Why Didn't the Pentagon Fire Their Missiles at Incoming Plane?

"how could a commercial aircraft attack the Pentagon, which has to be the most defended place on the face of the earth? It is surrounded by batteries of missiles which are geared to attack any aircraft that does not have a friendly transponder. Only a military aircraft would have a friendly transponder. The very fact that whatever hit the Pentagon was not shot down suggests very strongly that whatever it was, it was not a commercial aircraft, and it was some sort of military aircraft."

david ray griffin talking to amy goodman
http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

what is the official explanation on this and why the pentagon didn't shoot this incoming "thing" down before it actually hit? if this really was the plane our gop claims it is then who on the inside turned off the equipment for the pentagon to defend itself?

either way you look at this it's an inside job

can someone explain to me how it's NOT an inside job???

It's the latest Conspiracy Theory. I prefer to call it the truth, however you can call it looney as well. It is based on WTC1, however the Pentagon is similar.

In one picture:


In one video: (it is better if you watch the video first)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92675

In one journal: (for more detailed information)
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DrDebug

In dedication of the top anti-terrorism expert of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John O'Neill

that the OCTers always use is that the Pentagon isn't defended from air specifically because so many planes pass right by nearby Reagan Airport and having missile defense in place is an accident waiting to happen. Even if you believe that, I would think at least after an hour and change of knowing the blank had hit the fan elsewhere, surely you'd do something to protect a target like the Pentagon.

Another theory is that what hit the Pentagon was a military plane, which defenses did not recognize as unfriendly.

The bottom line is that the infamous Mineta testimony shows that the powers that be likely knew something was coming and issued a stand-down.

the part of the theory about not recognizing unfriendly planes is interesting, because if that is true it would explain why a commercial jumbo jet was not fired upon by the pentagon battery. it was recognized as a friendly aircraft, being that it was a commercial jet of a type that frequently flew thru pentagon air space.

he said only military aircraft have a "friendly" transponder--

why would the airlines planes have military "friendly" transponders in them? they aren't suppose to get near the pentagon.

and the fact that the pentagon missiles didn't fire means either that the pentagon was reading this "incoming" thing as a military thing because of the friendly transponder or someone had shut off the system inside the pentagon so their missiles would not respond.

the pentagon missiles should have responded and blasted this thing that was headed toward the pentagon before it actually hit--if it really was an airline plane, and if their system was not tampered with but was instead up and running


griffin also made another good point. how could a bunch of these guys "trick" the fucking pentagon?? ("fucking" is my expletive, not his)

and if, in fact, that is what happened then why the hell isn't everyone in top positions at the pentagon fired for total incompetence??? if they can't even protect themselves then how can we expect them to protect us?

and really--if you think about it--how does the pentagon let an airline crash into their building? especially when they had a little "drill" on this very thing a year before--and one of the guys in this drill then retired, got a job with the airlines & was the pilot of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon.

come on, the guys at the pentagon are suppose to be the group that has the best defense in the world. it's like saying a body builder couldn't pick up a fifty pound weight. it's bullshit.

look at the airport is compared to the pentagon. seems to me that planes would have to fly near the pentagon to get to it. thus it is logical that the missiles at the pentagon, if they existed prior to 911, were programmed not to fire at commercial aircraft.

they fly over the river and on that side to get to the airport

the pentagon is in restricted airspace

The distance between the Pentagon and the main landing strip / flight path at the airport is about 3000 feet. If you are flying a plane of defending an airspace 3000' is near.

After 9/11 some HUMVEE-based missile batteries were conspicuously placed, and the claim
was made that there had been no missiles before.

Since the "cigarette box" installation is pretty compact, it's hard to believe they
didn't have some. (Not safety wire height across the back of the platform for scale.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sparrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS





The freepers get quite enraged by pictures like these.

For example, they might make a Patriot missile, like the one above, look like a power generator.

Like the mobile power generator that was parked in front of the Pentagon that morning?

The one pointing at the crash site, that exploded at the same time?

I was looking into that when I got "distracted" awhile ago.:eyes:
Thanks for the reminder, it is strange how that "caught fire".

I don't doubt him, but haven't seen any evidence to this. Although I doubt the Pentagon is going to reveal it's self-defense methods.

What's up with that? :silly:

It's on the 9/11 timeline and sourced by the Sarasota paper, I believe. Maybe Bush borrowed the SAM battery from the Pentagon because Venice is only a few minutes flying time to Sarasota?

You'd think that the SS would have moved Bush out pronto after the 2nd hit was confirmed (they obviously had enough concern to bring a portable SAM on the trip). Someone must have thought that a hijacker could be flying a Cessna loaded with explosives into Brooker...right?

almost in line with the runways at the Sarasota airport. It's on the next major e-w thoroughfare
to the south, next to a big golf course and a small subdivision with a peculiar tennis-racket
street pattern. X marks the spot. It's almost like he was a hostage there until after the
Pentagon strike went through.

Who else was a hostage? Besides Shafig bin Laden at the Ritz-Carlton in DC, and Osama
in that military hospital in Pakistan, I mean.

100% incompetent makes more sense to the OCT agents than wondering why





edit: type-lexia

Griffen's statement


is nonsense on many levels. First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport whose airplanes fly within hundreds of yards of the Pentagon hundreds of times daily. These airliners do not have military transponders - how come the automated defense system(note: his book claims these defenses are automated.) hasn't shot down one of these planes? Surely over the years at least one has strayed off course and passed over the Pentagon. Secondly, Griffen has no understanding of surface to air missiles. A missile big enough to destroy an airliner is a big missile - a Patriot would be the best example. A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars, missile launchers and control facilities. How do you hide them in such a crowded metropolitan area as Arlington? I challenge you to show me any evidence of missile sites around the Pentagon. Patriot missiles are also long range missiles - they have a significant minimum range inside of which it can't intercept a target. In order for Patriots to protect the Pentagon, they would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development.

If Patriot missiles are remove from the equation, you are left with short range, shoulder launched Stinger missiles that could be fired from the roof of the Pentagon. The problem here is that the Stinger has a 7 pound warhead. This tiny warhead will not stop a 767 heading at you at full speed. There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their bases. Such missiles will protect the Pentagon from a Piper Cub but not from a 767.

this article, from 2002, is saying the gov. is putting missiles up around washington, and that they were there before. you mean we had NO DEFENSE on 9/11?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64580-2002Sep10.html

"Air Defense Is Activated
Weapons Deployed in Region

By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 11, 2002; Page A19


The Pentagon activated a network of air defenses in the Washington area for the first time in decades yesterday, placing live antiaircraft missiles next to launchers that had been moved into place in recent days.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the positioning of live ammunition with Avenger systems and shoulder-fired Stinger launchers as the Bush administration raised the nation's terrorism alert to its second-highest level. Rumsfeld's decision followed considerable debate among senior defense officials over the practicality of the weapons in guarding the capital and the public alarm a deployment would cause."

-snip-

"Pentagon officials declined for security reasons to give the locations of the air defense systems, which include Sentinel radar for spotting threatening targets as well as Avengers and Stingers for shooting them down. But one Avenger was clearly in view outside the Pentagon."

-snip-

"The Stinger is a short-range, shoulder-fired supersonic missile that can hit aircraft flying as high as 10,000 feet with a heat-seeking, high-explosive warhead. It has a range of about five miles. Weighing just 35 pounds, it can be used against any aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes, whether jets, helicopters, cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Avenger is a system that mounts the Stinger atop a rotating turret on a miltary Humvee, the modern equivalent of the World War II Jeep.

The vehicles usually carry eight Stingers. They also have a package of sensors to help them identify targets at night and during cloudy weather.

The Sentinel is a radar and communications system that is used to alert Avenger and Stinger crews. Towed by a specially equipped Humvee, it consists of a battlefield radar, a group of radios, a generator, and some related systems. It has a range of 25 miles.

The deployment recalled the early decades of the Cold War, when Nike guided missile systems ringed dozens of U.S. cities and military installations to knock down Soviet bombers if they ever attacked.

By the late 1960s, there were six such antiaircraft sites ringing Washington. Maryland had five -- in Rockville, Fort Meade, Annapolis, Davidsonville and Waldorf. The sixth was in Lorton. "


http://newsmine.org/archive/security/dc-air-defense.txt

the plan was to intercept any Russian bombers well before they reached the US mainland. It was also thought that if the Russians were going to attack the US, they wouldn't mess around and go straight to ICBMs. No other country had any military aircraft that could reach Washington DC. Highjacking was considered a law enforcement issue - every highjacking previously had ended with negotiations and no loss of live.

The air defense of America was designed to detect, intercept and identify unidentified aircraft approaching our borders. There were radars and armed interceptors on constant alert - the key was that they were oriented outwards and not inwards. The proof of this was that all the ADIZs (Air Defense Intercept Zones) were over water and not over land. The first ADIZ within our borders was not established until after 9/11. Note also that there is no evidence at all of routine interception of lost or unidentified aircraft by military interceptors over the Continental US.

"and no loss of life"

Baloney. Any number of hijacked aircraft overseas were stormed by commandos.
Remember Entebbe? Remember Air France flight 8969? Terrorists planned to
fly it into the Eiffel Tower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to fly hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and
WTC and CIA HQ was known.

John Judge says that when he went to the Pentagon to plan a demonstration he was
told that they received phone threats from Muslims every day, and had installed
countermeasures to prevent Muslims from flying planes into the building.

Because of the reduced threat of Russian hostility, the US military was looking
around for new roles to play. The proposition that they were blind to the
opportunity to provide security for domestic skies is completely unreasonable.

should be able to distinguish between a craft that was on the airport vector
and one that was not.

Airports have radio beacons and straying off course is not easy for obvious
reasons.

That a highly maneuverable single-engine fighter was able to dodge a heat-seeking
missile through (possibly computer-generated) evasive actions does not mean another
craft could. If a bird can destroy a jet engine, I imagine a couple of heat-seeking
missiles sent into the engines of a 757 could slow it somewhat.

Radars on the Pentagon roof would not attract attention, control facilities and missile
launchers could be hidden underground.



The same compact systems that are used to defend aircraft carriers might well serve
for the Pentagon, don't you think?

why someone would even suggest such a thing. "Tracking systems should be able to distinguish between a craft that was on the airport vector
and one that was not." The OCT would have one believe that jets landing at the airport near the Pentagon, just fly willy-nilly into the airspace, landing at their own leisure, and at any vector they choose, when anyone who can actually think for themselves knows petgoat's statement is exactly correct. I doubt seriously you will find any approved flightpath anywhere near the "danger zone" of the Pentagon. Thanks.
quickesst

the flight path for National airport has hundreds of planes flying within hundreds of feet of the Pentagon every day. At their closes point they are mere seconds of flight time from the building. A terrorist would only need to stay in the traffic control pattern to completely negate any defense system.

Then why the 270 degree turn diving 7000 feet?

Are you arguing that flt 77's precise path could have been anticipated?

Let me ask you this - do you think the Pentagon would have been justified in spending millions of dollars on a defense system that not only defended against an unlikely threat but was very likely to kill innocent Americans?

I don't share your faith in the military and the defense industry - you have to look no further than the missile defense "system" they are trying to make work to realize that only fool would bet their lives on them getting a Pentagon defense system right. Would you fly into DC if you knew such a system was tracking and evaluating the plane you were in? I certainly wouldn't.

Are you arguing that the perps made sure the Pentagon was left unprotected (except for that part of the building where Rumsfeld schemes) so that Hani would meet no resistance on his way in? Or, are you arguing that the Pentagon has always been unprotected?

Everyone knows the Pentagon is very careful about not wasting money, so naturally the public wouldn't expect the Pentagon to have spent even hundreds of dollars on a defense system (or even just to hire an airplane spotter up on the woof).

BTW - I agree that the story of the missing trillion dollars was deliberate misinformation put out by the 9/11 perps.

it has always been undefended against a 911 type attack because the technology would not allow a perfect system whereby every terrorist was shot down but innocent Americans were never killed. If such a system had been installed in secret, I have no doubt that a harmless airliner would have been shot down by now due to human error and/or poor system design.

Apart from a 911 type attack, there was no other military threat to defend against.

I have no doubt that the Pentagon routinely squanders lots of money. I just think that they would not squander it on things that would, with near absolute certainly, kill hundreds of Americans in a public and spectacular manner. A nasty accident like that would jeopardize your chances of getting a nice cushy job in the defense industry after you retire.

turns right to regain track and points straight at the Pentagon - it is mere seconds flight time from the Pentagon. Do you shoot or let it go? How do you know it was an innocent error or whether the pilot was using the normal flight path to disguise his intentions?


The point you seem to miss is that the aircraft are so close and you have so little time to decide whether to shot or not. How do you identify and shoot down every threat while never making a mistake and killing innocent people? Every war we have fought has included "blue on blue" engagements where we have accidentally shot down our own aircraft - there is plenty of evidence that the technology is not good enough to do what you think it can do.

You also need to research missile minimum range. The missile you show cannot intercept anything within 1600 yards.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm

The Pentagon and the WH both knew there was another hostile/hijacked aircraft coming in, yet they did nothing to defend against it. Even though they were evacuating the WH and Congress, everyone at the Pentagon sat on their hands. Why?

point defense system at the Pentagon. Secondly, it is the military - you don't run away in a panic when under attack.

Secondly, the Pentagon is well protected from a conventional terrorist attack - if you evacuate all those people you might be simply giving the terrorist an opportunity to kill a huge number of people with a truck bomb. Remember - they had no idea of the scope of the attacks and what other weapons the terrorist might be using.

or not even standing up, is different then running away, especially when no one tells you there's an emergency. Unlike the outside world, I would assume many people were working at their desks in the Pentagon with no clue what was going on outside. Rummie knew, but he didn't both to call an alert. Rummie was the only one you could have launched a response and he seemed to think there wasn't anything he could do about the attack in progress. Whatever meeting he was having in his office that AM was much more important.

there is a lot of false info about our air defense system circulating in the CT community. How about if you give me a quick run down how you think America's air defenses were organized on 9/11 so we have a common starting point? Simple things like how many dedicated strip alert fighters were there and where were they based.

While you are at it, I have asked many times in this forum if there was any evidence of any military interception of airliners over continental US (with the exception of Payne Stewart). Was 9/11 the first time that the Air Force ever tried to intercept a lost or hijacked airliner over land? There doesn't seem to be any evidence to the contrary.

And please, lets try to avoid the "if I ran the zoo" kind of logic. It is completely irrelevant how you and I think it should have happened - lets just find hard evidence one way or the other.

Looking forward to your reply.

That way, the information you use to help prop up the OCT would be right on the table. You wouldn't mind that, would you?

security? otherwise, how do you know what is right and what is wrong? where have you been getting your inside information?

I have lots of experience with air defense missiles and systems. I know how hard it is to do right. I also know all too well how poorly some of those systems work.

of having the airspace restricted if there was nothing they would/could do to enforce it?

can you show where it was restricted pre-911? Honest question - I was under the impression that only the White House was restricted prior to 9/11.

The point is that the Pentagon is right next to a major airport with planes constantly flying within hundreds of feet of the building. Even if the air space directly over the Pentagon was restricted it would serve no practical purpose because all those planes would only need seconds to enter the restricted area and hit the building.

And to repeat the point I have been making, in such congested air space, a policy of shooting down perceived threats is a recipe for disaster. Due to human error or technical failure, it is nearly certain that a harmless airliner would get shot down. I can't imagine any administration taking such a risk.

show me where they knew with absolute certainty that the four hijacked planes were the extent of the attack? How could they know that they were not complimented by truck bombs or nerve gas attacks?

i was referring to the fact that two planes had hit the wtc and they knew there were two more planes off course and hijacked

they knew they had more than just the wtc planes to contend with and still no one got ready for it? they knew there were at least two more "rogue" planes

i wasn't referring to truck bombs--i was talking about the obvious (the planes) and they knew and didn't prepare

they would not evacuate the Pentagon and have thousands of people standing around in the open.

Neither YOU nor any of us know what kind of defense is used to protect the Pentagon, and there's no credible evidence that the Pentagon part of the OCT is anything more than a lie. More and more people are becoming of the belief that the Pentagon "attack" was a state-sponsored covert operation/self-attack.

Whoever the "they" is that you referred to may or may not have had any idea of the scope of the attacks (some "they" certainly knew what was gonna go down), but that doesn't mean OBL and his 19 cokehead followers had anything to do with 9/11 except being convenient patsies.

there is supposedly a missile system in place in DC and that they were about to shoot down Flight 77 but then it turned and they missed it.

When the Aegis system tracked and identified an Iranian Passenger plane as an attacking target.

I also seriously doubt they're automatic. It would be far too easy to make a mistake and hit a pilot who had just gone slightly off course from the river approach, or a small plane lost in the fog, if they were.

That said, NO ONE (regardless of what fools may tell you) NO planes, except military craft, fly over the Pentagon when coming into National Airport, they come up the river and only up the river.

This part of the story makes perfect sense to me. The admiral who said there were no missiles "that he knew of" was just kind of following the MO. They always deny everything out of hand, and it always makes them look bad. :shrug:

The more interesting bit to me is WTF were Rummy and Wolfie doing continuing their meeting while the WTC was getting hit by planes. They didn't think there was anything they could do? NORAD needed his go ahead to scramble jets... duh.

this gets interesting, I was just reading it on another thread. So I'll add some of my speculation in here too.

Cheney was tracking the plane as it went into the Pentagon and refused to give the order to shoot it down. Mineta claimed that they tracked it from 50 miles out.

It is my hypothesis that Flight 93 WAS in fact shot down. I believe Rumsfeld made a Freudian slip to that effect at one point. I don't think Cheney ever gave the order though. I think he wanted Flight 93 to reach it's target, which, in my opinion, was the U.S. Capitol Building.

Who is the (in my view) real hero of 9/11 that circumvented Cheney? Was it the Air Force pilot or pilots themselves, somebody at the Pentagon or NORAD? Any ideas?

I agree....I think 93 was destined for the Capitol. Can you imagine if that had occurred? Take out the Congressional leadership and Bush becomes dictator. As he mentioned a few times prior to 9/11, his job would have been easier if he was dictator. The curious flight path of 77 in context to 93's delay is interesting, too. That might also explain Bush's odd reaction to the news Card gave him at Booker, he looked like he was waiting for the other shoes to drop....and it may explain why he was AWOL from the scene for the rest of the day. Something that goes this far off script might need extra time to sort outand recalibrate the story.

I think 93 ended up exactly where they wanted 93 to end up. In a deep body of water somewhere, possibly with a few more passengers then they originally started out with.

If you read anything aside from you own "evidence."

DL1989 landed in Cleveland, not UA 93.

to back up your claim? Or do you just make up your own evidence. The story I posted was published before noon on the day of the attack.

So I need to prove citations to disprove a report that was itself retracted by the news reporting organization that originated the story? A report by the way which is only available from a web archive b/c the news outlet pulled it off its own website b/c it was reported IN ERROR.

http://blogs.scripps.com/wcpo/staff/2006/02/wcpocoms_flight_93_story.html

I need to provide citations to dissprove an outlandish claim based on erroneous reporting admited to by the news organization itself? Is that really what you are asking me to do?

If you insist:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/08/15/loc_sept_11_tension.html

Oh my, now why would anyone do that? It was full of errors? Then how did they know both the flight numbers for two of the hijacked planes before anyone else reported it or before it was made public anywhere else in the press? The M$M didn't even report the PA crash until that afternoon.

Okay now, help me understand here.

So pulling the story was part of the overall conspiracy now?

Good post from the blog itself which goes straight to this situation:

"Why is it when sensational news stories that support conspiracy theory comes out the source is considered very credible, but when the same story is retracted because of error the same source becomes suspect ?"


Why did who know both flight numbers for which two hijacked planes?

If you are talking about WCPO, they were getting their feed from the AP (they say so in the link above), so you can't say no one else reported it.

How can you make a blanket statement like your last one? Show me ALL the MSM cites from that day and that the only mention of the PA crash came in the afternoon.

from the Mayor of Cleveland. He was the source, not AP. AP squashed it.

Who did it? The same fundie Bushbots that are in the FBI who took every video tape in a 10 mile radius of the Pentagon right after the attack.

The same fundie Bushbots who showed up in Shanksville to pick up the pieces out of Indian Lake.

The same fundie Bushbots in the M$M like Wolf Blitzer, who originally worked for CBN and Pat Robertson, who promoted only the official story, without question.

So let's resort to bringing in the Fundies and Bushies.

Read the link again. WCPO doesn't even have a reporter in Celveland, they state this specifically, so how could they get the report from the Mayor of Cleveland?

Second, the Mayor would not be giving first hand accounts, he is only giving what would have been reported to him through the chain of command from a Federal Agency that runs the airport operations. We all know what a good game of telephone can do to any piece of information under normal circumstances.


Can you point me to the Mayor's report, I can't seem to find the link to his information or that he was the source of the story. I'm looking for it so I can see it for myself.

You post a response, then I answer. You then edit your original post and accuse me of not answering your questions.

It's a tricky world out there.

I post when and where I have the time. It is usually a given that you shouldn't substantial change a post without noting it. But this was a set up so of course the poster wasn't going to point that out.

You can also copy the post completely and reproduce it in your post. You remain open to charges of changing it, but if the other poster has an "edited" stamp and you don't, you're pretty much in the clear.

for somethings that only happened once they whole time I've been on DU. Not worth the bother. The poster knows I've got his number.

It get's even more true the more times you say it.

What did I change in my post?

The questions I asked were ALWAYS there and still are. I see no answer from you.

Do you care to tell me what I edited out of my post?

Actually, I added something to my post. What I added was the quote from the blog.

I must be a pretty quick typist to post my edit at the same moment you posted your response.

The original post contained the questions I asked you. They are still there.

So why don't you answer them?


Editing again to give you the chance to claim shenanigans when you don't have the answers?
Adding this:
Why did who know both flight numbers for which two hijacked planes?<----Is my original question. Please answer it.

in post #62.

There is no answer to the question:

Why did who know both flight numbers for which two hijacked planes?

This was in response to your post #52 which is below:


"Oh my, now why would anyone do that? It was full of errors? Then how did they know both the flight numbers for two of the hijacked planes before anyone else reported it or before it was made public anywhere else in the press? The M$M didn't even report the PA crash until that afternoon."

that not only did they get the details of the story completely wrong, but also they got the byline wrong too.

"In my haste, I pasted the “Reported by: 9News Staff” byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story."

Yet this story, original posted on the morning of 9-11 had details that no one else knew about at that point and the story originally is credited to 9NewStaff. Seems Foreman's retraction is a little weak to say the least.

BTW: The other two links are from stories written in 2002, not the morning of 9-11. I asked for original reports from the morning of 9-11.

Because UA 93 NEVER landed in Cleveland and DL 1989 turned out not to be hijacked it was confused with a hijacked airplane b/c of circumstance on a very confusing day. DL 1989 turned out to be a nonevent on an eventful day. Do you think that they might have been a little busier reporting on oh I don't know, planes crashing into the WTC (Oh wait, that probably didn't happen either), a plane hitting the Pentagon (again probably didn't happen), people leaping to their deaths on live TV, the air traffic system being shut down completely (an unprecedented event in US History). Allot of things going on that day that may have been more important than a non-event in Cleveland.

What makes it more credible that the story was posted on 9/11 (a confusing and chaotic day) rather than posted after the review of the record of events that day? In fact, I would trust very little reported on the morning of 9/11. How many times are news stories corrected and changed when more eyes are looking at the facts and records? ALLOT.

Of course the story had details no one else knew about at that point, because it was WRONG, so there were no common details for anyone to share.

is a bit of a long time to issue a retraction.

They admit pulling the report that morning, but they didn't remove the story from their website, oops. Then when people stumbled across it and made a big deal about it, they made up a new story to cover the 'mistakes' in the first one, but they never address the actual information in the story. Sounds more like a lousy excuse because they screwed up and got caught.

They admit removing the link to the story from the website, but not the story itself. Not so hard a misstake to make when reports are coming in minute by minute.

Why would they address the information in the story when it wasn't true as evidenced by the fact that it was retracted by the AP as such.

If someone says in a news story "UFO's landed on I-85 after 4 18 wheelers crashed and caught fire." Then the story is retracted b/c it turns out they were Life Flight helos, why should they answer the "facts" in the original story.

The original reporting was wrong, you don't answer wrong information.

The how the hell did Mayor White, who claims he spoke to air controllers at Cleveland Airport, during a press conference that was broadcast live that morning, have known the correct flight numbers for both of the hijacked planes that flew west toward Cleveland before the gov even admitted that a plan crashed in PA? From what I remember that day it wasn't until afternoon that the M$M reported a plane had gone down in PA, no flight number, and that no one knew if it was involved in the attack or if it just happened to crash.

on the morning of 9/11, I was in NY when the NYC events occurred. I had to drive home to PA that day, and, I was on the road for about 1 1/2 hours (I left about 9:30 AM) when I heard on 1010 WINS that a plane had gone down somewhere near Pittsburgh. Since I live in the Pittsburgh area, I was very concerned and tried to get in touch with my son who was home. So, I think the crash was reported about 11:00, and possibly earlier.

So we can't trust as you say a 4.5yr retraction which is backed up by the AP actually having retracted its story and an explanation that is a logical one, but we should trust "what you remember?"

n/t

I'm not kidding.

I have shown citations that show a logical time-line and representation of the way the mistaken identity happened. I have a citation from the author of the original flawed story on which you based your assertion retracting said story and the explanation for the retraction as well as how the mistake happened.

You have.....<crickets chirp>

"...what you remember..."