23 minutes, 58 seconds: Flight 93 transcript shows Bush failure

[scoopmeister]

The silence over this today is stunning, but there are things that should be talked about:

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003089.html#more

But even though 23 minutes and 58 seconds is a long time, it apparently wasn't long enough for the American air defense system to intercept an unambiguously hijacked jetliner, even as the White House had been aware that the U.S. had already been under attack for upwards of an hour.

People said that America would never be the same again after 9/11, and it was true, although not in the way that many of us were thinking in those first few hours as the World Trade Center smoldered. The cockpit recording and transcript from the doomed United Flight 93 -- released today in the trial of terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui -- shows what most of us knew all along, the courage and nobility of everyday Americans.

For a good chunk of the 31-minute recording, the passengers are locked in a death match with the hijackers -- fighting for their lives and the lives of those on the ground, with no help from the government that had boasted since the start of the Cold War that America has the best air defenses in the world. Later, it would be rank-and-file soldiers thrown into harm's way in Iraq without proper body armor, and then the good people of New Orleans, left to fend for themselves.

On 9/11, where was NORAD, the jet fighter squadron tasked with defending America's skies?

[bleever]

1. What happened to the world's finest air defenses that day?

Recommended.

[Blue_Tires]

2. uh oh....don't start asking questions like those

you're just giving comfort to the terrorists and pissing on the memory of the lives lost!:sarcasm:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. This is what happened.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y

Not as exciting as the conspiracy theories, but it has the advantage of actually being true.

[Nostradammit]

18. That article, in my opinion, is pure bullshit.

"And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

That statement is laughable. When my father retired from the Air Force his office was on the top floor in Cheyenne Mountain - tell him NORAD wasn't prepared to track them and he'll give you a big belly laugh. This writer never mentions the FACT that protocol had been changed in 6/01 requiring orders from Rumsfeld to react nor does it mention the war games that they had scheduled for that day, both of which add a huge "Hmmmm..." factor.

"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings."

Then where is the fucking wing?????!!!!!!!!



"In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS"


"Poisonous"? Oh really?

[petgoat]

3. And how come the official story changed three times?

NORAD originally claimed they scrambled no jets until after the 9:37 Pentagon strike.
Then they corrected that and created a detailed timeline, which stood until the 9/11
Commission decided NORAD was mistaken. The 9/11 Commission also rewrote Rummy's account
of his whereabouts that day.

Norm Mineta said he saw Cheney in the WH bunker at 9:20, discussing an apparrent shoot down
order with a young man. But the 9/11 Commission insists that Cheney didn't get there 'til 9:58.

There's a 3 minute discrepancy between the time the flight 93 cockpit tape ends and the time
multiple seimographs recorded a plane-crash-like incident in the region.

(Note to mods: nothing here is a speculative theory. It's all fact.)

[Bluebear]

4. On 9/11, where was NORAD?

I would love to know.

But look! Over there! Anthrax! :eyes:

[King_Crimson]

7. NORAD was doing the following...

War Games: The Key to a
9/11 USAF Stand Down

On 9/11 there was no reaction from the USAF as hijacked aircraft flew through US airspace and plowed into buildings. This lack of response is inconceivable unless the USAF was stood down.

Careful planning made this easy to achieve.


Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) changed the protocol so that any requests for "potentially lethal support" had to come explicitly from the secretary of defense, leaving commanders in the field unable to respond to hijackings in any meaningful fashion.

Five military exercises were held on 9/11, and this resulted in flight controllers, commanders and pilots being unable to distinguish real world events from exercise scenarios.


9/11 Flight Controller:
"Is this real world or exercise?"
WMV video download (95kB)



Even if a hostile plane was identified it couldn't be fired upon because secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was "out of the loop" during the attacks (as was the acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

Chaos reigned supreme on 9/11 thanks to the above , and this effectively stood down the USAF when it was needed most.

Dr. Robert Bowman, a man so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree, has joined the ranks of those who are declaring that the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job. As right wing world comes tumbling down, more prominent individuals are coming forward with their doubts and concerns with the official report. Some have little more than the powers of their own deduction, others are expert engineers and physicists. Dr. Bowman has inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September 11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses. The person who headed those exercises? None other then Richard Cheney, otherwise known as Dead-eye Dick.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also: The 9/11 USAF Stand Down


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Really Happened

[Canuckistanian]

12. And why were exercises planned for 9/11?

Did someone count on the confusion? Did someone consider it likely that any "anomalies" would be written off as part of the exercise?

It think that's part of the key.

[Make7]

14. "potentially lethal support"

Posted by King_Crimson:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) changed the protocol so that any requests for "potentially lethal support" had to come explicitly from the secretary of defense, leaving commanders in the field unable to respond to hijackings in any meaningful fashion.

Where does it say that? I did not find the phrase "potentially lethal support" in that document.

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

And how was it changed from what it replaced?

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

- Make7

[Chi]

15. 4.2.2. Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DoD Forces)

Here is the phrase..."4.2.2. Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DoD Forces)."

Which is listed on this document..."DODD 3025.15 Department of Defense DIRECTIVE"
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d302515x.htm

Which is referenced on the link you searched no less than 3 times.

(Which I didn't know myself, but I just followed the trail)

[Make7]

17. "changed the protocol"

 

King_Crimson wrote:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) changed the protocol so that any requests for "potentially lethal support" had to come explicitly from the secretary of defense, leaving commanders in the field unable to respond to hijackings in any meaningful fashion.

I was under the misconception that the words in quotes actually was a quote, and since King_Crimson posted that CJCSI 3610.01A "changed the protocol", I also thought that was where it had been changed. My bad. I should have searched through every reference cited in both documents instead of simply asking to be shown what was being referred to.

Of course, the basic question of my previous post was: How has this protocol actually changed in the June 2001 document from its July 1997 predecessor? Now you link to a document containing the phrase: "potential use of lethal force". A document that was issued February 18, 1997 and referenced by both of the CJCSI documents. So, I believe the question still remains, how exactly was this protocol changed by the June 2001 document?

- Make7

[Chi]

21. I wasn't defending the concept...

I only looked into your first question...I ran out of time before getting to the other.

I wasn't criticising, it was a good question, thats why I looked into it,

I thought you (and others) might be interested in what I found.

[Make7]

22. I could have phrased my original question better.

When I asked, "Where does it say that?" I was actually referring to the change of protocol. I added the part about not finding the quoted words after the fact without taking into consideration the relationship implied by following the preceding query.

I certainly know what I meant when I originally wrote it. But looking at it now, my meaning was not conveyed very well at all.

I apologize for being snippy when replying to you before, I was still under the impression my first question meant what I wrote it to mean. Someday I'll figure out how to use these things we call words.

I might just have a bad case of inarticulitis today. Someone total misinterpreted one of my posts earlier. Their somewhat unpleasant response threw off my equilibrium a bit.

Thanks for searching through those documents, that's obviously more initiative than I have.

- Make7

[Chi]

24. No problem

I have had those days myself.

[Chi]

25. A few possibles clues

Here is the reference from the 97 CJCSI...
"The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward
all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft
piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval in
accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference b)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf#search='CJCSI%203610.01'

Here is the reference from the 01 CJCSI...
"Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably
available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will
notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable
assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of
Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7
(reference d)."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf#search='CJCSI%203610.01A'

Here are the references noted...
SUBJECT: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities


References: (a) Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities," December 12, 1995 (hereby canceled)

(b) Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Support of Civil Authorities in Airplane Hijacking Emergencies," July 29, 1972 (hereby canceled)

(c) AR 385-70/AFR 55-13/OPNAVINST 3710.18B, "Unmanned Free Balloons and Kites, and Unmanned Rockets," December 13, 1965 (hereby canceled)

(d) DoD Directive S-5210.36, "Provision of DoD Sensitive Support to DoD Components and Other Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government," June 10, 1986

(e) through (q), see enclosure 1
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf#search='CJCSI%203610.01A'

Reference b (97 CJCSI), has been canceled and is now superseded by reference d (01 CJCSI).

Can't say if anything supports the LIH or MIH theories, but it is something that changed in the o1 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION.

I'm out of time again so I'll leave it there.

[Make7]

26. No wonder lawyers get paid well.

This crap is a maze of documents, referenced to other documents, referenced to other documents, referenced to ....

I think the lettered references in the CJCSI documents are for the list of references at the end of each CJCSI document. (That's how I am interpreting it at least.) For example:

CJCSI 3610.01A   -   1 June 2001

  b. Support. When notified that military assistance is needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will:

  (1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d).

  (2) If suitable assets from a unified command or NORAD are not reasonably available, the DDO, NMCC, will coordinate with the appropriate Military Service operations center to provide military assistance.

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

I believe the text highlighted above is referring to this highlighted text below:

CJCSI 3610.01A   -   1 June 2001

       ENCLOSURE D
       REFERENCES

a. 49 USC 46501, "Definitions"

b. 49 USC 44903(e) "Exclusive Responsibility Over Passenger Safety"

c. MOU between the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense, 7 August 1978, "Aircraft Piracy"

d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities"

e. DOD Directive 5200.8, 25 April 1991, "Security of DOD Installations
and Resources"

...

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

It's the same for the '97 document. Here is the same section, followed by the enclosure listing the references:

CJCSI 3610.01   -   31 July 1997

  b. Support. When notified that military assistance is needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will:

  (1) Determine whether or not the equipment needed is reasonably available from police or commercial sources. If not, notify the appropriate unified command or USELMNORAD, to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15 paragraph D.7 (reference b).

  (2) If suitable assets from an unified command or USELMNORAD are not reasonably available, the DDO, NMCC, will coordinate with the appropriate Military Service operations center to provide military assistance.

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

CJCSI 3610.01   -   31 July 1997

       ENCLOSURE E
       REFERENCES

A. MOU between the Department of Transportation and DOD, 7 August 1978, "Aircraft Piracy"

B. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, "Military assistance to Civil Authorities.

C. DOD Directive 5200.8, 25 April 1991, "Security of DOD Installations and Resources"

...

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

The wording of the 3. Procedures, b. Support sections are nearly identical in both documents, and they both refer to DODD 3025.15.

So I still do not see what has changed - nothing jumps out at me as significantly different between those two CJCSI documents regarding approval by the Secretary of Defense.

On a different subject, did you put that search suffix on those pdf web addresses? They didn't work right for me as written, but it made me wonder what information was possible to pass to a pdf document as it opens. So I went to adobe's site and found a short document explaining the parameters that can be sent. I don't think I've seen that done before. Thanks for pointing me in that direction - whether or not you had anything to do with it. :)

- Make7

[Bouvet_Island]

27. When there is revisions to this type of document,

there often goes out a letter explaining the changes in practical terms. Or training or a presentation is arranged. It would probably bee enough too stress that Donald should be involved in oral version to key people to get the desired effect. I don't think they could expect a predictable result from just changing a document if the theory about a change in procedures is sound. If it was done criminally, it obviously also would be good for the change to reflect less clearly on paper or the public record and very clearly in other ways. They would have to make sure noone would act on their own, just people seeing the plane be followed by a fighter or even planespotters seeing a launch from an airbase close to the path could be unpleasant to explain.

Not saying I am buying into the change of policy theory, just that it isn't sure it would reflect well in these documents if it occured. In the military "signals" from superiors are important, for survival in a war. If Rumsfeld wanted something, he would send out strong signals, not change a paper. Lots of the US Military regulations nowadays are only paper, the troops follow the signals if unsure, not the paper.

[Jazz2006]

29. Well,

I am a lawyer, and I have not seen anything posted yet that indicates that there was a change in procedure or protocol in June 2001.

I'll be happy to assess any purported changes made to the text at that time, if someone posts it, but so far, I've seen nothing of the sort.

[Chi]

31. Ahhh..the dangers of insufficient research

My bad...shouldn't do this stuff when in a hurry 8)

And yes, pointing you in the right direction was happenstance...but I'm glad to assist anyway.

[Old and In the Way]

28. Rummy was doing triage.

I wonder why he wasn't concerned that there might be other flying hi-jacked aircraft that we were unaware of? Seems strange that are SecDef is out giving a hand to the wounded instead of being focused on the developing national situation.

Same goes for Bush. You'd think when Andrew was telling him that the 2nd plane hit that would be it....sorry, time to leave Mr. pResident. Why wouldn't they be concerned about Al Qaeda flying Cessna loaded with bombs into Booker School? Bush even made the 9:30 photo-op that was part of his pre-planned public itinerary.

And why wasn't Meyers in the loop? Talking with Cleland about his forthcoming nomination to JCS....while the largest annual wargame is going on? Hmmm.

I wonder if 93's 20 minute delay on the tarmac had anything to do with it.

[savemefromdumbya]

34. they couldn't have pulled it off without the exercises

[Festivito]

11. In a mountain shredding their tapes? /nt

[nonconformist]

5. K & R. Great post. nt

[Missy M]

6. I have always wondered why the hijackers would crash the...

plane when their mission was to crash it into a building, not a field in Pennsylvania. Also, the brave passengers were in a fight to save their lives and get the plane safely to the ground. Why did eyewitnesses see an unmarked plane flying by the hijacked plane and then disappear. I don't think we will ever know the real truth of Flight 93.

[cookiebird]

8. Evidence

Folks, not speculation. Flight 93's crash has been documented very carefully, and covered by the press. There is no evidence of an interception by our Air Force.

[Thtwudbeme]

9. yep. exactly. And this is the very same press that informed us

that one of the hijackers was identified IMMEDIATELY because he rolled down the window in the cockpit and tossed his passport out, so that it could flutter to the street below the WTC like a wounded butterfly.

This is the press that never bothered to ask the most obvious question:

"Why were 4 planes allowed to fly willy nilly over the eastern portion of the US for the better part of an hour without Norad scrambing a jet or two...while Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted in less than 20 minutes?"

The fact that you just believe without questioning is the reason we have these nutjobs in DC right now talking about nukes like they are discussing dropping water balloons.

Stephanie

[sinkingfeeling]

13. 9-11 was the biggest intelligence and the biggest military failures in

our history. As of today, after spending billions of dollars and talking non-stop, the situation is absolutely no better than on that date. Bush & Co. continue to con the American people and to profit from those spectacular failures.

[Blue_Tires]

19. exactly

despite all the new 'precautions', a similar incident could happen again today just as easily

[Old and In the Way]

30. Intel/military failure?

I don't think it was the institutions that let us down. It was the leadership. Those that disregarded warnings...or worse. In the hands of capable, honest, intelligent Executive, it is an awesome system. In the hands of those with hidden agenda's....it can be made to look completely incompetent.

[grace0418]

16. I wrote this a long time ago regarding the failures on 9/11

It doesn't specifically address flight 93 but I think it fits into the discussion...

Paul Wolfowitz on the Pentagon attack:

Q: Do you remember then the impact of the plane into the Pentagon? Or had you first heard stories about New York? What was --

Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy.

Q: Right.

Wolfowitz: There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

Does it seem weird to anyone else that the top officials in our government would be finding out about the WTC by turning on the television? I mean, how long did it take for the first plane to go off course after take-off from Logan? Wouldn't ANYONE have alerted the authorities in that time? Then, how long was it between the first strike and the second? The Pentagon?

According to a timeline, flight #11 lost contact at 8:14am and was officially called "hijacked" at 8:25. Impact with the first tower was at 8:46. Flight #175 lost contact at 8:41 and impacted the second tower at 9:02. Flight #77 impacted the Pentagon at 9:37am. So from 8:14 - 9:37 am our highest members of government were THAT CLUELESS?! They found out by turning on the t.v. like everyone else? Damn, I think the President found out about Pearl Harbor faster than that, and there were no such things as television, computers and cell phones.

Even if you don't believe that it was some kind of conspiracy, you have to be wondering why anyone would choose to vote for such an inept administration. Any way you look it at, it doesn't speak well of BushCo. That's why I never understood why BushCo gets high marks from so many (even some liberals) for his leadership after 9/11.


P.S. Keep in mind I wrote this some time ago. Most people (and definitely all liberals) loathe Bush by now. But at the time, I felt very alone in my loathing of Bush because many people were singing his praises.

[toymachines]

20. holy jesus, they did it again

moved the bitch to the 9/11 forum and blocked it from further recommendations! This pisses me off. The recent release of the flight 93 tape calls for this article to be greatest page material. It frustrates me that DU continues to dodge the inconsistencies inherent in 9/11.

[paulthompson]

23. Key point

... from this timeline entry which I made a few months back. The info in this comes from the book Air War Over America, a little known book that was actually put out by the US military and contains interviews with a lot of key people that completely contradict the official story.

Before 9:36 a.m.: Officials Claim NORAD is Monitoring Flight 93
According to one account given by NEADS Commander Robert Marr, some time before around 9:36 when it changes direction, while it is still flying west, Flight 93 is being monitored by NEADS. Marr describes how, “We don’t have fighters that way and we think headed toward Detroit or Chicago.” He says he contacts a base in the area “so they head off 93 at the pass.” Not only does NORAD know about the flight, but also, according to NORAD Commander Larry Arnold, “We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.” (This change of direction occurs around 9:36 a.m.) This account completely contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s later claim that NEADS is first notified about Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. <9/11 Commission, 7/17/2004>


---


So as you can see, from the lips of the top leaders of both NEADS and NORAD, the military WAS informed about Flight 93 shortly after the hijacking, and the notion that they were never informed until after the plane crashed is exposed as the absurd lie that it appears to be to anyone with some intelligence. We can also see that fighters were told to scramble to the plane around that time as well. I don't believe the comments of Marr and Arnold on this represent the full truth, but at least it's a little closer that the 9/11 Commission version.

[Old and In the Way]

32. I recall another datapoint on your timeline about a base commander calling

in for guidance on scrambling jets. He was told to get them loaded with everything they could carry, armament-wise. That seemed wierd. We are talking passenger jets, not a wing of MIG fighters. Counter orders like that are very suspicious....the 1st jets up should be intercepting the commercial aircraft to make visual contact not using air-to-air missles to shoot them down. If one wanted to delay an intercept, this would be the way to do it without giving orders that spelled it out directly.

BTW, I chipped in a few bucks last week....you do invaluable work for research and the pursuit of truth.

[savemefromdumbya]

33. with no help from the government that had boasted has the best air defense

this is the critical issue the government stood down on 9/11

[mhatrw]

35. More people need to read this. n/t

[mhatrw]

36. Sorry, original link seems to have disappeared.

Weird. Not on google or wayback machine anywhere or attytood's archives as far as I can tell.