Full Version: They must have known.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Sep 5 2004, 01:09 PM)
Unless a suspected hijacking doesnt count as a emergency? Maybe it goes under something totally different. And as has been already stated, there were fighters volunteering to help after the WTC collapsed, yet they were not given any approval until at least an hour later (although I think it was more...I cant remember). It may not seem like a long time to you, but it seems like one to me, when two other planes are suspected of being hijacked, and the FAA says to treat unsure situations as emergencies.
Suspected hijacks certainly qualify as emergencies, but not every "emergency" requires a military response. If that were the case, our fighters would be busy indeed. "Emergency", in the case of a deviation from course prior to 911, indicated a potential mid-air collision, not a hijacking. Hindsight 20/20 is a great thing, but prior to 911 a hijack had to be confirmed before military intervention, not simply suspected, and there were a total of four hijacks. Not all were quickly confirmed.
Edited to add: This sentence in your first quoted paragraph: " and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be." Is simply wrong. Emergencies of flight deviation did not automatically lead to the scrambling of fighter jets. Passenger planes go off-course all of the time. The "emergency" they are speaking of is a potential mid-air collision. It was an air-traffic controller emergency, not a military one. Not surprisingly, that portion of the sentence was not in the cited news source. Must have been Thompson's "rhetorical flourish". Makes one wonder just how much embellishment he's placed throughout that timeline.
This is interesting
QUOTE
Edited to add: This sentence in your first quoted paragraph: " and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be." Is simply wrong. Emergencies of flight deviation did not automatically lead to the scrambling of fighter jets. Passenger planes go off-course all of the time. The "emergency" they are speaking of is a potential mid-air collision. It was an air-traffic controller emergency, not a military one. Not surprisingly, that portion of the sentence was not in the cited news source. Must have been Thompson's "rhetorical flourish". Makes one wonder just how much embellishment he's placed throughout that timeline.
Its source is MSNBC.
QUOTE
Furthermore, MSNBC explained that a significant course deviation is "considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour" and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be. [MSNBC, 9/12/01]
And the quote from the actual article reads (from MSNBC http://billstclair.com:8080/911timeline/20...snbc091201.html ):
QUOTE
It’s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched.
If Thompsons was going strictly by this article, I hardly see it as "rhetorical flourish" for him to say that fighters are quickly dispatched, because the article states as much.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Sep 5 2004, 03:53 PM)
If Thompsons was going strictly by this article, I hardly see it as "rhetorical flourish" for him to say that fighters are quickly dispatched, because the article states as much.
No, they aren't the same. The MSNBC article is employing a journalist "trick" by making two true statements, and piecing them together to lead the reader to form the conclusion that they must belong together. Yes, a large deviation from the flight path is considered an emergency by the air traffic controllers. Yes, fighter jets were used to intercept Payne Stewart's plane. That does not indicate that every errant plane receives a military response, which is Thompson's assertion.
I must also add that "quickly" is a license here. How do they define quick in this case? We don't know, and those fighters might have taken much longer to respond to Payne's plane than they did to the emergency on 911. His aircraft flew unmanned from 10:00 until it crashed at 1:30 in the afternoon.
True enough. Well, Im going to agree to disagree, as I dont have much else to say about the military response to 9/11. You think that an hour is reasonable, and I dont. Although, I did learn some stuff from this. Thanks.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Sep 5 2004, 08:09 PM)
To me the bigger question is "Why did it take so long to respond?" Not whether or not they responded after approval was given. Well, if they hadnt responded after approval was given, then it would be obvious negligence, and Im going to assume that the military knows how to follow orders.
Well, according to the FAA, if one is not sure whether its an emergency or not, it is best to act as if it was an emergency. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1
Unless a suspected hijacking doesnt count as a emergency? Maybe it goes under something totally different. And as has been already stated, there were fighters volunteering to help after the WTC collapsed, yet they were not given any approval until at least an hour later (although I think it was more...I cant remember). It may not seem like a long time to you, but it seems like one to me, when two other planes are suspected of being hijacked, and the FAA says to treat unsure situations as emergencies.
Except that NORAD had drills, prior to 9/11 where planes were used as weapons? Hm...According to the link Ive posted from USA Today, it says the one crucial difference between the drills and 9/11 is that the drills used planes originating from a forgien country, and the article also states that numerous civilian and military aircraft were used during the drills. Im not sure if one would say that commcercial aircraft and civilian aircraft are synonymous.
QUOTE
Furthermore, MSNBC explained that a significant course deviation is "considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour" and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be. [MSNBC, 9/12/01] But, as ABC News later put it, around 8:20, "There doesn't seem to have been alarm bells going off, traffic controllers getting on with law enforcement or the military. There's a gap there that will have to be investigated." [ABC News, 9/14/01]
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 ©] 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]
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 ©] 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]
Well, according to the FAA, if one is not sure whether its an emergency or not, it is best to act as if it was an emergency. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1
QUOTE
c. If the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used and you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.
d. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations, specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual.
d. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations, specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual.
Unless a suspected hijacking doesnt count as a emergency? Maybe it goes under something totally different. And as has been already stated, there were fighters volunteering to help after the WTC collapsed, yet they were not given any approval until at least an hour later (although I think it was more...I cant remember). It may not seem like a long time to you, but it seems like one to me, when two other planes are suspected of being hijacked, and the FAA says to treat unsure situations as emergencies.
QUOTE
What ensued was a hurried attempt to improvise a defense by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction.
Except that NORAD had drills, prior to 9/11 where planes were used as weapons? Hm...According to the link Ive posted from USA Today, it says the one crucial difference between the drills and 9/11 is that the drills used planes originating from a forgien country, and the article also states that numerous civilian and military aircraft were used during the drills. Im not sure if one would say that commcercial aircraft and civilian aircraft are synonymous.
I just have to sound off here. Who are "They"?
I don't know but it sounds odd, that based on the above information which Kimpossible has researched, that NOTHING was done to prevent the disaster which was 9-11.
I was writing to my congressman, or getting ready to, and found this article by Gore Vidal. It's really quite good, and while it doesn't implicate malfeasance, it does certainly suggest incompetance, and people should be asking questions.
Heres a sample,
QUOTE
On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: "That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which...are 12 miles from the White House...Whatever the explanation for this huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, or reprimands. This further weakens the 'Incompetence Theory.' Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were 'stand down' orders." ?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were "only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US." Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error?
Here is my source, and its not from some whack-job nutcase conspiracy theorist, either! haha
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr_gore_vidal.html
I agree to disagree, Kimpossible 
But, after reading Pierzin's post, I'll add a bit. I’m curious what people would have said prior to 911 if the Air force professed to paying millions upon millions to make certain that their pilots were perfectly able to take out plane loads of passengers should they ever encounter a hijack situation. Actually, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.
I asked Mr P to give his input on some of this. Here is what he told me:
Mr P also mentioned something called an ADIZ. This is the zone that NORAD is responsible for the defense of (or was, prior to 911). It stands for the Air Defense Identification Zone. Rules are imposed to identify and track all aircraft penetrating or operating within the ADIZ. NORAD is not responsible for domestic flight interdiction, except under the most unusual circumstances. The assertions and quotes that Thompson uses to affirm his conclusions the airliners are “intercepted all of the time” are taken out of context, and refer to this zone (“rocking wings, interceptions, ect”). Rules for the ADIZ, and the mission of NORAD, has changed since 911. All in all, it isn't the least bit surprising that fighters didn't scramble within 15 minutes to intercept airliners which they were not cleared to intercept, and were out of their jurisdiction. They followed the protocol at the time. The immediate "scrambling of jets" if the plane goes 15 degrees off course during a domestic flight is a complete fabrication or misinformation...and would be inconceivably expensive to impliment. Since I know little about the rest of the timeline, I won't comment, except to add that if one portion is erroneous, the rest should be extremely suspect.
Edited to add: Regarding Pierzin's quote above from the Canadian media analyst (no doubt as much an expert in aviation matters as my son's nursery school teacher is an expert on the state Health Department)
But, after reading Pierzin's post, I'll add a bit. I’m curious what people would have said prior to 911 if the Air force professed to paying millions upon millions to make certain that their pilots were perfectly able to take out plane loads of passengers should they ever encounter a hijack situation. Actually, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.
I asked Mr P to give his input on some of this. Here is what he told me:QUOTE
There are two types of aviation- instrument flight rules (IFR) or visual flight rules (VFR). Below is a description of each.
IFR- The vast majority of commercial aviation is conducted under IFR. All flight above 18,000 feet must be IFR. In simple terms, IFR flight combines procedural and radar means to separate aircraft preventing mid-air collisions. Under the IFR system the pilot must file a flight plan and receive a clearance for the flight plan before flying IFR. There are several ways to navigate IFR:
1. Federal Airways. These airways are 8 nautical miles (NM) wide, and although pilots strive for the centerline, the equipment on the aircraft does not need to be calibrated to perfection. It is easily possibly to be several miles off course, and be well within the airway.
2. Radar vectors. The air traffic controller simply gives the pilot a heading to fly. The pilot is not supposed to correct for any winds (which at altitude can easily exceed 100 knots) therefore, although the pilot may fly the heading precisely, the radar controller may have to watch the display to determine the effects the winds are having on the ground track.
3. Proceeding to a fix. The controller may tell the pilot to proceed directly to a fix, which is really just a point over the ground. Not all aircraft have the systems required to plot a course directly to the fix that can compensate for the winds. In these cases the pilot points at the estimated location of the fix (which may be not very precise) and then corrects for winds by trial and error. There can be very significant errors in this manner of navigation.
It is quite common for an aircraft to be several miles off course, and no one is alarmed. The primary function of air traffic control is to separate aircraft, not monitor every aircraft to see if it is slightly off course (at 500 mph a few miles may be slightly off course).
VFR- If IFR flight gives pilots some latitude to be off course, VFR is a whole new ball game. In fact, there is no course for VFR flight-pilot’s need not even file a flight plan to fly VFR. In the US pilots may fly VFR below 18,000 ft. with the following main restrictions.
1. Avoid restricted and prohibited areas. These are typically military live fire bombing ranges and important places like the White House. Many of these restricted areas have a maximum altitude that may be overflown VFR below 18,000 ft.
2. Do not enter controlled airspace without clearance. There’s a lot of different types of controlled airspace but to simplify things consider controlled airspace to be around metropolitan areas and airfields with control towers (this is not a pure definition, but close enough). Again, nearly all of this controlled airspace can legally be overflown VFR. For example, Las Vegas may be overflown VFR above 9,000 ft. on any routing and without consulting any controller whatsoever.
IFR- The vast majority of commercial aviation is conducted under IFR. All flight above 18,000 feet must be IFR. In simple terms, IFR flight combines procedural and radar means to separate aircraft preventing mid-air collisions. Under the IFR system the pilot must file a flight plan and receive a clearance for the flight plan before flying IFR. There are several ways to navigate IFR:
1. Federal Airways. These airways are 8 nautical miles (NM) wide, and although pilots strive for the centerline, the equipment on the aircraft does not need to be calibrated to perfection. It is easily possibly to be several miles off course, and be well within the airway.
2. Radar vectors. The air traffic controller simply gives the pilot a heading to fly. The pilot is not supposed to correct for any winds (which at altitude can easily exceed 100 knots) therefore, although the pilot may fly the heading precisely, the radar controller may have to watch the display to determine the effects the winds are having on the ground track.
3. Proceeding to a fix. The controller may tell the pilot to proceed directly to a fix, which is really just a point over the ground. Not all aircraft have the systems required to plot a course directly to the fix that can compensate for the winds. In these cases the pilot points at the estimated location of the fix (which may be not very precise) and then corrects for winds by trial and error. There can be very significant errors in this manner of navigation.
It is quite common for an aircraft to be several miles off course, and no one is alarmed. The primary function of air traffic control is to separate aircraft, not monitor every aircraft to see if it is slightly off course (at 500 mph a few miles may be slightly off course).
VFR- If IFR flight gives pilots some latitude to be off course, VFR is a whole new ball game. In fact, there is no course for VFR flight-pilot’s need not even file a flight plan to fly VFR. In the US pilots may fly VFR below 18,000 ft. with the following main restrictions.
1. Avoid restricted and prohibited areas. These are typically military live fire bombing ranges and important places like the White House. Many of these restricted areas have a maximum altitude that may be overflown VFR below 18,000 ft.
2. Do not enter controlled airspace without clearance. There’s a lot of different types of controlled airspace but to simplify things consider controlled airspace to be around metropolitan areas and airfields with control towers (this is not a pure definition, but close enough). Again, nearly all of this controlled airspace can legally be overflown VFR. For example, Las Vegas may be overflown VFR above 9,000 ft. on any routing and without consulting any controller whatsoever.
Mr P also mentioned something called an ADIZ. This is the zone that NORAD is responsible for the defense of (or was, prior to 911). It stands for the Air Defense Identification Zone. Rules are imposed to identify and track all aircraft penetrating or operating within the ADIZ. NORAD is not responsible for domestic flight interdiction, except under the most unusual circumstances. The assertions and quotes that Thompson uses to affirm his conclusions the airliners are “intercepted all of the time” are taken out of context, and refer to this zone (“rocking wings, interceptions, ect”). Rules for the ADIZ, and the mission of NORAD, has changed since 911. All in all, it isn't the least bit surprising that fighters didn't scramble within 15 minutes to intercept airliners which they were not cleared to intercept, and were out of their jurisdiction. They followed the protocol at the time. The immediate "scrambling of jets" if the plane goes 15 degrees off course during a domestic flight is a complete fabrication or misinformation...and would be inconceivably expensive to impliment. Since I know little about the rest of the timeline, I won't comment, except to add that if one portion is erroneous, the rest should be extremely suspect.
Edited to add: Regarding Pierzin's quote above from the Canadian media analyst (no doubt as much an expert in aviation matters as my son's nursery school teacher is an expert on the state Health Department)
QUOTE
Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: "That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which...are 12 miles from the White House...Whatever the explanation for this huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, or reprimands. This further weakens the 'Incompetence Theory.' Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were 'stand down' orders." ?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were "only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US." Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error?
Coincidence, error, or conspiracy that there were only four alert jets in the northeastern US, he asks? None of the above. The nation had exactly the number of alert jets it was willing to fund. If it was a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy that dates back to 1997.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.