LAX Missile: Where's American leadership to preserve this way of life?

Ref: Other links

VIPER teams.

Disclaimer: The below analysis assumes a 5:30A takeoff for the incidident. The reported takeoff time of flight 612 is about 12:30P, seven [7] hours later.

American leadership needs to be clear with what is going on.

A mobilized citizenry can best support a national mobilization if we are informed on what the specific threat is, and what to watch out for.

When we know the facts, we can provide factual and meaningful suggestions to preserve this way of life.

An aircraft departing Los Angeles International Airport [LAX] had a missile attack from a ground-based surface to air missile. Apparently, it was fired from the coastline at an American Airlines [flight 612, not 621; sample times] jet flying westbound over the Pacific Ocean.

At this point, it's clear there's a cover-up because they do not want to "scare" the public or "affect airline revenues."

Well, there's a problem: If we're "going to win this war against terrorism," then the public needs to know [a] what is involved; [b] what to look out for; and [c] have sufficient information to make informed contributions to a national policy.

* * *

Added 6 Dec 2005

We judge, at the time of the near-miss, the MD-80 had not completed either a left or right bank to either the north or south; at 6,0000 feet it was within 1 mile of takeoff. Ref

At this juncture, it's unclear whether the pilot reported the missile moving from north to south; or south to north.

The SAM-Stinger max altitude is 3,500 meters, or over 11,000 feet, well over the MD altitude. Ref. The stinger's speed is 700 meter/second, or 2520 Km/hour, approximately twelve [12] times the speed of the MD-80 at takeoff, 210 Km/hr.

If it was a stinger missile with a range of 4Km or 3 miles, Marina Del Ray is within range of the LAX airport: [Indirect route].

If this delivery mode is correct, then there must have been some sort of building or obstruction between the Marina and LAX. The launch platform, if it had a direct line of sight to the runway, would allow an immediate firing. We judge the location of the missile firing is near a relatively high building, blocking the left side [to the south] of the individual.

A possible location matching this description is on the north side of the Marina, [ as depicted in this photo ]. Joggers and other travelers moving westward along the exercise lanes may be in a position to provide additional details of what they observed, if anything, during this time period.

The obvious question, if this delivery scenario is plausible, is: How could someone fire a shoulder-fired Stinger from a densely populated area, near a building, and nobody see it or have made a report?

It remains to be understood whether, at 5:30AM, there were early morning south-bound joggers along either Venice or Santa Monica beaches who may have seen, recognized, or observed the missile-trail as it was silhouetted against the early morning sunlight to the east. People on bikes would normally be moving at a higher speed, not likely looking well-above the horizon in the dark morning.

However, given the speed of the Stinger, the lack of ground reports, and the end of the bike path, it is possible that the missile was fired well to the north near Malibu, north of the Santa Monica pier. This area is far more isolated than the Marina and the isolated canyons along the coast could accommodate an unobserved firing. Again, the issue is: Who may have been exercising at 5:30 AM along Highway 101 and may have observed something.

However, Malibu is more than 10 miles from LAX, well beyond the maximum range of a stinger missile, 4.8km, or 3 miles.

We judge the likely location of the SAM-firing to be up the north coast, not immediately adjacent to the runway. This would account for the near miss.

The issue wasn't speed of the Stinger, nor the altitude of the MD-80 -- it was within range of the Stinger range -- but the time between takeoff, initial lock, and firing. It appears as though the delay in firing was caused by a visual obstruction to the left of the launch point.

It appears as though the horizontal component was near the maximum distance; as the missile approached the aircraft, it reached the maximum horizontal range and was beginning to veer off course.

We judge the individual firing the Stinger tracked the aircraft on takeoff, fired the missile, but was too far away; or was visually obstructed, unable to timely fire within maximum range. If this is the likely delivery mode, we conclude the firing was most likely from a small watercraft in, near, or from Marina Del Ray, and on the north side of LAX.

End update: 6 Dec 2005

Update: 7 Dec 2005

Assuming the missile was launched from Marina Del Ray, the most likely visual description would be the following:

Joggers moving southbound along Venice Beach would see a plume of smoke from their left, and move toward an aircraft over the ocean;

The sun would be to the south-south-east, meaning that the missile trail would not necessarily be silhouetted against the direct sunlight, but against the south-western sky;

The joggers would have observed the missile-trail extending from the horizon, on the left, and extend upward to the right toward the moving aircraft.

The joggers would see at the end of the missile-trail a flash, which may have looked like a fast moving aircraft, faster than they have ever seen take off from LAX.

Joggers running north toward LAX, would have a harder time seeing the missile-trail:

The trail would be dark, not well illuminated by the sun to their right, and the mountains to the north would be very dark.

The apparent distance from the launch point to the aircraft would appear to be very short, relative to the view from the north.

If observed, the missile-trail would extend from the right of the shoreline [just to the east], at eye level, then extend up toward their left over the ocean, to the west.

Personnel traveling east in Malibu along Highway 101 toward Los Angeles would have observed the following:

To their right over the ocean, a thin line would appear to extend from the horizon, and shoot upward then curve to the south, then disappear in the darkness.

There would appear to be a flash at the end of the missile-trail, and it would appear to be a fighter-aircraft taking off.

The flash would be moving very fast relative to other aircraft they have seen take off at this early morning hour.

End update: 7 Dec 2005

* * *

There are three scenarios of what happened, all support the contention that there was a missile attack.

Scenario 1 The pilot reported a missile

Scenario 2 Someone said it wasn't a missile but a flare or bottle rocket. This means that someone is sticking with the notion that there was some sort of flash, and horizontal movement. The movement in this scenario goes from either right to left; or left to right.

Scenario 3 The government is now saying that there was no flash, nor any movement of a flare, but a condensation trail or "CON TRAIL."

Scenario 3 explanation is problematic: It implies that there was no movement of an object from either left to right or right to left; nor that there was a flash. Rather, Scenario three dismisses both [a] the movement; and [b] the flash; and [c] the intercept along the window from either the left to right, or right to left.

Rather, Scenario three would have us believe that the pilot didn't see any movement, but the con trail was already there. Yet, this is at odds with the initial report and update about something appearing that wasn't there.

There was nothing to suggest that the flash in scenario 1 or 2 is not there; if there "was no flash" then the "bottle rocket theory" or "flare theory" would not have been proposed.

Contrails do not suddenly appear, and there is no report that there was another aircraft in the same position; nor was the aircraft high enough for contrails to gather. Con trails require cold air -- condensation of vaporized-heated-exhaust water. This would not occur at this low altitude; nor would the con trail transverse the aircraft.

The aircraft altitude was 6600 feet, at 5:30AM, but flares and rockets are much lower.

Also, at 5:30AM, the aircraft would be over the pacific ocean, and sunlight would, at most, be to the far east: Meaning the pilot would see an outline of the missile trail. This is consistent with what the pilot reported.

We judge the original report best reflects what happened:

There was some sort of flash;

There was movement along the pilots field of view

The trail was not there until the object moved

We judge the original pilot report and subsequent discussion of a flash to confirm there was some sort of movement, flash, and object across the pilots field of view.

All other explanations fail to explain what the pilot saw; and subsequent changes in the explanations are not credible.

We judge the flash, movement, and object were from a shoulder fired Stinger Missile from either the coastline or from a distant boat in the ocean.

* * *

At this juncture, we know that Rendon has mislead the American people with non-sense information. Isn't it curious how "quickly" the US government will violate the Smith Act to justify foreign adventures, but not use that information pipeline to tell the public: This is what is going on.

Yet, it is curious that American officials appear more interested in talking to insurgents in Iraq than in leveling with the American public.

That is not impressive: If you want to credibly lead a nation, you have to be willing to tell your fellow citizens what is going on, as opposed to keeping them in the dark.

* * *

The issue is that there needs to be a mobilization -- one that "should have" happened after 9-11; and one that is on the order of magnitude of what happened after Pearl Harbor.

Also, what's needed is the coastlines and areas around airports need to have ground-based spotters that are authorized to shoot-on-site personnel who are holding identifiable shoulder-mounted-missile-systems.

This means there needs to be training and a transition of "domestic patrolling" from the national guard into Homeland Security.

* * *

We also know that there are apparently 10,000 or so missiles that were stopped by the Canadian Army in Ontario.

There is also a company that appears to have been penetrated -- it supplies the airsick bags for airlines. These bags have apparently been modified to include some sort of explosive device.

Homeland Security needs to get beefed-up with a training program that will have a 100% search of all the goods and catering services that go near an aircraft.

* * *

Does any of this require a watering down of the constitution? No.

What's needed is a national commitment to have a draft -- and get people off their rear end to start opening their eyes.

Right now, the American government knows there is a problem, but it refuses to provide the information to the massive number of eyes and ears who could watch for this, get trained, and provide a constitutional solution.

* * *

The problem this nation has is one of leadership: It believes it is "OK" to sneak around in the dark shadows "doing investigations" but then it doesn't tell people "what to look out for."

They counter, "We can't tell the terrorists what we know." Brilliant -- then how do you propose to quickly use the 300,000,000 [300 million] people to rally around something "which you refuse to discuss"?

We're in this together. We didn't have a choice about this war, nor about this Constitutional system.

It is what we have.

If the American leadership doesn't trust "the people" to do the right thing, who is America really fighting?

Self-evidently, America's leadership is fighting itself -- it has a leadership problem and isn't willing to lead the people, but lead the secrecy.

* * *

There could be a special guest worker screening system. This will screen people to do the low paying jobs; and then free up the higher-security positions required to complete the coastal defense mission along the border and around our infrastructure.

Until American leadership is willing to be clear with what is going on, there's no way they can credibly rally the nation to that objective.

This leadership isn't able to mobilize its own resources in house. It needs help.

And the American people need to know what is really going on. It's time for American leadership to stop treating the American people like we're the enemy.

We're in this together. Whether you like it or not.

You can't, self-evidently, fight this war. You need us.

Are you going to provide that leadership and lead us based on real information?

We cannot follow you not offer solutions until you're ready to level with us.

Until then, you're on your own, and will have more of the same as we've seen in Iraq. That's fine overseas, but you're not going to last if you expect to do the same at home.

* * *

Update: 14 Dec 2005

Now that you've read the above, consider the possible other reality:

The flight was in the afternoon

The aircraft was at 13,000 feet

The missile was at 6,000 feet

This is the information:

- Flight #612 was at 13,000 feet altitude - 7-10 miles offshore.
- Cloud ceiling was at 4-5,000 feet (someone on the ground or on a boat
wouldn't have been able to see the aircraft)
- Captain saw straight vertical rocket contrail up to about 6,000 feet
- Rocket was approximately 3-4 miles away from flight #612
- That equals a horizontal separation of about 4 miles and a vertical
separation of well over a mile.
- The captain never used the word "missile" and never believed the
aircraft was a target of the rocket.

Get this:

Change on time, date, location:

It was actually on Saturday, November 26. It was scheduled to leave LAX at 12:34 p.m. I think we took off about 5-10 minutes late.

Reported account:

I was on the flight from LAX to Chicago. It's actually flight 612, not 621 as being reported. I wasn't sitting by the window so I didn't see anything. No one knew anything on the plane until we landed in Chicago. We still really don't know anything. But here is what happened when we landed. Our plane was met by an FBI agent before we were allowed to exit the plane. He asked everyone to be seated and made an announcement over the PA system. He said that if anyone saw something unusual outsite the plane about 10-15 minutes after takeoff they should ring the call button because the FBI would like to talk to them. Everyone was fairly stunned and silent at this point and someone on the left hand side of the plane (if you're facing the cockpit) and near the wing reached up and rang the button. The FBI asked them to come forward and she did. He repeated his announcement and no one else came forward. When we got off the plane there were about 4-5 FBI agents talking to the pilot, co-pilot, and the lady that had rung the call button. No one else knew anything. Even the flight attendant in the back of the plane, near where I was, didn't have a clue what was going on. That is all we could find out about what happened.

* * *

Which version do you believe?

* * *

Here's a description of the following data -- It gets better: Let's consider the original data, and plot it. Note, the above numbers on altitude [13,000 ft; don't match what others have been led to believe -- 4,500 feet].

Plot the data yourself.

* * *

WND article.

Link to the audio between ground control and the pilot. [Backup audio]

* * *

Question: Where did the 5:30A time come from?

* * *

One possible answer:

To: texianyankee
Do we know when this incident was? It is only 5:35 AM PT as of this writing. Do commercial planes take off that early out there? I know many major airports usually do not have flights before 5:30 AM.

45 posted on 11/28/2005 5:34:27 AM PST by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Ref

I'm not satisifed with that . . .

End Update 14 Dec 2005