Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (54962)	10/27/2002 1:30:40 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You don't get sonic booms, let alone ones that forceful and loud, by traveling at a leisurely 400 MPH. The bottom line is that no one dilly-dallied about get on target as quickly as they could, especially when the target was the Pentagon.. That just doesn't make sense. Interesting. The speed of sound is about 1129 feet per second - about 775 miles per hour if my rough scribbed math is right. No need to be too accurate - I think the air temp makes a minor difference anyway. So somebody must have been going at least that fast.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (54962)	10/27/2002 7:39:57 PM
From: Just_Observing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: I live in the DC area... OK?? I heard the LOUDEST Sonic Boom in my life about 10 (could have been 15-20 minutes) after the Pentagon attack (thought it was another attack, in fact).... So what does that prove? That the fighter jets were even later than expected. Who would any sane person listen to - NORAD's own press release or someone who heard a sonic boom? That hearing a sonic boom confers instant credibility is a new one to me. But apparently, it does little for the Intelligence Quotient. Read NORAD's own press release before you attack the credibility of NORAD 911 Stand Down Math. Give us facts as to why you should have more credibility - or forever forsake any claim to credibility. And don't give us hearsay such as I was later told that it was an F-16 from Langley who had been told to "kick it in the @ss and get there yesterday"... Gee, we are all suitably impressed by your confidential sources. Now, just the facts, please. And why were jets from Andrews AFB which is just 10 miles away from Washington DC not scrambled? Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed. Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures: "Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" --'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1) scoop.co.nz