Why did I become interested in 911- and why have the questions never gone away?
Sometimes, many times, I have wished they had. If it only it could have been that simple. A return to innocence or maybe - because the collapses were such an assault on the senses - ignorant incredulity might be better words.
It would be so much easier if I could believe the official story that a few hijackers with boxcutters and some perfunctory flight training on single-engined planes could have hijacked four large airliners, silenced the crews, turned off transponders, and then expertly guided two of them into the Twin Towers. But I have since learned from expert and highly experienced pilots that hitting a tall building at speed is just not that easy. One hit might have been lucky, but two?
What am I to make of this from an experienced pilot?
"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach manoeuvres into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and line-up with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the manoeuvre failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."
And it would be so convenient if I could blindly believe - as the official story claims - that another amateur pilot took a third plane down through a very sharp turn and a very rapid descent to level out at ground level and crash into the ground floor of the Pentagon - again, a manoeuvre many experienced airline pilots say is virtually impossible. Apparently, the giant plane left virtually no marks on the grass during its approach nor any appreciable debris outside the building.
What am I to make of this, from another experienced pilot?
"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 mph. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 mph. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet) and traveling at 400 mph.) ...
I am no expert in building collapses. But I watched the Twin Towers fall. Both of them. And I could not understand it. Straight down, in pieces, into dust, hundreds of floors, crumbled, pulverised. In ten or so seconds. When I visited them years ago, I read that both towers had strong central cores, massive columns of steel. Does fire cause collapse like that? Not usually. Surely steel-built towers can burn for days. They may buckle and bend, but not collapse into nothing, straight down, with no resistance.
What am I to make of singer Willie Nelson saying this:
"And I saw those towers fall and I've seen an implosion in Las Vegas. There's too much similarities between the two. And I saw the building fall [Building Seven] that didn't get hit by nothing. So, how naive are we? What do they think we'll go for?"
Yes the other collapse was WTC Building Seven, not 110 storeys but 47 storeys, which stood just nearby the Twin Towers. Building Seven wasn't hit by a plane, but during the afternoon it did what the other two did. It simply fell down. Neatly. Like a pack of cards. In six seconds.What am I to make of what actor Martin Sheen has said?
"I was very dubious. I did not want to believe that my government could possibly be involved in such a thing, I could not live in a country that I thought could do that. That would be the ultimate betrayal. However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building Seven - how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?...when did they rig that building? That's the most interesting question and I have not received a satisfactory answer."
Martin Sheen and Willie Nelson are artists, creative people, not scientists. But what am I to make of it when I read the opinion of a world-renowned scientist and the recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement , Dr Lynn Margulis:
“It is clear to me that … 9/11… was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives…whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork.
As well you should be interested, Mr. Francis. These questions have answers which can be discovered given an honest inquiry, a free hand, and the funding. Whether the political will ever be achieved to conduct such an inquiry is another matter. And whether we can avoid a second catastrophe which would consolidate even more the grip of power already achieved is another thing as well.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 181 comments)
on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 6:54:44 PM
A sensible, realistic investigation into the events of 911 will not happen without enourmous political will. And a cursory look around shows the likelyhood of that - somewhere between zero and nil.
We've been managed. And we're being managed right now. Get used to it - the infection has spread too far. And the beast will not be re-caged.
Just as the myths about the Kennedy and King assassinations, the Vietnam disaster and countless, equally insidious events that the American public never hear of, the 911 story makes it's way into the history books as the official story/excuse.
America through the looking glass - what a wonderful, marvelous, fascinating collection of carefully concocted lies.
by
Michael McCoy (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 261 comments)
on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 9:04:17 PM
They violated no laws of physics. Whereas on 9/11 3 buildings collapsed in nearly the same time it took for the expelled debris to fall, indicating nearly all the available gravitational potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Where did the energy to pulverize the concrete and break up the steel come from? The thermite hypothesis looks pretty good to me. “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
by
Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 235 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 2:34:15 PM
On that horrific day, I clearly remeber something that seems to have been thoroughly scrubbed since. While watching the coverage I can clearly remember as building 7 fell and they replayed it over that someone had mentioned it was the head quarters of the department of homeland security. I remember because I had never heard of it before. No real wonder I had never heard the name before since it was not "officially" created until 2002. Is there anyone else out there that remembers that comment I believe it was on Fox news, but it would be very telling if someone out there had recorded and still has that comment.
by
POdVet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 9:42:36 PM
Questions will remain until Justice comes up with adequate and honest answers, and rapidly. The criminals have to be exposed and removed as the future of the planet depends on the final verdict.
9/11 is the straw that will break the camel's back. There have been too many crimes committed against humanity based on false flags. This time around it is different because we have this marvellous communication tool which is the Internet, and the entire planet is waking up to the horrific nightmare that we are being ruled by psychopaths and born criminals.
Let us keep questionning til we come up with The Answer
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 453 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 6:02:12 AM
TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 By Robert Halfhill
There are many unanswered questions about the official conspiracy theory that an Islamic terrorist organization, headquartered in Afghanistan, sent 19 men with box cutters to infiltrate the United states to hijack four plane and wreak appalling destruction by crashing them into buildings.
The first question about the official story is that since the World Trade Center had already been attacked by terrorists once before in 1993, and it remained the one place where a successful terrorist act would make the greatest impression, why was there no attempt to guard the WTC or prepare defenses? I remember thinking in 1993 that the terrorists had to only be successful once while we had to be successful every time.
Second, the U.S. government received at least eleven warnings from foreign intelligence services about Al Qaida's plan for a big attack on the United States before they struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, why were no counter measures prepared?
Third, the Minneapolis FBI tried to obtain approval from the FISA Court to look at Zacarias Moussaoui's computer after he was arrested for being in the country illegally. But as Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified to a Senate hearing, the National FBI Office even rewrote the Minneapolis Office's request to FISA so it failed to be approved.
Fourth, the Phoenix FBI Office had noticed the large number of Middle Eastern men enrolling for flight training. Someone from the Phoenix Office pointed out to the National Office that a plane could be used as a weapon.
Fifth, there is the mind boggling incompetence of both the civilian air traffic control systems and the military North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The civilian air traffic control system's radar can detect a plane going off course immediately, as soon as it deviates from its flight plan. Boston Air Traffic Control detected American Airlines Flight 11 going off course as soon as it deviated from its flight plan at 8:14 A.M. on September 11, 2001. But it did not notify several other air traffic control centers until 8:25 A.M., eleven minutes later. And it did not notify NORAD until 8:40 A.M. The two F-15 Eagles that were eventually scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which was 153 miles northwest of the World Trade Center and which had a top speed of over 1875 miles per hour, could have reached the WTC in seven minutes with more than enough time to intercept AA 11 if the F-15's had been in the air soon after 8:14 A.M or even 8:25 A.M. However, 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 A.M. If NORAD had been informed and had the F-15's in the air soon after AA 11 was detected going off course at 8:14 A.M., there would have been far more than enough time to intercept it.
At 8:41:32 A.M., there was a suspicious radio transmission from United Airlines Flight 175 which sounded something like "everyone stay in your seats." Boston Air Traffic Control informed NORAD that UA 175 had been hijacked at 8:43 and there would have been more than enough time for the two F-15"s, which were air borne by 8:52 A.M. to intercept UA 175 before it hit the South Tower at 9:02:54 A.M. That is there would have been more than enough time if the two F-15's had not been flying at only 23.9% of their top speed!
AA 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 A.M. At their top speed, the two F-15's could have intercepted AA 77 twenty-four minutes before it hit the Pentagon.
At 9:55 A.M., United Airlines Flight 93 went of course near Cleveland and began a 135 degree turn over Ohio and Northern Kentucky. It crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06:05 A.M.
If the police officer pursuing fleeing criminals drove her or his squad car at only 23.9 percent of the car's top speed, the most probable conclusion would be that the officer intended to let the criminals escape. Human stupidity can account for a lot and even mount to civil or even criminal negligence. But when there is a series of one incredible, mind boggling stupidity after another, there has to be a malign intent to bring about the opposite of what officials are supposedly trying to achieve, in this case to ensure that the hijackers succeed. But there's more!
Six, why did the government officials ship most of the steel from the World Trade Center out of the country, even though it is a felony to remove evidence from a crime scene. In the October 6, 2005 issue of NEW CIVIL ENGINEER, Dave Parker writes in "WTC Investigators Resist Call For Collapse Visualization" that nearly all the WTC steel was shipped out to Asia and melted down for recycling.
Seven, Why did the Bush Administration fight against having public hearings on 9/11 for nearly 18 months although public hearings on Pearl Harbor were held within weeks after the event? 9/11 hearings were not held until the relatives of those killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exerted enough lobbying pressure to force the hearings to be held, and even then, only one-tenth of the questions they submitted were answered And eight, why did the government not even allow the visitors to the site of the World Trade Center to even take photographs of the ruins and why did the government confiscate photos and videos of the attack on the Pentagon? Could both seven and eight be part of an attempt to hide evidence of government complicity?
In his editorial, "Selling out the Investigation," in the January, 2002 FIRE ENGINEERING, William Manning wrote that "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) ... is a half baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure." Manning also criticized the investigation in another editorial, "The Twisted Brush of 9/11 Politics" in the September, 2004 FIRE ENGINEERING.
Robert Berhinig, P.E. states in "Protecting the Foundation of Fire-Safety," in the July/August, 2002 IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the definitive magazine for electrical inspectors) that "the FEMA report states further that until the attack on the WTC, no protected steel framed buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire." Yet on 9/11, after steel framed buildings had been around for over a hundred years, since the late 1800's, three protected steel framed buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, had collapsed, supposedly because of fire.
Three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science May 1, 2002 Hearing On the Collapse of the World Trade Center said the there had NEVER BEFORE been a collapse of a protected, steel framed building because of fire. Dr. W. Gene Corley, American Society of Civil Engineers and Chair of the Building Performance Assesment Team reviewing the WTC disaster said on page 76 of the hearing record that "prior to these events, no protected steel frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, has ever experienced a fire-induced collapse." Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology said on page 103, "The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fire played a significant role." So we have here an admission by a spokesperson for NIST that allegedly accounted for the collapses that fire had never before brought about such a collapse of a protected, steel framed building. And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Safety Studies at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute said on page 133, "Up until 9/11, we never had a collapse of a protected steel building." On page 163 he said, "This was the first time we had the collapse of a protected steel structure." Dr. Bement said on page 169, "... there have been instances where buildings have had major fires that have burned to completion without the buildings collapsing." And on page 172, Dr. Barnett said of the partial collapse of WTC 5, "But building 5 was a normal building and it had a fire and it had a major collapse. This has never happened before."
The August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS had an article about the collapse of the World Trade Center on pages 122 - 24 entitled FIRE INSIDE: STRUCTURAL DESIGN WITH FIRE SAFETY IN MIND by Carolyn Berry. The paragraph in the first column on page 124 is particularly significant in evaluating the NIST computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7:"The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn't follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed."
In other words, the much vaunted NIST simulation which purported to dispose of the arguments of we conspiracy theorists didn't actually demonstrate how fire caused the buildings to collapse; they just waved their hands when the computing power currently available had took them as far as it could and said: "This is far enough; the buildings collapsed somewhere about here." Of course we all know we have accounted for how the buildings probably collapsed once we have gone this far. It HAS to be the probable explanation because the only alternative explanation is those NUTTY, WACKO CONSPIRACY THEORIES! We know a priori that that CAN'T be true!
I might as well add the statement of Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department, about WTC 7. "We just expected it to burn out -- we didn't expect it to fall down." "It's the only building I know in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire."
But I want to return to the repeated Congressional testimony that a protected, steel framed building have NEVER BEFORE collapsed because of fire. And never afterwards either. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have a purported fact about the behavior of protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again!
There are many other suspicious anomalies about 9/11. Only a few are, nine, all three World Trade Center buildings collapsed at nearly free fall speed, i.e. almost as fast as it would take an object dropped from one of the WTC building's roof to reach the ground. The resistance of the massive steel columns and concrete would have slowed the fall considerably if it had been a matter of the floors pancaking and falling on the floors below. And ten, fire would have unlikely to have been equally intense at every point in the buildings so that every point failed simultaneously and they fell onto the surface area they stood on, i.e. on to their footprint. Eleventh, although fire had never caused the girders in protected steel framed buildings to become ductile or loose sufficient strength to result in a building collapse, pools of molten steel remained at the bottom of the wreckage for 100 days. And twelve, although an ordinary building collapse would produce chunks of broken concrete, the steel, concrete and asbestos in the three World Trade Center buildings was mostly converted to a fine dust which flowed out from the WTC through the streets of Manhattan in the manner of the pyroclastic flows produced from volcanoes. And Thirteen, although the buildings were not even observed to move at all when the planes crashed into them, nearby geological observatories detected seismic tremblors as if there had been massive explosions at ground level when the buildings collapsed. And while WTC 7 had not even been struck by a plane, all the phenomena previously mentioned accompanied its collapse also. And fourteen, while the Environmental Protection Agency said that the air around the World Trade Center was safe to breath after 9/11, we now know that our government lied yet again because of all the deaths from asbestosis and other respiratory diseases among both the humans and dogs who were involved in the WTC cleanup. And fifteen, while it is standard procedure for the secret service to hustle the President away from the scene immediately whenever there is a hint of danger, George Bush remained in the Florida elementary school reading "The Pet Goat" for nearly a half an hour, even though there was supposedly no assurance that there would not be an attempt to crash a plane into the school.
And although the Bush Administration attempted to ship all the steel from the World Trade Center to China and Korea, some of the steel girders were saved by 9/11 investigators. And the massive amounts of metal in the dust which surged out from the WTC collapse provided additional metal for investigators to study. Brigham Young University Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones obtained some of the metal containing dust after he had published his first paper about 9/11 online in November, 2005. Janette Mackinlay had returned to her apartment on the fourth floor of 113 Cedar Street, which was about 100 meters, or 328 feet, away from the South Tower, about a week after her apartment had been flooded with dust to clean up. She had saved some of the dust in a plastic bag and mailed some of it to Jones after he published his first paper online. Later, he traveled to MacKinlay's new residence in California and obtained a second sample of WTC dust in the presence of other scientists.
In his subsequent online paper, "Revisiting 9/11, 2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method," Professor Jones reported that the dust contained clear traces of thermate. Thermate is an explosive used to melt and cut steel in controlled building demolitions. It is a well mixed powder of iron, aluminum and sulfur. The sulfur lowers the melting point of iron, or steel, and cuts right through it. Sometimes other metallic powders are mixed in to fine tune the characteristics of the explosives. Doctor Jones found all of these substances in the dust.
David Heller, who has degrees in physics and engineering, makes many of the same points Dr. Jones made in Heller's article, "TAKING A CLOSE LOOK; HARD SCIENCE AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER," in the June 18, 2007 GARLIC AND GRASS. After he states that the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings was a controlled demolition brought about by pre-planted thermate explosives, he states that it would seem impossible for Al Qaida to preplant the explosives, especially since WTC 7 housed the offices of the FBI, CIA, and OEM(Office of Emergency Management). But he says that recently he learned that President George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that provides security for not only the World Trade Center buildings but also both United and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. He also pointed out that the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement after 9/11 and was suing for an additional $3.55 billion on the grounds that the airplane crashes into the Twin Towers constituted two separate incidents.
However, regardless of Silverstein's motives, it is unlikely that he could have played a major role in planting the explosives in the building containing the offices of the FBI, CIA and OEM. Only the United States government could have carried that off and Silverstein, at most, could have played no more than a subsidiary role.
The final step in a criminal investigation is asking who had the motive to do the crime. Whose poll numbers shot up into the stratosphere after 9/11 and who gained the popular support to enable the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, abolish habaeus corpus and, at least, the de jure power to lock anyone up for life without a trial or even telling them why they were being imprisoned? Only the neo cons and the Bush Administration, although Bush may be only a front man and Dick Cheney the real power behind the throne. It was the neo con Project for a New American Century who proposed that the U.S. seize the lands where the world's dwindling supply of oil is located and who were quoted in NEWSWEEK as saying that the American people may need a new Pearl Harbor to wake them up.
But if enough people realize in time just how bad our government is, we can counter them before it is too late.
Does anyone know what become of the attempt to put the Shell Game on the best seller list? I bought two copies that week, and got advertisements from Amazon after that for best seller books, but I've not heard anything about the results.
by
Patricia 0rmsby (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 133 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 8:31:10 PM
"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 mph. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 mph. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet) and traveling at 400 mph.) ...
So what would happen if you tried to fly a jet at 20 feet off the ground at 400 mph? would you crash?
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 9:34:01 AM
I am no expert in building collapses. But I watched the Twin Towers fall. Both of them. And I could not understand it. Straight down, in pieces, into dust, hundreds of floors, crumbled, pulverised. In ten or so seconds. When I visited them years ago, I read that both towers had strong central cores, massive columns of steel. Does fire cause collapse like that? Not usually. Surely steel-built towers can burn for days. They may buckle and bend, but not collapse into nothing, straight down, with no resistance.
As you said, you are no expert in building collapses. So the fact is, what ever you think should of happened is pased soley on your uninformed personal oppinion.
Why do you think that a million ton building wouldn't totally collapse if a significant number of columns buckled, bent or were cut or damaged?
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 9:41:27 AM
Yes the other collapse was WTC Building Seven, not 110 storeys but 47 storeys, which stood just nearby the Twin Towers. Building Seven wasn't hit by a plane,
True, building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It was, however hit by WTC 1 as that building collapsed. Why are you ignoring that fact?
but during the afternoon it did what the other two did. It simply fell down. Neatly. Like a pack of cards.
Not all that neatly. The collapse of WTC 7 caused several billion dollars of damage to the nearby buildings.
In six seconds.
Again, this is a flat out and out lie.
The first visible sign of the collapse was when the kink first formed in the roofline, followed by the collapse of the interior of the building as evidence by the drop of east penthouse and a few seconds later by the fall of the west penthouse. Clearly the collapse of the building was well underway at this point, but you like all other truther liars, simply ignore this point. Instead you focus on the last 6 seconds of the collapse and cliam that that is the entire collpase sequence when it is not. Please stop lying.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 9:47:37 AM
WHAT DO UOU MEAN BY "THE COLLAPSE WAS WELL UNDERWAY?"
What do you mean by "the collapse was well underway at this point?" Do you mean that the insides of the building were "well underway" in their collapse while the outer walls remained standing with no internal support? Just try to build a wall 47 storeys high with no internal support, or even four walls in a square with no internal support, and see what happens. The walls would fall well before you got anywhere near 47 storeys.
Robert Halfhill
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 283 comments)
on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 2:40:17 PM
Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, the exterior walls will fall, that is my point, and that is exactly what happpened. In fact, the exterior walls fell with little resistance, because there was no longer any support from the core. Thank you for supporting my argument.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 5:22:09 PM
Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.
That is a totally racist and specious argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 9:49:07 AM
Nineteen men of any color, even with the backing of a large international organization, i.e. Al Qaida, could have not flown unimpeded through out the most well defended airspace in the world until they reached their targets. The civilian air traffic control system can immediately detect a plane leaving its assigned flight path; that's how planes are prevented from colliding. And the protocol calls for the civilian air traffic control system to inform the military within minutes. The military scrambled planes to intercept all previous planes that had deviated from their flight plan. Yet the hijackers were allowed to fly unmolested all accross the northeastern United States.
Robert Halfhill
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 283 comments)
on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 2:55:54 PM
Actually the Air force is and has been required by law to intercept any aircraft approaching Washington DC within 5 minutes of it deviating from it's declared flight plan. The USAF has done this many times when private planes, helicopters have veered off course in the DC area. In fact, this is the ONLY TIME the jets on ready stand by were prevented from intercepting the threat.
by
POdVet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 7:40:46 PM
