Could Fighter Jets Have Stopped 9/11?

[Snazzy]

Could Fighter Jets Have Stopped 9/11?


Jun 15, 7:35 AM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not discover the plot. Airport security screeners did not find the hijackers' weapons.

But could military jet fighters, the final line of defense, have stopped or lessened the destruction on Sept. 11, 2001, by shooting down airliners aimed at some of the nation's best-known buildings?

On Thursday, the Sept. 11 commission will end its series of public hearings by taking up that question. They will examine the performance on that day of the Federal Aviation Administration, which manages the nation's air traffic; and NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which defends U.S. airspace.

Kristen Breitweiser of Monmouth, N.J., whose husband, Ronald, died in the World Trade Center, said a lack of foresight on the part of those agencies was compounded by officials' mistakes on the morning of Sept. 11.

"I think we were ill-prepared, and I think people showed poor judgment," Breitweiser said. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon, in particular, could have been stopped, she contends.

....

Much more, for a wire story. Pretty good round-up.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040615/D837DTT01.html

(There's a Yahoo version but down for me at the moment)

Here's the schedule:

HEARING AGENDA
"The 9/11 Plot"
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
8:30 – 9:00 AM
STAFF STATEMENT NO. 15
Overview of the Enemy
9:00 - 10:30 AM
PANEL: AL QAEDA
Ms. Deborah Mary Doran
Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigations
Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois


CIA Official

10:30 - 11:30 AM
STAFF STATEMENT NO. 16
Outline of the 9/11 Plot
11:30 - 12:30 PM
Dr. Matthias Krauss
Federal Prosecutor, Federal Republic of Germany
12:30 - 1:30 PM
BREAK
1:30 - 3:15 PM
PANEL: OUTLINE OF THE 9/11 PLOT
Ms. Jacqueline Maguire
Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigations
Mr. James N. Fitzgerald
Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation


Mr. Adam Drucker
Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigations

CIA Official


"National Crisis Management"
Thursday, June 17, 2004
8:00 - 9:15 AM
STAFF STATEMENT NO. 17
Improvising a Homeland Defense
9:15 - 11:30 AM
PANEL: MILITARY RESPONSE ON 9/11
General Richard Myers, USAF
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Admiral (select) Charles Joseph Leidig, USN
Commandant of Midshipmen, United States Naval Academy

General Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF
Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command

Major General Larry Arnold, USAF (Ret.)
Former Commander, Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR)

11:30 - 1:00 PM
PANEL: FAA RESPONSE ON 9/11
Mr. Monte Belger
Former Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Mr. Jeff Griffith
Former Deputy Director, Air Traffic Control, Federal Aviation Administration


Mr. John White
Former Facility Manager, Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center, Federal Aviation Administration

Mr. Benedict Sliney
Operations Manager, New York Terminal Radar Approach Control, Federal Aviation Administration

1:00 PM
Hearing Concludes.

[SpiralHawk]

1. The answer: Yes

BushCo LIHOP or MIHOP

[Abe Linkman]

2. LIHOP is an IMpossibility. 9-11 can ONLY be MIHOP

ACTIVE ACTION HAD to have been taken in one form or another, in order for the "attacks" to have taken place. Therefore, there is no such thing as LIHOP.

[gandalf]

5. Don't provoke laredmercutioacbolo

They won't be amused by these conspiracy theories...

[number6]

105. laredmercutioacbolo ..he he ....

:evilgrin: O.G.S.

[mallard]

38. Re: just want to make sure...

... anyone else who's drawn this conclusion is familiar with the photos avialable from the Pentagum scene on 9/11. There's just too much evidence of major official bullshit to ever reconsider.

Eg: mouv4x8 (France)
Photos, Links For Your Own "911 Conspiracy" File:

<http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/911Pho01.html>

It's hard to believe how few hits this website has had in the over two years it's been online.

[olacan]

3. Sure

a shoot down could have occurred, but that in itself raises several more questions.
What would everyone be saying about about the killing of all the passengers aboard a US airliner when we did not know where it was headed?
What would the debris field been like it had to fall somewhere.

The twin towers would more than likely still be standing but at what cost in other areas. As I see it before the planes impacted it was a lose lose decision. In hind it becomes a little easier.

[KittyWampus]

7. Expert Military Jet Pilots Could POssibly Force The Airliners Over Water

or less populated areas.

[Ready4Change]

24. You can't "wrestle" an aircraft.

There are things the military aircraft could have done to intimidate the airliners, but they can't "force" them to go anywhere, should the airliners pilots be very determined. If that determination exists, shoot down is the only other option.

[ElementaryPenguin]

51. They could have "intercepted" the jets and forced them off course!

They are trained to do this - and intercepts are routinely done. This is part of the bullshit defense - that they could ONLY have shot them down! They knew damn well that second one was headed also for the trade center - they could have confronted it (any other time they would have). And the Pentagon attack - even more bullshit - 47 minutes AFTER the SECOND tower is hit - and EVERYONE on the planet understands that this is a terrorist attack - Washington D.C. is left ENTIRELY defenseless from the air!! That jet had its pick of targets - and could have nailed the White House, the Capitol building - the nearest nuclear power plant - this is so much bullshit!!!

:puke:

[Ready4Change]

74. I agree with all except "forcing them off course."

I'm a private pilot. I'm into military hardware, particularly military aircraft. Please explain to me how you think, say, an F-15, can force an airliner off course. Not coerce it off course, as would be done in an intercept with a willing target, but FORCE an unwilling target away from it's intended course. F-15's don't have lasso's or tractor beams. The airliner weighs around 5 times what the fighter weighs, and has an active pilot at the controls, so fanciful ideas like using wingtips to "tip" the airliner off course just won't work.

So, how do you think it can be done?

[bpilgrim]

86. or SHOT them down... just IMAGINE if they had targeted 3 MILE ISLAND

or ANY of it's ilk...

:scared:

peace

[SpiralHawk]

11. Do you suppose BushCo could have mustered a pea shooter

to defend the Pentagon? i mean, they had nearly an hour and a half after the planes started to be identified as deviant.

By that time -- based on everything they knew -- they should have been ready to at least make some kind of ATTEMPT to defend our national capitol and our Pentagon.

That BushCo failed to even raise a finger to defend America speaks volumes.

[leesa]

16. That's a rather weak rationalization. They could have forced them

into the ocean, they could have, at minimum, determined who was sitting in the cockpit visually. The POINT is that normal protocol did not occur and that is likely to happen ONLY following an order to stand down.

[Ready4Change]

25. Yes and no, imho.

No means exists to force a determined pilot of an airliner anywhere.

However, normal protocal was not followed, and as that normal protocol is pretty much a set automatic response, then there must have been a stand down order of some sort.

Who ordered that, when, and why?

[Redhead488]

42. What

is "normal protocol?" Please include the communications flow (both DoD and non-DoD) and likely timeline of events.

[TheWraith]

103. R4C is correct.

I too have some piloting experience, and he's totally correct. You can't 'force' a larger aircraft off course. You can try to pressure, crowd, or threaten it into turning, but if the pilot won't fall for it it just doesn't happen. A fighter jet forcibly herding a jetliner would be like a sportscar trying to crowd out a tractor-trailer at 650 miles per hour. You can play chicken, but in the end a collision would much more likely destroy you than the other guy.

To roughly answer your question. When a commercial aircraft 'goes dark'--meaning communications blackout, loss from radar tracking, deactivation of transponder, or significant deviation from flight plan without communication--the air traffic controllers are supposed to immediately report it to the FAA. The FAA in turn immediately reports the incident information to the North American Aerospace Defense Command as a potential skyjacking, so that NORAD can scramble interceptors to track or observe the aircraft. USAF "Scramble-ready" units can be in the air within 5 minutes, and when considering the coverage of all U.S. airbases, you can deploy such a unit to any point in the United States in 15 minutes or less. THAT is what we pay our military for. The first notification to the FAA should have gone out within a couple minutes of the planes going dark, and the communication to NORAD should have been immediate. Generally, call it five minutes from blackout to NORAD having the information, ten more to bring up air defenses along the east coast region and get Eagles in the air to find the planes. That would take us up to about 8:35 AM. (If the times are a little inaccurate, forgive me, I'm doing this from memory.) The first Tower strike was at about 8:44, so call it nine minutes. Not a huge amount of time, but given the knowledge of where the planes were last spotted, and starting from close to the targets, it should have been enough time to find the incoming aircraft. From that point it would be a matter of following them until it became apparent that AA #11 was intent on crashing into the city, at which point they would request permission to fire. They might not have gotten it for the first plane, but thereafter they certainly should/would have.

The fact that USAF interceptors were not at least launched, even if they were not used to destroy the incoming aircraft, is at best evidence of massive imcompetence on the part of the people who are supposed to deal with these issues, including the local air-traffic control administrator and the military commanders who failed to act on an alert in a timely fashion, and failed to exercise common sense in relation to bringing up the D.C. air defenses as well.

I don't buy into MIHOP, and I'm highly skeptical of LIHOP, but if things had worked the way that they were meant to, then the first aircraft might have been shot down on final approach to New York, and the others certainly tracked and destroyed before they could approach any populated areas. The passengers were effectively dead the minute that the hijackers killed the pilots, but air defenses should have prevented the loss of one or both towers and the damage to the Pentagon.

[Flubadubya]

28. Well, I can see your argument with regard to the first tower hit...

but the SECOND one? Come on! Once they knew the mission of the first, they knew the mission of all the other three. At the instant that the first plane hit its target, a scramble should absolutely have been underway. NO EXCUSES!!!

[Tina H]

47. I believe that one of the planes was shot down . . .

I believe this is the plane that did the least damage (even though it is possible that the passengers had control of the plane back).

I believe that the air defense response started out as LIHOP, but switched (late in the day) when it saw the incredible damage being done by the other hijacked planes.

I am glad someone is investigating these things. I would love to be proven wrong in my beliefs here.

[gasperc]

55. not WTC, F15's took off at 8:52, S. tower hit at 9:02:54am

From the cooperative research timeline, the F15s took off at 8:52 and at 1125mph could reach NYC at 9:02am. The pilot of the F15 reported that he saw smoke coming from NYC, likely from Flight 11(crashes at 8:46am) and then flight 175(crashes at 9:02:54am). It is unclear if the F15 was armed, and with Bush walking into the classroom at, can you guess? Yes, 9:03am. The pilot had not yet been given authority to shoot down a commercial airliner which is required by the president. And pilots wouldn' t get that authority until after Bush finishes his book reading session with students. At 9:29am Bush gave the plane crash speech and Bush was on Air Force One and in the air at 9:56am.

Flight 93 took off at 8:43am, was known to be hijacked at 9:16am and crashed in PA at 10:06am.

Flight 77 took off at 8:20am, known to be off course at 8:46am, tracked by Norad by 9:30am, crashes into the Pentagon at 9:38am.

[Algomas]

57. I am new to this forum...

What the hell is LIHOP,MIHOP and BFEE??

[robbob]

58. Welcome to DU!

LIHOP = Let It (9-11) Happen On Purpose
MIHOP = Made It...
BFEE = Bush Family Evil Empire

[Corgigal]

4. Kristen Breitweiser

is wrong on this issue. We could have stopped it and when the commercial aircraft turned off the transponders was the time NORAD was contacted and fighters would (not could be) be up within 5 minutes. They would have gotten hooked up with those flights and when they watched to see that flight take the bank over the Hudson they could have blown it out of the water. Also over water to protect people on the ground.

Of course, only if the govt did their job that day which they chose not to do. Remember those sitting in the office now chose not to respond. I bet if the "terrorist flights" were small non commercial airlines that the govt thought were drug runners they would have had fighters up within 5 minutes.

[Ready4Change]

21. "Could have" and "Would have" are different things.

I suspect no one would have considered a shoot down order until one of the aircraft was used as a weapon. Before then hope existed for the passengers to be recovered from a hostage situation. After the first tower was struck I think many people would have ordered the shoot down any of the other 3, should they put population centers at risk.

But that requires that interceptors are launched and vectored to targets. None appear to have been on 9/11, which to me is inconceivable.

[bpilgrim]

90. is the most POWERFUL SPEAKER we got on this issue, imho

i know i know what the fuck do i - punk philly kid - know, RIGHT.

:hi:

peace

[BOHICA06]

6. In a 9/10 State of Mind ...

shooting down an highjacked airliner wasn't on the agenda - hijackings ended in negociations. Before 9/11 I doubt you could have had a fighter pilot pull the trigger before it was too late.

And if they could have shot down all four in quick order - how fast before someone would have been criminally charged and impeachment hearings started.

It was just two different worlds.

[billbuckhead]

8. Everytime I hear how "9-11 changed everything" I cringe

It seems like anything can be justified under national security.

[BOHICA06]

18. In a 10/12/2000 State of Mind

a boat packed with explosives was able to approach and hole the USS Cole - couldn't have happened on 10/13 or after. I look at the 9/11 stuff the same.

[2Design]

22. they had full warning to stay out of that port but went in anyway

It was all over the news days before. I remember it clearly. It was said that the port would not be safe for americans...and the navy pulled in there for refueling anyway....

[BOHICA06]

29. Denial ...

Reality has a great habit of jack-slapping denial - but damn the lesson is painful. I'm sure the deck crew of the Cole had the machinery to stop that attack - but the mindset wasn't in place.

I remember guarding chemical weapons on July 4th holiday - with my attitude, a Brownie Troop could have overrun me. No sense of urgency or vision of worse case - and such an outlook is infectious.

[TolstoyAndy]

30. Sorta like how Reagan

put our people in Beirut after being warned they'd be bombed.

[I thought so.]

33. The Commander of the Cole was at fault.

His ship was in a hostile port and he failed to protect it. Some sentries with machine guns could have saved the day. He fucked up. A ship's captain is always responsible for anything that happens. Its the law of the Sea.

[BOHICA06]

34. More than true! n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

64. If he had defended his ship?

If the Cole had opened up on that inflatable boat, then what?
Wouldnt we be condeming the bloodthirsty military for opening up with machine guns on civilians?

[TheWraith]

104. No.

You play chicken with the military in an unfriendly environment, you tend to get shot at, because they need to deal with this kind of stuff. That's just the way it is, and it's no reason to knock the military unless they clearly go over the line.

By the way, regarding the Cole bombing--poor mindset, yes, but you're looking in the wrong spot. There WERE sentries, and they DID have machine guns. They just didn't have any bullets in them, because they weren't issued any when they started their guard duty.

[I thought so.]

26. Yes indeed.

Its just like that. I don't like it either. 20 million people in California go about their way knowing that an earthquake could kill them. That goes for millions more worldwide. No can predict an earthquake.
This should be the stance that we take on terrorists. Catch them if we can,but living in fear is a tool of our domination. That is not America.

[Dhalgren]

9. Bull and Shit!

The first plane - yeah, no one would have shot it down, because the hijackers intentions were unknown. But the other three? You bet someone with authority should have and would have shot them down. This idea that before and after 9/11 are "different worlds" is the line of bullshit that justifies all of this corruption in the WH. We have shot down loaded airliners before and no one was impeached or sent to jail. That is a bullshit scenerio.

[MrBenchley]

10. Of course NOT having fighters in the air

made that decision a lot easier...

Worth noting that when Clinton was president, Payne Stewart's Lear jet lost pressure at altitude and all aboard died instantly while flying over the middle of nowhere. Within 24 minutes of the FAA losing touch with THAT plane, there were fighters within visual range.

This was four airliners in the busiest air corridor in the WORLD, out of touch and severely off course (the two that crashed in New York City were both supposed to be bound for LA), and the fighters didn't take to the air until it was too late.

[Robb]

13. most sites have that time wrong

...there was a time zone issue, technically it was 1 hour 24 minutes. There have been faster pre-9/11 intercepts, one in Florida whose details escape me. Look, it's no-links-Robb. :eyes:

But regardless, as tight as my own tinfoil is screwed (pretty tight, most here could attest), I don't think anyone's timeline supports the possibility of a shootdown of the first three jets. The fourth, yes, but not the first three. And even had our defense posture been different, I still think the first two jets would have made it through whatever we had.

I have to admit I'm still completely baffled by the notion that someone managed to hit the Pentagon. Not that it was too tough a manuever, or anything -- but just that it wasn't properly defended. And no one's lost their job over it.

[MrBenchley]

17. I know how you feel about links...

I used to have the NTSB report for Stewart bookmarked, but that link is dead now....

As I said, it makes it a lot easier if the jets don't take to the air....and I'm still baffled as to how four planes can be wandering through that air corridor for so long before somebody whistles up fighters. Or how there can be only four of them on the whole East coast (I used to have the link to that BBC report, too.)

And yeah....how is it we spend more than any ten other countries on earth for "defense" but don't even have a corporal with a Stinger on the Pentagon roof? Not a single plane or helicopter was available from Andrews Air Force base (just ten MILES away)...but the good news was that Andrews does have THREE championship golf courses, built at taxpayer expense.

Let it be recalled among all of Rumsfeld's other "superb" accomplishments that he is the only Secretary of War/Defense to be sitting on his ass in American military headquarters shuffling paperwork when it got hit by an enemy.

[TolstoyAndy]

32. Well, with no dictionary, whaddaya gonna do ...

Robb said: "one in Florida whose details escape me. Look, it's no-links-Robb. "

But I know what you mean - I wanted to hammer my Bush-loving ex-friends
with Payne Stewart, but the time zone screws it all up.

[al bupp]

44. I Beg To Differ

Robb wrote:

I don't think anyone's timeline supports the possibility of a shootdown of the first three jets.

Few here seem to doubt that the Pentagon should have been better defended, but as the following excerpt exlains, there's reason to suspect that at least the second airliner targetting the WTC could have been intercepted.

From "The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11" by By Paul Thompson
(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense)

If there still was any doubt Flight 11 had been hijacked, that doubt was removed at 8:24. Because Captain Ogonowski was periodically holding down the talk-back button, beginning at 8:24 and 38 seconds, Boston flight controllers heard the hijackers in the cockpit broadcasting a message to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport.” A flight controller responded, “Who's trying to call me?” The hijacker continued, “Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” (Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01 (C)) A Boston flight controller later said that immediately after hearing this voice, he “knew right then that he was working a hijack.” (Village Voice, 9/13/01) At 8:25 exactly, seconds after hearing this message, Boston flight control notified other flight control centers of the hijacking. But, supposedly, once again it did not notify NORAD. Incredibly, NORAD asserts that it wasn't told of the hijacking until 8:40—a full 15 minutes later! (NORAD, 9/18/01)

These 15 minutes are vital. As mentioned previously, NORAD guaranteed that its fighters could take off within 15 minutes of being given the order to scramble. It must also have taken a few minutes for NORAD to confirm the situation and pass the word to the pilots. Let's say this takes five minutes (in actual fact, when Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's Command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, first heard that Flight 11 had been hijacked, he said, “Go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later” (ABC News, 9/11/02), so pilot notification could have happened very quickly). It would then have taken another 15 minutes at most to get the fighters in the air. A NORAD spokeswoman said that fighters from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes. (Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01) So, adding this up, 8:25, plus 5, 15, and 12 minutes, means that the fighters would have reached New York City by 8:57. This would have been too late for Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46, but it would have reached New York six minutes before Flight 175, which crashed at 9:03.

Lies and Contradictions

Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. (New York Magazine, 9/02) Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. (ABC News, 9/11/02) A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” (ABC News, 9/14/02) Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. (NORAD, 9/18/01)

NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. (Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02) Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. (Air Force News, 7/30/97) Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. (ABC News, 9/11/02)

So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph (emphasis added). In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. (MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02) Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph (emphasis added), and below supersonic speeds. (NORAD, 9/18/01) Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” (Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01) At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!

Sorry for the long quote, but I think the gravity of the question justifies it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. No, if anything, the delay has been shortened from what was...

...originally believed. Here are the appropriate timelines for each plane:

Flight AA 11:
<http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=aa11>

7:59am: take-off from Logan Airport

8:13am: communications lost, transponder turned off

8:20am: loss of IFF, jet veers off-course, Boston FAA believes jet hijacked

8:31am: NORAD notified of hijacking of AA 11 (earliest account stated that NORAD was notified at 8:40am)

8:40am: NORAD gives the orders to Otis Air National Guard Base south of Boston to get two F-15s ready to fly

8:46am: The order to scramble is given to the two F-15 pilots at Otis

8:46am: AA 11 impacts the North Tower of the WTC.

8:52am: The two F-15s at Otis are now airborne and NYC is approximately 130 miles to the west-southwest.
================================================

Flight UA 175:
<http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=ua175>

8:14am: UA 175 takes off from Logan

8:42am: UA 175 veers off-course (first indication of a hijacking)

8:46am: The order to scramble is given to the two F-15 pilots at Otis

8:52am: The two F-15s at Otis are now airborne and NYC is approximately 130 miles to the south-southwest.

9:03am: UA 175 impacts the South Tower of the WTC
================================================

MY NOTES: From 8:13am until 8:31am/8:40am, 18-27 minutes had passed from the time the FAA should have known something was wrong until they notify NORAD for the first time. 6 more minutes (8:46am) go by before the jets are scrambled. Another 6 minutes elapse until the jets are airborne. The total elapsed time from the moment the FAA contollers should have known AA 11 was hijacked until the F-15s took off from Otis (8:52am) was 39 minutes.

In regards to the speed of the intercepting F-15s, max speed of the F-15 is 1875 mph, or 31.2 mph per minute. They should have reached NYC in approximately 4.3 minutes at that max speed. They didn't arrive until AFTER the impact of UA 175 on the South Tower at 9:03am, a total elapsed time of 11 minutes. Therefore, the F-15s averaged approximately 708 mph, or 11.8 miles per minute. That seems to conflict with the reports of NORAD as well as the pilots themselves.

In summary, we have a 39 minute delay (8:13am - 8:52am) before the interceptors were airborne, and an additional 11 minutes before they arrived on location in NYC. Total elapsed time was 50 minutes.

=========================================

Flight AA 77:
<http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=aa77>

8:20am: AA 77 leaves Dulles

8:46am: AA 77 goes severely off-course (first indication that something is wrong}

8:50am: Last radio contact with AA 77

8:56am: Transponder turned off

9:24am: The FAA notifies NORAD that AA 77 may have been hijacked (this is approximately 38 minutes AFTER AA 77 went severely off course at 8:46am)

9:27am: NORAD orders 3 F-16s at Langley Air Force Base south of Hampton, VA, to get ready to fly

9:30am: The 3 F-16s are ordered to scramble from Langley, which is located about 130 miles south-southeast of Washington, DC. It takes about 6 minutes from the moment of the scramble order to get airborne.

9:38am: AA 77 impacts the Pentagon approximately 52 minutes after the first indication that AA 77 had been hijacked

9:49am: The 3 F-16s reach the area of the Pentagon, 19 minutes AFTER they had been scrambled at 9:30am, and 13 minutes after they were airborne at 9:36am. Therefore, the 3 F-16s flew at an average speed of 600 mph, or 10 miles per minute.

MY NOTE: The F-16 flies at a max speed of 1500 mph, or 25 miles per minute...at that speed, the jets should have been in Washington, DC, in a little over 5 minutes.

===========================================

Flight UA 93:
<http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=ua93>

8:42am: UA 93 finally takes off after a 41 minute delay

9:16am: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked

9:25am: The UA 93 pilot checks in

9:27am: From telephone reports, the hijackers took control of the plane at this time (Why the discrepancy in time between 9:16am and 9:27am?)

9:30am: UA 93's transponder is turned off.

MY NOTE: It's best if everyone reads the timeline in regards to Flight UA 93. There is quite a bit of detail not generally known to the public to include a reference to a man a board that reported an exposion and smoke on board the plane, references to Cheney ordering a shoot-down, references to additional planes being scrambled from both Andrews and Toledo, wind noises inside the plane, and a rather interesting discrepancy between the time the government claims the tape ends and the plane crashes, and the time a seismic device recorded the crash at 10:06am.

Flight UA 93 is also noted for additional information not readily known by the public. For instance:

<http://www.flight93crash.com/>

<http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html>

<http://www.blackmarketgold.com/debris_area.txt>

[al bupp]

54. 9/11 Smoking Gun, IMHO

Good work LMD.

Until the Norad notification by the FAA and interceptor flight-speed discrepancies are adequately explained, as either simple incompetence, or worse, I, for one, will continue to have serious doubts about the "official" story.

[nolabels]

56. "APPROVAL"

The need to wonder, there have been a few stories about this at DU, but I see none here on this thread, so.........

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7311&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported
Independent Media TV
Under Reported

May 15, 2004

(snip)
"APPROVAL"

The usage of the word "approval" is the major change here
to the existing hijacking response procedures. While the
text of the document tries to link this "approval" to the
previous orders "DODD 3025.15," the approval is now
required BEFORE providing any assistance at all.
Previously, approval would be required to respond to a
situation with lethal force.

This June 1st update to the orders stopped all military
assistance in its tracks UNTIL approval from Donald
Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of Defense") could be granted --
which, by his own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed
total ignorance of the inbound aircraft that attacked the
Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building complex,
where a construction project had been underway).

In this manner, fighter planes were held up from
immediately responding to the hijacked commercial jets on
September the 11th.

The flight base commanders were ordered by the June 1st
"Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction" to wait for "approval"
from the Secretary of Defense before they could respond to
hijackings, where they would have routinely responded in
the past.
(snip)

[Snazzy]

65. The docs

The June 1 changed doc:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

The original doc ('97):

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf

The doc they both ref for approval ('97)

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf

From what I slogged through, I don't see that change on approval. They both point to 3025.51 which has a bit about acting immediately if the situation warrants it. But I don't claim to have made total sense of these and, if you're paranoid, I can only find the old 3610.01 on the DoD site.

But the timing is interesting. Need to do a careful read later and see what the heck did change.

Also just found out today Myers had his confirmation hearings on 9/13, with some committeemen cracking jokes in their intros. Missed it 'cause things were still a smoldering chaos here and the Internet was down (NY).

That's interesting timing I never thought about either.

[nolabels]

73. I heard it was only given to higher ups on a need to know

I heard about it on the radio and had a another article about somewhere also. The way the guy explained it on the radio, one could only come to the conclusion is was done just for that evil purpose. I will see if I can find more on it.

[Redhead488]

68. Totally untrue

The NMCC was STILL suthorized to take immediate action without going to SECDEF if the situation called for it. Reread the CJCSI.

[nolabels]

75. and they changed it right back a day or two after 9/11

This is the part I heard on the radio, but not in print.

On edit: there is so much this it almost seems like a joke

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/9-11list.html
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11

Section 1: Air force stand-down

It has become popular mythology in the media that fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes. This is completely untrue as the following research shows.
Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Nov 14, 2001.
1.1 http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

Mr. Cheney's Cover Story -- Section 2 of Guilty For 9-11, Nov 20, 2001
1.2 http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

9-11: Nothing Urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & Documentation by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan. 2002.
1.3 http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm

Planes "did scramble" on 9/11, they just "arrived late."
1.4 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm

Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, Dec. 12, 2001
1.5 http://www.nypress.com/14/50/taki/bunker.cfm

Air National Guard Mission and Vision statements.
1.6 http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/ang-mission.htm

Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible.
1.7 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm

Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated Press, Aug. 13, 2002.
1.8 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2002/ap081302.html

Scrambling to prevent another 9/11, CBS News, Aug. 14, 2002.
1.9 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/14/attack/main518632.shtml

Preventing another 9/11, Military.com
1.10 http://www.military.com/NewsContent/1,13319,FL_jet_081502,00.html

Jets on High Alert, ABC News, Aug. 13, 2002.
1.11 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront020813.html

Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events. Fox news, Aug. 12, 2002.
1.12 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60245,00.html#top

Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine procedure. Here's an example of how routine it is.
Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane. Netscape news. May 15, 2003.
1.13 Long link
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_2-T&oldflok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001
/20030515/001648315.htm&sc=1110&floc=NW_2-T

The procedures were already in place before Sept. 11, 2001. It happened 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000 and June 2001.

So on Sept. 11, 2001 - Why were no fighter jets scrambled, and why has a cover up story been concocted?

In the unlikely event that the air force failed through incompetence, (not once but 4 times!) where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.
(snip)

[Redhead488]

78. Yeah, ok

So where is the old document? The one they "changed."

[nolabels]

93. This is what I heard on the radio, I don't know if is true or not

There is made up stuff out there if you haven't noticed. Disinformation goes hand in hand with propaganda. Everybody knows the drill
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/were_stand_down_intercept_orders_given_on_morning_of_911.htm

Were Stand-Down Intercept
Orders Given On Morning Of 911?
From TOP_VIEW
The Big Picture
[e-mail]
12-10-1

From Brian Downing Quig
12-9-1
This writer, who is identified only by [e-mail], knows what he is talking about. He knows what Mike Ruppert and I knew immediately and some in this discussion are having a very hard time grasping.
The Air Force spokesman confirmed that AFTER the alerts and requests for INTERCEPTS of the aircraft were received from FAA/ATC, orders from the HIGHEST LEVEL of the executive branch of the federal government were received, demanding that the Air Force stand down and NOT follow through with ESTABLISHED scramble/intercept procedures that morning until further notice!
The writer is going from something he knows --- somewhere in the executive branch a STAND DOWN ORDER was issued --- to a pretty good guess of a probable culprit. The writer is 100% on the mark when he discribes Cheney's deliberate confusion about the INTERCEPT PROCEDURES.
Cheney needs to explain why he lied about Bush having to make the decision to shoot down flight 77 on 9-11-01.
I feel that this writer is moving the discussion in the right direction.
Brian Quig
[e-mail]
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
AF Spokesman Says FAA DID Issue Alert IMMEDIATELY On 911 - Air Force Was Prevented From Scrambling
** TOP_VIEW **
The Big Picture
12-9-1
TOP_VIEW conducted a phone interview on 12.09.01 with a spokesperson for the U.S. Air Force, located in New York.
This person was ordered to the Ground Zero, Pennsylvania and Pentagon 9.11 crash sites within several days of the events, as part of an Air Force investigative probe.
Crucial information was conveyed to us, related specifically to the entire matter of IF or WHEN FAA/ATC personnel alerted appropriate Air National Guard/Air Force units, that four large passenger jets were significantly off course and that all standard communications with these
(snip)

[2Design]

23. Great reference and good point

[Snazzy]

12. There was training, procedures, and hardware to do just that

Engage and take action. Shooting down was the last resort, but was an option. If the fighters had the order, they would follow the order.

But they were not there.

See for example these, which is just scratching the surface:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/chp7.htm
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Apdices/milapd16.html#Appendix%2016
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Apdices/milapd17.html#Appendix%2017

I'm looking forward to putting some faces to these people with these hearings finally.

[MoonRiver]

14. Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

When bushco was at the G8 meeting in Italy, about a month BEFORE 9/11, the skies over his hallowed head were patrolled because of threats about SUICIDE attacks on the G8 with AIRPLANES. This type of attack was a well known threat, that our war criminal in chief chose to ignore on 9/11.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Maybe you should read this article...

<http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm>

Excerpt:

"WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

'Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,' the statement said. 'These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures.'"

[TolstoyAndy]

27. With all due respect

Bohica is sadly wrong.

The mission of the USAF is to defend our skies.
Put a goddamn plane in the air.
Justify your existence.

Shoot down or don't shoot down, but at least go up and look.

Let's not forget - impeachment hearings were in order for the crimes in FL, even before MIHOP. These people were already criminals.

Thinking people said to themselves that morning, "fuck: Bush's Reichstag fire".

Why did Myers hide in a meeting that morning?

What a coincidence that the Carlyle Group meeting was that morning!

What a coincidence that the Pakistani ISI sent Mohammed Atta $100,000!

Why did Franks tell "Cigar Aficionado" magazine that the next attack will mean martial law?
BC that was the plan all along. They plan another attack, and they plan martial law.

"two different worlds" really started 12 Dec 00.

[dansolo]

45. Not to defend Franks, but you have his quote wrong

I would be the last person to defend any of these criminals, but I do hate it when people set up straw-men by deliberately misquoting officials. Franks did not say that another attack would mean martial law. If another attack were to occur, he was speculating that the American public would be more willing to set aside Constitutional protections. Not the same thing.

[TolstoyAndy]

63. And the difference is?

I was quoting from memory, obviously a dangerous practice here.
Dansolo says "people set up straw-men by deliberately misquoting officials". He's right: I didn't have an exact quote from Franks.

Apparently, I'm the problem, for quoting from memory, but we'll leave that aside.

When I disagree with someone here, I do so respectfully. Not all evilDUers can do so.

Dansolo, I have nothing against you for insulting me - when we meet in camp, I'll give you half my soup ration to prove it. (My bread, unfortunately, I reserve for me.)

In the interests of full disclosure, here's something:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
"But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government. "

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3749548/site/newsweek/
"in a recent interview with the magazine Cigar Aficionado, Franks suggested that another large-scale terrorist attack would undermine basic constitutional freedoms in the United States."

Surprisingly, Google does not find the exact quotes, so I'm humiliated into using newsmax and m$nbc to support myself.

Anyway, when high military officials say "we" would begin to question our freedoms and "we" would choose to militarize our society, I ask, "What you mean 'we', white man?"

The only people capable of militarizing our society are the military, and 9-11 was step 1. Dansolo, we'll have life sentences to work this out.

[Ready4Change]

36. I agree.

I can't see the first airliner being shot down. But there was 15 minutes between the first and second, and 45 minutes between the first and third, and an hour and 15 minutes between the first and when the 4th crashed in PA.

That's plenty enough time to recognize the threat and shoot down the last 1, 2 or even 3 of them. Even without airborne assets at the time of the first tower being struck, enough time existed to prep, launch and shoot down at least the last 2.

The reports I've read of setting up a defensive perimeter around the cities at this time are BS. You don't set up a perimeter when you're tracking targets on radar. You vector available interceptor assets directly to the threats, and maybe use remaining assets to cap the area(s).

[Lorien]

46. Er, no.

Payne Stewarts plane went off course in Northern Florida a few months before 9/11. Within four mintes an F-15 escort was sent. The pilot of the F-15 tried to make contct (had visual contact) with Payne Stewart's pilot, but could not before Stewarts plane crashed. Four hijacked commercial airliners are less worthy of an F-15 investigation than a golfer's private plane?

The flight that crashed in PA was shot down, BTW. You don't get a debis field that large from a simple crash.

[Redhead488]

48. Within four minutes, huh?

Can you show us that timeline?

[lumpy]

50. BS

x

[surfermaw]

15. At least the last plane

That last plane could have been stopped, I was watching Gumble on CBS, just awakened and had to watch for a few minutes to understand what was going on.. There was plenty of time to stop the second plane that hid the building.

[republicansareevil]

20. NOW they start asking questions like this? NOW?!!

Where y'all been the last 3 years? :argh:

[KansDem]

31. If not, at least the PERCEPTION of stopping the attacks would be there...

By reading the various accounts and timelines that have since appeared, with the time that passed from the first hijacking to the WTC attack, jets could have been scrambled to at least see what was going on, if not intervene.

However, if the jets COULD NOT HAVE actually stopped the attacks, then the PERCEPTION that the White House gave a damn would be much different today. We would have seen Bush (for what its worth) jumping up after being informed by Andy Card (of the second attack) and "taking charge." We would have seen him getting a handle on the situation giving orders to his aides. Everything would have shifted into "high gear."

Instead, we saw him sit and do nothing for 15, 20, 30 minutes (depending on the timeline and interpretation). We saw a "President" who, by all accounts, didn't give a damn about what was happening to Americans. And to you DU combat veterans, what would you have thought if you had a CO who did nothing for 15, 20, 30 minutes when confronted with a fire fight, or mortar attack, or invasion of your compound???

[Gregorian]

35. Here's my lame little analogy.

It was a sunny day. Open the doors to the bank, and smile while the robbers walk in. Cops are out on the sidewalks ready to work, but since there's no alarm, they continue to eat their donuts. Actually, there was an alarm, but the cops were told that it was a false alarm. Robbers grab the cash and leave, without so much as an alarm bell. The bank manager hears about it, and continues to sit in his hot tub. No problem, it ain't my money. Besides, it'll give me the ammunition to go after the robbers neighbors. Then all of the people near to the robbers are put in limosines and taken where they'll be safe. Then the manager hires his militia to go beat up the robbers neighbors, and take everything they own. Meanwhile the newspapers do nothing but channel the bank manager's statements, and not the truth.

Sorry. I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Edmond Dantes]

37. NeoCon David G. Leitch at FAA on 9/11

I think it's worth noting that, just 3 months prior to 9/11, the Dept. of Transportation announced the appointment of David G. Leitch as Chief Counsel of the FAA. Leitch clerked for Rehnquist and (in 1991-2) was a deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel--the same office that later provided the legal justification for torture.

Interestingly, he is now Deputy White House Counsel, carefully guiding Alberto Gonzales in the right neoconservative direction.

Call me paranoid, but I think there is something awfully fishy about the fact that loyal neocon Leitch was appointed Chief Counsel to the FAA just 3 months prior to 9/11--and later rewarded with an appointment as Deputy White House Counsel. Someone should look into his activities on that day.

[sam sarrha]

39. the person responsible to act was reading a children's book about a goat..

he was notified of the first and second tower attack.. he did not even BLINK... to either notification and sat there for 7 more minutes after the last tower was attacked...

he also lied about seeing the first crash on tv..

he made the same verbal error on two different interviews.. that seemed to indicate he forgot his scripted lines.. shortly before the attack, his brother made an executive order preparing for terrorist attack in Florida..

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. Let's suppose for a moment that Junior wasn't lying about seeing the....

...the first plane impact the WTC.

Suppose for a second that Junior and other key NeoCons knew the attack was coming and knew where it would take place. The presidential limo contains the latest comm equipment, to include closed-circuit television equipment. If the NeoCons knew what was coming, how difficult would it have been for a camera to have been set-up near the WTC for a live feed back to the limo? We also know that Junior was traveling to the school in that limo when the first plane struck at 8:46am.

And why didn't Junior immediately leave the classroom when told by Andy Card about the second impact? Did he already know that Air Force One was not going to be a target? Did he delay his response so that the events of the day could be completely played out to a frightened American public?

Just a few thoughts for consideration.

[lumpy]

40. Of course they could of stopped 9/11.

The question is, why didn't they stop it? Maladministration ?

[quagmire_iraq]

41. 2 Jets out on Training mission

Just 10 minutes away from the WTC.... Bet they could have stopped them.

Then again, during the 60's 70's New York had air defense systems to shoot down ballistic nuclear missiles... The entire coastal defense could do it.. What ever happened to all that?

I bet it worked as good as the new missile defence system they want to build errr built already but dont work well... IE it may or may not work.. depending on if cheeny is at the job..

I posted some of the stuff on this thread... Its very long and a lot of useless crap on there because well we do not ban nut cases from disrupting threads.. But A lot of stuff about norad and stuff are there.. http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=41568

[Redhead488]

43. What Air Defense systems did NY

have to shoot down ballastic nuclear weapons?

[FlaGranny]

59. NORAD -

North American Air Defense Command. I used to work for them. There were defenses for every major city and military base with jets always in the skies and more ready to scramble. There are/were bases within minutes of NYC.

[One_Life_To_Give]

67. Air Defense?

Are you refering to the NIKE Defense Missile bases? They were decomissioned in the mid to late sixties. As for fighter intercepts, as I recall. Soviet Bombers were routinly intercepted by Fighters from Loring, which handed off to fighters from Otis, which handed off to fighters from Langly. Not sure if Langly handed off to someone else for escort to Cuban airspace.

IIRC Moscow is the only city to have constructed a ICBM defense oficially. In accordance with the ABM treaty, in effect at time of construction.

[Redhead488]

69. Exactly right

The previous poster was wrong. New York NEVER had Air Defense systems "against nuclear ballistic missiles."

[FlaGranny]

101. Teach me a lesson to read the entire sentence -

There still isn't much defense against ballistic missiles, is there? My mind was on "air defense," and that was certainly present in the past.

[papau]

79. That is my understanding also - but why only Florida and Otis on alert

that day - a total of 4 jets for the east coast?

[FlaGranny]

102. No sorry, see post above.

I did not mean defense against missiles.

[KDLarsen]

49. A thing I don't get...

.. people keep mentioning "Airport security screeners did not find the hijackers' weapons" - which is BS.

Because prior to 9/11, the weapons that the hijackers, presumably, brought on board (small knives, boxcutters etc.), were allowed on domestic US flights under FAA rules.

So, even if they had found them, they couldn't do anything about it, as they were still allowed pr FAA rules. What was the excuse for the TSA again?

[FlaGranny]

60. I don't know if they could have

prevented anything for certain. The real problem is that they didn't even try.

Picture a comet on a collision course to earth. We see it months before it is due to collide. We decide there really isn't anything we can do, so we decide to do nothing and just wait to die.

When a problem arises, doing nothing should not be an option.

[wurzel]

61. The mystery is "Standing Orders".

I was in the RAF. "Standing Orders" meant orders that must ALWAYS be obeyed unless specifically countermanded. My understanding is that there was a "Standing Order" for the USAF to scramble in the case of an airline hostage situation INSIDE US AIRSPACE. Those airliners were known to be in this situation for as much as four hours. If the fighters did not scramble it was either because they were specifically ordered not to; or there was incredible dereliction of duty by those pilots. Who, as far as I know have never been charged. The argument has always been that the threat was expected from the outside so no one was prepared. That is preposterous.

[young_at_heart]

62. Watch a few movies and notice how fast they scramble

I just watched "How The Earth Stood Still"......the year was supposed to be 1951 and the army, etc. was immediately dispatched. How many other films have shown similar immediate federal reaction to threats?

[Redhead488]

70. Yeah and we can take spy videos from space

and Vampires and Frankenstein are real too. I mean it's in the movies; it must be true!

[Clyde39]

96. Vampires and Frankenstein are real too. I mean it's in the movies; it must

I believe you missed the point of young at heart. Fighter sqds are trained to be in the air in less than five minutes from the call to scramble. The movies only show what it looks like. Of course movies are fictional. Duh!! But the military isn't, they are effecient and we are proud of their efforts. I believe the point young at heart was trying to make was "Where was the call to scramble?" and not "boy the movies are really great."

[reprobate]

66. One jet WAS shot down. Why not the others?

On the morning of 9/11 I was watching the network coverage of the events unfolding live. Don't recall just which network it was, ABC maybe, that showed their local (Pa) station's helicopter veiw of the second debris field of Flt 93. This was eight miles from the main debris field and held only small debris, while the main debris field held almost all of the aircraft.

I also saw a story the same day (or maybe the next, things run together that long ago) of a man who witnessed an executive type jet following flt 93 with missles slung underwing.

Don't know how much credance to give this eyewitness, but I can't think of any explanation for the two debris fields than a shoot down.

[papau]

71. The Pres left for the book reading knowing - but did not give shoot down

order. As the plan's flew from Otis, per ground crew rumor - a request for a shoot down order was not answered by Bush - so the second tower went down.

As Condi and he hinted - he was aware of the first tower hit and of the Otis jets heading to Intercept.

Inability to make a decision - and then the shock of seeing the result of that non-decision - kept him reading his book for 15 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit.

[Redhead488]

72. They wouldn't have asked Bush

The SECDEF would have given the order...and the ground crew would not know shit. The GROUND CREW? For god's sake, they are so far out of the loop on this it's ridiculous.

[papau]

76. The pilots were talking about the no shoot down order when they returned

to base - therefore the ground crew was the reference for the first reports.

The pilots now say nothing.

The SECDEF is not allowed to give a shoot down order - check your data and you will find that only the Pres can say shoot down a domestic passenger jet.

[Redhead488]

77. Wrong.

Read the CJCSI on the issue. The SECDEF can give the order.

ANd who told you the pilots were talking about this?

[papau]

82. The media on Cape Cod - and the Congressional Testimony stated only

the Pres could give the order.

Were the Pentagon Generals telling us lies - again?

If the Sec of Def can give the order, why did he not do so.

Indeed the transcripts of the Otis plane's to ground conversations seem to be lost - so we can not verify that they did or did not request shoot down orders - seems like an interesting point, eh?

[Redhead488]

84. Read the Instruction - that is all

[lojasmo]

80. I know an air force reservist

who knows a pilot who was scrambled that day. He got a "very interesting" call from the vice president while he was in the air. That's all I could get.

[Redhead488]

81. LMAO

More rumors. I know a guy, who knows a guy, who SAYS the Veep called him. Wow.

[papau]

83. Also LMAO - but afraid not with you - why no transcripts

??

:-)

[Redhead488]

88. Because the military doesn't keep

transcripts of ALL pilot communications. :-)

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

91. Get real - you are out of your league in so many ways - have a good

life....

I am only sarcastic or condescending with those that would try to pass off lies as truth at DU -

and indeed in this case I simply disagreed with your trustworthy colleague.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

87. So the answer is YES - the second jet could have been shot down-

But Bush would not do it-


Interesting bit of mis-information from Redhead488.

I'm curious why he would try to sell that "insert word" at DU?

No matter - the lack of a shoot down order was the reason the jets did not fire up to max speed - as in what was the point.

[Redhead488]

89. BS

Mis-information? What mis-information?

[papau]

94. try google on the Pentagon testimony -and post again when you have read it

This is as boring as a Sean or Rush no-facts conversation where they yell I am right, you are wrong.

Again try google shoot down order and find

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/27/ret.airliner.rules/

Rumsfeld: Flying safe despite shoot-down policy
September 27, 2001 Posted: 7:13 PM EDT (2313 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday he is "absolutely" certain it is safe for Americans to fly despite what officials described as new "rules of engagement" that would allow mid-level generals to order the shoot-down of domestic jets "under extraordinary circumstances."

At a briefing, Rumsfeld did not talk specifically about the policy -- which comes in the wake of this month's deadly terrorist hijacking and crashing of four jets -- but he suggested that any shoot-down would be an absolute, last-resort measure.

"Every effort is made to dissuade an airplane from going into any area that's prohibited, for example," Rumsfeld said. "And there are all kinds of ways that's done. It's done through radio communication. It's done through hand signals. It's done through flying in front of an airplane ... There are a lot of safeguards in place."

Sources told CNN that President Bush decided to delegate the authority to shoot down domestic jetliners to mid-level generals without his specific approval "under extraordinary circumstances."

A military spokesman said "every effort would be made to reach the president," but when lives were in jeopardy and the president could not be reached, the decision to shoot down a jet could be made at that lower level.

Pilots and the aviation industry will be informed of the new rules in a directive to be issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA sources said.

Rumsfeld said that he and Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, crafted the rules that were then approved by Bush.

Shelton told reporters that the "last thing in the world" a fighter pilot wants to do is engage a commercial jetliner. <snip>



Now note that you were incorrect - your apology is accepted,

:-)

[Redhead488]

97. Show me a policy that says it was the President before that

CJCS instructions CLEARLY state that SECDEF has the authority to authorize lethal force.

[papau]

98. give it up - assertions mean crap on DU - if your are unable to provide a

link to your interpretation, go back to other boards where they like that sort of stuff -

[Redhead488]

99. You made an assertion

Back it up. Show me the policy document that backs your position. The CJCSI that backs mine was posted already.

[papau]

100. You have not shown the 9/11/01 CJCSI - and the CNN link explains how

the CJCSI was changed into today's lanuage.

I am sorry I got angry with you - If I had the time I'd walk you through some of the procedures that produce useful research that make for solid posts on DU.

It is good that you stick to your guns.

But you should also do a critical read of the CNN story I posted - and thereby know that it is time to revise your opinion.

But hell - it is the policy of this board to not worry about folks that refuse to change their mind - as long as one is polite :-)

[Moderator]

95. Sorry, guys. This never really was LBN.

I wish I could have locked it before it got so many replies. This is more of an opinion/analysis piece, and really belongs in the 9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism forum. It'll be moved there shortly.

[Snazzy]

106. It's not really opinion/analysis

The news is heads-up announcement that the hearings are this morning and Thursday (based on 9/11 Comm.'s press release). The rest of it is news recap. The quoted opinions are also news. AP is not offering its own opinions.

Granted it is a little confusing because the piece starts off with two grafs of questions. But those are the questions the 9/11 panel is taking up this week. They aren't the AP's questions.

Lastly, it comes from a news feed, not a feature or analysis feed.

There will be plenty of other stories this week on the same subject, so I'm not really complaining.

--Snazzy