9/11 - Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, Hey Presto …
On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart
(There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida. Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September 11, 2001.

!!!!!

Exactly right.

My question is why would they need to take down WTC 7? Wasn't the pretext for war already established with WTC1 and WTC2?

The Payne Stewart story has been told so many times its starting to get too easy to debunk it.

First, if you look at the time it took for a response to the Payne Stewart incident, it takes 39 minutes from the time a plane goes off course, until an intercept can even be launched. It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's plane. His plane remained in transponder contact the whole time. The flights on 9/11 had their transponders turned off, which would have made them extremely harder to make contact with. It is clear that no fighter could have reached Flight 11 and 157 before the impacted the towers. Even making it to Flight 93 would have been a pretty big stretch. FAA regulations in effect during the Payne Stewart incident, as well as on 9/11, prevented supersonic intercepts in American airspace. There simply wasn't time to make an intercept on 9/11.

The Payne Stewart story is often used, as it is here, to make it appear that these types of intercepts are common or are standard operating procedure. Anybody want to take a guess at how many times a fighter intercept has been launched in the decade before 9/11? You guessed it, only one. The Payne Stewart flight was the ONLY incident of any fighter intercept launched over American airspace in the entire decade prior to 9/11.

See if you can find out what/who was officed in Building 7.

Please check the time span of all 4 box cutter hijackings, and the small airspace the were in.

Need links? Here ya go.

http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Id love to see an investigation for REAL...but it will never happen .KOF is a great gal as i said earlier she knows alot about this issue too

Another fun fact about that day, 9/11. Turns out there was a total of 12 -- TWELVE -- fighters assigned to defend the whole of the US. And those were -- you guessed it -- National Guard. So America was guarded by 12 planes piloted by dentists, claims adjusters or copier repairmen.

Then the USAF admitted something even more sickening: if they had managed to get any fighters into the air in time (which they didn't), they were planning to order the pilots to crash their planes into the hijacked airliners, because there were no air-to-air weapons to arm them with.

American kamikazes! Sure, it's a good movie title -- but Christ, didn't all of us wage-slave suckers pay billions of tax dollars for whole arsenals full of every air-to-air weapon Raytheon or Lockheed or Hughes ever came up with? Didn't the USAF brag up the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), the "Slammer," as the biggest thing since look-down shoot-down?

It's like a sick joke: the same USAF penpushers who lobbied the AMRAAM through Congress were sitting in the Pentagon when a hijacked jet smashed into it. And even after that -- after a whole wing of their own HQ was hit and burning -- the Pentagon still couldn't find a single AMRAAM-armed fighter jet to send up.

Hell, the USAF didn't really even need AMRAAMs. Sidewinders would've done fine -- even the Sparrow, the dog of American AA missiles, would've worked against a slow blimp target like a passenger jet. A burst from a 20mm nose cannon would've done the job. But they couldn't even manage that.

You can look through a thousand years of military history and you'll never find a strategic failure as complete as that.

But whats really wierd, is that nobody was upset about it. I started wondering, am I the only American who thinks some overpaid USAF heads should roll for this?

I mean the biggest, most expensive air force in history -- couldn't find one armed fighter jet for "several hours" after the WTC towers got blasted????????

Like I said before, it doesnt matter how many planes there were out there, or what resources were where. If it took them an hour and twenty-two minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane when it had its transponder turned on, there isn't a chance in hell of catching these things when their transponders were off.

Oh pleasssssssseeeeeeeeee Popular Mechanics has been debunked!!!

Didn't you ever wonder how those hijackers passports survived in the ball of flames from the crashing jets? They said they were found close to ground zero. Everything else in the buildings disintegrated except the passports. Too weird to believe.

No like you said earlier apparently we know a lot more about Norad than you do. Intercpt jets are supposed to be in the air within 15 minutes of the call......intercept bases have ARMED jets ready to launch 24/7......

The payne stewart issue has NO bearing on this at all. it was a Golfer in a small plane,not 4 jumbo jets full of alleged passengers? and the time you mention is only due to a time zone change......not actual time

are you aware of NORADS mission statement? and are you of the flawwed thought pattern that this is the norm 2 hrs to intercept? if so why bother to even have intercepts? you really think the U.S. Air Force is that inept? and you expect us to believe it as well?

you do have a LOT to learn about Norads Mission and Air Force Interceptor jets......heres a link to a great article for you

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/seal01.htm
here is a snip


It's an airspace that, when I grew up here in DC, I have seen, and friends of mine have seen, commercial aircraft stray into this airspace and be confronted by interceptors that came up from local military bases or other points in the city and wagged back out of that airspace. This is an airspace that's under constant surveillance.

There were some quotes that came out shortly afterwards. This Pentagon spokesperson said, "We had no mechanism to respond." I would suggest that if you're an investigative reporter, that you will find out that they have a very extensive mechanism to respond. That they don't only respond in the case of a crisis emergency like this but they respond when any commercial aircraft goes off course, even for a period of a few minutes. They have interceptors that go up to find out what's happening, why it's off course, if communication to the tower is broken, and that these are procedures that don't need any order from the President. They don't need any order from the Pentagon or anything else. These are standard FAA and NORAD procedures.


Now is it the case, as they were saying, that they had no mechanism, that they didn't have any scrambling planes available here in DC? Absolutely not. Andrews Air Force Base which is ten miles away from here has both the 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, F-16's, multiple planes, the equivalent of two squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base. They also house the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron, the 49th Marine Air Guard which defends the airspace over the DC area and F-18's that are combat ready.

In addition to that there is Anacosta Naval Air Station which houses the DC National Air Guard and DC National Guard, and they have combat-ready jets. These jets are in the air now, after the fact, actively defending the United States. Where were they on September the 11th? Why was nothing put up in the way of this flight?

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php

This article starts out with a semantic point about the search terms. When they put that in quotes it was to stay in line with the conventions of English, not to indicate that the phrase itself was in quotes in the search engine. Semantics!!

Second paragraph...more semantic arguments...

To paraphrase: "We don't have proof but we're going to ***** you out for not having proof while citing other people who have proof but keeping ourselves distant enough from them so that if you can prove that they don't have proof we aren't affected. We want investigation because not everything completely adds up like it should in reality where everything is completely, perfectly explicable and nothing is ever, or should ever, be a mystery."

Considering that they aren't stated to be "reflections" but glints off the fairings, yes, both planes have them. They do both have landing gear.

A fairing looks a lot different on the ground than it does in the air. Especially moving at that speed with light glinting off of it.

I could keep going, but I have to make lunch. Perhaps someone else would like to take over...?

Yup all that can/could be summed up in a sentance but why bother?

its some guys opinions and theories

no proof.....wait did i say it was? no didnt think so just found it of interest

glad you enjoyed it so much

You conspiracy theorists need to get your story straight. You can't keep flip flopping "Oh, Bush knew, but didn't do anything" then turn around and said "Oh, Bush planted explosives" or "Bush paid for hijackers training" or "the planes were remote controlled".

Stick to one story.

thats a line of shat buddy

because I NEVER said Bush planned it

or that Bush planted explosives

any of that shat you just mentioned

Ive never changed my theory yet???

nor have i layed it out? so your simply full of it

http://www.rense.com/general62/deun.htm

Why don't you?