No "no-fly-zone" arround the Pentagon?

[FannySS]

Does somebody have the POSITIV proof, that there wasn´t a "no-fly-zone" arround the Pentagon on/before 9/11?

Thanks, Fanny

[markbark]

1. Look at any flight charts of the area

you will notice that large swaths of downtown area (with the exception of the airspace over the Potomac) is prohibited airspace.
(The big circle to the northwest of downtown is the Naval Observatory and site of the Vice-President's house)
You're also not supposed to fly over the Pentagon at an altitude lower than 18,000 feet. This was in place WELL before 9/11.

Here's a small section of a VFR chart showing the approaches to National Airport:




Lots of restrictions to follow and since Andrews AFB is still flying CAP sorties, I'm sure an Air Force zoomie with an itchy trigger finger will be happy to "convince" you that staying on recommended approaches is a "Good Thing(tm)"

--MAB

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[markbark]

3. Taking off to the north

you have no choice but to pass the Pentagon (you will be a mile or so east and climbing when you do)
Rest assured, there are "countermeasures" in place that would make short work of anyone attempting another kamakazi run.

--MAB

[RH]

4. countermeasures?

such as...?

If somebody wanted to suddenly dive bomb straight down from 18000 feet there is no way to stop them.

18000 feet at 500 mph would take about 25 seconds, barely enough time for Rumsfeld to shit himself.

[Old and In the Way]

5. But with a 52+ minute "heads up",

our $400BB/year military would surely intercept any suspicious aircraft coming into the Washington air corridor. Well, except for 9/11/01.

[tngledwebb]

6. It's hard getting by on just $400BB a year.

The black budget is pretty stingy too. And no amount of money could have forestalled the epidemic 'failure of imagination' on that particular day.

Just give thanks that the pilots were trained in America,and luckily only hit the one out of five Pentagon sides that was relatively unoccupied. God must love our country the most.

[FannySS]

7. Plane-attack on Pentagon is VERY EASY!

First, look at the 2 pics on Message # 2.

Then read this:

1) Six Areas in U.S. Pilots Must Avoid
April 5, 2002

The Federal Aviation Administration currently designates six areas in the United States as prohibited flight zones that pilots must avoid:

a) Capital zone in Washington that covers the White House, Capitol and Naval Observatory.

b) President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

c) The Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine.

d) The presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland.

e) Pantex nuclear assembly plant in Amarillo, Texas.

f) The area around George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Va., to prevent vibrations from engine noise from rattling the historic home.

Source : The Associated Press
http://www.boarding.no/art.asp?art=3174

So arround Pentagon is no prohibited flight zone.

2) Somebody from Arlington wrote: "What always surprised me before 9/11 was that there was no "no-fly zone" around the Pentagon like there is for the White House. Watching planes fly overhead at low altitudes, I couldn't help but think "what would happen if a plane suffered mechanical failure" or "what if a pilot had a heart attack"? http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/52/Topic/17976

3) Witness: "As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. Although airplanes regularly fly over the Pentagon on their way to Reagan National Airport, just a mile or two south, this plane was too low and going too fast. As I watched it disappear behind bridges and concrete barriers I knew it was about to crash." http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

4) Discussing the Reopening of Ronald Reagan Airport after 9/11, some official said: Mr. Mineta said those agencies wanted planes to approach the airport only from the south, and leave in that direction, too, so they would not fly over the Pentagon. That would mean the airport could operate only when there was hardly any wind, he said. New York Times, 21. Sept. 2001. :http://prisonplanet.com/us_identified_some_elements_of_hijack_plot_in_advance.html

So, before 9/11, commercial planes VERY OFTEN flew directly over the Pentagon, and very low, not at 18.000 ft. If terrorists would manage it to come into the cabin, then they STILL NOWADAYS could easyly crash the plane into the Pentagon, i. e. shortly before landing at RR-Airport; it would take SECONDS to push the plane down and crash.

Fanny

[tngledwebb]

8. Please clarify?

Hard to believe that the Pentagon was this unprotected but what's your point?

[Old and In the Way]

9. Her point is

if the plane had been a mile more in the direction of the White House, they would easily have shot it down....I guess.

[tngledwebb]

10. So from now on

we can replace the phrase 'luck of the Irish' with 'luck of the 9/11 hijackers.'

[k-robjoe]

11. About the flightpath

If you look at what the commission says, it never came close to the White House :

"American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330 degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed straight towards the Pentagon and downtown Washington."
9/11 commision report.
Page 9.

If you look at this map,

http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPData=iWLQxfhyzy107uf7y5vrTOZLy0qobAffFRxeHYamwsycurxhP0t9dH23svuz7ztOxjqtmSwchOvJUJQx5iEUW2GwYa6vstPBILxs4ebzRlssZsOX5td2t3nnGULKEcNJuFPQQ4la

you find the Pentagon a bit up and right from the middle, (where it says "110" in a white circle).

Five miles west-southwest of the Pentagon will be about where it says "Claremont".

So this is about where it began the turn.

Danielle O´Brian, who watched it on radar told :

"Ms. O'BRIEN: And it went six, five, four, and I had it in my mouth to say three and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room it was almost a sense of relief. 'This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in--scrambled to patrol our Capitol and to protect our president.' And we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second. In the meantime, all of the rest of the planes are still flying and we're taking care of everything else. And the plane turned back. He continued in the right-hand turn, made a 360 degree maneuver.

ROSS: A big loop?

Ms. O'BRIEN: Correct. And we're telling the supervisor, 'He's turning back in, he's turning back eastbound.'"

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/abcnews102401.html

So with the plane starting up on a right hand turn in the vicinity of
Claremont, it would not at any point get anywhere near the Capitol / Mall area. ( The relief of O´Brian and the people with her, also says that it didn´t pass over this area. )

Yet there were many witnesses who told about seeing a plane "hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower than the height of the Washington Monument."

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/15/arjj031502.htm

Very odd. Was it the mysterious four engine plane that these people saw? ( See my thread : "Mysterious Pentagon planes" )

[FannySS]

12. My point is ...

...

Thousends of CT-Websites claim, that the Pentagon is in a no-fly-zone. What is their point? And now we know this is only a fairy-tale.

Fanny

[tngledwebb]

13. Maybe it wasn't a no-fly zone then, but bet it is now. Maybe.

But it's a bit rich to imagine the Pentagon had no real plans for protecting itself against UFO's and other dangerous flying things, don't you think?

...On the other hand, the way the current Admin of insane PNAC suck-ass fascist evildoers -no, I'm not using hyperbole- has run their dirty little 'war on terra' and especially in Iraq, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the P-gon was protected by sling-shots and bb guns in the hands of in-bred Fundies.

But the point is moot, as there weren't any planes flying nearby to shoot at anyway.

[FannySS]

14. No. See my message # 7 (no text)

No. See my message # 7 (no text)

[tngledwebb]

15. You mean planes or missiles can still fly round the Pentagon?

And they still haven't installed any protection in case of attack?

And a plane did crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?

Whew... where's the
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[FannySS]

16. Yes. Ask anybody from Arlington.

Commercial Planes still land on Ronald Reagan Airport, so they are just SECONDS from the Pentagon. They nearly fly OVER it when they use the airstrip # 15.

Look here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/506344/L/

Fanny

[tngledwebb]

17. Yes...

And....??? The rest of my post?
Are you too are suffering from a failure of imagination?

[FannySS]

18. How?

Planes are just SECONDS from the Pentagon! How could they protect it?

The only way would be to close Ronald Reagan Airport. They considered it, but they didn´t.

But anyway, ltes talk about the situation before 9/11. Even Cessnas could use that Airport in that time.

Fanny

[tngledwebb]

19. Pentagon had missiles etc on the roof, I heard.

Or at least hi-tech radar and warning systems and well rehearsed evacuation plans, don't you imagine? Would expect all to be on code red high alert status esp. after the earlier events on that day. Fortunately the terrorists only hit the renovation side, tough 1 out of 5 odds, and killed 'relatively few' on the ground.

[FannySS]

20. No. Missiles on roof don´t make sense, it´s another fairy-tale

Again: when airplanes are flying SECONDS away from the building, "missiles on the roof" do not make sense at all. I could bet that this is just another fairy-tale like the "no-fly-zone"...

You don´t have a solid source for that, don´t you??

Fanny

[k-robjoe]

21. I have seen this around

that they have stinger missiles on the roof.

I don´t think that I have seen it from what can be called a "solid source", but here is anyway a link to a interesting interview with Dr. William Deagle :

"WD: (...) “Look, I have guys that I know inside the Pentagon and there’s two teams of fellows that can go on a high speed elevator to the roof. And these two teams have stinger missiles. They can launch a missile over…” " http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/161104deagleinterview.htm

The reason that I don´t agree when you say that it doesn´t make sense at all, is because, just ask yourself, what happened when the attack finally happened, did the plane come in from the airport?
No, it didn´t. So even if it would be hard, if not impossible to shoot down a plane if it came in for the airport, and you got no notice that something was wrong before a few seconds before a crash, it would still make sense to have those missiles in place, because you could also get a scenario where you got some notice beforehand that an attack was underway. ( Like an unidentified plane coming in...)

On 911 it is hard to imagine that they didn´t have quite a few minutes to get the guys with the missiles in place, concidering that they have radars in the Pentagon (or is this another myth?), and Flight 77 came in as a suspicious (unidentified) plane.

[Old and In the Way]

22. So, the most important asset in terms of our military C and C is

completely defenseless? I find that hard to believe.

[RH]

23. Apply some common sense.

Why do they spend a fortune to install blast proof windows if it is so easy to scare the threat away in any case? If you've got sixty tons worth of kinetic energy coming at you at 500 miles per hour it doesn't stop dead if you shoot at it.

Absolute security at the Pentagon is impossible. Something like 25 thousand people work there!

[Old and In the Way]

24. 25000 people work there.

Why wouldn't you have SAM's there? The windows I'm sure were meant for truck bombs and the like...no? Surely, they didn't put bomb proof glass in to stop 757's?

Any way you slice it, 52+ minutes after the second WTC hit. There should have been all kinds of planes over Washington, DC.

[RH]

27. There were all kinds of planes over Washington, DC.

9/11 was the same as any other day.

Civilian Airliners fly right past the Pentagon all day long every day of the week.

If you install missiles sooner or later some nut is going to shoot one down.

Maybe that's what happened.

[Old and In the Way]

25. Why would that be a fairy-tale?

Bush had a SAM battery with him when he stayed in Sarasota on 9/10.
Not enough money in the Pentagon budget to have a few Stinger's available?

If the terrorists had taken off from Reagan, comandeered the plane a few minutes out, and turned it ionto the Pentagon, I'd agree that this was a n unavoidable problem. But that's not the case. In fact, have they closed down Reagan because it's a potential threat? I don't believe they have. But this was not the scenario. They had 52+ minutes after the 2nd WTC got hit....and they still couldn't defend Washington.

[k-robjoe]

26. PS

When you think about it. If a plane is coming in to land, and a hijacker seeks to take it over, he will find the cockpit door locked.
By the time he manages to crash in the door, the pilot will have aborted the landing, so the hijacker will then have to haul the pilot out of his seat,(and neutralize the copilot), take his place, make an extra round, before crashing into the Pentagon. So this will leave time for the guys with the stinger missiles to get in place.

The same thing goes for a hijack right after takeoff.

It really makes sense having missiles there.

[Sweet Pea]

28. It is really...

tactically useless to have a surface to air missile defense planted directly on top of what you are trying to defend - unless what you are defending is a ship like an aircraft carrier, and even then the prime defense for that are the cruisers and destroyers that are set away from the ship a number of miles.

Imagine in the Pentagon environment - commercial aircraft flying all around the thing, landing pattern, departure, everywhere. You wouldn't shoot anything until it was a definite threat in that situation, and the only way you know that is if it was too late and a threat aircraft was already pointed directly at you, accelerated and within only a few seconds of impact.

I have seen at least 2 surface to air missile batteries in the area - one over on the Washington Navy Yard space and one over the other side of Arlington from the Pentagon on Ft Myers. There are more, no doubt, but those are the only ones I have seen.

[k-robjoe]

29. on top

What William Deagle said was :

"(...)there’s two teams of fellows that can go on a high speed elevator to the roof. And these two teams have stinger missiles."

I´m assuming that this will be handheld missiles (?)

> "You wouldn't shoot anything until it was a definite threat in that situation, and the only way you know that is if it was too late and a threat aircraft was already pointed directly at you, accelerated and within only a few seconds of impact."

I believe it makes sense to assume that they plan for "every" eventuality.

And the threat being a hijacked passenger jet is just one eventuality.
You can think of other eventualities where the threat is not a passenger jet, but, for example, a cessna, or some such, that refuses to speak to the airport, and it is clear 10,15,20 minutes before it comes close to the Pentagon that this guy might be up to no good.

[Sweet Pea]

30. Not disputing what...

Mr. Deagle said, but alot of this just sounds funny.

"(...)there’s two teams of fellows that can go on a high speed elevator to the roof. And these two teams have stinger missiles."

The building is only 5 stories high - a "high speed elevator" seems a bit...sensational?

Also, where on the roof would they come up on? The Pentagon is a pretty big building, and if by bad luck you just happen to come up on the wrong side, you ain't gonna shoot anything. Having 5 different teams of fellows, one for each wedge, just takes this further down the path of implausibility.

Besides...what would a stinger or some other man-portable air defense device have against an airliner at 100 or 500 feet and at 400 knots, head on? Being a heatseeker, it would most likely home in on the engines, and a stinger warhead is only 6 lbs. At best it would perhaps take a wing off, then you'd just have 250,000 lbs of flaming mass coming at you at 400 knots instead of an aircraft in one piece - not sure if there would be much difference.

This is why you want to have your air defenses offset from your defended asset.

And regarding small Cessnas or the like, notwithstanding the occasional violation of airspace by private/general aviation aircraft, there remains a 15-mile restricted zone around Wash DC (talks ongoing for the lifting of private/gen aviation at Reagan National) so anything that violates that becomes a rather important item these days.

[k-robjoe]

31. Quote

" Listen to what a former Pentagon air traffic controller says "All those years ago when I was at the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon, and any commercial flight within 300 miles of Washington D.C. that made an abrupt course change toward Washington D.C., or turned off their transponder and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been intercepted at supersonic speeds within minutes by fighters out of Andrews AFB. Why there were no fighters from Andrews up baffles me. If we could get fighters notified, scrambled, and airborne within about 6 minutes from Andrews AFB then, we could now." http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html

If this is so - and it seems very plausible to me - then you could maybe argue that any teams with stinger missiles is not needed, because the fighter jets would be there just as quickly.

I don´t know, but it seems plausible to me that they would have more than one line of defense, and stinger missile teams to go to the roof, or placed somewhere in the vicinity makes a lot of sense to me.

I believe that if you had a cessna coming in, behaving like it´s very likely to be hostile, and for some reason the fighter jets don´t get up, then there would be a second line of defense for that scenario, (and maybe a third (and forth)).

And one of these being handheld missiles, yes, that makes perfect sense.