September 11, 9:09 a.m.: How New York City was betrayed

[Woody Box]

This is a story how New York was left out in the cold by American air defense (source: 9/11 commission report).

9:08 - Kevin Nasypany, mission crew commander with NEADS and responsible for the air defense, learns of the second WTC crash (p.23). He decides to scramble the Langley fighters, but is overvoted by his superiors who order "battle stations only at Langley" at 9:09 (p.460, note 137). So the Langley fighters don't take off. The official reason: "They might be called on to relieve the Otis fighters over New York City if a refueling tanker was not located" (the Otis fighters were allegedly running out of fuel).

But at 9:09, the Otis fighters are far away from New York. They have been scrambled at 8:53 from Cape Cod and are just commencing their "holding pattern" off the Long Island coast (p.20). They stay in this holding pattern until 9:13 "to avoid New York area air traffic". Then they fly to New York, arrive at 9:25 finally and establish a combat air patrol (p.24). Where are the fuel problems?

So let's repeat. The Langley fighters stay grounded after an initial scramble order, allegedly to be able to "relieve" the Otis fighters over New York - but the Otis fighters are not there, quite to the contrary, they interrupt their flight to New York to enter a holding pattern beyond Long Island.

It looks like someone wanted all of these fighters off New York City. But New York was the primary object to protect after the crashes. So who left New York unprotected - and why?

And this is the comment of Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander: "The plan was to protect New York City." (p. 460, footnote 137).

[gbwarming]

1. What additional harm came to NYC as a result?

[Woody Box]

2. NYC suffered no additional harm

and, by the way, I'm glad you confirm the treason.

:yourock:

[gbwarming]

3. Actually, I take it at face value, as a resource management decision

Two fighters in the air and two fueled and ready is better than four on the ground refuelling any day. Apparently a tanker was located and those two F-15s stayed over NYC for several hours.

You may not be aware that Long Island is adjacent to NYC, so I don't think those fighters were far away when the decision was made.

[flyarm]

4. hmmm and none were scrambled out of mcguire nj!! n/t

[gbwarming]

6. Did McGuire have anything appropriate to scramble?

I've never been there, but from what I can google I don't think so.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/mcguire.htm
As of late 2001 McGuire had about 17 C-141 Starlifters attached to the 305th Air Mobility Wing's 6th Airlift Squadron and 514th Reserve Air Mobility Wing; 32 KC-10 Extenders in the 305th Air Mobility Wing and 20 KC-135 Stratotankers in the 108th Air Refueling Wing of the New Jersey Air National Guard. The base recently lost a squadron of C-141 Starlifters— about 15 planes— as the 1960s-era aircraft is being phased out.

[Woody Box]

7. Long Island

I'm quite familiar with the geography of the United States and know that Long Island is - long...

...so the fighters were in all probability north of Long Island, and they were deliberately kept away from New York City to "avoid the air traffic" there.

I don't think they would have needed 12 minutes from Brooklyn to Manhattan, do you?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Do you know how fast these fighter jets go?

As I understand, about 1500 miles an hour.

Long Island is 118 miles long, and that includes Brooklyn. If they are even all the way out at the furthest point which is Montauk, it should only take them, at top speed, 5 minutes to get to the city.

[meppie-meppie not]

10. trouble is they seemed able to reach speeds of only 300-700 nmph that day

must have been some "glitch" in the system ;-)

edited for typo

[hack89]

13. 7OO knots would be max speed with external fuel tanks...

1500 is obtainable only in a low drag configuration with nothing on the wings. The F15s I have seen out of Otis have all had external fuel tanks under their wings - it is the only way for the F15 to have a reasonable combat radius.

[paulthompson]

18. Good posts, Woody!

As for the location of the Otis and Langley fighters, you can find maps of their exact flight paths according to the 9/11 Commission and supposedly based on radar data, both in my book and on the 9/11 timeline website.

I believe at 9:03, the Otis fighters were a little southeast of the eastern tip of Long Island, and heading further out to sea. That's the only time marker the 9/11 Commission gave.

[philb]

31. Its about a 3 minute trip

[meppie-meppie not]

9. that being the case then why the worry over fuel if they were so close?

[spooked911]

5. Did they know at the time no other hijacked planes were coming to NYC?

If they didn't know, then they were being negligent by not getting the fighters there.

If they knew no other hijacked planes were coming to NYC, then they must have been on the plot.

[Dancing_Dave]

11. New York City was betrayed when the WTC was blown to smithereens!

And Mayor Giuliani did his part to make sure there was no real investigation of who set up the demolition--or any prosecution of those really responsible.

That's the part of the 9/11 cover-up which must be cracked in New York City.

[John Doe II]

12. As the question has never been answered ...

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[hack89]

14. You might have a misguided faith in the competence of the US Air Force..

couldn't this have also been the result of incompetence and poor decision making?

[LARED]

15. You are delving into a area most CT'er dare not venture

A hallmark of many CT'er is that on 9/11 human frailties that are caused by, failure, unintended consequences of seemingly good decisions, poor decisions caused by high stress or complex situations, were suddenly and inexplicably removed from the human experience. Everyone is expected to perform flawlessly, and if actions taken seem to be contrary to the CT'er expectation it is evidence of a CT.

If you are interesting in reading an excellent book about why smart people fail regularly to make good decisions read "The Logic of Failure" by Dorner

[Kevin Fenton]

16. Some stuff is surprising, some isn't

I'm not in any way surprised by some of the little things that went wrong (like intercepting planes that weren't really hijacked, etc.), but what amazes me is the low number of aircraft that were scrambled initially. It's fairly clear that it was accepted there was a need to put up aircraft from Langley at 9:09 (they were held back for tactical reasons), but, according to the 9/11 Commission, there is no attempt for 40 minutes to get other bases (which don't have fighters on official strip alert, put which can put fighters into the air relatively soon) to scramble, even though some bases were calling in and offering to do so. If you make a decision based on lack of fighters at 9:09 and somebody calls you and offers you fighters a couple of minutes later, you should say "Yes", not "I'll call you back." At the very least it seems to show a lack of drive and leadership, both of which should have been provided by the man at the top.
This is hardly stone cold proof of wilful wrongdoing by Rummy (maybe he's just an ineffectual tosser), but it's plenty to make me question his conduct. Here's one question for starters:
"Deputy Defense Secretary Torie Clarke recalls, “A couple of us had gone into ... Secretary Rumsfeld's office, to alert him to that, tell him that the crisis management process was starting up. He wanted to make a few phone calls. So a few of us headed across the hallway to an area called the National Military Command Center . He stayed in his office.”" PT's timeline (after 9:03). He wanted to make a couple of phone calls after the crisis management process started! Wasn't it kind of important for him, as Secretary of Defense, to be involved in the crisis management process? Who was he calling? God? Osama?

[paulthompson]

17. Yes

Even the 9/11 Commission notes it wasn't until a few minutes before 10:00 when NORAD finally started requesting help from bases other than Langley and Otis.

Also, if Richard Clarke is to be believed, and I trust him more than any other key Bush officials, as the 9/11 crisis manager, he gave the command to get more fighters up earlier, and yet it didn't happen. In fact, many of his very intelligent orders that morning seem not to have been acted upon.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, it would seem there was a plot to make sure those planes weren't intercepted, and Clarke was not in on the plot.

[Kevin Fenton]

19. Clarke, etc.

I am wary of Clarke and wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him, although I wouldn't count the silver after he left if I had him to dinner.

I don't think Clarke actually orders CAP before the Pentagon gets hit, he only asks how long before it will happen and is told approx. 9:43. He orders it between 9:37 and 9:45 (according to your timeline entry) and planes are being scrambled from other bases at 9:49. Once the military got an order to do something, they did it fairly promptly - they just don't seem to be getting the right orders from the civilians in charge. Does Rummy actually do anything in the videoconference before he takes the first opportunity to scarper? Surely, he is one of, if not the most senior, experienced and important people in the videoconference, but I can find no reference to anything he did or said there. Perhaps this is because he didn't do or say anything.

I think the 9/11 Commission's line that “The White House Situation Room initiated a video teleconference, chaired by Richard Clarke. While important, it had no immediate effect on the emergency defense efforts.” is both true and a damning indictment of Rumsfeld's performance there - the Secretary of Defense had "no immediate effect on ... defense". Surely this is what the Secretary of Defense is for?

Obviously, just because he was crap, doesn't mean he's bent, but if it could be shown that one of those calls he said he was going to make was to somebody who did wilfully act wrongly and he'd kept the call quiet, then that might be quite interesting. Who did he call? His old mucker Saddam?

BTW, have you got any idea where KSM is?

BTW2, why Iraq mania specifically, as opposed to Iran mania or North Korea mania? I can't see any decisive reason for it.

BTW3, I think that most of the government were expecting nothing and the few people who were expecting something were expecting yet another truck bomb - this is what I would have expected in their position.

[petgoat]

38. expecting yet another truck bomb

Al Qaeda knew they were expecting another truck bomb.

Al Qaeda had done truck bombs and boat bombs. There had been a movie about a subway carn loaded
with explosives, if I remember right. And al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plan to fly hijacked aircraft
into Sears Tower, the WTC, and the Pentagon had been known since 1995.

[hack89]

20. They fucked up Iraq - why couldn't they fuck up 9/11?

What is there that rules out simple unpreparedness and incompetency?

[spooked911]

21. What do you mean fucked up?

They have control of the country, which is what they wanted (they control the world's largest remaining reserves of easily extractable oil). They also wanted a clash of civilizations with the Islamic world-- mission accomplished there.

They don't give a shit about casualties, except for the political cost, and that they have minimized. Moreover, for them, they are thinking global conflict terms, and 1700 soldiers dying is relatively small on that scale. The administration thinks this is another world war, and we lost tens of thousands there.

So, although Iraq looks bad, I actually think this is all part of their plan. They WANT the middle east weakened and destabilized. All Bush's talk of democracy is bullshit window-dressing.

[Kevin Fenton]

26. Shambles

Iraq is a shambles. It's certainly not what they expected at all. My understanding is that the concept was for a quick in and out, or more likely in and on to Tehran. I don't even think that they specifically wanted control of the oil - in 2001 the Defense Intelligence Agency produced a document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" which listed companies from 30 countries (amusingly including France and Germany). There was a whole range of issues against Iraq from oil, WMD and the fact SH is an old adversary to more obscure things such as the fact that SH is an enemy of the US's regional friends, if the US can be said to have any friends in the Arab world.

I don't really think much of the clash of civilisations idea. I'm not entirely sure there ever has been a clash of civilisations.

I wouldn't say they want the Middle East weakened and destabilised, but whenever there is an issue where the Middle East (or, indeed, any other region) might be helped, but this conflicts with perceived US interests, however slightly, the US interests are preferred. Whereas even France at least pays lip-service to other countries' interests.

The problem with the US push for democracy is that, despite actually being a democratic government, the US administration doesn't seem to have a clue what democracy actually is or how it works. The State Department seems to understand the term as multiparty elections and completely deemphasises associated but critical concepts such as the rule of law and security. In addition, it thinks that economic growth and improvements in the quality of life will automatically follow from multiparty elections, whereas in reality there are a million and one steps in between.

[spooked911]

30. I was referring to the neocons-- and they definitely want a clash of

civilziations as well as to control oil supplies. The oil supply issue is basic geopolitics. The necons wanted to confront the Islamic world becuase of their huge population growth and their threat to the global dominance of the US. If the neocons didn't want a clash of civilizations, they wouldn't have promoted the humiliation of muslims at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Granted, Bush and Karl Rove may have had very different ideas for why they went into Iraq and how Iraq would turn out, but they are just the political figureheads for the policy. The real policy is driven by Cheney and the neocons. I don't think any of the neocons are particularly upset about how things are going in Iraq right now. The only that would upset them is if we had to leave Iraq, and I can't see that happening.

While they like to talk about Iran, I doubt very much any of them seriously conceived of invading Iran in the near future. Iran is a pipe-dream.

The US has a long history of wanting to keep a weakened destabilized middle-east, and while it talks about democracy, that is the last thing it really wants. Otherwise, it would have promoted democracy in the middle east before. The main point is that what the US says overtly is not at all what the US really does.

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Lots

I don't really think there can be a clash of civilisations between two blocs which are both informed by almost identical oriental religions.

I really don't think the neocons want to confront "the Islamic world", just Iran and Iraq, which the Clinton administration had also worked against. I really don't think GW Bush wants to confront Bandar Bush with anything but a nice cigar. The US gets on reasonably well with some other Muslim/Arab countries as well, such as Pakistan, Morocco and Egypt.

I agree with your point about Bush certainly not dominating the cabinet and party.

As for Iraq, nobody likes losing and the US is either going to have to improve its performance or get out. However, sometimes a war swings more than once, for example the Soviet-Afghan War swung three times (the Soviets were initially successful, then the Afghans came back, but the Soviets almost got there with a last push before giving up). By my back-of-the-envelope calculations the coalition of the hapless needs about 250,000 troops in Iraq and they're not going to get that without a draft.

I read an article a couple of months back by someone in an organisation called Intelligence Veterans for Sanity (the name says it all about the current situation) and he certainly thought that Iraq was very much on the list. I'm sure North Korea is too.

"The US has a long history of wanting to keep a weakened destabilized middle-east,"
Can't really see this, can you give any examples.

I think the State Department really does want democracy everywhere, but the last thing some countries need right now is US-style democracy, which State understands as multi-party national elections. For example, if there were free national elections in Syria tommorrow the Sunni majority would win and we wouldn't have to wait long for it to come down hard on all those minorities (including the Christian one - the Ba'ath party was founded by a christian after all) that have been abusing them for so long. Democracy has been part of Middle Eastern life for decades and many countries there have limited or partially functional democracies (understood as ones where there are elections at some level - I think there are local elections even in Saudi now), for example Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt and Pakistan. Hell, perhaps even Israel will become a real democracy one day.

"The main point is that what the US says overtly is not at all what the US really does."
I can only agree partially with this. I don't think the problem is that the State is working insufficiently hard for democracy in, say, Belarus (I just think it's doing a bad job), but I think the small amount of good work it does in one country is completely undermined by the pig's ear it makes out of another country, for example all those nasty central Asian countries it is having to support now. A recurring theme of US policy is that good intentions always get elbowed out of the way by realpolitik when the going gets tough.

[oblivious]

41. "I don't even think that they specifically wanted control of the oil"

I guess you're alone in the world on that one.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. Wrongness

It is wrong to ask, "Could event X be explained by a conspiracy/cover up?" and, if the answer is yes, to believe that a conspiracy/cover up is the correct explanation. Obviously, there may be other explanations.
It is equally wrong to ask, "Could event X be explained by unpreparedness/incompetency" and, if the answer is yes, to believe that unpreparedness/incompetence is the correct explanation. Again, there may be other explanations.
I try to ask both questions of every event and, in the event the answer to both is yes, I try to assess the event in comparison with usual patterns of behaviour, against other facts, etc.
The answer to "They fucked up Iraq - why couldn't they fuck up 9/11?" is meaningless, because it doesn't tell us whether they did or not. I suppose an equally pointless question on the other side would be, "They're lying about Iraq - why couldn't they be lying about 9/11?"

[LARED]

22. Crisis management procedures are not

dependant one any one individual being available. They are designed to operate in a fluid way. Ask yourself this. If Rumsfeld was overseas, does the Crisis management process stop? Of course not. There are plenty of supposedly knowledgeable people under him that can make decisions. The systems are designed that way no matter if you work in the government or industry.

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Crisis management guy

I don't think that's a particularly good analogy. If Rumsfeld were out of the country, then somebody (Wolfowitz, I suppose) would have filled in and it would have been up to him to provide leadership. The point is that Rumsfeld was in Washington, so all his subordinates naturally deferred to him and expected him to provide leadership, which he clearly failed to do. I was amazed his resignation wasn't waiting on Bush's desk when he got back.
I think this lack of leadership was especially harmful in this case because it was an emergency for which the military had not specifically trained.

[LARED]

27. I think you have a

mistaken notion of what a crisis management process is. I not going to defend Rumfeld as I would like to see him resign as well. But him not immediately dropping everything to engage in the crisis management process is hardly an indication of anything. If anything it indicates he is a good manager. An ass, but a good manager

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Rummy resign

"But him not immediately dropping everything to engage in the crisis management process is hardly an indication of anything. If anything it indicates he is a good manager. An ass, but a good manager."
Eh? If you want him to resign and think his performance was not good, how can you say that him not getting involved in the crisis management process from the get-go "indicates he is a good manager"? If you don't have a problem with this, why do you want him to resign?

[Woody Box]

25. Military anathema

In his "Crossing the Rubicon", Mike Ruppert quotes one of the pilots from Langley that they got their orders from three different sources. Ruppert qualifies this as "military anathema", and he's right. Chains of command are designed to work reliably in emergency situations, but they didn't. They collapsed completely, there are several examples in the 9/11 Commission report.

See also the related thread "Who left America unprotected?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41169

[LARED]

29. You're right

Chains of command are designed to work reliably in emergency situations, but they didn't.

They are designed to do just that, but rarely function as designed.

[petgoat]

37. "the result of incompetence"

So let's see, the FAA calls in NEADS because of a couple of off-course aircraft, and NEADS
fails to ask them where the aircraft are?

Or is it that NEADS scrambles fighters, but fails to tell them where to go?

I guess when your house on the mountain is on fire, and the fire department takes the pumper
trucks to the beach, you'll accept that those things happen.

[undeterred]

28. Is a fighter still a "fighter" if its unarmed?

The Otis fighters couldn't have shot a plane out of the sky anyway. Why not scramble some from Langley that could?

[philb]

34. Was the east coast deliberately left defenseless on 9/11?

Washington Defense Shield Deactivated Due To "Wargames" Pre-9-11 ? / WTC gold heist, etc.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307357.shtml

More motive to destroy WTCs on 9-11: $120B gold debt due THAT DAY; & wargame software
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305698.shtml

There was another thread about some of the gold at WTC; some was covered by the debris while it was being moved. But some was moved before 9/11 according to witnesses.

[Andre II]

35. Why does this perfectly

explain why there has been NO air defense over New York until the towers crashed?!
Contrary to the CR bull shit that there was a combat patrol over NY at 9:25.

[medienanalyse]

36. additionally to the time of the end of stand down ...

so additionally to the lack of air defense untill about 10:00 we must open the question to the beginning:

not 09:09 is the time which is imprtant but nearly ONE HOUR before. Since the first signs of the first hijacking the question is in the open.

The time runs since 08:14 in the morning, and if the alleged fighters from OTIS scrambled or not (they did not) and where they were is not so much important - because even in the alleged time they could have reached Manhattan, afzter the alleged scrambling at 09:53.

More than half an hour erlier the official air policing mission of Andrews AFB should habe begun. That is the main fact, the main topic.

[Woody Box]

39. kick - in the light of the VF article

09:07:20
NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell 'em if this stuff's gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put 'em over Manhattan, O.K.? That's the best thing. That's the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell 'em if there's more out there, which we don't know, let's get 'em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.
PLAY | STOP

He tells the Battle Cab he wants Fox to launch two more fighters from Langley Air Force Base, in Virginia, to establish a greater presence over New York, but the request is refused. The order from the Battle Cab is to put the Langley jets on battle stations only—to be ready, but not to launch.

"The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," Marr later explained.

So let's get this clear: Marr overvoted Nasypany and didn't scramble the Langley jets at 9:09. At the same time, the Otis jets entered a "holding pattern" over Long Island instead of instantly hurrying to New York.

To protect New York City was obviously not on top of the list.

"The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," - sounds like a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

[Andre II]

40. Yes, the question still stands

thats why this thread needs a big
:kick:

[RedSock]

42. myers claim

so what about richard myers's two very clear claims on september 13, 2001 -- under oath and in front of the senate -- that no fighters were called until after the pentagon was hit? (a norad spokesperson said the same thing.)

was myers telling the truth? the govt and norad were very quick to change the story, so even if it was the truth, it showed an amazing amount of incompetence (or worse).

or was myers lying and the otis story/stories is/are true? it would be strange if myers was lying, since the lie makes even less sense than the truth.

the otis story is in the history books, but we have no idea if it is true.

my guess is that myers was being honest -- all these otis stories are bullshit -- and they have been trying to invent a plausible timeline ever since.

that's why we have about 7 "official" stories of the military reaction.