FROM
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-53044.html

9-11 Encyclopedia 

911review


PDA

View Full Version : FAA, NORAD and 9/11


adoucette
08-13-2002, 07:34 PM
In the pre-9/11 world I don't find it surprising that the FAA did not contact NORAD for 15 minutes just because they lost contact with the aircraft and SUSPECTED a possible hijacking.

One thing is clear, on that morning everyone thought that the only role NORAD would play IF it was a hijacking would be to simply track the plane to its destination, this does not sound like a high priority call when they know where the airplane is as they have it on radar.

No one would have even entertained a thought that we would be scrambling jets trying to shoot other planes down.

You have to put yourself in the frame of mind of the people that morning prior to any attacks.

You have to realise that it actually took the second crash into the WTC for the realization to sink in that the first crash was deliberate. It was the second crash which changed everything.

Arthur

David Hilditch
08-13-2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by adoucette:
[B]In the pre-9/11 world I don't find it surprising that the FAA did not contact NORAD for 15 minutes just because they lost contact with the aircraft and SUSPECTED a possible hijacking.


I also agree whole-heartedly with that. The mindset must have been so totally different that the response times and the reaction up and down the civil and military chains of command was somewhat ragged - understandably so, until everyone got the measure of what was happening. I just said the same thing on another thread here.

Also, was it indeed even the procedure in the 'old' days that, if NORAD were informed of a hijacking, the Air Force would always 'suit up' and scramble to the runway within a few minutes ?
burlgoat
08-13-2002, 08:49 PM
Arthur and David,
I tried doing some quick research on Nexis (although, sadly, I do have some real work to do today!) to answer that very same question, and haven't been able to get a good answer so far. I know in the Payne Stewart case it took a while to get military intervention but of course that was a private jet. Thankfully, before Sept. 11 we hadn't had any major domestic hijacking for some time.
Although it's easy to be a "Monday morning QB" after 9/11, I still find it hard to believe that NORAD wouldn't be alerted fairly early on -- like within the first 5 minutes or so -- of "a possible hijacking." Although I beleive, as you do, that few Americans suspected a hijacked jet would be crashed into a national landmark, an F-16 could at least establish visual contact with cockpit, try to prevent the plane from leaving American airspace, etc. No?

JL
08-13-2002, 09:01 PM
what did you spect from a country who keeps Gen. Myers commanding the military Staff.

What do you mean by "a less enlightened country"?, please.

JL
08-13-2002, 09:05 PM
I have just read military planes cannot shot civil planes following a law passed by the US Senate in 1973, even in case of air hijacking. What do you know about this?

adoucette
08-13-2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by iamareporter:
I still find it hard to believe that NORAD wouldn't be alerted fairly early on -- like within the first 5 minutes or so -- of "a possible hijacking." Although I beleive, as you do, that few Americans suspected a hijacked jet would be crashed into a national landmark, an F-16 could at least establish visual contact with cockpit, try to prevent the plane from leaving American airspace, etc. No?

Actually, 15 minutes seems reasonable to me, remember it was just a suspected hijacking and the only purpose of Norad would be to keep an eye on it. Actually I don't think scrambling a jet is a normal activity. Even in Stewart's case that took quite a while to occur. As far as trying to keep an airliner from leaving US airspace, that again is not practical, you can't play chicken with it and threatening it serves no purpose (at least pre 9/11) as the idea would be to try to save lives.

This is their official timeline: http://www.norad.mil/presrelNORADTimelines.htm

And from testimony of Gen RALPH E. EBERHART, USAF to the Senate in Oct 01:

Prior to 11 September 2001, our air defense posture was aligned to counter the perceived external threats to
North America air sovereignty. Within this context, our aerospace control and air defense missions have traditionally been oriented to detect and identify all aircraft entering North American airspace, and if
necessary, intercept potentially threatening inbound air traffic. These threats were generally considered as hostile aircraft carrying bombs or cruise missiles. Based on the recent events, we are now also focused on threats originating within domestic airspace such as hijacked aircraft. While we have adjusted to provide a rapid response to domestic air threats, we continue to execute our previously assigned missions.
...
Additionally, we have positioned portable air control radars to more rapidly respond to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requests for assistance. We are also working together with FAA representatives to access FAA radar data and now maintain a continuous communications loop.
With the approval of the President and the Secretary of Defense, we now have streamlined the Rules of Engagement for hostile acts over domestic airspace to ensure the safety of our citizens and critical infrastructure. We have increased our alert posture from 20 aircraft standing alert to more than 100 U.S. and Canadian aircraft. (Normally, Norad had but 14 fighters on alert in the continental U.S., two in Alaska and two in Canada)

==> NOW if you read "between the lines" you can also see what WAS NOT PRESENT on the morning of 9/11 and it was these things which prevented as rapid a response as some of you are claiming should have occurred.

Another look at what was going on that morning: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020603/32426_2.html

Arthur

[ August 13, 2002 03:59 PM: Message edited 3 times, lastly by adoucette ]
MikeD
08-14-2002, 03:05 AM
The reason the intercept of Payne Stewart's Lear was so quick was b ecause airborne fighters in the area were simply diverted to his location. The initial interception was from two A-10s departing out of Eglin AFB FL. They, however, were beaten to the scene (no suprise) by F-16s on AD alert at Tyndall AFB. The Tyndall F-16s escorted Stewart's Lear until F-16s from the Oklahoma and North Dakota ANG units could take over.

MD

EzyJack
08-14-2002, 05:02 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeD:
[B]The reason the intercept of Payne Stewart's Lear was so quick was b ecause airborne fighters in the area were simply diverted to his location--------------------------------------

Which begs the question how many fighers were up on 911? You don't hear the question asked nor the figures revealed. It was CAVU on the East coast that day.

Jack

burlgoat
08-14-2002, 06:20 AM
I think people who've read any of my posts on this board or the flight93crash.com board know that while I'm still an "agnostic" about a Flight 93 shootdown, I've never bought into any of the wackier theories, about Global Hawk or "no plane at the Pentagon" or Bush planned 9/11 or even that he "let 9/11 happen." That said, I'm both baffled and troubled by the information that the FAA itself is now admitting about what happened on 9/11.
According to the FAA's own press conference yesterday, it admits that its controller realized at 8:25 a.m. that AA 11 was a "possible hijacking" and that it didn't contact NORAD "for 15 minutes." 15 MINUTES!!!! If you're at work right now, take your watch off, put it next to your screen, and see how many phone calls, emails, etc., you can make in 15 minutes. If you happen to be at home with a small kid, try watching 15 minutes of "Barney" or "Blue's Clues" and see what an excruciatingly long time that is. (Mine are at the "Spongebob" age, thank God).
I understand the hijacking wasn't confirmed, but couldn't somebody pick up the phone and give NORAD a heads up, so the guys could at least suit up and get out to the runway. What's more, it took NORAD another 12 minutes after the phone call to get airborne, which seems awfully slow to me -- thank God the Russians never tried a sneak attack. So we're talking a total of 27 minutes from the time FAA realized there might be a hijacking to the time that F-16s actually took off. In a less enlightened country, the FAA supervisor who twiddled his thumbs for 15 minutes, when the lives of 1,500 or so people in the second tower could have been saved, would have been tried for treason right now.
Here's the key section of the AP story, and a link to the story in its entirety:

"Air traffic controllers didn't notice anything odd Sept. 11 until communications fell silent with Flight 11's pilot 25 minutes after the plane took off at 8 a.m.

"We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking," air traffic manager Glenn Michael said.

The FAA notified NORAD 15 minutes later; three minutes after that, NORAD was told United Airlines Flight 175 had been hijacked.

The first two military interceptors, Air Force F-15 Eagles from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, scrambled airborne at 8:52 a.m., too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/3853484.htm

David Hilditch
08-14-2002, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by EzyJack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeD:
[B]The reason the intercept of Payne Stewart's Lear was so quick was b ecause airborne fighters in the area were simply div erted to his location--------------------------------------

Which begs the question how many fighers were up on 911? You don't hear the question asked no r the figures revealed. It was CAVU on the East coast that day.

Jack


Well, I guess the initial answer was 14 maximum (as Arthur says above), if that was the number NORAD had available for the continental US pre-9/11 (and I would guess in the immediate aftermath that morning, until new resources could be deployed). Yes ?

(I recall seeing two F-16s in close formation about 10,000 feet over my town in central Jersey 11.30 am/noon that day.)

[ August 14, 2002 02:03 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by David Hilditch ]
David Hilditch
08-14-2002, 04:02 PM
Just another idle thought, which may not be entirely irrelevant. Don't you think after the Korean 747 and the Iran Air A300 incidents in 1983 and 1988 respectively, the authorities would find it even more difficult to get their minds round the need to shoot down civilian airliners ? This is quite apart from all the other command issues/response times I have also mentioned.

MikeD
08-14-2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by David Hilditch:

Well, I guess the initial answer was 14 maximum (as Arthur says above), if that was the number NORAD had available for the continental US pre-9/11 (and I would guess in the immediate aftermath that morning, until new resources could be deployed). Yes ?



***Not necessarily only the NORAD interceptors, but any fighters for that matter. Remember, that at most airbases, the alert contingent is a few fighters, but there are far more on the ramp or already airborne on "routine training missions". In the Stewart case, the initial A-10s tasked for the intercept just happened to be departing on a training flight which, of course being A-10, would not "routinely" involve ANY sort of air intercept profile. The first F-16 that actually made the intercept of Stewart's Lear was from the Test Wing at Eglin AFB and on a routine FCF maintenance flight; the Lear happened to to be heading for the MOA that he was doing his maneuvers in.

The point is that there's many more available aircraft on a daily basis performing normal training than just NORADs alert birds. At Tyndall AFB, FL (in the Stewart case) there is the standard few F-16s for air defense alert. But Tyndall also trains F-15C Eagle pilots, so there's three squadrons of F-15s (whose sole mission is air-air) with aircraft airborne at all hours of the day and night on training hops, and which can be easily-re-tasked per request of ATC if the situation warrants it, prior to higher approval (ie- in an ATC emergency).

MD
JL
08-14-2002, 04:54 PM
A question just for the sake of knowledge, which has not been answered: I have just read military planes cannot shot civil planes following a law passed by the US Senate in 1973, EVEN in case of air hijacking. Maybe that's the reason why the pilot is said to hesitate on shoting F93.

What do you know about this? I have tried to search the Senate web but...

[ August 14, 2002 11:07 AM: Message edited 2 times, lastly by JL ]

EzyJack
08-14-2002, 07:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeD:
[B] ***Not necessarily only the NORAD interceptors, but any fighters for that matter.

The point is that there's many more available aircraft on a daily basis performing normal training than just NORADs alert birds------------------------------

That's my main point. How many fighters were up on training missions and loaded with war shot on 911? The Guard unit at ADW had some F-16s returning with some cannon rounds on board around the first WTC hits.

My other point, Vipers and Eagles can go much faster than the reported 10 miles a minute they have used in the media, ROFL.

Jack

Leland
08-15-2002, 03:54 PM
I guess when you are watching "Blues Clues" 15 minutes might seem along time. After all, your point of comparison is about 1 to 4 years of life.

But when you are responsible for the safety of around a thousand lives spread across dozens of aircraft traveling at high speeds in your airspace... 15 minutes doesn't seem to last that long. Start moving up the chain to get help on one particular aircraft, the responibility only increases in the number of lives beyond just the 100-200 on one flight out of a hundred. The first task is the safety of all aircraft, then you work out the process for handling a hijacking on US soil during a time of peace.

I'd imagine the first 15 minutes were spent calling other planes to steer them clear of a possible airborne threat and also assessing whether the "possible" hijacking was what it appeared to be, and how it might impact (which it is your primary job to prevent such impacts) other aircraft in the airspace. Then maybe someone can find the time to contact NORAD and provide a reasonable assessment of what is going on.

By the way, how long after the first plane hit the WTC did it take before the media was convinced that it was not accidental but was intentional?

burlgoat
08-16-2002, 04:52 AM
Uh, not until the second one struck, of course. But the media didn't have access to the same info -- like a plane's transponder being shut off -- that the FAA, and, belatedly, NORAD, had.

Leland
08-19-2002, 05:39 PM
Ah, so if a transponder goes inactive, the first action should be for the FAA to contact NORAD (that red phone, right beside every air traffic controller from GS-14 to SES-5?) and have the plane shot down, so that the sensibility of the news media's 20/20 hindsight would not be offended because someone was be prudent about taking actions that would effect the lives of hundreds of innocent people. After all, the FAA's failure here, lead to the deaths of order magnitude greater lost than that of a single airplane. They should be held accountable for that, shouldn't they? After all, who could have missed the telling blue paw print?

Certainly out of the question would be to take a few minutes trying to communicate with the plane to determine the failure mode of the transponder. After all checking facts to assure accuracy in reporting events to others would be inappropriate when emotions call for immediate actions. The crime becomes intolerable if moments are taken to warn other aircraft of a potential danger in the air around them, and to request verification that they are also not experiencing problems and can contact other controllers via another channel in order to offload work and allow proper dedication be provided to a developing situation. May they burn in hell for carrying out their duties and not cutting corners where it might have prevented the tragic lost of lives in a manner never before seen on the face of the Earth.

Thank you for you for providing enlightenment on the untaken possibilities... I'll so go in ponder this revelation.

Again, 15 minutes watching television may seem excruciating especially when you choose programming beneath your mental capacity. However, watching a small representation of the supposed reality of the airspace around you; provided by complex systems that nominally, but not always, operate properly; all the while using this knowledge with the rights and responsibility to take action for the well-being on dozens of aircraft and close to a thousand lives, seems to make relatively fleeting...

adoucette
08-19-2002, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by 93questions:
Utter tripe.

Alerting the military for any suspected hijack was SOP on 9/11. Considering what had happened by 9:03, you better believe that the military was being told exactly what the FAA knew exactly when they knew it. Otherwise, heads should roll.

* All times are Eastern Daylight Time; NEADS = North East Air Defense Sector, NORAD

** Scramble = Order to get an aircraft airborne as soon as possible

***Estimated = loss of radar contact

**** Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach

***** The FAA and NEADS established a line of open communication discussing AA Flt 77 and UA Flt 93




American Airlines Flight 11 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846**

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles


United Airlines Flight 175 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0843

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles




American Flight 77 –Dulles enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0924

Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924

Fighters Airborne 0930

Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles



United Flight 93 – Newark to San Francisco

FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****

Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)

Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)

Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles

(from DC F-16 CAP)



This has nothing whatsover to do with any decision to shoot down passenger planes. Fighter interception of hijacks was standing operating procedure and has been such for the last 25 years. After the second WTC tower was hit, do you really expect us to believe that the FAA reacted to unresponsive planes with their transponders off by going to bathroom, getting a donut from the break room and refilling their coffees?
No and they apparently didn't either. However on the first aircraft (no collision yet) there apparently was not a huge urgency to notify NEADS, considering they realized it was a likely hijacking (remember no Hijack transponder code) only shortly before it turned south, they immediately had their hands full diverting other aircraft, trying to raise the plane on emerg. freq. etc.

As far as scrambling fighters, this is normally done with the approval of the Sec of Def. However in this case, once Otis heard there were two potential hijackings they scrambled anyway and said they would get approval later. The first arrived in time to see the second crash. The fighters apparently were kept as a CAP over NY and Langley was called into action for the Pent agon aircraft. They stayed in a CAP patrol over DC and (if you believe the military) were never clo ser than 100 miles to U93.

Arthur


EzyJack
08-19-2002, 10:28 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by adoucette:


**** Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach
-----------------------

Kinda of slow for Mach 2 plus fighters. Any bets they had the pedal to the metal and busted Mach fast?

I forget who posted it. You don't need any National Command authority to intercept aircraft. Pre 911, there were more than a few TCAS alerts on airliners from fighters running practice intercepts on them.

Jack

Leland
08-19-2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by 93questions:
Utter tripe.

Alerting the military for any suspected hijack was SOP on 9/11. Considering what had happened by 9:03, you better believe that the military was being told exactly what the FAA knew exactly when they knew it. Otherwise, heads should roll.

This has nothing whatsover to do with any decision to shoot down passenger planes. Fighter interception of hijacks was standing operating procedure and has been such for the last 25 years. After the second WTC tower was hit, do you really expect us to believe that the FAA reacted to unresponsive planes with their transponders off by going to bathroom, getting a donut from the break room and refilling their coffees?

SOP? So how many times previously has this SOP been followed for actual hijackings? Do you have the time studies showing what the standard is for completing those procedures? I doubt it, since you failed to notice in 1992, that then President George Bush stood down the 5 minute alert status as the first step to spending the "peace" dividend. So where as for 25 years, we might have had fighters readied for intercept missions in under 15 minutes, for nine years preceeding 9/11/01, that standard was 20 minutes.

As for your last fictious interjection made up solely by yourself and no other... flight 93 transponder was not turned off until 9:40am, the FAA contacted NORAD at 9:16am to alert them to flight 93's possible hijacking. Which according to this timeline (http://256.com/gray/thoughts/20010912/timeline.html) is approximately 6 minutes after the experts (based on knowledge after the fact) believe flight 93 was actually hijacked. (note: if you read this timeline, in the first step in alerting external sources of the hijackings, the FAA contacted other centers about the developing situation, and then contacted NORAD, nearly 7 minutes prior to flight 11 crashing into the first WTC tower).

Read the article cited by imareporter. Note carefully the words like "today" and "now" as meaning the FAA can communicate information to NORAD much quicker since 9/11 as opposed to prior to 9/11 when it lacked the capability. That story doesn't even offer the closest of opinion that 15 minutes was unreasonable and could have been done sooner based on knowledge and capability present at that time.

More sources:
timeline puts 2 minutes between first FAA report of hijacking to NORAD and first crash (http://www.terrorismreporter.com/wtc-pentagon-attacks-timeline.html)
CNN article critical of NORAD and FAA (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/) Yet, still shows both Boston ATC and FAA contacting NORAD before first crash and foolishly criticizes the FAA and NORAD for not being responsible for evacuating Washington DC buildings, which falls under the role of FEMA.
NORAD's press release on the subject (http://www.attackonamerica.net/8minutesaway.htm). Please note this paragraph
quote Last week, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned Air Force Gen. Richard Myers about why the fighters hadn't been able to get airborne sooner. Myers, since confirmed as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out that far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War.

Now that I have provided facts and external evidence to support what you call "tripe". Do you care to provide anything to support your credibility, or lack there of? Maybe in your 93questions, one should be, when did flight 93's transponder turn off, before or after the WTC attacks?"
Leland
08-19-2002, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by EzyJack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by adoucette:


**** Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach
-----------------------

Kinda of slow for Mach 2 plus fighters. Any bets they had the pedal to the metal and busted Mach fast?

I forget who posted it. You don't need any National Command authority to intercept aircraft. Pre 911, there were more than a few TCAS alerts on airliners from fighters running practice intercepts on them.

Jack

My father sat alert in both F-101s and F-4s for the same 147th FIG that the current President was once a member of flying the old Delta Darts. He flew actual intercept missions on aircraft intruding into US airspace, usually drug smugglers or stupid pilots. Due to complaints by various businesses, they were constrained from exceeding Mach 1 over land due to the damages of sonic booms. I'd imagine for suspected hijackings, not yet verified, speed above Mach 1 would not have been SOP or authorized. Over water, there would not be restrictions, except for vicinity to commercial aircraft. I'm sure you know that Jack.

You know I agree in principle with these nuts. 15 minutes is a long time. However, that time is long because the entire nation grew complacent about its security and for 10 years preferred stock options to real peace, then considered a dividend. In 1992, the US military was capable of a 2 front war, by 2001, it was only capable of 1 front, and that was hopeful. The military hands were tied, because the US was generally in a time of peace. I'm sure many of these people believe the US has an air defense system better than Baghdad, which is probably why they oppose missile defense systems, rather than understanding that we otherwise do not have air defense beyond fighters that take 5 minutes to get airborne (when at high level of alert), and more time to get on station.

.9 Mach is slow, but it's the fastest speed allowed by policy in place prior to sometime around 9:30am EDT 9/11/01.
93questions
08-19-2002, 11:09 PM
quoteAs far as scrambling fighters, this is normally done with the approval of the Sec of Def. However in this case, once Otis heard there were two potential hijackings they scrambled anyway and said they would get approval later. The first arrived in time to see the second crash. The fighters apparently were kept as a CAP over NY and Langley was called into action for the Pentagon aircraft. They stayed in a CAP patrol over DC and (if you believe the military) were never closer than 100 miles to U93.


And your analysis of the military strategy of using three fighters to "patrol over DC" when there is a known hostile flying bomb a few hundred miles from several nuclear reactors is?

My personal analysis: Militarily incompetent to such a ridiculous level that complicity becomes reasonable--assuming this cover story is accurate.
93questions
08-19-2002, 11:15 PM
General Myers? Did somebody mention General Myers? That guy owes me money! (And he owes all of us an explanation.)

General Myers was acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th. On September 13th, he's going for a nomination hearing to be made head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is the most important day of his life because on this day that Myers, an Air Force General with thousands of hours of time flying fighter planes, is acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—it’s the only day in history that the continental United States has ever been attacked from the air.

Myers claims he is at Senator Max Cleland's office at 8:40 EDT. He sees on TV that the first plane has hit the World Trade Center. He claims on Armed Services Radio that at that point he went in and met with Cleland for an hour. Nobody called him and told him that a second plane had hit, that the air corridor had been closed between Washington and Cleveland, that a plane had been hijacked in Ohio and was flying back to the Pentagon. Then he also claims that when he walked out of Cleland's office, he was handed a portable phone and it was the head of NORAD--the North American Aerospace Defense Command--telling him the Pentagon had been hit.

Now these are unbelievable assertions. Doesn't the man have a beeper? Doesn't the man have a cell phone? Doesn't the man have a secretary who knows where he is? General Myers was, after all, acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military. Wouldn't anybody inform him that planes were being hijacked and flying into buildings? And you know what Myers said he talked to Max Cleland about? He claims he sat there and they discussed the dangers of terrorism. Now this is like a satire, isn't it?

Here is General Myers' response at his confirmation hearing. Note Senator Max Cleland's out-of-the-blue nonsequitur which gives Myers his alibi.

Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing On Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., SEPTEMBER 13, 2001.

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record...That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck. ... I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time. And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening.

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record.

SENATOR LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

SENATOR LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there have been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.

GENERAL MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

SENATOR CLELAND: General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

GENERAL MYERS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... General Myers, The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. That’s approximately. You would know specifically what the timeline was. The crash that occurred in Pennsylvania after the Newark westbound flight was turned around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington was approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second explosion. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why?

GENERAL MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact timelines.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question. I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

GENERAL MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft...

{93questions' note: OK, so if he talked to Eberhart after the second tower was hit, why did he then meet with Cleland for 35 minutes to talk about "the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States"? I mean, wasn't he aware that America was currently experiencing just such an attack--the very worst such attack in its entire history? How in the world did he manage to while away the 45 minutes with Cleland such that he didn't arrive at the National Military Command Center, his admitted "battle station when things are happening," until the Pentagon was being evacuated (around 9:45 at the earliest)? Didn’t having hijacker terrorists hit the two tallest buildings in the United States with passenger jets qualify as a time "when things are happening"?}

In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. And it is an hour ands even minutes until the crash occurred in Pennsylvania.

SENATOR LEVIN: The time that we don't have is when the Pentagon was notified, if they were, by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency, relative to any potential threat or any planes having changed direction or anything like that. And that's the same which you will give us because that's . . .

GENERAL MYERS: I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center {93questions' note: around 8:40}, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately. So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time.

SENATOR LEVIN: Or the time that I asked you for, which was whether the FAA or FBI notified you that other planes had turned direction from their path, their scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards Washington, whether there was any notice from any of them, because that's such an obvious shortfall if there wasn't.

GENERAL MYERS: Right.

SENATOR LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that information.

GENERAL MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at that time, so that part of it is a little hazy. {93questions' note: This is now two days after 9/11.} After that, we started getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other flights that we were worried about. And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . . .

SENATOR LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don' t know them.

GENERAL MYERS: But we'll get them.

{93questions' note: Thank God the Senate quickly confirmed this knowledgeable bastion of combat-ready competence as the head of our entire US military structure!}

>
EzyJack
08-20-2002, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Seven Fife:
[
.9 Mach is slow, but it's the fastest speed allowed by policy in place prior to sometime around 9:30am EDT 9/11/01.[/B]------------------

I gotta find the article but some of the Eagles were above Mach on 911. 101s were barely Mach 1 <G> Phantoms with external tanks were very Mach limited.

The crapola hit the fan and am sure they were well over Mach.

Sonic booms can do a little damage <G> Classic was a couple of F-105s over the Force Academy that went over Mach in 61 or so. Windows were blown all over the area. I use to hear the Shuttle and the Blackbird in SoCal often. In a quake area, you first wonder if it's the big one!!

Kinda of funny around me and near Camp David, since 911 almost a 100 intercepts and I have never seen the CAP. I tease the P area now and then <G>

I am still waiting for a report on available fighter assets on 911. How many fighters were out on training flights??

Jack
adoucette
08-20-2002, 03:35 AM
93,
How many times are you going to post the confirmation hearings on Meyers.

I suspect he had other things on his mind than to remember the exact times that things occurred and I would suspect that as the head of the JCS that by then they were head down planning on preventing new attacks and beginning the plan for retaliation.

Remember, the Pentagon got hit, he probably had people he knew and worked with die. He probably had been in damn near round the clock meetings since that morning and you thing because he doesn't know the exact minutes of some event or the exact time Norad was informed he is somehow not on the ball?

Please.

Arthur

adoucette
08-20-2002, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by EzyJack:
Originally posted by Seven Fife:
[
.9 Mach is slow, but it's the fastest speed allowed by policy in place prior to sometime around 9:30am EDT 9/11/01------------------

I gotta find the article but some of the Eagles were above Mach on 911. 101s were barely Mach 1 <G> Phantoms with external tanks were very Mach limited.

The crapola hit the fan and am sure they were well over Mach.

Sonic booms can do a little damage <G> Classic was a couple of F-105s over the Force Academy that went over Mach in 61 or so. Windows were blown all over the area. I use to hear the Shuttle and the Blackbird in SoCal often. In a quake area, you first wonder if it's the big one!!

Kinda of funny around me and near Camp David, since 911 almost a 100 intercepts and I have never seen the CAP. I tease the P area now and then <G>

I am still waiting for a report on available fighter assets on 911. How many fighters were out on training flights??

Jack[/B]

Jack,
I'm curious (never having flown a jet),
How long does it take to get up to Mach 1 or Mach 2?
Also if you were cruising into NY airspace at one of the peak arrival/departure times and with planes arriving at and departing from LaGuardia, JFK, Newark and WhitePlains would you come in above Mach 1?

Arthur
93questions
08-20-2002, 04:08 AM
quote:;Originally posted by adoucette:
93,
How many times are you going to post the confirmation hearings on Meyers.

I suspect he had other things on his mind than to remember the exact times that things occurred and I would suspect that as the head of the JCS that by then they were head down planning on preventing new attacks and beginning the plan for retaliation.

Remember, the Pentagon got hit, he probably had people he knew and worked with die. He probably had been in damn near round the clock meetings since that morning and you thing because he doesn't know the exact minutes of some event or the exact time Norad was informed he is somehow not on the ball?



Not at all.

I think he was lying through his teeth. I think the full text of the confirmation hearing makes that completely obvious.

I'm not sure exactly what he was lying about or exactly why he felt compelled to lie to Congress so blatantly. But if he wasn't lying, then he's an incompetent boob who shirked his duty on 9/11 in order to discuss the threat of terrorism with Senator Cleland during the critical moments of the single worst domestic attack in Pentagon history--and I'd hate to think that of the head of the entire US military.

Just my opinion from the outside looking in. If General Myers would like to answer a few simple questions about the events of that day, I'm sure he could clear everything up for us. skeptical.gif
adoucette
08-20-2002, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by 93questions:

Not at all.

I think he was lying through his teeth. I think the full text of the confirmation hearing makes that completely obvious.

I'm not sure exactly what he was lying about or exactly why he felt compelled to lie to Congress so blatantly. But if he wasn't lying, then he's an incompetent boob who shirked his duty on 9/11 in order to discuss the threat of terrorism with Senator Cleland during the critical moments of the single worst domestic attack in Pentagon history--and I'd hate to think that of the head of the entire US military.

Just my opinion from the outside looking in. If General Myers would like to answer a few simple questions about the events of that day, I'm sure he could clear everything up for us. skeptical.gif

The head of the entire US military is the President.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the JCS.

The Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 identifies the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces. As such, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President. He may seek the advice of and consult with the other JCS members and combatant commanders. When he presents his advice, he presents the range of advice and opinions he has received, along with any individual comments of the other JCS members.

Under the DOD Reorganization Act, the Secretaries of the Military Departments assign all forces to combatant commands except those assigned to carry out the mission of the Services, i.e., recruit, organize, supply, equip, train, service, mobilize, demobilize, administer and maintain their respective forces. The chain of command to these combatant commands runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commander of the combatant command. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the commanders of the combatant commands from the President and Secretary of Defense but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.


The job is a intellegence job and he was not needed that morning at all.

To get planes in the air takes NORAD

To authorize shooting them down requires the pres/VP.

To tell the commanding officers what to do requires Rumsfeld.


So fine, in your wisdom you know that he is lying.

You are a horse's patooie.

Arthur
93questions
08-20-2002, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by adoucette:
The head of the entire US military is the President.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the JCS.

The Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 identifies the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces. As such, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President. He may seek the advice of and consult with the other JCS members and combatant commanders. When he presents his advice, he presents the range of advice and opinions he has received, along with any individual comments of the other JCS members.

Under the DOD Reorganization Act, the Secretaries of the Military Departments assign all forces to combatant commands except those assigned to carry out the mission of the Services, i.e., recruit, organize, supply, equip, train, service, mobilize, demobilize, administer and maintain their respective forces. The chain of command to these combatant commands runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commander of the combatant command. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the commanders of the combatant commands from the President and Secretary of Defense but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.



And all that has what bearing on the following obvious questions?

From the General's Senate confirmation hearing on 9/13/01:

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time. And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening.

SENATOR CLELAND: General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

GENERAL MYERS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... General Myers, The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why? If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question. I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

GENERAL MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft...


OK, so if he talked to Eberhart after the second tower was hit:

1) Why did he then meet with Senator Cleland for 35 minutes to talk about "the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States"?

2) I mean, wasn't he aware that America was currently experiencing just such an attack--the very worst such attack in its entire history?

3) How in the world did he manage to while away the 45 minutes with Cleland such that he didn't arrive at the National Military Command Center, his admitted "battle station when things are happening," until the Pentagon was being evacuated (around 9:45 at the earliest)?

4) Didn’t having hijacker terrorists hit the two tallest buildings in the United States with passenger jets qualify as a time "when things are happening"?

5) Please remember the Myers is an accomplished fighter pilot with thousands of hours experience and the highest ranking USAF general, as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Are you really implying that Myers' leadership would have been some sort of a nuisance between 9:05 and 9:45 EDT on 9/11 and that the best possible activity for him during that critical time was to hide in Max Cleland's office discussing the threat of future terrorism?

6) Or was he, in fact, mistaken about this for some reason? Because he was either mistaken in his recollection or else he clearly shirked his duty during the most critical moments of the single worst domestic attack in Pentagon history. I mean, just consider that the official story is that, during this same time period, the passengers of Flight 93 had to take matters into their own hands because guys like Myers couldn't be bothered to end their meetings with bigwigs and yucketty-yucks and make damn sure someone got a fighter on Flight 93's ass within the next hour.
adoucette
08-20-2002, 05:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by 93questions:

And all that has what bearing on the following obvious questions?

From the General's Senate confirmation hearing on 9/13/01:

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time. And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening.

SENATOR CLELAND: General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

GENERAL MYERS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... General Myers, The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why? If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question. I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

GENERAL MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft...


OK, so if he talked to Eberhart after the second tower was hit:

1) Why did he then meet with Senator Cleland for 35 minutes to talk about "the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States"?

==> This is your interpretation, he says he was meeting with Cleland when this happens, but he also says he talked to Eberhart after the second crash, so maybe he was just using Clelands offices at that time to conduct business.
You don't know and this man did not get to be the head of the JCS and also be a total Bozo as you seem to paint him.

2) I mean, wasn't he aware that America was currently experiencing just such an attack--the very worst such attack in its entire history?

==> Yeah, I'm sure he did.


3) How in the world did he manage to while away the 45 minutes with Cleland such that he didn't arrive at the National Military Command Center, his admitted "battle station when things are happening," until the Pentagon was being evacuated (around 9:45 at the earliest)?

===> Maybe he was busy on the phone and didn't want to take the time to drive over to the pentagon (not a short drive at that time in DC)

4) Didn’t having hijacker terrorists hit the two tallest buildings in the United States with passenger jets qualify as a time "when things are happening"?

==> Again, the drive puts him out of the loop.

5) Please remember the Myers is an accomplished fighter pilot with thousands of hours experience and the highest ranking USAF general, as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Are you really implying that Myers' leadership would have been some sort of a nuisance between 9:05 and 9:45 EDT on 9/11 and that the best possible activity for him during that critical time was to hide in Max Cleland's office discussing the threat of future terrorism?

==> It is soley your characterization that he was hiding. You don't know what he was doing.

6) Or was he, in fact, mistaken about this for some reason? Because he was either mistaken in his recollection or else he clearly shirked his duty during the most critical moments of the single worst domestic attack in Pentagon history. I mean, just consider that the official story is that, during this same time period, the passengers of Flight 93 had to take matters into their own hands because guys like Myers couldn't be bothered to end their meetings with bigwigs and yucketty-yucks and make damn sure someone got a fighter on Flight 93's ass within the next hour.
Once again, you are being a horse's rear-end. You have no problem slinging mud based on assumptions you are making about what went on.

Arthur



[ August 20, 2002 12:00 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by adoucette ]
93questions
08-20-2002, 06:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by Seven Fife:
Ah, so if a transponder goes inactive, the first action should be for the FAA to contact NORAD (that red phone, right beside every air traffic controller from GS-14 to SES-5?) and have the plane shot down, so that the sensibility of the news media's 20/20 hindsight would not be offended because someone was be prudent about taking actions that would effect the lives of hundreds of innocent people. After all, the FAA's failure here, lead to the deaths of order magnitude greater lost than that of a single airplane. They should be held accountable for that, shouldn't they? After all, who could have missed the telling blue paw print?

Certainly out of the question would be to take a few minutes trying to communicate with the plane to determine the failure mode of the transponder. After all checking facts to assure accuracy in reporting events to others would be inappropriate when emotions call for immediate actions. The crime becomes intolerable if moments are taken to warn other aircraft of a potential danger in the air around them, and to request verification that they are also not experiencing problems and can contact other controllers via another channel in order to offload work and allow proper dedication be provided to a developing situation. May they burn in hell for carrying out their duties and not cutting corners where it might have prevented the tragic lost of lives in a manner never before seen on the face of the Earth.


Utter tripe.

Alerting the military for any suspected hijack was SOP on 9/11. Considering what had happened by 9:03, you better believe that the military was being told exactly what the FAA knew exactly when they knew it. Otherwise, heads should roll.

This has nothing whatsover to do with any decision to shoot down passenger planes. Fighter interception of hijacks was standing operating procedure and has been such for the last 25 years. After the second WTC tower was hit, do you really expect us to believe that the FAA reacted to unresponsive planes with their transponders off by going to bathroom, getting a donut from the break room and refilling their coffees?
93questions
08-20-2002, 07:46 AM
Not quite.

Once again, I'm pretty sure he was doing his job as you point out, but, for some reason, he didn't want to talk about exactly what he was doing for the Congressional record.

I'm simply pointing out the ramifications of his own claims, but I certainly don't give them extraordinary credence and I'm actually more inclined to believe that Myers jumped into action that morning like every other good American who had a chance to help fight the terrorists.

adoucette
08-20-2002, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by 93questions:
Not quite.

Once again, I'm pretty sure he was doing his job as you point out, but, for some reason, he didn't want to talk about exactly what he was doing for the Congressional record.

I'm simply pointing out the ramifications of his own claims, but I certainly don't give them extraordinary credence and I'm actually more inclined to believe that Myers jumped into action that morning like every other good American who had a chance to help fight the terrorists.

BS,

You can sugarcoat it all you want but what you said borders on libel.

I think he was lying through his teeth. I think the full text of the confirmation hearing makes that completely obvious.

I'm not sure exactly what he was lying about or exactly why he felt compelled to lie to Congress so blatantly. But if he wasn't lying, then he's an incompetent boob who shirked his duty on 9/11


Lying to Congress will get you thrown in jail.

Telling the truth, even if one leaves out details not specifically asked about, will not.

If one is asked for a specific exact value, like how many minutes before or after something happened it is probably BEST to not state the answer unless you are 100% sure of the number, because if one gives a number and it turns out to be wrong, then it can be construed as lying. See no 1 above. Regardless of your intent.


Arthur
Leland
08-20-2002, 01:20 PM
93questions,

You have had 11 months and apparently nothing better to do, and you can't even get the events correct for when the transponder turned off on flight 93. Where is your credibility? Where is ability to gather the facts and present them? Screw pagers, you got a damn internet at your finger tips, and you still couldn't get the timeline correct even for the flight that you took your pen name from. Your arguments are without merit and are born from ignorance of reality. I'm glad you can copy and paste congressional testimony, and maybe even read it, but apparently it is beyond your attainment to comprehend what occurred both then and now.

[ August 20, 2002 07:21 AM: Message edited 2 times, lastly by Seven Fife ]

93questions
08-20-2002, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Seven Fife:
93questions,

You have had 11 months and apparently nothing better to do, and you can't even get the events correct for when the transponder turned off on flight 93. Where is your credibility? Where is ability to gather the facts and present them? Screw pagers, you got a damn internet at your finger tips, and you still couldn't get the timeline correct even for the flight that you took your pen name from. Your arguments are without merit and are born from ignorance of reality. I'm glad you can copy and paste congressional testimony, and maybe even read it, but apparently it is beyond your attainment to comprehend what occurred both then and now.

Sure. Whatever.

My point was simply that it was known by everyone with a brain that we were under terrorist attack by 9:03 EDT on 9/11--the time the second WTC tower was hit.

At that time, all available fighters--including any on or about to leave on training sorties--should have been alerted to prepare to intercept any suspicious planes as soon as they became suspicious.

But go ahead, pat yourself on the back--for the second time now--that you caught me in some sort of mistake, if it really makes you feel better. I'm happy to help.
JL
08-20-2002, 02:24 PM
93,
How many times are you going to post the confirmation hearings on Meyers.
I suspect he had other things on his mind than to remember the exact times that things occurred and I would suspect that as the head of the JCS that by then they were head down planning on preventing new attacks and beginning the plan for retaliation.

Remember, the Pentagon got hit, he probably had people he knew and worked with die. He probably had been in damn near round the clock meetings since that morning and you thing because he doesn't know the exact minutes of some event or the exact time Norad was informed he is somehow not on the ball?



+


Lying to Congress will get you thrown in jail.
Telling the truth, even if one leaves out details not specifically asked about, will not.

If one is asked for a specific exact value, like how many minutes before or after something happened it is probably BEST to not state the answer unless you are 100% sure of the number, because if one gives a number and it turns out to be wrong, then it can be construed as lying. See no 1 above. Regardless of your intent.



Poor guy Myers. He is not an ordinary person like you and me. He is supossed to be a top officer, head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, trained for that and for worse.

And shouldn't he want to be inaccurate (that cannot "be construed as lying"), he should have taken the information in paper. The senator who put the questions had at hand.

By the way, thanks for the clarification of your type of justice: "beginning the plan for retaliation" already on 13th Sept.

"Lying to Congress will get you thrown in jail." Come on, come on.

And, isn't it laughable saying the poor military, who enjoy one of the biggest armies in this world, are short of budget or equipment as I have read here?

.
EzyJack
08-20-2002, 02:27 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by adoucette:
[B]Jack,
I'm curious (never having flown a jet),
How long does it take to get up to Mach 1 or Mach 2?
Also if you were cruising into NY airspace at one of the peak arrival/departure times and with planes arriving at and departing from LaGuardia, JFK, Newark and WhitePlains would you come in above Mach 1? ------------------------------------

Well under a minute from taking off. Also depends on your configuration. Mainly lack of external tanks or bombs. Plus your fuel flow goes sky high. Rule of thumb it's 4 times the fuel flow for twice the thrust. Burner is a very loud fuel converting noise maker.

The problem with going supersonic is the boom. Which is dependent on altitude and ambient conditions. You don't read about much damage when the Shuttle arrives for landing and it's well above Mach 1.

If I had the green light to go max speed, no problemo blowing through NYC area <G> I would double check that my recording gear is working!!

Jack

Leland
08-20-2002, 04:19 PM
quote:Originally posted by EzyJack:

Well under a minute from taking off. Also depends on your configuration. Mainly lack of external tanks or bombs. Plus your fuel flow goes sky high. Rule of thumb it's 4 times the fuel flow for twice the thrust. Burner is a very loud fuel converting noise maker.

The problem with going supersonic is the boom. Which is dependent on altitude and ambient conditions. You don't read about much damage when the Shuttle arrives for landing and it's well above Mach 1.

If I had the green light to go max speed, no problemo blowing through NYC area <G> I would double check that my recording gear is working!!

Jack

You have to get that green light though. The Shuttle also makes lots of money for the Florida economy, and takes a predefined path designed to minimize the effects of sonic booms. But I'm with ya, I would like the military to exercise like its for real, so they won't hold back when it is. Unfortunately, they had been trained for decades now not to push the sound barrier, and that may have caused hesitation.
Leland
08-20-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by 93questions:
Sure. Whatever.

My point was simply that it was known by everyone with a brain that we were under terrorist attack by 9:03 EDT on 9/11--the time the second WTC tower was hit.

At that time, all available fighters--including any on or about to leave on training sorties--should have been alerted to prepare to intercept any suspicious planes as soon as they became suspicious.

But go ahead, pat yourself on the back--for the second time now--that you caught me in some sort of mistake, if it really makes you feel better. I'm happy to help.

That's a finer point. Unfortunately, its not that simple, but yeah, it would be nice if that was done. The US Military has many safe guards to assure the public that civilian leaders have control of the actions of its soldiers. These safe guards protect us but also prevent the military from operating at peak efficiency. When these safe guards are removed, you get 100 hour ground wars in Iraq, but you also get Friendly Fire accidents. Same has occurred in Afghanistan and many other theaters.

A better point is that if you are calling up fighters, it's too late. The lives of a least 100 innocent people are already in danger, and that's wrong. The guys in the control centers, and the military pilots operating in environment declared peaceful by both their military and political leaders are the ones who had to deal with the mistakes of others. I would even avoid blame of the terminal security at the airport, as they allowed to pass what policy stated was acceptable. If you want to parse it, you can bring up various FAA test teams that declared Boston security below average in security and failed them numerous times for allowing unacceptable items to pass. But that day, what the terrorist used to gain control was acceptable by policy. It was only due to complacency that people believed terrorist with box cutters were not a threat to thousands of people. What alarms me is that their are people already returning to complacency.

[ August 20, 2002 10:37 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Seven Fife ]
Vostok1
08-24-2002, 11:03 AM
quote:Originally posted by Seven Fife:
If you want to parse it, you can bring up various FAA test teams that declared Boston security below average in security and failed them numerous times for allowing unacceptable items to pass.

Boston security was not responsible for what happened to Flight 11 since that hijacking crew was screened at Portland, Maine that morning. Does anybody know if the hijackers of UA 175 first boarded at Logan, or did they connect from Portland (or somewhere else), too?
Leland
08-24-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Vostok1:
Boston security was not responsible for what happened to Flight 11 since that hijacking crew was screened at Portland, Maine that morning. Does anybody know if the hijackers of UA 175 first boarded at Logan, or did they connect from Portland (or somewhere else), too? ;

It's a pointless item. Again, the items allowed on board were not against policy. Which is why I already stated that they were not responsible, even if seemingly a likely, and certainly better target than blaming the ATC personnel. It's imareporter calling for an indictment of treason.
EzyJack
08-24-2002, 02:14 PM
Fighter pilot scrambled on Sept. 11 recounts experience
United Press International
Published 3:26 p.m. PDT Wednesday, August 21, 2002

HYANNIS, Mass., Aug. 21 (UPI) - One of the two military jet pilots scrambled from Cape Cod in Massachusetts after air controllers suspected a flight out of Boston had been hijacked thought he was witnessing the start of World War III when he saw the World Trade Center twin towers in New York City collapse.

While the two F-15s arrived too late to prevent the hijackers from crashing two passenger jet airliners into the towers, the fighter pilots couldn't have tried to shoot them down, anyway. They didn't have presidential permission to fire on a civilian passenger airplane, the pilot said.

"We were 70 miles out" - about eight minutes -when the second plane crashed into a tower, said one pilot identified only as Nasty. He spoke publicly about Sept. 11 for the first time in Wednesday's Cape Cod Times.



"All we saw was Lower Manhattan covered in dust and debris," said Nasty, 35, who follows protocol by using his call name rather than his real name in the media.

"I thought it was the start of World War III," he said.

Nasty said he and the other pilot, Duff, after a supersonic chase from Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod to New York City, were frustrated they couldn't have done more.

"We did everything we could do to get there in time," Nasty said.

However, by the time the fighters arrived over New York, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 - both hijacked after taking off from Boston's Logan International Airport - had already crashed into the towers.

Even if the military jets had arrived in time, Nasty said there was nothing they really could have done because the only one who could give orders to shoot down a civilian passenger jet was the president, and by the time he learned about the attacks the two planes had already crashed.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," he says. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down). We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," Nasty said.

"We weren't ready for that type of an attack," Nasty said, "to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."

Jack adds, note the supersonic part. They had the pedal to the metal and a helluva of a lot faster than 10 miles a minute.

David Hilditch
08-24-2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by EzyJack:
HYANNIS, Mass., Aug. 21 (UPI) - One of the two military jet pilots scrambled from Cape Cod in Massachusetts after air controllers suspected a flight out of Boston had been hijacked thought he was witnessing the start of World War III when he saw the World Trade Center twin towers in New York City collapse.

While the two F-15s arrived too late to prevent the hijackers from crashing two passenger jet airliners into the towers, the fighter pilots couldn't have tried to shoot them down, anyway. They didn't have presidential permission to fire on a civilian passenger airplane, the pilot said.

"We were 70 miles out" - about eight minutes -when the second plane crashed into a tower, said one pilot identified only as Nasty. He spoke publicly about Sept. 11 for the first time in Wednesday's Cape Cod Times.

"All we saw was Lower Manhattan covered in dust and debris," said Nasty, 35, who follows protocol by using his call name rather than his real name in the media.

"I thought it was the start of World War III," he said.

Nasty said he and the other pilot, Duff, after a supersonic chase from Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod to New York City, were frustrated they couldn't have done more.

"We did everything we could do to get there in time," Nasty said.

However, by the time the fighters arrived over New York, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 - both hijacked after taking off from Boston's Logan International Airport - had already crashed into the towers.

Even if the military jets had arrived in time, Nasty said there was nothing they really could have done because the only one who could give orders to shoot down a civilian passenger jet was the president, and by the time he learned about the attacks the two planes had already crashed.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," he says. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down). We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," Nasty said.

"We weren't ready for that type of an attack," Nasty said, "to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."

Jack adds, note the supersonic part. They had the pedal to the metal and a helluva of a lot faster than 10 miles a minute.[/B]


Hang on, either he thought WWIII was going to start when he saw the second plane hit the second tower (9.03 am) or when the first tower (ie. the second to be hit) collapsed (about 10 am) - that's inconsistent. Or journalistic hype ?

Moreover, are we supposed to believe those same F-15s remained on station for another hour, especially after a supersonic dash ?

[ August 24, 2002 08:59 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by David Hilditch ]
Vostok1
08-24-2002, 05:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by Seven Fife:
It's a pointless item. Again, the items allowed on board were not against policy. Which is why I already stated that they were not responsible, even if seemingly a likely, and certainly better target than blaming the ATC personnel. It's imareporter calling for an indictment of treason. ;

I don't think it's pointless, because there were reports that the hijackers claimed they had a bomb on board, and we don't know that they didn't. In fact, given the evidence, one can make the case that they blew up Flight 93 themselves when faced with an apparent mutiny on board in the final minutes. It's not any less likely in my estimation than them putting the plane in a dive intentionally or accidentally.

BTW...can anyone answer the question about whether the UA 175 hijackers flew into Logan on 9/11 or began from there?
MikeD
08-24-2002, 09:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by David Hilditch:

Hang on, either he thought WWIII was going to start when he saw the second plane hit the second tower (9.03 am) or when the first tower (ie. the second to be hit) collapsed (about 10 am) - that's inconsistent. Or journalistic hype ?

Moreover, are we supposed to believe those same F-15s remained on station for another hour, especially after a supersonic dash ?

I'd like some clarification on the time too, it does seem a little inconsistent.

As far as the F-15s go, after a supersonic dash with their distance, I'd expect them to have less than :30 fuel remaining, that's considered minimum fuel already. Hang out much longer, and you're emergency fuel fast.

MD
adoucette
08-25-2002, 06:40 AM
quote:Originally posted by Vostok1:
I don't think it's pointless, because there were reports that the hijackers claimed they had a bomb on board, and we don't know that they didn't. In fact, given the evidence, one can make the case that they blew up Flight 93 themselves when faced with an apparent mutiny on board in the final minutes. It's not any less likely in my estimation than them putting the plane in a dive intentionally or accidentally.

BTW...can anyone answer the question about whether the UA 175 hijackers flew into Logan on 9/11 or began from there?

Based on what evidence can one make the claim that they blew up Flight 93????

Considering the reports of the planes flight path during the last minutes, flying at low level, twisting and turning and well over Vne, the putting it in the ground by accident (or intentionally) seems quite reasonable.

Assuming bomb residue / components were found why would the FBI surpress that as that would be valuable information as to our security needs? Makes no sense at all.

The bomb reference on 93 I believe is because they only had 4 hijackers and needed some way to frighten the passengers. The reports say they had 2 in the cockpit, with one quard and the 1 guard for all the rest in the back of the plane.

Only Atta and an associate named Alomari boarded via Portland, the rest boarded locally.

Arthur
Vostok1
08-26-2002, 03:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by adoucette:
Based on what evidence can one make the claim that they blew up Flight 93????

Considering the reports of the planes flight path during the last minutes, flying at low level, twisting and turning and well over Vne, the putting it in the ground by accident (or intentionally) seems quite reasonable.

UA 175 was twisting and turning too at speeds that were probably comparable to 93's. Yet it did not break up or ditch into the ground, rather it went smack dab into its intended target. All I am saying is that there is as much evidence for a bomb as there is for the "heroic passengers" putting the plane into a dive.

Assuming bomb residue / components were found why would the FBI surpress that as that would be valuable information as to our security needs? Makes no sense at all.

Maybe the bomb components haven't been found because they landed many miles away after being lofted by the fireball? images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Only Atta and an associate named Alomari boarded via Portland, the rest boarded locally.

I know this is off topic, but I am wondering WHY these two dudes would go to Portland when all the others boarded at BOS?

BTW...Alomari was not the guy's name, that was a stolen identity:
http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm

93questions
08-26-2002, 03:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by MikeD:
I'd like some clarification on the time too, it does seem a little inconsistent.

As far as the F-15s go, after a supersonic dash with their distance, I'd expect them to have less than :30 fuel remaining, that's considered minimum fuel already. Hang out much longer, and you're emergency fuel fast.

MD

From:
http://www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/ithought21.htm

A second hijacked airliner had just sliced into the towers on the morning of Sept. 11, and the two Otis pilots were trying to clear the airspace over Lower Manhattan.

"When we turned around, all we saw was Lower Manhattan covered in dust and debris," said one of the pilots, who lives in Forestdale and is just now speaking publicly about that day.

The 35-year-old pilot, who follows military safety protocol by using his call name, Nasty, rather than his real name in the media, thought terrorists had just struck again.

"Then Duff (the other pilot) said over the radio, 'It looks like the building collapsed.' I thought to myself, 'There were just tens of thousands of people killed,'" Nasty said yesterday.

"We did everything we could do to get there in time," the Cape pilot said yesterday, sitting in the same control room where he first heard about the hijackings last fall.

"I was the same as everyone else. I was shocked and disbelieving, and frustrated that we were so late. But then again, it was out of our control."

On the morning of the 11th, Nasty was sitting in the Otis control office, its walls lined with pilot schedules and charts, working an "alert" shift for another pilot, who was scheduled for training that day.

While the unit always had two pilots on alert, much of the regular flying time was devoted to training high over the Atlantic.

At 8:40 a.m., all that was going to change.

An American Airlines flight out of Boston had apparently been hijacked, a colleague told Nasty.

There hadn't yet been an official call for a scramble, but the two pilots on alert duty hustled to a nearby room and donned flight gear.

As they walked across the airfield to their jets, which stood armed on alert, a horn sounded and the public address system blared their instructions: This was an official military scramble. They should report to their battle stations. According to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD - which is responsible for U.S. and Canadian airspace - the scramble was ordered at 8:46 a.m.

Within moments, they were traveling at supersonic speeds. All the pilots knew was that they were to intercept one airliner that appeared headed toward New York City.

The plan was to find the airliner on the jets' radar, follow it, let the ground controllers know what was going on.

But it was already too late. By the time the jets had left Otis, Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center. Eleven months later, Nasty doesn't even recall hearing that the first plane hit.

{93 questions' comment: Um, wasn't he supposed to have been scrambled after Flight 11 hit the WTC? So how could he have possibly heard the first plane hit?}

And by the time he heard a word about a second hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 175, it had already smashed into the second tower before the horrified eyes of millions on TV.

{93 questions' comment: So he never heard about Flight 175 until after it hit the WTC? WTF is this supposed to mean?}

That happened at 9:02 a.m., according to NORAD records. The two Otis F-15s were about 71 miles - or eight minutes - from Manhattan.

{93 questions' comment: Hmm, 71 miles in 8 minutes = 532 mph. WTF?}

Visibility was extremely clear that morning, and Nasty could see the plume of black smoke pouring from the first tower.

{93 questions' comment: So, they obviously got there before the second plane hit. Or am I missing something, experts?}

For a few minutes, the Otis jets were directed to a 150-mile chunk of air space off Long Island where the unit's pilots typically train.

{93 questions' comment: So that the second plane could hit its target unmolested. Right, everybody?}

But within minutes, the pilots received orders to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, which would become a routine mission for Otis pilots over the next several months.

The two pilots tried to identify the dozens of small aircraft suddenly flying over Manhattan. There were several police and rescue aircraft, but also media helicopters and a few curious small-plane pilots.

Nasty and Duff alternated. One would drive away those aircraft that didn't belong toward airspace over the ocean, while the other monitored Manhattan.

{93 questions' comment: A far more important job than intercepting Flights 77 or 93. Right, experts?}

They refueled in midair just over the water.

{93 questions' comment: So obviously conserving fuel was not a paramount issue. Right?}

Both pilots were together, near John F. Kennedy Airport, about 15 miles from the World Trade Center, when the first tower collapsed.

{93 questions' comment: But I thought one was patrolling while the other was redirecting planes.}

Unlike millions of Americans who watched the events live on television, the Otis pilots were basically unaware of what was happening elsewhere in the country.

It was only later that a controller mentioned in passing that there was a similar attack in Washington.

"He didn't elaborate, and we didn't really have time to think about it," Nasty said.

At one point, a civilian controller said that if another plane were hijacked it would have to be shot down.

At the time of the first two hijackings, the military pilots couldn't be sure the commercial pilots weren't having electrical problems, for example. Besides, the only person who could have ordered them to be shot down was the president, and he was still at a public event when the second tower was hit.

{93 questions' comment: Makes sense until the first tower is hit. May even make sense until the second tower is hit at 9:03 EDT as he contends. But after 9:03 EDT, it makes no sense whatsoever--as any "civilian controller" could tell you.}

"If we had shot down four airliners on Sept. 11, we wouldn't have been heroes," Nasty says. "You don't have the choice of outcomes. They're all bad."

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," he says. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down). We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," he says.

{93 questions' comment: Flight 11 again. They were sent to intercept Flight 11, but they got there too late. No wonder they were too late. Now it makes sense. Then they were sent away until Flight 175 had a chance to hit its target as well. If not complicity, we are obviously talking about criminal incompetence. Great reason for a cover up either way. Right, experts?}

"We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."

When he landed about 4 1/2 hours later at Otis, it was a different base.

Armed security with flak jackets guarded every entrance. Personnel were swarming in the buildings, and officers were trying to locate all the reserve pilots.

As soon as he climbed off his jet, Nasty was told by a crew member on the ground that another airliner had smashed into the Pentagon. And he was told that a military F-16 had shot down a fourth airliner in Pennsylvania, a report that turned out to be incorrect.
Chris Mc
08-26-2002, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Vostok1:
quote: I know this is off topic, but I am wondering WHY these two dudes would go to Portland when all the others boarded at BOS

I imagine they were trying to spread the risk around. In case airport security was an issue in BOS, they were hoping the Portland team would get through to maximize their chance of success.

Alternatively, they may have been hoping to avoid booking the same originating flights, in case that would have attracted some unwarranted attention.

What I wonder is why they only did this with AA 11? Why didn't they do the same with UA 175? Or with AA 77, why didn't somone catch an early morning flight from a smaller city to Dulles?

Vostok1
08-27-2002, 04:39 AM
quote:Originally posted by Chris Mc:
Originally posted by Vostok1:
I imagine they were trying to spread the risk around. In case airport security was an issue in BOS, they were hoping the Portland team would get through to maximize their chance of success.

Alternatively, they may have been hoping to avoid booking the same originating flights, in case that would have attracted some unwarranted attention.

What I wonder is why they only did this with AA 11? Why didn't they do the same with UA 175? Or with AA 77, why didn't somone catch an early morning flight from a smaller city to Dulles?


Besides the fact that the other groups all boarded at the same place, there are other problems with that theory. What if either group of AA Flight 11 hijackers had been stopped? It's not likely that the remaining two or three could have pulled off the mission by themselves. As has already been mentioned on these boards, making a connecting flight also increased the chance of missing the cross country flight, which in fact nearly happened to the two that flew to BOS from Portland (indeed Atta's luggage never made it onto Flight 11).


Is it true that there are no surveillance cams at BOS? The only pics of Atta and the other guy on 9/10 and 9/11 are from their time in Portland.
adoucette
08-27-2002, 07:51 AM
I've spent some time thinking about this as opposed to simply reacting to wild speculations and outlandish interpretations of innocuous statements.

However, one thing finally occured to me, and it bothered me because it took so long to finally sink in.

Re: Conspiracy theories related to Otis Jets, Pentagon Jets etc, etc ad nauseum.

What is the BEST THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED ON 9/11?

From reading all the links the best I can figure out is that at 8:25 the FAA became reasonably certain that they had a hijacking despite the fact that the hijacking transponder code was not set.

Had they immediately notified NEADS at 8:25 and NEADS had immediately ordered the OTIS jets to scramble, the jets could have gotten airborne at 8:37.

At an AVERAGE speed of 1,000 mph (which means a much faster top speed) it would have taken 10.5 minutes to get the 175 air miles to Manhatten. They would have been 1.5 minutes too late.

EVEN IF THEY HAD PERMISSION TO FIRE AND SOME WAY OF IDENTIFING THE AA-11 AIRCRAFT, they would have had to fire missiles that traveled at 2,000 mph from a distance of over 20 miles.

We don't have targeting systems or weapons that could pick that specific jet out of the traffic around JFK, Newark and LaGuaria.

So there is actually NO CONCEIVABLE WAY we could have prevented the first tower from being hit (and eventually collapsing)

Now, had the FAA/Military reacted with incredible foresight, skill and the 20/20 hindsight to know exactly which of the 3,400 aircraft in the sky that morning were the real threats, it is possible they could have shot the other three down. (assuming they didn't wait for presidental permission of course).

So again I say, the best that could have happened that morning is one plane into the WTC and three commercial aircraft shot down. The loss of lives would have been around 1/2 the total figure, the economic impact would have been about the same. The military response WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT AT ALL. It still would have evoked the exact same response, so all of this conspiracy about "could we have shot down 175" or the pentagon aircraft, is totally meaningless. The US response would have been the same even if there had been but one plane that morning.

Arthur

93questions
08-27-2002, 08:50 AM
quote:Originally posted by adoucette:
I've spent some time thinking about this as opposed to simply reacting to wild speculations and outlandish interpretations of innocuous statements.

However, one thing finally occured to me, and it bothered me because it took so long to finally sink in.

Re: Conspiracy theories related to Otis Jets, Pentagon Jets etc, etc ad nauseum.

What is the BEST THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED ON 9/11?

From reading all the links the best I can figure out is that at 8:25 the FAA became reasonably certain that they had a hijacking despite the fact that the hijacking transponder code was not set.

Had they immediately notified NEADS at 8:25 and NEADS had immediately ordered the OTIS jets to scramble, the jets could have gotten airborne at 8:37.

At an AVERAGE speed of 1,000 mph (which means a much faster top speed) it would have taken 10.5 minutes to get the 175 air miles to Manhatten. They would have been 1.5 minutes too late.

EVEN IF THEY HAD PERMISSION TO FIRE AND SOME WAY OF IDENTIFING THE AA-11 AIRCRAFT, they would have had to fire missiles that traveled at 2,000 mph from a distance of over 20 miles.

We don't have targeting systems or weapons that could pick that specific jet out of the traffic around JFK, Newark and LaGuaria.

So there is actually NO CONCEIVABLE WAY we could have prevented the first tower from being hit (and eventually collapsing)

Now, had the FAA/Military reacted with incredible foresight, skill and the 20/20 hindsight to know exactly which of the 3,400 aircraft in the sky that morning were the real threats, it is possible they could have shot the other three down. (assuming they didn't wait for presidental permission of course).

So again I say, the best that could have happened that morning is one plane into the WTC and three commercial aircraft shot down. The loss of lives would have been around 1/2 the total figure, the economic impact would have been about the same. The military response WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT AT ALL. It still would have evoked the exact same response, so all of this conspiracy about "could we have shot down 175" or the pentagon aircraft, is totally meaningless. The US response would have been the same even if there had been but one plane that morning.

Arthur


1) No way Flight 11 could have been prevented.

2) No way that fighters should not have been at least in the vicinity when Flight 175 hit (38 minutes after Flight 11 was confirmed hijack).

3) Slim chance that a fighter wasn't on Flight 77's ass without severe incompetence or else complicity (72 minutes after Flight 11 was a confirmed hijack, 34 minutes after Flight 175 hit the second WTC).

4) No possible way that a fighter wasn't on Flight 93's ass without ridiculously laughable incompetence or else complicity (99 minutes after Flight 11 was a confirmed hijack, 63 minutes after Flight 175 hit the second WTC).

I think this analysis is 100% objective, and I find the arguments of the apologists' for the military's reported (but not necessarily actual) response absurdly strained. It's as if you called 911 and then waited 90 minutes for the fire department to show up while your house burned to the ground with your family inside, but then comforted yourself by saying that "no one was prepared for this" and "no one was at fault for this" and "firemen have a difficult job." Never has there been such an epic level of tragedy with such an infinitesmal level of accountability.
Leland
08-27-2002, 03:19 PM
Obviously, a few people have watched to many fictional movies and believed the "realistic" video games played in "beginner mode" to be knowledgeable about the real world.

Some things that might help:

There is not an escape pod on Air Force One. Both the USAF and the Director and Producers of the movie acknowledged this one as a plot device.

There is not an F-117 capable of carrying more than one person, and certainly not one that can mate to a 747 and transfer people on board to stop terrorist.

Military pilots are not allowed to buzz towers, General's daughters, or commercial aircraft.

There is no such thing as a red phone hotline between any given US civilian installation and NORAD/NEADS.

The FAA has no rights to authorize military jets to scramble, intercept, and especially attack a civilian airliner.

Commercial aircraft do not carry IFF transmitters, thus do not show up as red, blue, or yellow on the pilot's radar MFD. In most F-15's and F-16's, everything is green anyway.

Beyond visual range (BVR) attacks were not allowed during Desert Storm in an actual war time, combat theater. They certainly would not be allowed during a time of peace, over US airspace, and utilized against a civilian target that is one amongst many others in the nearby airspace controlled by three major airports and only suspected of being hijacked.

During the cold war, aircraft and crew sitting 24/7 alert status had requirements to be airborne in 5 minutes to intercept aircraft off the coast, typically outside commercial air routes, that had been tracked for minutes following a vector bringing them into US airspace, and once on intercept arrival had all the appearances of being a Russian built Bear bomber or other military aircraft. If along the Southern border, they typically were small civilian prop planes smuggling drugs. After the cold war, this process was discontinued.

There is no autoland button. Missile do not lock on to the bad guy civilian airliner automatically, especially the heat seeking kind.

Missiles do not vaporize an aircraft such that no debris lands anywhere.

NECAP/Looking Glass flights ended with the 24/7 alert aircraft.

Imagine for a moment, a typically over-stressed air traffic controller had the power to declare an aircraft hijacked and without any review of his/her findings, the military was called in and took immediate action. Weeks later, the media put on its 20/20 delayed vision goggles, and parsed the whole situation...

One dose of reality: If you were the hapless controller having to handle a situation in which 19 hijackers gave you 45 minutes to do whatever to save as many lives as possible in a scenario that had never occurred before, and 3,000 people die because of it; the 20 hijacker shouldn't be given death, but you should be tried for treason and hung within less than a year according to a self-professed member of the media and others that have chosen you to shoulder the burden of grief they bare.

Ignorance must really be bliss...

Leland
08-27-2002, 05:33 PM
This just in...
Fighter Jet Escorts Plane to Md. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020827/ap_on_re_us/escorted_landing_3)

"There was a miscommunication between the pilot and the ground," Brown said.

An FBI spokesman in Baltimore, Barry Maddox, confirmed that an emergency code was mistakenly entered into the plane's radar transponder.

"It seemed to indicate a problem when it was not a problem," Maddox said. "They radioed back and said it was a mistake and the pilot was ordered to land at Baltimore."

This is during the post 9/11 era. I'm curious to see the public response to this action. One thing is for sure, we probably won't have to try the controller for treason. images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

adoucette
08-27-2002, 05:34 PM
quote:Originally posted by 93questions:

1) No way Flight 11 could have been prevented.

2) No way that fighters should not have been at least in the vicinity when Flight 175 hit (38 minutes after Flight 11 was confirmed hijack).

==> They were close, (closer than Norad's estimate of 71 miles which was based on a speed of .9 Mach, 'cause they went faster), pointless as they couldn't actually do anything.

3) Slim chance that a fighter wasn't on Flight 77's ass without severe incompetence or else complicity (72 minutes after Flight 11 was a confirmed hijack, 34 minutes after Flight 175 hit the second WTC).

==> Ah, 20/20. Yes if they sent the NY fighters down they may have had a better chance, but how did they know more strikes were not planned for NY?

4) No possible way that a fighter wasn't on Flight 93's ass without ridiculously laughable incompetence or else complicity (99 minutes after Flight 11 was a confirmed hijack, 63 minutes after Flight 175 hit the second WTC).

==> Again, the decision was made to fly CAP over Washington, not go on a search and destroy. As the hijackers had been turning off the transponders and flying at low altitudes their exact location and heading was not something that was readily known.



I think this analysis is 100% objective,

==> Yeah, particularly the complicity parts and the ridiculously laughable incompetence characterizations.

and I find the arguments of the apologists' for the military's reported (but not necessarily actual) response absurdly strained.

==> That has hardly been discussed at all. The big questions have been: Did Otis Scramble at all or when Norad said they did? and Did U93 actually get shot down?

It's as if you called 911 and then waited 90 minutes for the fire department to show up while your house burned to the ground with your family inside, but then comforted yourself by saying that "no one was prepared for this" and "no one was at fault for this" and "firemen have a difficult job." Never has there been such an epic level of tragedy with such an infinitesmal level of accountability.

==> No it is as if you called 911 every few minutes and said I started a fire somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard. Good luck.

Arthur



[ September 03, 2002 11:13 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by adoucette ]
Leland
08-27-2002, 05:38 PM
quote:Originally posted by Seven Fife:
One thing is for sure, we probably won't have to try the controller for treason. images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oops, I forgot, the rational for treason by the controller is not failure to contact NORAD, but for doing so in a less than timely manner. More investigation will need to be made as to whether this recent scum can be allowed to live. nonono2.gif
rosinante
09-04-2002, 10:20 AM
here are some fighters for NORAD truth who just try to implement 08:25 as the time for reasonable doubt of a hijacling and who try to argue about 15 minutes of delay as normal in pre911-times.

1) we are NOT talking about signs of hijacing.Wearetalking about reasonable causes to inform Noradto scramble interceptors.It might be technical problems, disease of the pilots - we do not know in pre911-times.

2) first signa arereported for 08:14 (transponder off and no radio). The change of direction at 08.24 is irrelevant, it is just another sign.

3) Only the first two signs are enough to cause to act according to the regulations, which say "immediately" call NORAD. It is the norad decision if and how to scramble, not of the flight controller.

4) So what we can see here is a nice deception: to blame a little bit the FAA, to elongate the timeline and to fit the fiction into reality

5) all in all it is to "explain" the time delay between 08:14 and the alleged 8:52(which we discussed in the other thread about UA93). More than half an hour. At least. In fact they must explain more than one hour untill the Pentagoncrash.

6) we were asked what could have happened best(which would have been STANDARD)That is:
alert in NORAD at 08:15, (immediately,standard)
scrambling at at least 08:30 (immediately,standard)
interception at 08:40, (immediately,standard)
call to the president in Sarasota (immediately,standard)
reaction in time before 08:45.(immediately,standard)

They try to tell us that all this standard was not possible and that the obstacles reach so far as to AA77. LOL.

limo driver
09-04-2002, 02:01 PM
"I think this analysis is 100% objective, and I find the arguments of the apologists' for the military's reported (but not necessarily actual) response absurdly strained. It's as if you called 911 and then waited 90 minutes for the fire department to show up while your house burned to the ground with your family inside, but then comforted yourself by saying that "no one was prepared for this" and "no one was at fault for this" and "firemen have a difficult job." Never has there been such an epic level of tragedy with such an infinitesmal level of accountability."

Your answer speaks for itself. "Never before" is its key phrase. Sep 11 cannot be judged by past standards. 93Q, feel free to stomp all over my comments,as they will be a bit strong. But one quality I constantly notice in the arguments of many conspiratorial types is an exaggerated conviction in the questionable assumptions they hold. Time and again they adopt a super-confident stance in regard to their so-called "common sense intuition" about how the world works. That is hubris with a capital "H." There are lots of stories of botched emergency responses in NORMAL times. There was one very recently here in Boston in which a man suffered a heart attack on a commuter train. The conductor was informed, and nevertheless continued the trip into Boston, making all the remaining scheduled stops! When the man finally got to a hospital he was dead. These things happen all the time! And then when we get this unprecedented event called 9/11, we are then lectured by know-it-alls about what constitutes "absurdly strained" responses. There are a thousand and one reasons that are constantly overlooked by the conspiracy brigade when they map out with arithmetic certainty why "x,y or z" should have happened in manner "a, b, or c" within time frame "d,e, f." This whole excercise, to repeat, is nothing more than HUBRIS. Our government is known for its massive incompetence, and history always shocks one at how unprepared governments can be in times of crisis.


regards
Chris

[ September 04, 2002 08:09 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by limo driver ]

adoucette
09-04-2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by rosinante:
here are some fighters for NORAD truth who just try to implement 08:25 as the time for reasonable doubt of a hijacling and who try to argue about 15 minutes of delay as normal in pre911-times.

1) we are NOT talking about signs of hijacing.Wearetalking about reasonable causes to inform Noradto scramble interceptors.It might be technical problems, disease of the pilots - we do not know in pre911-times.

2) first signa arereported for 08:14 (transponder off and no radio). The change of direction at 08.24 is irrelevant, it is just another sign.

3) Only the first two signs are enough to cause to act according to the regulations, which say "immediately" call NORAD. It is the norad decision if and how to scramble, not of the flight controller.

4) So what we can see here is a nice deception: to blame a little bit the FAA, to elongate the timeline and to fit the fiction into reality

5) all in all it is to "explain" the time delay between 08:14 and the alleged 8:52(which we discussed in the other thread about UA93). More than half an hour. At least. In fact they must explain more than one hour untill the Pentagoncrash.

6) we were asked what could have happened best(which would have been STANDARD)That is:
alert in NORAD at 08:15, (immediately,standard)
scrambling at at least 08:30 (immediately,standard)
interception at 08:40, (immediately,standard)
call to the president in Sarasota (immediately,standard)
reaction in time before 08:45.(immediately,standard)

They try to tell us that all this standard was not possible and that the obstacles reach so far as to AA77. LOL.

Rosi,
Do you bother to check anything?

This "immediately,standard" stuff is only in your immagination.

Here are the FAA's rules for request of ESCORT of hijacked aircraft. (Notice, there were NO RULES for shootdown of hijacked aircraft)

NOTICE, the words IMMEDIATELY CALL NORAD are nowhere to be found, in fact the FAA contacts the FAA hijack coordinator.

Notice, the FAA does not contact the military and REQUEST an escort UNTIL a hijack is CONFIRMED.


http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-1

Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT

Section 1. GENERAL

7-1-1. PURPOSE

The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft to:

a. Assure positive flight following.

b. Report unusual observances.

c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through the appropriate SOCC/ROCC.

Also the join up rules:

7-2-3. VECTORS

Escort aircraft shall be vectored to a position 5 miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft. The vectors shall be planned to approach the hijacked aircraft from the rear to avoid the possibility of being observed and to position the escort aircraft at the same altitude, speed, and heading as the hijacked aircraft.

7-2-6. RESPONSIBILITIES PRIOR TO JOIN-UP

Until the escort aircraft has joined-up with the hijacked aircraft, the pilot shall be kept informed of the hijacked aircraft heading, speed, altitude, and destination (if known); also, its range and position relative to the escort aircraft. For fighter/interceptor aircraft, the application of "optimum cruise" will normally ensure sufficient overtake during the "join-up" phase.

==> So on a normal hijack they wouldn't have gone supersonic, optimal cruise for an f/15 is about 600mph.


Assign an altitude which is either the altitude of the hijacked aircraft or the optimum altitude requested by the escort aircraft pilot when the hijacked aircraft is at a lower altitude. Descend the escort aircraft to the altitude of the hijacked aircraft prior to reaching a point 30 miles from the target. When the hijacked aircraft is at a low altitude where communications between the escort aircraft and the control facility would be questionable, a second escort aircraft (which will normally be available when NORAD interceptors are being utilized) may be stationed at a higher altitude near the hijacked aircraft's position for relay of information between the control facility and the escort aircraft maintaining visual surveillance.

7-2-7. POSITIONING INSTRUCTIONS

Unless the escort pilot has a visual contact, plan the join-up at 30 miles and issue positioning instructions.

EXAMPLE-
"Echo Golf One Two, when contact is established, maintain surveillance. Approach no closer than five miles directly behind. Remain out of sight from cockpit or cabin, and report all actions observed."


What this doesn't say is the military side of this equation. They also required chain of command approval to launch an intercept. An authorization they skipped when they heard that 2 planes had been hijacked.

Arthur
rosinante
09-04-2002, 04:23 PM
no limo:

nobody accuses the government or pilots or the FAA or anybody not to have been EYTRAORDINARYLY QUICK, specially skilled, not having advanced knowledge, not to be Superman, not to have intuitions.

I am talking about
the STANDARD to call NORAD immediately,
the STANDARD to scramble in at least 15 minutes,
the standard to fly OTIS-Manhattan in 10-12 minutes,
the standard of intercept routines even without weapons,
the logic to send two allegedly late-coming F-15 at least not somewhere into the open but to send them to intercept at least AA77.

Why did they not meet the normal procedures? Especially since we know that allegedly nobody knew of these flights to be suicide missions, so everybody could have just calmly followed the regulations. No extras required.

We are wondering about the "miracles", about no investigation, about no material evidence, but open lies.
This government of innocence is able to immediately point to the "Islamists". So who must prove? Who makes allegations?

We ASK - and you dont provide answers, but only explanations why asking is wrong. We would not ask when the standards were met and when material evidence were in the open.

adoucette
09-04-2002, 05:21 PM
quote" Originally posted by rosinante:
no limo:

nobody accuses the government or pilots or the FAA or anybody not to have been EYTRAORDINARYLY QUICK, specially skilled, not having advanced knowledge, not to be Superman, not to have intuitions.

I am talking about
the STANDARD to call NORAD immediately,

==> NO the STANDARD is to prevent midair collisions etc first and time permitting, notify the FAA hijack coordinator in DC of the issue. When the hijack is CONFIRMED, then notify NORAD.

the STANDARD to scramble in at least 15 minutes,

==> Actually 12 minutes I believe.

the standard to fly OTIS-Manhattan in 10-12 minutes,

==> No, they went much faster that morning than standard, as the previously published regs showed, normal intercept speed is "optimal cruise" which is NOT SUPERSONIC. At optimal cruise it would take about 18 minutes to get to NYC from OTIS. (PS these were the speeds NORAD used in its early estimates of distance, as we have heard, the planes went much faster than optimal cruise speed)

the standard of intercept routines even without weapons,

==> The standard of intercept routines is to join up 30 miles out and close to 5 miles behind.

the logic to send two allegedly late-coming F-15 at least not somewhere into the open but to send them to intercept at least AA77.

These were kept in CAP over NYC. Other jets were scrambled for AA77. In hindsight, since as it turned out there were no more jets heading to NY deploying the airborne jets would have been faster, but one can only make this call after the fact.



Why did they not meet the normal procedures?

==> As shown above, the notification was normal, right up until two hijacked planes were identified at which point Otis shifted into higher gear.

Especially since we know that allegedly nobody knew of these flights to be suicide missions, so everybody could have just calmly followed the regulations. No extras required.

We are wondering about the "miracles", about no investigation, about no material evidence, but open lies.

You have no idea of the level of investigation done, simply because the govt has not yet made the information public does not mean it does not exist. As mentioned before the huge number of coalition governments have heard our story and believe it enough to commit forces to the battle against terrorism.

You have never proven one "open lie". The one you harped on over and over about, "The Otis lie", has been taken apart piece by piece to show that Wibel's comments do not in fact prove that Norad lied about anything that morning.



This government of innocence is able to immediately point to the "Islamists". So who must prove? Who makes allegations?

==> Well since the airlines provided the manifests which showed that each of the aircraft had a large number of Arabic people all flying in first class and a number of the overheard conversations sounded foriegn and it was fairly quickly discovered that a number of the members such as Atta had taken advanced flight training (for which they had no jobs which required same) and martial arts training and that many of the Arabs on the different planes knew each other (hell of a coincidence?), that a number had ties to a terrorist organization which had previously attacked the US. That the method of taking over the planes controls required the use of force by 4 or more people and that the other passengers on the aircraft were easily identified as normal unrelated people going about their everyday lives. It was and is no stretch for any but the most ardent haters of the US that have any difficulty at all accepting what is so plainly evident.

We ASK - and you dont provide answers, but only explanations why asking is wrong. We would not ask when the standards were met and when material evidence were in the open.

==>We have provided answers over and over. You simply care not to listen, simply continue in your mindless hate.

Arthur



Leland
09-04-2002, 07:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by rosinante:

I am talking about
the STANDARD to call NORAD immediately,
the STANDARD to scramble in at least 15 minutes,
the standard to fly OTIS-Manhattan in 10-12 minutes,
the standard of intercept routines even without weapons,
the logic to send two allegedly late-coming F-15 at least not somewhere into the open but to send them to intercept at least AA77

Would you mind presenting your sources for what you deem normal procedures?

I add myself to this list when reading your above quote:
quote We are wondering about the "miracles", about no investigation, about no material evidence, but open lies.

How did you come up with these standards that are not true, where is your investigation, where is your material evidence, and why do you suggest you have any idea what the standard operating procedures of the FAA, NORAD, or other US government agency is? Again, where is your proof supporting your claims? You require such from others, but not of yourself!

Look at these talking points:
quote we are NOT talking about signs of hijacing.Wearetalking about reasonable causes to inform Noradto scramble interceptors.It might be technical problems, disease of the pilots - we do not know in pre911-times.

You don't call NORAD for sick pilots. Did you get this from the movie "Airplane!"?

quote 2) first signa arereported for 08:14 (transponder off and no radio). The change of direction at 08.24 is irrelevant, it is just another sign.

This didn't happen. First of all, the FAA would have no idea if a radio was on or off. Second, the radio was not off as at 8:24, the FAA recorded this:
quote Flight 11 broadcasts "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move." Apparently, one of the hijackers confused the aircraft's radio with its public-address system. Air traffic control responds "Who's trying to call me?" Then from Flight 11, "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Source is the timeline I noted in a previous post to this thread. I'd say the time frame of 8:24 is not irrelevant.

quote 3) Only the first two signs are enough to cause to act according to the regulations, which say "immediately" call NORAD. It is the norad decision if and how to scramble, not of the flight controller.

First sign meant nothing. Transponders fail, and the response to such failures is not military escort, at least it was not prior to 9/11. You may have a small point with 8:24 if only you didn't provide an argumentative point that questions whether or not the radio was even on, much less a transmition was received from that airplane. Point of fact, without the communicator stating the source, no one in the FAA control center would know were the transmission came from at that time, only the channel on which it was boardcast. How would your argument work if Flight 11 transponder went out, but the communication was from flight 77? Wouldn't it be prudent for the FAA to take a moment and determine the source of such transmission? And only by process of elimination could that be completed. Then they would have something to tell NORAD besides, "we heard a communication on this channel."

quote 4) So what we can see here is a nice deception: to blame a little bit the FAA, to elongate the timeline and to fit the fiction into reality

I can't even comprehend your point here. You're the one blaming the FAA for not following procedures. You're the one that has been proved to confuse the timeline from reality to something fictional. So are you trying to deceive us?

quote 5) all in all it is to "explain" the time delay b