April 9, 2004, Just one question about 9-11......
I was exchanging e-mails with John Emerson, the blogger formerly known as Zizka, about one simple question I had, after hearing all the Condi brouhaha bullshit and the so-called "dramatic" testimony at the 9-11 Commission. Its a simple question, really.
You all remember the horrifying incident of Payne Stewart's plane malfunctioning, and eventually crashing in South Dakota with everyone aboard killed? Do you remember one key detail? Good for you: the two United States Air Force F-16 fighter jets trailing the airplane, looking for signs of distress. You see, the Air Force has, and had every day with the sole exception of one particular day in September, 2001, a standing procedure to scramble fighter planes within fifteen minutes of an incident such as Payne Stewart, or that of the 9-11 incident where tracked planes fly inexplicably off course. Two fighter planes for 6 people-- but not for thousands?
Simple question: why weren't United States Air Force fighter planes scrambled and in the air within 15-30 minutes of the first flight veering off course and becoming uncontactable, and was this the result of a direct order from the White House or Pentagon?
I just want an answer to that question. No, I demand it. That answer will explain everything. Really, I'd rather not wear a tin-foil hat. I'd like to know that my law client the late NYC firefighter Carl Molinaro, my old freshman crew-mate the late Port Authority executive Daniel Bergstein, or the more than 3,000 others who died on that date did not have their own government deliberately intervene to make that day WORSE.
That's all.
Comments
Those planes weren't dispatched because your faux President and mine was busy reading a book....he didn't 'get it'... just like he didn't get his PDB of 8/06 or those that came before....I am so sorry for your pain and the ceaseless suffering of the 3000 families and friends that lost loved ones on that day....we are in dire straits due to incompetence and insensitivity....a bad situation made SO much worse....God help us. Talking Dog...you deserve the answer you seek....I pray the nation hears it together and does the right thing in November...Sincerely, CAG
Posted by alicia at April 10, 2004 09:35 PM
alicia--
You might be giving the rat-bastard too much credit, and too little. Think about it: anyone--stupid or smart--would have reacted decisively after the 2nd plane. That he didn't tells me he had a feeling (or more) that something like this was coming. In that situation (possessing guilty knowledge) one can't react naturally.
Then the Bin Laden family is shipped out secretly. Not questioned, even cordially. Odd. Unless you don't want the FBI to hear what they have to say. Like, something beginning with "as we told your President..." I would think that Bush wouldn't like that sort of stuff getting out.
The hijackers were primarily Saudis. Their funding was Saudi. The Saudi royal family has longer ties to the Bush family than James Baker does. Yet he hasn't used those ties to get any important information out of them. Odd.
There's been no investigation of who sold airline stock short in the week before the attack. Maybe there's nothing there, but wouldn't you look? Odd, unless you don't want to know the answer.
Eighteen pages of the Congress's investigation have been redacted, and it's well-known that those pages have to do with Saudi Arabia. Hmmm.
We'll never learn what his Saudi friends told Bush--but don't assume that Bush was irresponsible. He might be far worse.
Posted by Social Scientist at April 10, 2004 10:45 PM
I've just read that the 9/11 commission is looking into the 'Saudi escape' post 9/11...and yes, those redacted 18 pages have never received the attention/pressure from the media or Congress that it should....there is no doubt in my mind there is much to be discovered and I believe/hope the Prez's ability to hide the truth has been weakened. My thoughts on Bush in the school that morning and his inaction under the most dire of circumstances is just that his complete lack of attention to terrorism during that summer of high alert prevented him from 'getting' the nature of what was happening to the country...of course, either way, his inaction and lack of leadership was completely unforgivable and probably resulted in alot more lost lives....I don't know Social Scientist...Do you remember that the Saudi government asked for those pages to be released...and Bush refused...Oh well...maybe I do give him too much credit, if ignorance can be considered a credit....
Posted by alicia at April 11, 2004 08:27 AM
Unfortunately I can't find a good link for this right now; googling for anything like "9/11 fighters scrambled" results in a plethora of what I would call conspiracy-theory sites and depressingly few credible sites.
I'll keep looking.
On the first anniversary of 9/11, ABC ran a lengthy documentary in prime time that described, in great detail, the events of the day, both before and after the attacks themselves. One of the segments of that documentary was an interview with one of the Air National Guard pilots who was, in fact, scrambled to intercept one of the hijacked planes.
He was in the air en route to intercept United flight 93 when he received word that what had been just an anomaly was in fact an attack. At that point, he and his wingman and his controller on the ground discussed their options.
You see, at the time, it was not standard procedure to scramble interceptors with war-shots on board. That is to say, the planes that the Air National Guard put in the air were unarmed.
According to this pilot, the two officers and their commander on the ground spent a great deal of time discussing the possibility of deliberately ramming flight 93 in order to bring it down over an unpopulated area. According to the pilot, this was a task that both he and his wingman were ready to carry out if ordered.
As I recall, flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania before the two pilots intercepted the plane, so it became a question that nobody ever had to answer.
Again, I apologize for not being able to find a decent link to this information. The best I've been able to scrounge up is this copy of an Associated Press story from 8/30/02. I can't say whether that site can be trusted.
Anyway, my point is that fighters were scrambled. The situation on the morning of 9/11 evolved so rapidly that it was over before our ANG pilots could take any action one way or the other.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 12, 2004 06:48 AM
Jeff--
Excellent point, though my point is "better late than never" DOES NOT APPLY here. You did nail Flt. 93-- it was NOT shot down as some nutbar theorists suggest-- the interceptors weren't armed. It was, however, almost certainly knocked down by them (everyone who enjoys the "let's roll" myth may continue to do so; I take nothing away from the heroism of the Flt. 93 passengers-- but their plane was knocked down. IMHO, of course-- I wasn't there.)
Also, I think you're assuming something I didn't say: I didn't SAY ARMED interceptors (I don't THINK I did)-- just interceptors. I assume our well-trained pilots are pretty damned good, and have lots of options available in their Mach-2 superbirds BESIDES air to air missiles. Of course, to USE THOSE OPTIONS, they have to be up and near what it is they are intercepting, no?
Also-- in the better late than never doesn't apply-- did you realize that fighters from Otis AFB on Cape Cod were scrambled to intercept the second WTC bound plane at 8:52 am (4 or 5 minutes after the first one hit the WTC), but for whatever reason, the urgency wasn't conveyed to the pilots WHO DID NOT go at top speed, which would have put them in NYC 5 minutes AHEAD of the 757... ?
Did you know that the CIA was conducting some kind of domestic air-related exercise that morning-- which MIGHT have been the reason air traffic controllers waited a little longer than usual to notify NORAD of the anomoles?
Or how come the military, which had already scrambled aircraft-- didn't bother to tell the Secretary of Defense and around 20,000 people working in the Pentagon, which a trajectory would have showed was in the direct path of the plane that hit it?
Its not that I'm assuming answers: questions just haven't been asked. Its POSSIBLe that this was just compounded CRIMINAL negligence at every turn, as opposed to something more evil. Eitha way, we gots to do something about it.
Posted by the talking dog at April 12, 2004 10:07 AM
"It was, however, almost certainly knocked down by them"
You base this conclusion on what evidence, exactly?
Please excuse me, but it sounds an awful lot like you're expressing just as much of a nutbar theory as you decry.
"I assume our well-trained pilots are pretty damned good, and have lots of options available in their Mach-2 superbirds BESIDES air to air missiles."
Like what, for example? I'm not a pilot, but I spent several years working on F-16, F-18, and F-22 flight training simulators for the Air Force, ANG, and Navy. I'm pretty sure if they had laser weapons or some damn thing, I'd have seen some indication of it.
If you send an F-16 up with no missiles and no 20 mm rounds, the pilot has only one option: deliberate mid-air contact. That did not happen at any time on 9/11.
"for whatever reason, the urgency wasn't conveyed to the pilots WHO DID NOT go at top speed"
At that point, the worst-case scenario was still just a hijacking. There was no particular urgency above and beyond that of a case of air piracy. Nobody had any reason to anticipate what was about to happen.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 12, 2004 01:10 PM
Your faux-details about the Payne Stewart mishap flight are another nutbar, tin-foil hat myth.
While the entire third link has too much absolute BS to bother with, I'll point out the big lie about the Stewart flight:
"Interceptors were in direct proximity to Stewart's seriously messed-up aircraft within about TEN MINUTES of him having taken off."
WRONG! Try 1 hr and 30 mins after takeoff -- 1 hr 19 mins after loss of contact (1 hr 25 mins after the last confirmed trasmission from the aircraft). The F-16 that first reached Stewart's aircraft was NOT an alert bird, but was already in the air flying a mission when it was directed toward Stewart's flight.
From the NSTB mishap report.
----
According to ATC radio transmissions, the flight departed MCO about 0919 EDT bound for DAL. At 0921:46 EDT, the flight contacted the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and reported climbing through an altitude of 9,500 feet to 14,000 feet.[3]
At 0921:51 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 260. N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "two six zero bravo alpha." At 0923:16 EDT, the controller cleared N47BA direct to Cross City and then direct to DAL. N47BA acknowledged the clearance. At 0926:48 EDT, N47BA was issued instructions to change radio frequency and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. N47BA acknowledged the frequency change.
At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.[4] The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning[5] was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.[6]
At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,[7] a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.[8] About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,[9] the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA.
....
Notes:
7 About 1010 EDT, the accident airplane crossed from the EDT zone to the CDT zone in the vicinity of Eufaula, Alabama.
8 This interception was at the request of the Jacksonville ARTCC mission coordinator through the USAF.
-----
The whole phoney 10 or 20 minute story came about because some idiot reporter or net conspiracy theorist missed the time zone change in the report, and has since become gospel to the nutbar, tin-foil hat crowd.
Posted by Lynxx Pherrett at April 12, 2004 05:00 PM
Thank you gentlemen.
It seems you have done more investigating about this air defense issue in order to rebut ME in the last 48 hours than our entire government seems to have done with respect to this in the last 2 1/2 years. Lacking as I do a security clearance and lots of other things, on this issue-- all most of us have on this are speculation.
Obviously, lots of strange things happened on September 11th-- some can be written off in the "confusion of the moment"-- and some just can't without further explanation. I have more stuff I can speculate about-- but we'll do that later!!!
Meanwhile, our government is merrily engaged in the more interesting to it game of playing political "gotcha"
over summary memos and sundry nonsense that will lead precisely nowhere-- to bloster this idiot-- or to discredit that one-- when it STILL appears to me that we had some kind of big time OPERATIONAL failure on 9-11-- not merely an intelligence failure. MAYBE my conclusion that there was an operational failure is because I fail to understand how our civilian air traffic and NORAD and air bases work-- or maybe my understanding of them is correct. (BTW-- I fault both Dems and Republicans on the 9-11 commission-- its about point scoring; truth is not likely to be found in this way. I suppose its entertaining. of course, I understand the Prez himself has just said members of his team "might have done more", or something to that effect...)
I have no problem in you'all shooting down my SPECULATIONS (and they are that)-- I do resent anyone concluding that i have asserted that they are MORE than speculation-- I SAID they were speculation.
My problem would be leaving it there-- and saying "case closed" at any point. Because its not-- I STILL want the God damned answer to my question.
I do thank you for taking us somewhat closer to it (or at least shutting off some wrong turns).
Posted by the talking dog at April 12, 2004 05:32 PM
Read your Payne Stewart paragraph again, there is NO speculation in it.
"You all remember the horrifying incident of Payne Stewart's plane malfunctioning, and eventually crashing in South Dakota with everyone aboard killed? Do you remember one key detail? Good for you: the two United States Air Force F-16 fighter jets trailing the airplane, looking for signs of distress. You see, the Air Force has, and had every day with the sole exception of one particular day in September, 2001, a standing procedure to scramble fighter planes within fifteen minutes of an incident such as Payne Stewart, or that of the 9-11 incident where tracked planes fly inexplicably off course. Two fighter planes for 6 people-- but not for thousands?"
Dead-on, full-bore ASSERTIONS, ZERO SPECULATION. The only reason you bring up the Payne Stewart mishap in relation to 9-11 is the faux-"one key detail" that F-16s were not just "scrambled" but arrived at his aircraft within 10 to 20 minutes of the flight's loss of contact on 10-25-99. It just did not happen that way.
If the response on 9-11-01 should have happened like the response on 10-25-99 did happen, then F-16s would likely have never gotten anywhere near Flight 93.
Posted by Lynxx Pherrett at April 12, 2004 08:36 PM
As interesting as this discussion has been, the fact remains that Bush had prior warning of plans to hijack airliners, surveillance of buildings in New York and info on sleeper cells in the US...and he spent August 2001 in Crawford contemplating stem cell research and that madman Hussein...had he been "on point" maybe he would have reacted a little differently on the morning of 9-11....perhaps he would have ditched the photo-op at school upon learning of the first plane hitting the WTC...maybe he would have connected the dots (not holding my breath, mind you) and perhaps the necessary steps would have been taken to secure the airspace and the Pentagon....maybe attempt to evacuate the second Tower...I know hindsight is a cruel luxury, but come on...the guy did a lousy job his first 232 days in office and 9-11 was a harsh report card...I'm curious to hear how he and Cheney do before the commission...but first we get the press conference tomorrow evening...think he got the questions in advance? Talking Dog...your question is dead on and deserves an answer.
Posted by alicia at April 12, 2004 09:34 PM
Bush had prior warning of plans to hijack airliners
The president was told on August 8 that a lead indicating that al-Qaida was planning to hijack a plane to secure the release of a US-held militant had not been confirmed. The intelligence item turned out to be a dead end.
It's still not known to this day whether this lead had any connection to 9/11 or not.
surveillance of buildings in New York
The two Yemeni guys taking pictures of federal buildings in NYC were detained and questioned and investigated at length. They turned out to be tourists with no connection to anything suspicious.
and info on sleeper cells in the US
We had intelligence that indicated al-Qaida members had been traveling to the US and staying here. The FBI was aggressively pursuing those leads to the fullest extent of the law (read on).
and he spent August 2001 in Crawford contemplating stem cell research and that madman Hussein
You would have, too, if you'd had the information he had at the time.
Now, if we want to talk about why we had inadequate information, let's go. Let's talk about FISA and the effect that USA-PATRIOT had on the ability of the FBI to surveil suspected foreign agents on US soil.
I know hindsight is a cruel luxury, but come on...the guy did a lousy job his first 232 days in office
With all due respect, it seems clear to me that your disapproval of the president is clouding your judgment here. If you take a minute to look at the situation objectively, I think you'll realize that no reasonable person sitting in the president's chair on September 10, 2001, would have done anything significantly differently. The course of action taken was the only reasonable one given what we knew.
I'm no happier about this than you. It pisses me off, and I never want to see anything like this happen again. But trying to leverage it for political gain... that's just weak.
Oh, and as for your question, fighters were scrambled and in the air. Timeline:
Flight 11 was reported to NORAD between 8:31 and 8:40 AM. (Accounts vary. One says 8:31 and the other 8:40.)
There were a couple of minutes of confusion at NORAD sorting out whether the report was a part of exercise Vigilant Guardian.
At 8:46, two F-15's (I was wrong when I said F-16's earlier) from Otis are in the air and vectored toward Flight 11. At very close to the same moment, Flight 11 reaches its target.
So you see, F-15's were in the air as little as six minutes after Flight 11 was reported to NORAD.
Now, we can ask lots of questions. Why did Boston ATC wait as long as 20 minutes to report Flight 11's deviation to NORAD? Why did it take as long as six minutes to give the scramble order? Some of this can be attributed to confusion over the ongoing exercise, and some to simple human error--we'd never had to deal with anything like this before. To try to lay it all at the feet of the president, who is as directly involved in NORAD operations as the CEO of McDonald's is in cleaning the milkshake machine, is just wrong.
This is a very detailed reference.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 12, 2004 10:25 PM
[While typing this, I see Jeff has already linked to one timeline. But, I'm too deep to quit now.]
TD, your question has been answered by the government numerous times since 9-11.
Here's NORAD's timeline as presented to the current 9-11 Commission on May 23, 2003, some 10 months ago. That it hasn't been spoon-fed to you by the government is not their fault.
----
MR. SCOTT [Colonel Alan Scott, USAF ret.]: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here with you today. General Arnold and I worked together that day on September the 11th.
What I will walk you through here is a chronology of the attacks, and I've presented it in a matrix form. And the only thing I lay claim to is having studied all of the attacks and how they are interwoven together. This was not a linear sequence of events where one attack began and ended and then a second attack began and ended. This was a coordinated, well-planned attack. We had multiple airplanes in the air. The fog and friction of war was evidence everywhere in the country, both on the civil side as well as the military side. And this hopefully will show you how those interwoven events came about.
I will tell you the times on this chart come from our logs. The time on the chart is the time that's in the log. It may not be the exact time the event happened. It may be the time when the log-keeper was advised or became aware of the event.
The first thing that happened in the morning related to the events at 9:02, or I'm sorry 8:02 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, is when American Airlines 11 took off out of Boston. American Airlines 11 was a 767, and it was headed, I believe, to Los Angeles. Fourteen minutes later, also coming out of Boston Logan, United Airlines 175, a 757, also headed to Los Angeles, took off out of Boston, and initially took roughly the same ground track as American 11. Three minutes later, American Airlines 77 took off out of Dulles here in Washington, also headed to Los Angeles, and also a 757, and proceeded westbound toward the West Coast. So now the first three airplanes are airborne together. The first time that anything untoward, and this was gleaned from FAA response, that anything out of the ordinary happened was at 8:20, when the electronic transponder in American Airlines 11 blinked off if you will, just disappeared from the screen. Obviously the terrorists turned that transponder off, and that airplane, although it did not disappear from the radarscope, it became a much, much more difficult target to discern for the controllers who now only could look at the primary radar return off the airplane. That was at 8:20.
At 8:40 in our logs is the first occasion where the FAA is reporting a possible hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11. And the initial response to us at that time was a possible hijacking had not been confirmed. At that same moment, the F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, about 153 miles away, were placed immediately on battle stations by the Northeast Air Defense Sector commander. At 8:43, as this is going on, the fourth airplane, United 93, takes off out of Newark, New Jersey. It's a 757. It is headed for San Francisco. At 8:46, our next log event, we get the last, and, by the way, much of this radar data for these primary targets was not seen that day. It was reconstructed days later by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, and other agencies like it who are professionals at going back and looking at radar tapes and then given that they are loaded with knowledge after the fact, they can go and find things that perhaps were not visible during the event itself.
At 8:46, the last data, near the Trade Center,8:46, the first impact on the Trade Center. At that minute is when the Otis F-15s were scrambled. And, again, they were 153 miles away. And that scramble came, and General Arnold, I am sure can address this, based on a conversation between the Northeast Sector commander and himself. Those F-15s were airborne in six minutes. That is well inside the time that is allowed for them to get airborne. But because they were on battle stations, the pilots were in the cockpits ready to start engines, that scramble time was shortened by a significant amount of time.
At 8:53, that's a minute later, in the radar reconstruction, we are now picking up the primary radar contacts off of the F-15s out of Otis. At 8:57, which is seven minutes after the first impact is, according to our logs when the FAA reports the first impact. And about this time is when CNN coverage to the general public is beginning to appear on the TV, not of the impact, but of the burning towers shortly thereafter. So you can see what in the military I am sure you have heard us talk to the fog and friction of war, and as the intensity increases the lag tends to also increase for how quickly information gets passed.
9:02 -- United 175, the second airplane, which by the way never turned off its transponder before impact, crashes into the North Tower at 9:02.
The distance of those fighters which had been scrambled out of Otis, at that particular point they were still 71 miles away, about eight minutes out, and going very fast.
At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow through the system to the command and control agencies and through the command and control agencies to the pilots in the cockpit. At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio. At 9:11 FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from seven minutes from impact to report; now it's nine minutes from impact to report. You can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country. At 9:11 -- I just mentioned that -- 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. But that's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.
At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.
At 9:25, America 77 is reported headed towards Washington, D.C., not exactly precise information, just general information across the chat logs; 9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red herring of the day, because there were a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attacks. Delta 89 was not hijacked, enters the system, increases the fog and friction if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about seven of eight minutes later and clears out of the system.
At 9:30 the Langley F-16s are airborne. They are 105 miles away from the Washington area; 9:34, through chat, FAA is unable to precisely locate American Airlines Flight 77; 9:35, F-16s are reported airborne. And many times, reported airborne is not exactly when they took off. It's just when the report came down that they were airborne. At 9:37 we have the last radar data near the Pentagon. And 9:40, immediately following that, is when 93 up north turns its transponders off out in the West toward Ohio, and begins a left turn back toward the East.
At 9:49, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking. So again he is --
MR.: That's 9:41, sir.
MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, 9:41. Again, he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us.
Now, the only thing that I would point out on this chart is this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the Pentagon. The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have. Getting toward the end now, 9:47 is when Delta 89 clears the system by landing in Cleveland. So he is not a hijack. Lots of things are going on now in the system as the sectors begin to call both units that are part of 1st Air Force and NORAD, as well as units that have nothing to do with us. We are beginning to call everyone now and the 103rd Air Control Squadron, for instance, stationed in Connecticut, is an air control squadron, a radar squadron, and they got their radar online, operational, and begin to link their radar picture into the Northeast system. They are not normally part of NORAD. This is really the initial part of a huge push the rest of that day to link as many radars in on the interior as we can, and to get as many fighters on alert as we can.
At 10:02, United 93 last radar data and the estimated impact time for United 93 is 10:03.
At 10:07 FAA reports there may be a bomb on board 93 -- that's four minutes after the impact. At 10:15 they report that it's crashed. And you can see now that fog and friction lag time has increased from seven minutes to nine minutes to 15 minutes, because of the level of activities that are going on. And there are notations here about other airplanes as we begin to divert other airplanes that are just out were intended for training that day. We're picking up the phone, calling Syracuse, the Air National Guard. They're beginning to get flights airborne. They're beginning to arm those aircraft with whatever weapons they have handy so we can posture that defense.
That is how the timeline unfolded. As you can see, it is a fabric of interwoven actions. This is not just a linear event. So lots of things going on, lots of activities, and lots of C2 centers. Sir, that completes my piece.
-------
8:40 First notification to NORAD of possible hijacking. 12 minutes later, at 8:52, the two F-15 alert birds at Otis are in the air--which is 6 minutes after Flight 11 hit the WTC. (Scott's presentation doesn't really make that clear--read the 8:40 to 8:53 paragraphs again and you'll see it.)
NORAD's posture was outwardly directed for interdiction of enemy aircraft, and even most intercepts of non-enemy aircraft where those entering US airspace from outside (mostly drug flights in the Gulf and along the US-Mexico border). NORAD and the alert squadrons were not physically located to effectively deal with enemy aircraft originating inside the US. The airbases with standing 24/7 alert committments (normally only 2 aircraft on the alert pad) were almost exclusively those scattered along the coasts and Southwest border -- none in the central US and none along the Canadian border.
NORAD's radars are also outward looking. That setup was OK for picking up an unknown inbound aircraft far enough out that alert birds from distant bases could still intercept it before or as it crossed into US territory.
The air defense system failed on 9-11 mostly because it was being tasked with a situation it hadn't been designed to handle. The FAA was tracking the enemy as well as vectoring the interceptors because most of NORAD's radars apparently couldn't slew far enough inward to pick them up.
As to the discrepancies between the various timelines, some of those may never be settled. Some may be misrecollections, some may be logging errors, and some may not be descrepancies at all but conflating two related but different things -- "At 9:30 the Langley F-16s are airborne. They are 105 miles away from the Washington area; 9:34, through chat, FAA is unable to precisely locate American Airlines Flight 77; 9:35, F-16s are reported airborne. And many times, reported airborne is not exactly when they took off. It's just when the report came down that they were airborne." -- IOW, the time the notification was logged by NORAD.
But that 9-11 Commission public hearing apparently wasn't news because nobody primed the press with innuendos about a smoking gun - nor did it occur during the election season. So, because you didn't read the above before now, the government has failed to answer your question - even though the above came from public testimony before the 9-11 Commission about 10 months ago.
Posted by Lynxx Pherrett at April 13, 2004 12:07 AM
One final link to support my description of the air defense posture. You'd think that after the end of the Cold War, people wouldn't still be basing their impression of CONUS air defense on the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Here was the post-Cold War air defense posture until after 9-11:
-----
At the time of the attacks, only seven locations-around the perimeter of the United States-were engaged in the air defense mission. Each was assigned a pair of Air National Guard fighter aircraft ready to scramble if US airspace were threatened.
These alert locations had F-15 or F-16 fighters on the runways, fueled, and ready to take off in fewer than 15 minutes.
It was, however, a greatly diminished presence, said Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., now retired, who was at the time the director of the Air National Guard. He said that, during the Cold War, the air defense force structure was much more robust. Fighters sat fueled and ready to take off, if directed by NORAD, at "well over 100 alert sites."
Weaver said the number of sites was reduced because it was widely believed the threat to the United States had essentially disappeared. Some questioned the need to maintain even the seven alert bases. "Based upon the threat, seven sites was [considered] adequate for the outward threat," he said. "Never did we believe the threat would come from within."
-----
14 ANG fighters at 7 bases -- really a thin blue line. But it would have worked fine for a hijacked plane comming across the Atlantic or Pacific or up from the Gulf. And there hadn't been a US hijacking for something like a decade.
Posted by Lynxx Pherrett at April 13, 2004 02:24 AM
Jeff, You're absolutly right...my disapproval of Pres. Bush clouds my judgement about everything he does or doesn't do.... with two teenage sons and the fear of a draft, I am not a happy camper....I still maintain my original thought....I find it completely indefensible that he proceeded into that elementary school after learning of a plane hitting the WTC...even given the 'sparse' information that you feel he had....since that horrible day, he has taken this country down the wrong path and you're right...I am completely biased in my unwillingness to give him much credit....Obviously, I am reacting more emotionally than is healthy but it is where I am....I am grateful for the information you have posted and I have read every line....believe it or not, the intricacies of maintaining a secure airspace aren't surprising to me....question: Why didn't the FAA have knowledge from the intelligence community about the suspicious activity that suggested plans for hijackings....if it wasn't solid info, why did Ashcroft and others cancel personal flights that summer.....do you remember a summer of high alert? You see, regardless of what occurred the morning of 9-11 and the inability to do much about it.....doing nothing is so upsetting to me...Oh well, you guys stay up too late....you need your rest...Thanks for the info....I'll try to calm down.
Posted by alicia at April 13, 2004 09:22 AM
Jeff, You're absolutly right...my disapproval of Pres. Bush clouds my judgement about everything he does or doesn't do.... with two teenage sons and the fear of a draft, I am not a happy camper....I still maintain my original thought....I find it completely indefensible that he proceeded into that elementary school after learning of a plane hitting the WTC...even given the 'sparse' information that you feel he had....since that horrible day, he has taken this country down the wrong path and you're right...I am completely biased in my unwillingness to give him much credit....Obviously, I am reacting more emotionally than is healthy but it is where I am....I am grateful for the information you have posted and I have read every line....believe it or not, the intricacies of maintaining a secure airspace aren't surprising to me....question: Why didn't the FAA have knowledge from the intelligence community about the suspicious activity that suggested plans for hijackings....if it wasn't solid info, why did Ashcroft and others cancel personal flights that summer.....do you remember a summer of high alert? You see, regardless of what occurred the morning of 9-11 and the inability to do much about it.....doing nothing is so upsetting to me...Oh well, you guys stay up too late....you need your rest...Thanks for the info....I'll try to calm down.
Posted by alicia at April 13, 2004 09:23 AM
Sorry about the double-post....after thought...."using 9-11 for political leverage is weak"....please pass that on to the RNC.
Posted by alicia at April 13, 2004 10:46 AM
I find it completely indefensible that he proceeded into that elementary school after learning of a plane hitting the WTC
You would have preferred he panic and run from the building, maybe?
Why didn't the FAA have knowledge from the intelligence community about the suspicious activity that suggested plans for hijackings
Imagine you're the CIA. You get, let's pick a number here, 50,000 intelligence items per day. Of those 50,000 items, 49,000 are immediately dismissible. A teenager in Belgrade sent an email to a pen pal in Helsinki that included the words "hijack" and "target." That kind of thing.
The remaining 1,000 items go into a sort of bin, so they can be more closely examined. Maybe some of them can be corroborated. But most of them simply can't be. They can't be conclusively ruled out, but they can't be confirmed, either.
These items sit there until some other item comes along that either proves them to be false or substantiates them.
The intelligence item that talked about an al-Qaida-planned hijacking was never substantiated. It was a rumor.
In fact, with 20/20 hindsight, we can now presume that that intelligence item was in fact totally bogus. It talked about a hijacking to secure the release of a US-held militant. The only thing it had in common with 9/11 was the hijacking part. The rest of it was, apparently, fiction.
To make a long story short, the FAA wasn't notified of intelligence related to hijacking because there was none.
if it wasn't solid info, why did Ashcroft and others cancel personal flights that summer
Tin-foil-hat stuff. People cancel trips all the time. I had plans to travel on 9/11 myself; I was planning to come home from a business trip that day. I changed those plans on the 8th or 9th or thereabouts. Does that mean I had foreknowledge of what was going to happen?
doing nothing is so upsetting to me
With all due respect, nobody did nothing. Yes, we blew it. Our law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies failed to stop a massive attack on our soil. But did it happen because they did nothing? No. Did it happen because somebody screwed up? No. Did it happen because somebody was conspiring for their own political advantage? Of course not.
I hate to be glib about this, but it happened because we were unlucky. It happened because a thousand tiny things went wrong.
We absolutely must fix those thousand tiny things. But to try to lay blame in a case like this... it's just silly. That's like saying the weatherman is at fault because your house got knocked down by a tornado.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 13, 2004 01:17 PM
Jeff....Should he have panicked and run from the school? Maybe...Perhaps he should have stopped dead in his tracks and glued himself to some source of intelligence/information while the rest of us were glued to our tvs, radios, computers...something....My sister is a flight attendant for United Airlines scheduled to fly 9-11 only she was ill and cancelled...she lost personal friends/coworkers that day....that tin- foil-hat stuff may have served them well...You are right....in the final analysis, we were unlucky and it isn't the fault of anyone but al-Qaida...But, I still maintain it is hard to believe Bush waited and to this day hasn't accepted ANY responsibility for "not being on point"...I don't know...we own a small business....when anything goes wrong, it is ALWAYS our fault, regardless of where in the manufacturing process the error occurs...we have to take responsibility because it is the right thing to do...We can't tell our customer that Joe machinist wasn't paying attention....are we perfect?....of course not and don't pretend otherwise....Oh, by the way, if the weatherman knows about the tornado and fails to inform the public, thereby preventing them from taking shelter....well, I don't know. Okay, enough. We agree to disagree to a point, then agree from that point on. I do appreciate the respect you've shown. Thanks.
Posted by alicia at April 13, 2004 02:55 PM
Perhaps he should have stopped dead in his tracks and glued himself to some source of intelligence/information while the rest of us were glued to our tvs, radios, computers...something....
September 11 was huge. It was enormous. But it was just one event. It directly affected probably a million people—people who witnessed it firsthand, that kind of thing. But our country has nearly 300 million citizens. It takes more than a single act of terrorism, even the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on U.S. soil, to bring our nation to a screeching halt.
I still maintain it is hard to believe Bush waited and to this day hasn't accepted ANY responsibility for "not being on point"
He's the chief executive. He swore to faithfully execute the office. He doesn't have to accept responsibility. It's his, and everybody knows it.
We can't tell our customer that Joe machinist wasn't paying attention
I think if you'll look back over the public record, you'll find that the president has never tried to ascribe blame for 9/11 to anyone but the people who planned and executed it. He has not tried to shrug off responsibility. To the extent that the victim of an act of terrorism has any responsibility at all, he's accepting it.
Oh, by the way, if the weatherman knows about the tornado and fails to inform the public, thereby preventing them from taking shelter
The president did not know. He did not have foreknowledge. He did not have a warning in advance. I really don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.
I do appreciate the respect you've shown.
Right back atcha.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 13, 2004 07:00 PM
You know, our country did come to a screeching halt....everything changed. And while the title of Commander-in-Chief does imply responsibility, we need to hear the words. From what I gather from the 9-11 hearings, everyone knew something but us! They just couldn't/didn't do anything about it. Sad, just sad. Well Jeff, it is time for the press conference. Thanks again for your info, views and respect. Now, let's watch TV!
Posted by alicia at April 13, 2004 08:13 PM
Phew, am I glad that is over....we still didn't hear 'the words' or anything remotely close to responsibility, regret or mistakes....it's sad, just sad....TD, you still deserve an answer, but unfortunately, you are not going to get it anytime soon...Jeff, I hope you can sleep...really, I do. I know it's a tough job and all, but PLEASE.....just a little responsibility, humility, SOMETHING......Well, goodnight. Sleep well and pray for our troops.
Posted by alicia at April 13, 2004 10:26 PM
I am in a moral quandry.
My friend searches for http://detectives.any1in.us/registry.html registry on google to screen potential roommates.
He found any1in.us , but did not visit.
I, on the other hand, searched for http://cheating.any1in.us/cheating-wife.html cheating wife and found any1in.us.
I went there and found that http://www.any1in.us/brilliant-digital.html brilliant digital were easier to find than on google.
Should I tell him that his potential roommate is a http://cheating.any1in.us/peoplefinders.html peoplefinders ?
Posted by V. Dombrosky at July 8, 2004 12:28 AM
Nice Site !!
Posted by webdav exploit at July 28, 2004 09:59 PM
Nice site! Well done !
Posted by free reality porn sites at July 30, 2004 03:24 AM
I am honored to drop a line here and say thank you for keeping this great site online.
Posted by gay men at August 3, 2004 07:34 AM
Thank you for maintaining such a great site. God bless you!
Posted by stories women at August 7, 2004 07:58 AM
i like it
Posted by gay boy at August 8, 2004 02:55 AM
Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz
http://www.888-on-net.biz
Posted by online casino at August 13, 2004 02:47 AM
5555 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
Posted by blackjack at August 23, 2004 03:18 PM
Keep up the good work.
http://www.buy-v-online.biz
http://www.online-texas-holdem.biz
Posted by viagra at August 24, 2004 03:30 PM
6341 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)
Posted by blackjack at August 25, 2004 12:52 PM
4855 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow
Posted by texas hold em at August 26, 2004 03:03 PM
190 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/
its the hizzy for online casino action any where!
Posted by casino online at August 27, 2004 02:10 PM