Welcome to the Center for Cooperative Research forum. This forum is intended to enable additional collaboration and facilitate the sharing of information, which is what this site is all about. Any questions / suggestions / criticisms regarding the site in general are also welcome.

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: bonkedproducer (IP Logged)
Date: May 17, 2004 02:53PM

While the effort here is obvious, and the end result a useful tool, I must point out something that has been overlooked severly in the comments that detracts from the overall information here.

This timeline suffers from something that many people suffer from following 9/11 - the failure to remember that hindsight is always 20/20. It is assumed from the numerous comments in the timeline that everyone in multiple large organizations were perfectly able to intercommunicate with the utmost speed and efficiency. This just doesn't happen in large organizations.

First off, I see complaints like "Why were Fighters not scrambled three minutes eariler" probably because it takes several minutes for that information to relay down the chain to the pilots. Also, something that is often forgotten is that the U.S. Military was in a completely different posture post-9-11 compared to the day 9-11-2001. Further, on the subject of fighters, we see that it is brought up several times that the f-15s sent to intercept aircraft were capable of 1800+ MPH. While this may be true under absolute optimum conditions, and without the load of several hundred lbs of air-to-air missiles (something I know quite a bit about having been in the USAF for six years as a munitions specialist) drop tanks (it is stated they had more fuel than usual) full loads of 20MM ammunition in the guns etc. all decrease the top speed of the aircraft dramatically. These munitions have their own limits on allowable G, and create a lot of drag for the aircraft (note that newer aircraft like the F22 seek to decrease this by using internal bays.)

While 1800+ MPH is impressive when trying to "market" the aircraft as a formidable opponent, the difference in ability under optimum conditions and actual use is remarkable. 650 MPH is still close to the speed of sound, and a rather speedy clip for a fully armed aircraft. Especially when one considers a standard load for an F-15 in this role, Consider a minimum of 2 to 4 AIM-120 AMRAAMs at 356 lbs each, Likely along with two AIM-7 Sparrow Missiles at 500 lbs each, 2 to 4 AIM-9M Missiles at 190 lbs each, a full load of 20MM ammunition (940 rounds) for close to another 1000 lbs more weight than carried by the F-15 during it's record breaking speed tests, and fully loaded fuel tanks and drop tanks. These all make the 1800+ mark rather unreachable. The F-15s used to determine max speed etc. were unarmed, and had light fuel loads - the research here doesn't match up, because it compares apples and oranges a fully loaded F-15 is not an unarmed, lightly fueled one, and performs differently.

Also, let's remember that we know in hindsight the final destination of each of these aircraft, and they were not the only aircraft in the sky - and unlike the video games, target aircraft don't show up any different on a pilots radar return than friendly aircraft so chasing down a single commercial airliner in a sky full of commercial airliners is not as easy as the comments in the timeline would have us believe.

I was still living with a fellow member of the USAF at the time of the attacks, I recall watching video on Fox news of the first plane hitting the tower before the second plane hit, I was awake when it broke on the news, and upon the hit of the second aircraft, I beat the Air Force in waking my roommate up to tell him what was going on, it took the base another 20-30 minutes to call the apartment working through it's recall procedure to tell him to get to work early (I was in Phoenix at the time, 3 HRs behind EST)

Contrary to the movies you see, it was not very common on 9-11 to have aircraft loaded up and ready to go on the end of a runway, even if a base did have alert aircraft they were kept near hangers etc. because of explosive operating limits. The military was concerned about external threats from the air that would have provided much more warning than the hijack of a plane already over a populated area. Three minutes to taxi to a runway is rather quick considering it takes about a full minute for an aircraft like an F-16 or F-15 to spool up. Further, these aircraft don't start like your car, while in a dire emergency they can use their EPU to start the engine themselves, this places the ground crew at risk to hydrozine exposure and normally they are started using an external peice of equipment called commonly a "dash 60" to start the engines, and this equipment too takes a moment or so to be useful.

Remember how shocked you were when this happened, well, guess what the military was too - and no one had ever seen a hijacking where the terrorists actually planned to die by crashing the plane prior. Keep that in mind as you read the comments here because it is important that the facts of the matter not be clouded by what has been learned since. If you work in an office with more than 10 people, see how quickly you can get a message to each of them passing it through each other, and remember that that is how these decisions came down on 9-11 also except on a much larger scale. The world, NORAD, and the ATCs were not prepared for this, and likely could not have responded faster than they did, not that the current climate would result in the same delays.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: May 18, 2004 05:54AM

Thanks for the info!

However, one name:

Payne Stewart

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: bonkedproducer (IP Logged)
Date: May 18, 2004 06:23AM

Payne Stewart - a completely different situation, with an aircraft flying at a much slower speed in less crowded airspace. Further, the F-16s that were sent after Payne Stewart's aircraft were laden not with a full air-to-air missile load, but a rather light 511 rounds of 20MM, and two AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles (as stated before 190 lbs each and with significantly smaller size/less drag) and the aircraft was traveling a few hundred miles per hour slower than the jet aircraft used in the attacks.

Notes from the NTSB accident report show the following http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

Last ATC voice contact with Payne's Aircraft is at 9:33:38 EDT.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.

Please note that it isn't until "about 0952 CDT" Central Time, meaning almost a full hour and a half has passed before the first plane is sent to investigate, and at that time it is a test pilot already airborne from Eglin.

So I have two words for you, Payne Stewart. Again this proves that we were not ready to react to a threat of this type.




Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: TruthSeeker (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2004 04:09AM

Nice effort to you as well.

Lots of effort, but you overlook things as well.

Such as, why would we be unprepared for hijackings while hijack warnings were pouring in at an alltime high rate?

How could the nation's capital be left unguarded over 90 mins after the attacks were underway when there obviously were stations near DC with their job to protect the capital?

90 mins

You talk a lot about weapons and such, but theses planes were not required to be armed. Their duty, their standard procedure, was to "intercept" off course air craft, NOT to be ready to shoot them down. That order had to come from the president (who was too busy reading nursery rhymes to take control).

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2004 08:42AM

I've got another word for you: discrepancy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

Quote:
The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m., just after they had cleared the twin-engine jet to climb to 39,000 feet northwest of Gainesville, Fla. An FAA spokesman said that air traffic controllers noted "significant changes in altitude" by the plane, but that the aircraft's crew did not respond to repeated radio calls from the ground.

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: bonkedproducer (IP Logged)
Date: May 20, 2004 11:05AM

Re: TruthSeeker

I will run the risk of being branded here, not by the users of the site, but by those with much more power...

Why would be we be unprepared for hijackings... because the military was a very toothless watchdog during the time in question, and had created so much red tape and procedures that expediant communication simply didn't exist. While I will not mention bases etc. that I have worked at, many during Combat Employment Readiness Exercises failed tremendously due to this exact problem. Who is allowed to talk to whom and when leads to a huge backlog into the reason for the massive delay.

Also, since the end of the cold war the "Ready Alert" jets that are mentioned so much here were, at the time, a thing of the past - notice that in both the Stewart crash and the attacks, the majority of aircraft ready to go were training aircraft, and many unarmed aircraft. I signed paperwork when leaving the military stating I would be committing a felony (everyone does) if I gave specific details out at a later date, that is why I may same vague here, but trust me their simply were very few jets ready to go to defend America on 9-11.

Further, because of the massive amounts of information flowing back and forth between the ATCs and NORAD, and the individual commands on that day, it was chaotic, we tend to forget that the morning of 9-11-2001 was probably the most chaotic event witnessed in any of our lifetimes, and many people in charge were unwilling to make the tough calls, or unable to determine exactly what was happening, again I mention that hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure each of us has moments in our life we can point to and say "If I had known X I would have done Y."

I can recall events of the day rather well, I have a text file I typed as I watched the events unfold, I can remember thoughts among reporters and myself, that possibly someone had hacked into computer systems directing planes off course causing the crashes, etc. and the attacks were a very small time frame, it is not improbable that we completely dropped the ball - something the military has done in the past when it came to reacting to the crisis. Imagine for a moment, if you can put your mind back in the frame it was prior to the attacks, the public outcry that would have happened had each jet been shot down and the attack thwarted with a much lower death toll. There would be outcry in the streets that something else could have been done, how do we know that they would have crashed the planes, etc. The whole attack was inconceivable prior to it being carried out. Now imagine your career and life is on the line making the decision, do you see where things get a little less black and white yet and a little more grey - and how do you as the Government can face the public and say "oops, maybe we should have had more aircraft ready." That is the conspiracy, not that the attacks were "allowed" but that we weren't able to combat them.

RE: Photophreak - discrepency, hmmm... washington post, or official FAA report that the washington post based story on... which one do you trust more?

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: May 23, 2004 12:48AM

Quote:
RE: Photophreak - discrepency, hmmm... washington post, or official FAA report that the washington post based story on... which one do you trust more?


Washington Post vs. NTSB...

I'll take the Post, thank you!

:)

Very interesting (and believable) comments, bonked.
It's not improbable at all to blame a lack of preparation and an abundance of ball-dropping.

Hoever, I would think that once the first plane struck the tower (later causing it to collapse), that a shoot-down of the other three planes would become understandable and acceptable to the public at-large.

If at all, how would an exercise like Vigilant Guardian affect the readyness and efficiency of a NORAD reaction?

Quote:
I can remember thoughts among reporters and myself, that possibly someone had hacked into computer systems directing planes off course causing the crashes


Can you elaborate on that thought?
How did you imagine it happening?

(The hacking aspect is something I think I've only encountered in the TV show "Lone Gunmen" pilot episode.)

Was there something about the way that the planes were flown that suggested to you that the airliners were controlled remotely?

Thanks!

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: qwerty1 (IP Logged)
Date: June 3, 2004 09:19AM

How about the number of people to pull off doing this whole thing, it would be in the 1000s NORAD the entire center is in on it..um dont think so...ATC boston/new york/PA/dc/Newark etc etc all those people no FDNY? NYPD? PAPD? the FD & EMS & PD that went to the pentagon <-- All these people know when something is not right, ok now the entire goverment NSA, CIA, FBI, USSS, etc etc...Oh wait im way over 2000 people allready that would have to keep quiet forever about all this, wouldnt happen.... 4 planes 4 or 5 hijackers per plane all their family and friends, some one at the 2 airlines would have to be in on it to slow down comms ...holy cow way more people you can go on and on, JUST the 1 fact that so many people would have to be involved is staggering, but im willing to wath and see how you knock down the info...dont forget I was at the WTC when WTC 7 went down, your whole thing on that is wrong.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: bonkedproducer (IP Logged)
Date: June 3, 2004 09:54AM

Glad to read your post qwertyl - excellent points there as well. Remember every conspiracy is only as strong as the weakest link, and the more links required, the higher the likelyhood of failure.

As far as the comments on remotely controlled Aircraft photophreak (sorry about the long delay) I don't think that there is excessive amounts of that sort of thing going on, but there is autopiloting systems on board most modern aircraft. The mention of that was just to point out one of the millions of possibilities racing through all of our minds in those early hours of 9/11. I do find it disturbing that the general populace is able to forget the common sense that once you know the outcome of any event, you will look at the event differently than you looked at it as it unfolded though.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: June 3, 2004 01:35PM

Thanks for the response, bonked.

Not "excessive amounts", but remote control exists, and it did exist at the time.
Right?

Qwerty, as for the number of people involved...
I don't see why all those people would have to know and therefore be complicit.
EVERYONE at NORAD? Even the janitors?
I mean, the FDNY and NYPD?
Are you serious, qwerty?
When did ANYONE EVER suggest that they could be involved?

BTW, qwerty, what about the two firefighters who got to the crash site and said there were pockets of fire, not an inferno? What about the firefighters who heard explosions as they went up and down the stairs?

I'm sure there are more than a few firefighters and policemen who are skeptical of a few things about 9/11, to say the least.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: mokbubble (IP Logged)
Date: June 16, 2004 07:25PM

As I read the timeline, I had some of the same reservations at top speeds of planes. They are only able to obtain those top speed in opmium conditions. IT should be interesting if the 9/11 report has anything new on this tomrow.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: mike (IP Logged)
Date: June 21, 2004 05:54AM

You mention it should be interesting to see what the 9/11 report says. I read a good blog entry summarising the 9/11 report's take on the whole NORAD/FAA fiasco. It seems to find a good deal of unpreparedness and exposes how much of the 'defense' budget goes into defense, but disputes what many of the conspiracy theorists are arguing:

http://www.empirenotes.org/

June 17, 2:00 pm EST. The 9/11 Commission's report promulgated this morning, Staff Statement 17, Improvising a Homeland Defense, is an absolute must-read. It is a minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow reconstruction, based on a great deal of research, of the events of that fateful morning. And it is absolutely gripping.

I'll just outline the important points, but you really should read the whole thing word for word.

Ever since 9/11, there have been some persistent questions. How could the same Air Force that was able to lay waste to all of Serbia without incurring a single casualty be unable to defend against these attacks? In particular, how is it that even the third plane, which hit the Pentagon, was not intercepted? Sending up fighters to escort a plane that is acting suspiciously is fairly common procedure, even for much lesser incidents.

These questions have provided a great deal of fodder for conspiracy theorists. The most benign form in which the 9/11 conspiracy theories have come has been the detailing of anomalies on the morning of September 11, usually concluding with the claim that a "stand-down order" was given to the military (or sometimes, the conspiracy theorists will just say, "I'm not saying I know what happened, but there are some questions we need answers to.")

Now, I've been in a difficult position. On the one hand, the cursory reading of the situation I was able to do (prior to this report) did raise some serious questions. On the other hand, the idea of a stand-down order is absolutely ludicrous. Who would have given it? To whom? How would it be justified? Why would nobody have come forward? And so I've always said that there were things unexplained but that I'd never seen an explanation that made sense. The fact that nobody has come up with a sensible explanation doesn't mean that you rush to embrace an absurd explanation.

Well, all of that should be put to rest now (it won't, of course -- such is the nature of human beings -- but it should). The 9/11 Commission has finally provided us the facts necessary to understanding how the attacks could happen.

First of all, the story involves two organizations -- the FAA and NORAD.

NORAD, which is responsible for air defense for the continental United States, is just a shell of its former self. The whole 3,000,000 square miles is defended by seven sites, each of which has two fighter planes on call. That's right -- 14 fighter planes are the first line of defense of the country against attack from the air. Contrast that with the 655 U.S. fighters involved in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (not including the numerous other planes -- bombers, etc. -- or the planes from other coalition members) and you get a good sense of just how much of "defense spending" goes to defense.

BTW, NORAD used to be much bigger before the fall of the Soviet Union. Back then, many planes were needed to defend against the nonexistent threat of Soviet bombers (in case both sides' ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles miraculously disappeared just as the Soviet Union miraculously decided to attack). Now, against existent threats, apparently, we don't need defenses.

The FAA is the body that deals with commercial flights and has all the relevant data. Every commercial flight emits a unique transponder signal. Only the FAA picks them up. 3 of the 4 hijacked flights had theirs turned off by the hijackers, so the only way to locate them was by "radar returns," i.e. by radar emitted from the ground and reflected from the planes. Both the FAA and NORAD can track these. The FAA has 22 different Air Route Traffic Control Centers covering the country, four of which were involved on 9/11 -- handoffs from one to another mean going to a whole new set of personnel.

I won't repeat the whole blow-by-blow, but here are some highlights:

The first hijacked flight, American 11, was identified as being hijacked by 8:24. Word got to FAA Operations Center, by going up the chain of command, by 8:32. NORAD was notified by 8:38. This was actually fast -- the personnel in the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center didn't follow the established protocol of having everything go up the chain of command in the FAA first, but took the initiative to contact NORAD directly.

NORAD (all NORAD operations involved the Northeast Air Defense Sector -- NEADS) immediately ordered two F-15's at a base 153 miles from New York to battle stations. At 8:46 they were scrambled -- and even there standard procedure was short-circuited to get them up more quickly. NEADS didn't know where to scramble them to, though. They spent several minutes trying to track down radar returns. The first plane hit the first building at 8:46:40.

The fighters were in the air at 8:53, without a clear sense of where to go. In order to keep them out of the heavily traveled air corridor, they were ordered into a holding pattern in military airspace off the coast of Long Island.

The second flight, United 175, changed its transponder code at 8:47. The controller responsible for tracking it was the same person responsible for American 11. She was, naturally, kind of busy at the time. It was 8:55 before she had thought of the possibility that United 175 was hijacked and informed the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center manager. When that person tried to inform regional managers at 8:58, the call was blocked because they were dealing with American 11. FAA Command Center was informed at 9:01. At 9:03, United 175 hit the second tower.

It's very clear that nothing could have been done to prevent either of these attacks. Note that NORAD wasn't even informed of the second plane.

After that, the story gets more bizarre. Among the revelations of the Commission is that the fighters scrambled later from Langley to fly over Washington DC were not scrambled in response to American 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon. They were scrambled to intercept a phantom, American 11, which had ceased to exist 50 minutes earlier. Although American 77 disappeared from the Indianapolis Control Center's radar at 8:56, the FAA never asked for military assistance with the flight, and only informed NORAD by chance at 9:36. Fighters were immediately scrambled from Langley, but due to further errors were sent in the wrong direction. American 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38.

By the way, one of the staples of the conspiracy theorists is that the fighters scrambled to protect DC came from Langley rather than Andrews Air Force Base, which is much closer. The reason is simple: there's no NORAD site at Andrews.

The story gets even more complicated after that. The Commission concludes, I think correctly, that it's highly unlikely that United 93 would have been stopped had not the passengers managed to take it down over Pennsylvania. Again, the military only learned about the hijacking of that flight after it had crashed.

Two points stand out. First, dealing with these attacks was an enormously difficult problem. The FAA had to take unprecedented actions, like ordering the simultaneous grounding of all flights over the United States -- which was executed without incident. When planes' transponders were turned off, it had to perform a needle-in-a-haystack search to locate them from radar returns. And it had to deal with the standard bureaucratic processes, all of which took away precious minutes.

Second, with some things like the plane that hit the Pentagon, there was a great deal of incompetence involved. The primary reason is the same as the reason that NORAD had 14 planes to call on for the whole country -- notwithstanding the rhetoric involved in talking about the "Defense" Department and the "defense" budget, there's little recognition anywhere that the United States could be attacked and that it might have to be defended. The concluding paragraph of the statement says it all:

'NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet.'

It remains only to point out that, had the entire "national security" establishment had any seriousness about national security, this would not have been the case. There had been ample warning, starting as early as 1995, of the threat of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. But business as usual for the national security establishment is to talk about defending the United States but to expend all of its energy on planning attacks on other countries.




Edited 1 times. Last edit at 06/21/04 05:55AM by mike.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: June 21, 2004 11:11AM

Quote:
The first hijacked flight, American 11, was identified as being hijacked by 8:24. Word got to FAA Operations Center, by going up the chain of command, by 8:32. NORAD was notified by 8:38. This was actually fast -- the personnel in the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center didn't follow the established protocol of having everything go up the chain of command in the FAA first, but took the initiative to contact NORAD directly.


Nope, I don't buy it.
If a plane is hijacked, NORAD would be contacted within a few hundred seconds.
Also, did word go up the chain of command or not?
You say two different things.

Quote:
By the way, one of the staples of the conspiracy theorists is that the fighters scrambled to protect DC came from Langley rather than Andrews Air Force Base, which is much closer. The reason is simple: there's no NORAD site at Andrews.


NORAD, schmorad.
Andrews still had armed fighters whose stated purpose was to defend against airborne enemies, including hijackings.

Quote:
'NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet.'


Nice try.
It wasn't unprecedented.
It was trained for.

Who do you work for?

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: bonkedproducer (IP Logged)
Date: June 21, 2004 12:29PM

It was trained for?

Please, photophreak, tell me when the precedent was set for an aircraft, much less multiple aircraft, to be hijacked and used as a guided missile, I'd love to see the first use of this tactic, since you are claiming it was pre-9/11.

As stated in my first post above, the true problem during the attack (and the fallicy of second-guessing now that we know the absolute outcome.) was the lack of communication between NORAD, ACC (Air Combat Command), and Air Traffic Controlers, as well as the lack of Armed, ready response aircraft in the AO (Area of Operations.)

Now, as with any conspiracy theory, it's easy to pass off any information that goes against the argument being made as falsified, and intentionally misleading from the "truth" but unbiased observers without an agenda will look at all the facts and form their view based on them. This is where "hard news" fails when it comes to conspiracy related items (they ignore anything not spoon-fed to them) and some conspiracy theorist fail (they ignore any of the "hard news" items that go against their pet theory.)

Ok, the report states NORAD has 14 alert aircraft nationwide. and 4 of those in the AO the attacks took place in. Also, the report details in depth the miscommunication and lack of failure for members of the organizations involved to make the command decisions their job dictated they make. The latter problem can be traced directly to our finger pointing "someone has to be at blame" society that will destroy a decision makers life and career with little thought to the entire argument I first brought up here, that hindsight is always 20/20 no matter how clouded the information at the actual time was.

A military organization's mission, is no different than your corporate mission statement, etc. it is worded to sound tough and impressive on documents, websites, plaques, and letterheads. Defending the skies above the bases AO is generally a given in the mission of any Air Force Base. Having that mission and having loaded, fueled, and readily airborne aircraft is a completely different matter. Having a "Wing King" (Commanding Officer at Base Level) with the cojones to make the call to put those birds in the air is another. There are repeated recordings mentioned of phone calls and communications between FAA, NORAD, and USAF personnel that all point to what we enlisted grunts affectionally called "12 monkeys trying to f&*# a football" - a complete failure to communicate and get things done efficiently on the morning of September 11.

At the time of the attacks, the FAA and NORAD had to do the following for each aircraft that is hijacked:

1. Recognize that a hijacking had taken place, not that a transponder was turned off, or that an aircraft was not responding to radio calls.
2. Notify their supervisor in the room with them that they believed an aircraft had been hijacked. Take the time needed to brief the supervisor why they believed an aircraft was being hijacked.
3. Route aircraft away from the suspect aircraft as supervision notified their immediate superiors of the situation.
4. The immediate superiors of the controller's supervision would begin to contact NORAD, but this would only begin after being briefed of the situation, and the controllers in front of the scopes reasoning for making the call.
5. Once contacting NORAD, the FAA personnel would have to explain to the personnel at NORAD what was occuring, where it was occuring, and again how they came to be aware of the situation.
6. NORAD personnel now have to upchannel this information to their supervision, along with the what, when, where, and whys so that these supervisors can make the call to the responsible base.
7. NORAD would pass the command to the base covering the airspace affected to launch aircraft to meet the threat.
8. Wing level command having received the command from NORAD now have to notify the Squadron level command to get the aircraft airborne.
9. The command being given would lead the crew chiefs/pilots to mobilize to the ready alert aircraft "kicking the tires and lighting the fires" (the kicking the tires part been done at beginning of the alert shift)
10. With the aircraft now running they have to take the time to taxi to a runway, and take the needed time to get airborne and then be directed to the threat by ATC.

This is a bit more than a hundred or so seconds worth of work (especially considering the peacetime footing of NORAD/FAA on the day of Septemeber 11) as the commission pointed out this is one of the greatest causes leading to the events. To ignore these facts, and the facts that these events were in fact not predicted, leads to the kind of fallicies I continually see repeated concerning the attacks on 9/11.

I say again "HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS PERFECT, IT IS TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WILL HAPPEN THAT ANY CHALLENGE LIES!"

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: bonkedproducer (IP Logged)
Date: June 21, 2004 12:54PM

On a related note, please tell me why it is believed that shooting down a passenger sized aircraft over populated areas would prevent deaths on the ground.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/downedmig29.htm

You see aircraft hit by missiles don't go poof and disappear like the ones on your video games, they tend to turn from large heavy, flying objects into large heavy, unwieldy, flaming objects plummeting at a high rate of speed to the ground.

This tends to due quite a bit of damage to the ground surrounding a crashed aircraft, so shootdown might have saved some buildings while destroying others.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: Love the effort, but there are things overlooked
Posted by: rdexter (IP Logged)
Date: August 18, 2004 01:31AM

bonkedproducer Wrote:
> 1. Recognize that a hijacking had taken place, not
> that a transponder was turned off, or that an
> aircraft was not responding to radio calls.
> 2. Notify their supervisor in the room with them
> that they believed an aircraft had been hijacked.
> Take the time needed to brief the supervisor why
> they believed an aircraft was being hijacked.
> 3. Route aircraft away from the suspect aircraft
> as supervision notified their immediate superiors
> of the situation.
> 4. The immediate superiors of the controller's
> supervision would begin to contact NORAD, but this
> would only begin after being briefed of the
> situation, and the controllers in front of the
> scopes reasoning for making the call.
> 5. Once contacting NORAD, the FAA personnel would
> have to explain to the personnel at NORAD what was
> occuring, where it was occuring, and again how
> they came to be aware of the situation.
> 6. NORAD personnel now have to upchannel this
> information to their supervision, along with the
> what, when, where, and whys so that these
> supervisors can make the call to the responsible
> base.
> 7. NORAD would pass the command to the base
> covering the airspace affected to launch aircraft
> to meet the threat.
> 8. Wing level command having received the command
> from NORAD now have to notify the Squadron level
> command to get the aircraft airborne.
> 9. The command being given would lead the crew
> chiefs/pilots to mobilize to the ready alert
> aircraft "kicking the tires and lighting the
> fires" (the kicking the tires part been done at
> beginning of the alert shift)
> 10. With the aircraft now running they have to
> take the time to taxi to a runway, and take the
> needed time to get airborne and then be directed
> to the threat by ATC.

And this is not even taking into account, that several recipients in this chain of communications were in a routine Tuesday-morning-"peace-times"-mindset, suddenly having to make severe judgement calls which made them repeatedly ask for confirmation of the things they were told because they wouldn't believe them in the first place. I mean who would have until only later that day?

For most CT buffs things in reality seem to work like in an episode of "24": As special agent Jack Bauer you just need to call the President of the US on your cell-phone and he'll be with you in 30 seconds. He'll have top Army and Security personel in a phone conference in another 30 seconds, listen to your briefing for 10 seconds, think about his decision another 10 seconds and give you the order to shootdown the plane in 2.

For a change just listen to the (snipped) taped conversation of Stewardess Betty Ong on Board AA11 with the ground: That's 4 and a half minutes of questions, confused information, the need for reconfirmation, disbelief, re-affirmation, briefing additional persons, and a lot of silence in between as the clock ticks by. Now multiply the time it took to relay this (and other confusing) information with the recipients necessary in order to get the jets up and level with target at time, and 26 minutes between AA11 shut its transponder off and its crash into WTC 1 doesn't seem that impressive a time span, especially as the actual outcome (which it unfortunately turned out to be) probably was not even remotely considered that morning by any of the officials as even a probable scenario.

I mean, I don't want to apologize away. The air defense of Earth's most powerful nation failed miserably that day. But IMO that does not automatically a conpiracy make.


Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message


Goto: Forum ListMessage ListSearchLog In
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.