines, use the archives in the newspapers,
use the video footage that is often provided online - and don`t rely only
on the links you find here:
1. On September 11th, not even one interceptor tried to hinder
the aircraft from turning into bombs, until about allegedly 09:30 (three
F-16, Langley).
Try finding evidence that this is untrue and that the U.S. airforce did all it could to take down AA11, UA175 or AA77 with all available measures. 2. There were a lot of explanations that we should neither ignore nor believe. Only 3 days after 911 the government decided to "invent" two F-15 interceptors that scrambled from Otis ANG base. Try to find evidence of this revelation days earlier - maybe
Rumsfeld or Myers had forgotten to mention these F-15s on the 11th, 12th
or 13th, and it was not only public opinion which compelled them to invent
these F-15s but the undeniable truth. Not
only on Cape Cod did nobody know anything about these 2 F-15s on September
12th.
Now the authorities had a terrifying dilemma. The F16's
were in the air with the capability to shoot the second hijacked plane
out of the sky. At 9.00 UA175 changed direction again - heading straight
for Manhattan from the South over a very built up area. I understand it
would have required sanction from the President to shoot down a civilian
airliner and he was touring a school in Florida.")
3. These F-15s were allegdly
4. Don`t store your map away. Look how far Washington is from New
York City. Without using maximum speed the two F-15 jets could have easily
reached the AA77 to prevent it from crashing into the Pentagon. Because
the F-15-pilots would have seen the two WTC-towers burning and would have
had time enough to intercept the radar- controlled flight path of AA77,
the only missing or "hijacked" aircraft at the time (09:03 - 09:37). There
was no need to "safeguard" NY City anymore. Allegedly (this is complete
nonsense)
Cape
Cod was responsible for the Washington area. For
sure Andrews
AFB was responsible, being only 10 miles away from Washington DC. map
|
Nach Angaben des Pentagon sei das Verteidigungskommando für
den amerikanischen Luftraum (NORAD) am Dienstag um 8.38 Uhr alarmiert worden,
dass ein Flugzeug entführt worden war. Zwei F-15-Abfangjäger
seien um
8.52 Uhr vom Air Force-Stützpunkt Otis in Cape Cod vor der Küste
von Boston aufgestiegen. Die gekaperte Maschine der American Airlines raste
jedoch bereits um 8.45 Uhr in das World Trade Center. Als der zweite Turm
des World Trade Centers um 9.03 Uhr von einer Maschine der United Airlines
getroffen wurde, seien die Abfangjäger noch rund 100 Kilometer von
New York entfernt gewesen.
|
"The
F-15 flown by the 102th Fighter Wing can fly up to 1,875 mph, according
to the Air Force. It would take an F-15 about 10 to 12 minutes to fly from
Otis to New York City."
If they ever scrambled ....! Funny though, that no one knew about these two fighters in the first days. But what about the evidence? If you can`t trust the Bush government any more you are not going to take their word as truth on this issue. And flight schedules, written orders and testimonies can now get faked as well. So let us look for independent witnesses. Logically, it can only be witnesses from New York City, where the fighters should have arrived, or from Cape Cod where they allegedly scrambled from. Who is independent enough, who is trustworthy? # In New York City there are millions of people whom you could ask
"Did you see
# You may ask them too: did you hear the two "BOOMS" after the two
booms when the planes crashed into the towers? There must have been sonic
booms ("we
were supersonic ... flying over
# You can look at the Videos: Thousands of cameras were pointed at
the WTC towers
# And you can look for non-biased people in Cape Cod who are not
part of the
|
"Wibel was preparing for a meeting with military commanders
when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash.
That meeting was abruptly canceled.
"As I drove away, and was listening to the news on the radio, the 102nd was scrambling into duty," said Wibel, who could hear four more jets launching as he spoke later in the day." |
"Another neighborhood resident, Bill Thompson,
said he noticed increased activity around 10 or 10:30
a.m. yesterday, with the fighters taking off in pairs."
Mr. Wibel did not notice any scrambling at 08.38 08.44, 08.52 or so - although personally being present on the AFB.... |
When did the first TV-shows start to change programs?
As you can see yourself - and it is logical - first at 8:52,seven minutes after the first impact. First notice of the crash was at 08.48 So Wibel can not have been informed about what was going on in NY before 08:52. (08:48)That is the time when the F-15 jets should have been in the air (or at least scrambling). But there was no alarm, no launching, scrambling, no nothing when Wibel was at Otis AFB. Otherwise, he would have said: "there was an alarm going off and I did not know why, but later I saw it on TV", or something like that. But he describes clearly an order of events in time. So what can we learn? 1. The Bush government is telling another lie about the morning of 9/11, after so many other lies. They cannot prove that the U.S. airforce was actively guarding the skies over NY and DC. Regarding the normal standard operational procedures this only leads to one conclusion: the fighters were held down by orders. 2. We do not need photographs or conspiracy theories to prove our findings. We don`t even need to uncover secret material. All we need is logic, a map, a calculator (for those who need it) and the overwhelming evidence of newspapers or videos from the first hours or first days, which we can find online. The following email exchange concerns the undeniable fact that the
F-15s cannot speed their way
|
Email-Briefwechsel dazu:
(Aspekte Nachbrenner, Geschwindigkeit, Reichweite, Bewaffnung ...) Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren!
Neuere Entwürfe wie die F22 oder der Eurofighter sind übrigens mittlerweile in der Lage, auch ohne Nachbrenner _niedrige_ Überschallgeschwindigkeit zu erreichen, also Mach 1,2 bis 1,5. Fortschritte in der Aerodynamik und dem Triebwerksbau haben dies in den 90er Jahren ermöglicht. In den 70ern, als die F15 entworfen wurde, war das selbstverständlich noch nicht möglich. Soweit mein Fachwissen, ich studiere Turbomaschinenbau an der
RWTH Aachen.
Da Fliegen mit Nachbrenner sehr viel Sprit verbraucht, setzen
Piloten ihn nur im Notfall bzw. sehr kurzzeitig ein. Nachbrenner werde
jedenfalls nicht eingesetzt, um Strecken von einigen 100 km zurückzulegen,
denn dann ist wie gesagt wirklich der Sprit alle. Kampfflugzeuge wie die
F15 marschieren grundsätzlich nur im Unterschallbereich (Hausnummer
Mach 0,9) und ohne
Warum baut man dann überhaupt Nachbrenner in Kampfflugzeuge ein? Der Grund dafür ist, das Nachbrenner so gut wie nichts wiegen
und auch wenig kosten, jedenfalls im Verhältnis zum Preis eines Kampfflugzeugs.
Sie sind allerdings manchmal durchaus sehr nützlich, z.B. wenn man
sich sehr schnell aus dem Gefahrenbereich einer Luftabwehreinheit entfernen
möchte, oder wenn der eigene Flugplatz angegriffen wird und man sehr
schnell starten muss.
Zusammenfassend bleibt zu sagen, dass man in solchen Fällen keinesfalls mit der angegebenen Höchstgeschwindigkeit eines Kampfflugzeuges als Reisegeschwindigkeit rechnen darf. Ich stehe für Rückfragen selbstverständlich zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Adam Pawlowski Sehr geehrter Herr Pawlowski, zunächst einmal dankeschön für Ihre sachliche und freundliche Zuschrift. Wenn Sie es mir erlauben, würde ich sie auch gerne auf die "hunt.html"-Seite setzen (falls Sie möchten ohne Namensnennung), jedoch nicht als GEGENargument, sondern um zu zeigen, dass ihre Aspekte berücksichtigt sind. Denn das sind sie. Nehmen wir Ihren letzten Satz:
Genau. Nur handelte es sich nicht um eine
"Reise" - sondern um einen Einsatz, wenn nicht gar Kampfeinsatz.
a) den Piloten die Folge des Zuspätkommens bewußt durch eigenen Augenschein, was in allen folgenden Entscheidungen aller Beteiligten berücksichtigung hätte finden müssen und b) dann ja auch noch Sprit vorhanden und c) somit genug Zeit gewesen, Washington vor der anfliegenden AA77 zu schützen und d) mußte dies möglich sein, denn Otis sollte ja angeblich auch für Washington zuständig sein (wie wäre das möglich bei einer prinzipiellen Unerreichbarkeit? (F-15: Reichweite über 3000 Meilen)) und e) konnte das "Abfangen" auf der kürzeren (Dreieck) Strecke erfolgen und f) gab es keine Notwendigkeit, zurück nach Otis zu fliegen, denn AFBs zum Landen gibts dort wie Sand am Meer, von Andrews bis Langley, um die bekanntesten zu nennen und g) konnten diese Piloten bzw. Otis bzw.
Norad bei absehbarer Nichterfüllbarkeit der Aufgabe "AA77-abfangen"
eben diese AFBs informieren, damit diese halt eben selbst ihre Jäger
hochschickten, was auf Langley (angeblich) erst um 0930
h) Als Geschädigter des Jabo-Geschwaders
36 (Hopsten) weiß ich zur Genüge, wie laut ein Überschallknall
zumindest der Starfighter ist - ich habe diese, in der Einflugschneise
lebend, ein Jahrzehnt lang ohne Schäden überstanden, und in den
60ern gab es die Restriktionen noch nicht. Ihr Argument zieht aber insbesondere
Sehr geehrter Herr Pawlowski -
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Sehr geehrter Herr Hauß! zunächst einmal dankeschön für Ihre sachliche und freundliche Zuschrift. Wenn Sie es mir erlauben, würde ich sie auch gerne auf die "hunt.html"-Seite setzen (falls Sie möchten ohne Namensnennung), jedoch nicht als GEGENargument, sondern um zu zeigen, dass ihre Aspekte berücksichtigt sind. Können Sie gerne, auch gerne mit Namen, nur bitte ohne meine Email-Adresse. Sollte es Rückfragen dazu geben, können Sie die Leute allerdings auch an mich verweisen, falls Sie das wünschen. Denn das sind sie.
Ich habe mich hier wohl etwas unklar ausgedrückt. Mit Reisegeschwindigkeit meine ich bei einem Kampfflugzeug natürlich die während eines (Kampf-)Einsatzes dauerhaft mögliche Geschwindigkeit. Um es noch einmal klar zu sagen: Ich kann mir einfach nicht vorstellen, dass selbst unter Bedinungen wie am 11. September die Piloten angewiesen werden, 150 Meilen mit Höchstgeschwindigkeit zurückzulegen, einfach weil dann wirklich der Sprit alle wäre. Die Schätzung von Kommandant Quenneville kommt mir in diesem Zusammenhang sehr spanisch vor. Allerdings bin ich sicher kein Experte für taktischen Luftkampf. Auch habe ich in meiner ersten Mail auch
vergessen zu erwähnen, das ich lediglich mit diesem Detail Ihrer Schilderung
nicht einverstanden bin, und das dieses kein wirklich wesentlicher Bestandteil
ihrer Folgerungen ist. Und die Punkte a) bis g), die Sie anführen,
bleiben davon unberührt. Ich möchte auch nicht behaupten, dass
die F15 damals so eingesetzt wurden, wie es von
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
d´accord, Herr Pawlowski, in den nächsten Tagen und ohne Ihre email und etwas editiert. Ein letzter Hinweis noch:
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Sehr geehrter Herr Hauß!
OK, so macht das Sinn. Ein weiterer Hinweis noch, der von Interesse
sein könnte: Im
Worauf ich hinauswill: Die F15 (wenn sie
denn dagewesen wären) hätten gar nicht 150 Meilen zurücklegen
müssen, um in das Geschehen eingreifen zu können, sondern unter
Umständen lediglich 120 Meilen. Und das ist eine Strecke, die sie
in 12 Minuten durchaus auch bei Mach 0,9 (ihrer "Reisegeschwindigkeit",
so wie ich das verstehe ;-) ) schaffen können.
Wobei ich eventuell auch noch eine niedrige
Überschallgeschwindigkeit von so um Mach 1,2 für die F15 glauben
würde, also 800 bis 900 Meilen pro Stunde. In diesem Bereich ist der
Luftwiderstand noch einigermassen gering, wenn auch schon deutlich höher
als bei Mach 0,9. Ich kann nicht beurteilen, ob es sinnvoll ist, die F15
bei diesen Geschwindigkeiten 150 Meilen weit zu fliegen, oder nicht. Die
Taktik der Amerikaner in diesem Punkt ist mir (selbstverständlich)
unbekannt. Das dürften übrigens auch die Geschwindigkeiten sein,
mit denen sie damals von den Starfightern belästigt wurden. Überschallknall
ist halt nicht gleich Überschallknall, sondern seine Intensität
hängt von der Geschwindigkeit ab. Bei der
Aber wie bereits gesagt: Das sind alles nur Details eines Aspekts. Vieles deutet darauf hin, dass diese Flugzeuge nicht so eingesetzt wurden, wie behauptet wird. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Adam Pawlowski |
unkorrekte Daten, da auf NORAD- Angaben basierend, aber dennoch gehaltvoll:
Scott Shuger January 16, 2002 |
#e die
offizielle NORAD timeline, die sich übrigens laufend ändert...
NORAD lies. |
KPFK
90.7 FM
By Michael Guillaume
|
#e
tales and miracles/ excerpts
for fair use only- broken http://web.archive.org/web
aviationnow.com, June 3, 2002 Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks
>>>Sept. 11, 2001: "American 11 heavy, Boston Center. Your transponder
appears to be inoperative. Please recycle. ... American 11 heavy, how do
you read Boston Center? Over. <<<
At 8:40 a.m. EDT, Tech. Sgt. Jeremy W. Powell of North American Aerospace
Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast
SCOTT GWILT/ROME SENTINEL Relying on "skin-paint" radar returns,
Air National Guard troops at Norad's Northeast Air Defense Sector
tried to locate hijacked aircraft after terrorists silenced the transponders.
Lt. Col. Timothy (Duff) Duffy, a 102 Fighter Wing (FW) F-15 pilot
at Otis ANGB, had already heard about the suspected hijacking, thanks to
a phone call from the
Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said. Unknown to Duffy, Nash and every commander being notified at the time, American Flight 11 had crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) about the time both F-15s were taking off. ... "NEADS instantly ordered the scramble, then called meto
get Cinc [Norad commander-in-chief] approval for it," said Capt. Michael
H. Jellinek, a Canadian Forces (Navy) officer serving as Norad command
director that morning. ...
"The second time I asked for bogey dope [location of AA11], Huntress told me the second aircraft had just hit the WTC. I was shocked . . . and I looked up to see the towers burning," Duffy said. He asked for clarification of their mission, but was met with considerable confusion. At one time or another, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and key military officers were heard on the open line. AT THE TIME, NORAD had 20 fighters on armed alert throughout
the North American
... NEADS controllers put F-16s at Langley AFB, Va.,
on battle-stations alert at 9:09 a.m., prepared to back up the F-15s over
New York. But the FAA command center then reported 11 aircraft either not
in communication with FAA facilities, or flying unexpected routes.
At 9:24, the Langley-based alert F-16s were scrambled and airborne in 6
min., headed for Washington.
We didn't know how many more
... American Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon, and United Flight
93 was being tracked, heading for Chicago or Cleveland, then Washington,
prompting the F-16s' scramble.
.... Another rumor referred to a Ryder rental truck full of explosives and driven by "Arab-looking men" targeting the mountain.
"It didn't make sense, but those phone calls were happening," Glover said.
Every rumor was treated as a potential threat.
Above Washington, F-16s flown by crews of the 119th FW from Fargo, N.D.--which had been pulling Norad alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared to shoot down United 93, if it came toward the capital city. WHILE ALL MILITARY units responded quickly and professionally on Sept. 11, "citizen soldiers" were typically first on the scene. .... Since then, outmoded procedures have been altered to ensure faster reactions from all units. "Within a couple of hours, many of these units went from normal training to generating armed combat air patrols over many U.S. cities.... |
Comments:
This article was published obviously in cooperation at least with
NORAD..Nowhere else we could obtain the names of the alleged pilots. So
lets treat this one as the semiofficial version of the DoD.
The starter is something which looks like a quote from Boston center, but it is not said if it is really a quote. The deception starts with the first sentence. "At 8:40 a.m. EDT,..."
"He notified NEADS commander Col. Robert K. Marr, Jr. ..." Yes - make it complicated, put in a long chain of command, so that every taken action seems to be prompt and adequate. "... tried to locate hijacked aircraft after terrorists silenced the transponders." Whow! How sophisticated! I, equipped with my simple mind, I would
just say: look for the blip WITHOUT transponder signal! But it is simple,
and the problem is complicated: "In essence, technicians were half-blind,
trying to separate hijacked airliners from thousands of skin-paint returns."
"Marr called Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold,... and suggested interceptors be scrambled." as I said - a long chain ... they tell us how heroically and with
INSTINCTS they shortened the chain. And they really let us know that
"Since then, outmoded procedures have been altered to ensure faster
reactions from all units." Not only one but several regulations are just
modified! Just on that day! LOL! They are proud to tell us how "outmoded"
their procedures were and how fast they were to disobey them! So things
can happen like this:
"Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner..."
"At one time or another...", at that time, at that point - the whole article lacks time quotations except the ones which are common knowledge. The more it reveals the acting personal the more it gets unclear when they do what they do. And when they tell us it gets laughable:
So 18 minutes Duffy did not know what he was hunting for? The allegedly only two fighters of UAairforce airborne "at that time" are not notified about their target? In the 11 minutes of flight between 08:52 and 09:03 - they were not exchanging words with their ground control? "We didn't know how many more "there were. . . . Are there five? Six? The only way..." Why not put some interceptors in the air? Even unarmed ones? Why not redirect airborne interceptors which are doing their ecercise as it is said? "Every rumor was treated as a potential threat. " Why? Just WHY?
"Above Washington, F-16s flown by crews of the 119th FW from Fargo,
N.D.--which had been pulling Norad alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared
to shoot down United 93, if it came toward the capital city."
#e another article same style concerning the involvement of Toledo all three articles of aviation week:
|
Quote:Two F-15's take off from Otis ANG Base, 8 minutes after being ordered to go after Flight 11, which has already crashed. [8:52, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:52, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:53, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:52, Washington Post, 9/15/01] This is 38 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with the plane. They go after Flight 175 instead. According to Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, "the pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner." [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] NORAD Major Gen. Larry Arnold says they were headed straight for New York City and travelling about 1100 to 1200 mph. [Slate, 1/16/02] "An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes, according to an Otis spokewoman." [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] They would have been flying an average of about 1125 mph to reach New York City in 10 minutes. F-15's can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Presumably in such an emergency they would be flying much faster than 1125 mph, yet these planes take about 19 minutes to reach New York City - less than 600 mph. Why so slow?? If they really had taken 10 minutes, the fighters would have reached New York City before Flight 175. |
From: http://www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/ithought21.htm
Excerpts with comments in( ) A second hijacked airliner had just sliced into the towers on the morning of Sept. 11, and the two Otis pilots were trying to clear the airspace over Lower Manhattan. ... "We did everything we could do to get there in time," the Cape pilot said yesterday, sitting in the same control room where he first heard about the hijackings last fall. ... On the morning of the 11th, Nasty was sitting in the Otis control office, its walls lined with pilot schedules and charts, working an "alert" shift for another pilot, who was scheduled for training that day. While the unit always had two pilots on alert, much of the regular flying time was devoted to training high over the Atlantic. At
8:40 a.m., all that was going to change.
An American Airlines flight out of Boston had apparently been hijacked, a colleague told Nasty. (A colleague? We just learned Duffy got a call from FAA Boston. Not Nasty) There hadn't yet been an official call for a scramble, but the two pilots on alert duty hustled to a nearby room and donned flight gear. As they walked across the airfield to their jets, which stood armed
on alert, a horn
(But Mr.Wibel did not hear that alert.At 08:46 he might not even have heard about the first impact. TV was changing programm only at 08:52) Within moments, they were traveling at supersonic speeds. All the pilots knew was that they were to intercept one airliner that appeared headed toward New York City. (So it takes only moments to get full speed!) The plan was to find the airliner on the jets' radar, follow it, let the ground controllers know what was going on. (What we call intercepting, which can be done even by notweaponized interceptors) But it was already too late. By the time the jets had left Otis, Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center. Eleven months later, Nasty doesn't even recall hearing that the first plane hit. (When he scrambled at 08:52 groundcontrol could and should have told him in the nest 10 minutes by radio that the first plane hit and that their target should be UA175) And by the time he heard a word about a second hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 175, it had already smashed into the second tower before the horrified eyes of millions on TV. (So he never heard about Flight 175 until after it hit the WTC?)
Visibility was extremely clear that morning, and Nasty could see the plume of black smoke pouring from the first tower. (So, they obviously got there before the second plane hit. - Contradictions,
contradictions!)
(Instead of intercepting AA77) ... They refueled in midair just over the water. (So obviously conserving fuel was not a paramount issue. As we already know they went allegedly with afterburner to Manhattan) Both pilots were together, near John F. Kennedy Airport, about 15 miles from the World Trade Center, when the first tower collapsed. ( But I thought one was patrolling while the other was redirecting planes.) At the time of the first two hijackings, the military pilots couldn't be sure the commercial pilots weren't having electrical problems, for example. (What an interesting example! As we pointed out several times on http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/talking.html i.e., "electrical problems" explain a lot of what happened (no radio, no transponder, no way to regain control over the computers. But everybody who thinks about intercepting normally takes other examples: dead or dying pilot, computer problems. This is a revelation to take electrical problems as an example ) Besides, the only person who could have ordered them to be shot down was the president, and he was still at a public event when the second tower was hit. (Makes sense until the first tower is hit. May even make sense until
the second tower is hit at 9:03 EDT as he contends. But after 9:03 EDT,
it makes no sense whatsoever--as any "civilian controller" could
tell)
|
Quotes:
“The sector commander, Colonel Marr, ordered two Massachusetts-based
F-15 fighter jets to prepare for takeoff. In six minutes - considered a
quick response time - the jets left for New York, closing the 153-mile
gap at speeds of 950 mph.”
"We did everything we could do to get there in time," the Cape pilot
(Nash) said yesterday,…Within moments, they were traveling at supersonic
speeds.
Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the
two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic
speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was
in full-blower all the way," he said. (Duffy)
Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard: "the pilots
flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up
to the airliner."
NORAD Major Gen. Larry Arnold says they were headed straight for
New York City and travelling about 1100 to 1200 mph.
"An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes,
according to an Otis spokewoman."
They would have been flying an average of about 1125 mph to reach New
York City in 10 minutes. F-15's can travel over 1875 mph.
Scrambling effective (take off) at 08:52 - allegedly
Considering obstacles like
"The F-15 flown by the 102th Fighter Wing can fly up to 1,875 mph, according
to the Air Force. It would take an F-15 about 10 to 12 minutes to fly from
Otis to New York City."
The problems of the bushist lies: - the times of the impacts are fixed, they can`t be changed
And this is why they will never get out of that Gordon knot. |
(c) Andreas Hauß, August 2002, http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/ueberblick.html