REDWAVE
Urban Jungle Dweller
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2001
- Posts
- 6,013
The smoking gun
- Thread starter REDWAVE
- Start date
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
140 pages?
Yeah, I'll get right on reading that one.
Yeah, I'll get right on reading that one.
brokenbrainwave
Just draggin around
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Posts
- 18,892
MY God, do you work or just spend time looking for shit online while suckling from the teet of the government sow?
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
Problem Child said:140 pages?
Yeah, I'll get right on reading that one.
It's the source of all of redshit's ramblings.
Half of it is nothing but questions with no answers.
Quotes taken from notable figures and placed strategically into more rambling.
I bet if we put all of red's posts in a consolidated webpage it would mirror that shitlink he pasted.
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
brokenbrainwave said:
No redwave is an unemployed lawyer in Las Vegas.
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
HeavyStick said:
A Heavy Quote
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
HeavyStick said:
Another Heavy quote
brokenbrainwave
Just draggin around
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Posts
- 18,892
I hear there is an ex-preacher in Texas that is needing a sorry lawyer...HeavyStick said:
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
Part 1A
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
by MalcontentX
Index Page
Part 1A:
* Introduction
* George W. Bush
* Flight 77
* Air Force One
* Notes
Introduction
Feb. 2002
Within a few months, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 became but an echo of the events that followed.
War in Afghanistan, anthrax, unprecedented powers of detention: the public mind moves from one shock to another, appearing to accept the government’s lead.
Now after five, six, seven months, a new world beacons; or perhaps, the old world, from a different vantage point.
For those of us determined to think for ourselves, (and question government pronouncements) the leap to blame Bin Laden, (with little substantial evidence) and the pretext for bombing yet another poor country, was unsatisfactory -right from the start.
Yet this has become a "new reality" which we now have to deal with, taking us further from the events of Sept. 11th with each passing day.
The curtain seems to be descending on the big, unanswered questions that was on virtually everyone’s mind during, (and for weeks after) the attack:
How could Sept. 11th have happened?
How could four planes be hijacked over U.S. skies, within the space of an hour?
How was it that three of them were able to plow into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, in the heart of the most powerful nation on earth -with no planes in the skies to defend them?
Were the perpetrators simply evil geniuses?
Or did these attacks occur alongside the most colossal collapse of airspace security in U.S. history?
In the wake of the devastation, the answer to this last question is: obviously, yes.
Somehow, the terrorists got through.
Even politicians in Washington, (normally staunch defenders of the security apparatus) were initially compelled to express this:
"The government failed the American people." (Rep. Curt Weldon, on CNN, 12:40, Sept. 11th).
A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a thorough inquiry."
Sen. Robert Torricelli, speaking on the Senate floor. (1)
An obvious thing.
This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the military.
To touch on but one example:
two of the four planes commandeered on Sept 11th were in the air, (hijack-confirmed) for almost an hour after the first hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center had been confirmed -with no jet fighter in sight, as routine procedure demands.
The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.
There were safeguards in place, and they were not implemented.
As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was repeated at virtually every level of civilian air defense, in relation to all four planes.
Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented negligence –on the part of those entrusted with the protection of American skies.
Without such an lapse, the attacks of Sept 11th simply would not have been successful.
Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the sheer scope of it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public inquiry; yet the government has strictly avoided opening itself to public scrutiny; instead, it has used the tragedy to wrap the protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.
The congressional committee of review, for example,
"does not in any way lay blame to the dedicated men and women of the U.S. intelligence community." "The point is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is to see where the weaknesses are in our system."
Members of committee, NY Times, Oct 3, 2001(2)
The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30 billion intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on the C.I.A.'s use of unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)
In other words, the assumption is,
‘the government and defense apparatus did everything it could.’
‘We were caught off-guard by fiendishly clever, ruthless, and fanatical foes.’
‘We simply need more resources to make sure it never happens again.’
As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official documents, statements, and mainstream media reports) this assumption is utterly wrong.
More resources were not required.
What was needed on Sept 11th was for procedures that were already in place to be implemented.
A most profound abandonment of routine air-defense procedures accompanied these attacks.
In this particular sense, the attackers did not act alone.
That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush to identify the attackers) is all the more reason that an open, public investigation be initiated.
In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we found it virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal incompetence which must have accompanied it; and our government, media, (and other centers of influence) seem to have found it convenient to inflame our anger –diverting our attention from the outstanding, obvious questions:
How did this happen?
Who within the state apparatus was asleep at the switch?
How do we ensure that this never happens again?
How do we know that some of those involved in the internal "investigation" of the state won’t simply cover over what they don’t want us to see?
In the immediate aftermath of the terror, the government/media made it seem as if anyone who criticized the government was "for" the "other side."
The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government, was temporarily put on hold.
It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public investigation.
There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts –simply an increased budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and state power.
It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for ourselves; and yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months following, may have made such an inquiry seem impossible to us, passe, perhaps even irrelevant.
So I ask you, dear reader, for but a few minutes more of your time: to briefly take a step back with me, unto a morning and a day when our world seemed to change forever.
I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information which have passed across our view screens so quickly, their significance seeming to fade in the absence of meaningful debate.
Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense research: carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential points may be grasped with a clarity and ease, hitherto elusive.
Consider this contention:
the attacks on Sept. 11 may yet represent
one of the most important events in the last fifty years,
(perhaps all human history, for those who choose to examine it):
a turning point, in our understanding of the most-fundamental relationship between appearance and reality.
Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence, I’m sure you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery may lie within.
Recall then, the morning of Sept 11, 2001
According to The New York Times, (Sept 15)
"controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11. And within a few minutes more, controllers would have known that both United 175 (the second plane to hit the World Trade Center) and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon) had probably been hijacked." (3)
[Note: all the hijacked planes had their tracking beacons turned off at various times, but they were still visible on various radar screens].
George W. Bush
Top
Within ten minutes of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush was aware of it.
"He got out of his hotel suite this morning, [on his way to a school] was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later." (ABC's John Cochran, Peter Jennings)
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm#mybust
Then, (according to CNN) he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school, (CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31, Sept.11).
Then the President was updated a third time.
According to Associated Press, he was
"In Sarasota, Florida.... reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear." ['AP' 12 September 2001, This also appeared on TV] (4)
And what did George W. Bush do when he received the third update from Andrew Card?
Apparently, nothing.
"The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later." ['AP' 12 September, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001 Pg. A 20]. (5)
Further, according to CNN’s Garrett, (on the scene)
"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on television sets here at the elementary school... Shortly before [his] statement [addressing the tragedy] he was actually sitting down with some children here at the elementary school reading them a book.... Reporters asked him if he was aware of the situation in New York. He nodded a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say about that shortly.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html ("Breaking News" 9:25)
To the suggestion, (made by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan) that this "exchange of questions with the president came at... a sensitive time... sitting in front of a bunch of schoolchildren... not wanting to scare [them]," Garrett replies:
"Well, precisely. And the president has a way of letting reporters know that it's either an appropriate... or inappropriate time to take questions. He does that in many different environments, many different situations. Clearly this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an even keel, keep the situation under control as best as possible. He just nodded and said -- we'll talk about this later."
Just after 9:30, the President excused himself from the classroom to make a statement that a "terrorist attack on America has occurred." (CNN, "Breaking News, 9:31)
So, for almost thirty minutes after President Bush was officially updated about this for the the third time, he remained sitting in a classroom of children, (apparently, reading a book about goats).
Does this not seem rather negligent?
As we shall soon see, officials would repeatedly claim that the President was the only one who could order a domestic airliner to be shot down.
Why did he remain sitting in the classroom? Why did he even GO into the classroom in the first place? -if he had already been informed, not once but twice, of an unprecedented attack on America?
Was he not told the whole story?
Three months later, on nationwide TV, President Bush tells a captive audience,
"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
This is a very interesting statement for Bush to make, seeing as the first plane, (at that time) was not actually caught on network TV -striking the tower. Only the second one was.
Clearly, the President is giving the impression that he was not then aware that this plane crash was a terrorist attack; but is this, in fact what we would expect from the commander-in-chief?
As supreme commander, the President is tied into civilian air defense through the secret service.
There are time-honored, standard procedures -whereby, the command-center in the Pentagon, radar defense, the National Security Council, and the President are quickly informed of any national emergencies, including hijackings.
As Vice-President Dick Cheney says on the Sept. 16th edition of "Meet The Press,"
"The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
Cheney neglects to finish his sentence, but the implications are clear.
The FAA suspected that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:20, and confirmed it with NORAD at 8:38, well before the plane struck the tower at 8:46; thus, the Pentagon, and the secret service also knew. (See Unanaswered Questions, Part 1B, for full documentation).
By the time that George W. Bush first admits knowing about the crash, (ten minutes later, about 8:55) he has already been briefed, for he shows no emotional response to either his chief of staff, or the reporters question.
Not only the crash of a single, hijacked plane, but two other planes in close proximity are hijack-suspected/confirmed.
A national emergency is in progress.
All this would have been known by the secret service -and hence, the President.
After his first public admission of being informed, George W. Bush is updated five minutes later, (at 9:00) then five minutes later again, (presumably, about the second plane which crashed into the World Trade Center, at 9:02).
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)
Yet he continues sitting in the classroom with the children; and when reporters dare to ask whether he’s going to do something about it, he appears to suggest that (presumably by some kind of stern expression) ‘now is not an "appropriate" time to talk about it’?
We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that he has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that he is among the first to be informed, not the last.
Only at 9:30 did the President finally confirm what the FAA, the military, and the secret service had already known fifty minutes before -and what the entire television-watching world had known for forty.
Tentative conclusion?
Either the President was criminally mis-informed by his own secret service/staff; or he was deliberately mis-representing the extent to which he knew that a national emergency was underway.
His inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following events.
Flight 77
top
By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at approx. 8:46). It had made a huge northward /westward/southward loop, before resuming its proper course again. (7)
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This fact, (based on the actual radar reports from government and private industry) was likely the source of the above statement, that,
"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have known that... Flight 77 had probably been hijacked." (NY Times, Sept 15)
At the same time,
"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed [at 8:46] CNN, Sept 16, ibid."
Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)
Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic Control officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also aware that another plane on the east coast had been hijacked-confirmed.
Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight 175 had been declared "hijacked," (at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid, earlier than the NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is based on official government, NORAD, timeline).
Thus, two other planes were officially confirmed as hijacked, by the time that Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course.
Within minutes, these officials would be informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center.
They should have been extremely concerned.
Flight 77 managed to return to it's proper westward course, after flying about twenty miles north, then west, then south; yet officials should have still been on a high state of alert.
[NOTE: we don't know what kind of radio communications existed between ATC officials and Flight 77; because, for some reason, the FBI has not publicly released the tapes; so it's possible that, with radio contact, (and a clear sign of "ok" from the pilot) officials were convinced that things were under control, once the plane was back on its original course].
Yet the fact remains that the plane these officials were monitoring had been well off-course around the same time that two other planes in the area had been hijacked; and now, by 9:05 (at the same time that President Bush was updated the third time) a second crash into the World Trade Center had occurred, in what was now confirmed to be two, intentional terrorist attacks.
At the very least, the officials must have had suspicians, (as the NY Times article, cited above, clearly suggests).
Then, at approx. 9:00am, Flight 77 ceases its transponder signal.
For a very short period of time, (as they frantically try to regain radar contact through other facilities) ATC officials would have been unaware that Flight 77 had made a 180 degree turn near the Ohio state border, and was heading straight back for Washington.
(NOTE: according to Newsday, (Sept 23rd) this occurred at 8:55,
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
calculations based on the above radar map, take-off time, crash time, etc. suggests it was likely about five minutes after that. See note 7).
At any rate, according to the above source,
"9:06, Washington notifies all air traffic facilities nationwide of the suspected hijacking of Flight 11."
This was as clear an expression of a national emergency as these officials had ever known; and yet, although "military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do," (N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, ibid) air traffic control continued to watch Flight 77 on the radar screen without any fighters scrambled to intercept it.
Then, at 9:25, the F.A.A. (the Federal Aviation Authority, oversight body of all ATC centers) notifies NORAD (military air-radar defense) that Flight 77 may have been hijacked. CNN, Sept 16, ibid (9)
That is:
Forty-plus minutes after two other planes had been hijack-confirmed: (Flight 11 at 8:38, Flight 175 at 8:43, CNN Sept 16, ibid.)
Approximately forty minutes after Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course, (radar map, USA Today, ibid)
Almost forty minutes after ATC officials would have known that Flight 11 had struck the World Trade Center; (CNN, ibid)
Thirty-five minutes after ATC officials "would have known that... American 77 had probably been hijacked" (NY Times, ibid)
About twenty-five minutes after Flight 77 had ceased its transponder signal, and made a 180 degree turn over West Virginia, (when it was now just thirteen minutes from the Pentagon,Newsday, ibid);
Over twenty minutes after a second plane had struck the World Trade Centre, (9:02, CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
And finally:
Nineteen minutes after every other air traffic facility in the country knew that Flight 77 was likely hijacked,(Newsday, ibid) the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked?
May have been hijacked?!?
This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine procedures of ATC and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,
9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept United Airlines flight 77. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid )
Now, let’s be absolutely clear about this.It is the sworn duty of the FAA to follow certain safety procedures; such as,
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (ibid)
The reason for this is simple: in busy airspace, an airliner without radio and transponder contact is a collision waiting to happen.
When an airliner goes off course, it is equally, (if not more) dangerous.
Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.]
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (ibid)
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re deviating from course." 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." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY
[Note: According to the actual (NTSB) National Transportation Safety Board report of the "Payne Stewart" incident,
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
the fighters were not all that quickly dispatched. It appears to have taken ATC officials about twenty minutes to call in the airforce, and an hour for a jet to be vectored into position.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs14.htm
This is odd, considering the fact that the first jet contacted was already in flight, (on a training mission). Why would it take forty minutes for an already airborne F-16 to catch up to a much slower-moving plane in distress? The possibility remains that this report has been doctored, (a not uncommon occurence with government websites); and/or, this at least points to more-or-less routine negligence on the part of the FAA/military, in not holding themselves accountable to their own emergency procedures. (See the excellent book by Mary Schiavo, former inspector-general of the NTSB, "Flying Blind, Flying Safe").
At any rate, the "Payne Stewart" incident is very different from that of Flight 77. Whereas a small jet with four passengers was in apparent distress, here you have a large commercial jet with over a hundred passengers, in busy airspace, hijack- suspected, just after two other hijack-confirmed planes had attacked the World Trade Center.
If the "Payne Stewart" incident shows both, standard operating procedure in action, and its somewhat negligent enforcement, Flight 77 shows such negligence rocketing into the stratosphere.
The standing rule of NORAD officals, (at the central U.S. radar facility, Cheyenne Mountain) is to give unknown airplanes which are approaching U.S. airspace, (off any of the coasts of North America) two minutes to make a satisfactory identification.
After two minutes, fighter-intercepts are ordered to scramble, without exception.
On the other side of the world, the head of the (rather antiquated) Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, has this to say, (of the Sept 11 attacks)
"such a scenario is impossible. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents in Russia] too.... as soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)
Let’s also be absolutely clear about what is meant by "interception."
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
FAA:
"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."
"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."
This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.
The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (ibid)
So, it is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners, in order to regain contact with the pilot. Just how routine, and how quickly they routinely respond, is still open to question; yet we should be clear that it is not necessary that a hijacking be declared, for the military to be called in.
"Intercept" and "shoot-down" are two entirely different commands.
The question of whether an airliner may have to be shot down, (and who might give the order) is completely irrelevant to the fact that fighter-intercepts should have been ordered into the air, at the first sign that a national emergency was underway.
Let's now review the course of events in the light of the above regulations:
Flight 77 was wildly off-course at about 8:46.
If accompanied by lost radio contact, the standard procedure here would seem to include notifying military authorities of a possible emergency.
According to our above radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
Flight 77 went about fifteen miles off-course, and was off-course for approximately ten minutes.
The fact that the plane returned to its orginial course, suggests that contact with the pilot had not been lost; yet given the fact that Flight 77 went so far off-course after Flights 11 and 175 had been hijack-confirmed, should have motivated ATC/FAA officials to contact higher authorities, to make a report, to inform NORAD and/or an appropriate Air National Guard (ANG) base.
Apparently not.
Then, when the ATC officials (watching Flight 77) were informed, (likely by 8:48) that Flight 11 had struck the World trade Center, (8:46) surely NORAD should have been informed that this other plane had been, (or was) off-course/in trouble.
Still nothing was done when transponder contact with Flight 77 was lost, even after Flight 175 had hit the World Trade Center at 9:02.
Flight 77 was visible on various radar screens, heading back towards Washington -for another 23 minutes, before the FAA informed NORAD that the plane may have been hijacked.
Shocking, unbelievable: is it not?
What were these officials doing?
According to the above-mentioned Newsday article,
"After losing [i.e. transponder] track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military."
The most sophisticated air-traffic communications system in the world: regional radar systems, national satellite radar, command centers in the Pentagon: essentially, not responding.
Flight 77 continued to fly towards Washington, unopposed.
When the FAA finally informs NORAD, the plane is little more than thirty miles outside the Capital. (10)
According to CBS News, (transportation correspondent Bob Orr)
"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph." (10)
The N.Y. Times, (Sept. 15) adds,
"the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
So the question remains:
why weren’t intercept aircraft scrambled in time to intercept Flight 77?
Why did it take the FAA thirty-five minutes after the first hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center –to inform NORAD? –when Flight 77 was already clearly in trouble, (likely hijacked) and another plane (175) had also been hijack-confirmed?
Is this not an incredibly lax response?
Is this negligence not worth a mention from government officials - so certain in their knowledge of who's responsible for the attacks, as to invade another country for it?
But there’s more.
When officials at NORAD issued the order to scramble jets, (at 9:27) they chose Langley Air Force Base, which is one-hundred and thirty miles outside of Washington, (where Flight 77 was at the time). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Given the time to scramble, (seven minutes) and the fourteen minutes it takes the planes to fly to Washington, ("at 720 knots, breaking the sound barrier," CNN, ibid) the planes could not possibly have gotten there in time to prevent a direct attack on the Pentagon, the White House, or any of the major buildings in the Capital.
And yet, Andrews Air Force base is located right on the outskirts of Washington, (ten miles away) and is home to two 'combat-ready' squadrons:
* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters. (10)
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
The mission of 121 Fighter-Wing reads, in part,
"provide capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." (10)
F-16 Fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were actually put into the air over Washington on Sept 11th, but only after the attack on the Pentagon was completed, (after planes from Langley were on their way).
" Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001
" an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon... Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon’..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (ibid)
Is this not rather astounding?
A few days later, another version began to appear in the mainstream press:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17, ibid))
The Emperor's-Clothes site, (www.tenc.net ibid) claims that the Andrew's AFB website was "down" after Sept. 11, and re-emerged a few weeks later -with the descriptions of the battle-ready fighter squadrons removed.
Also curious, what appears to be the reputable, well-documented website of the American Federation of Scientists lists the top speed of the F-16 fighters as 1500mph; which means that, according to NORAD and CNN, the fighters from Langley flew at less than half their top speed. (720 knots, about 650mph)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
Given the weight of fuel and weaponry, this top speed may not have been achievable; but is 720 knots the best they could have done -given the extreme nature of the emergency?
The Pentagon also has surface-to-air missiles surrounding it. Why weren’t they used?
Neither was the Pentagon evacuated, until the plane had struck its target, (CNN, Sept 16, ibid).
Does all this not sound as if nobody was minding the store in regards to Flight 77?
Are there not too many inconsistencies here to be ignored?
Would the terrorists on Flight 77 have been able to get to Washington, (and the Pentagon) if the air defense had functioned properly?
Do we not deserve some answers?
Clearly, without gross incompetence on the part of ATC, FAA, and/or NORAD officials, Flight 77 would have not got near Washington -without being "intercepted."
Whether or not a pilot would have been authorized to shoot down the airliner is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that no planes were in the air in time –as routine procedure clearly demanded.
Now, at this point, we don’t know exactly where the breakdown in communication occurred.
By the above information, it would appear that ATC and the FAA were more at fault than NORAD, (though not appreciably); and yet, these communication timelines come to us largely from NORAD.
We don’t know, for example, whether or not ATC and the FAA notified NORAD early on, and whether NORAD simply lied about it -and that the military end was largely or solely responsible for the breakdown in communication.
What we do know, however, is that by official NORAD statements, there was at least a thirty-five minute delay between the time when planes should have been ordered to scramble, and when they actually were.
If routine procedures had been followed, Flight 77 would not have made it to Washington.
The fourth hijacked plane, meanwhile, "was being tracked by the Pentagon," (according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) "and could have been shot down." (NY Times, Sept 15, ibid)
That plane, (Flight 93) crashed into rural Pennsylvania at about 10:10.
Wolfowitz says that "any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President George W. Bush." (ibid)
If true, and since George Bush didn’t immediately excuse himself from the classroom, (at 9:00 am, or 9:05 at the latest) -to assume his role as commander in chief- then we must include his actions in with the above list of organizations: guilty of criminal incompetence.
The fact that his negligence would have made no difference, (i.e. no planes in the air, even if the President was on duty) matters not.
Moral authority begins with admitting one’s own mistakes: only then can one be forgiven them.
The fact that the President has completely overlooked his own ineptitude in this affair, while declaring holy war on nations and citizens alike, strongly suggests that not only is an incompetent at the helm of the most-powerful nation on earth, but a morally incompetent one as well.
Air Force One
top
Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during an absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try to leave for Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may still recall) his plane was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska, and he didn’t return to Washington until 7pm –ten hours after the first attack!!
According to White House spokespersons, this was because,
"There was real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets"
Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN, (3:10) the next day. (11)
So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in time to intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the President that it was "not safe" for the President to fly back to Washington.
Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient planes in the air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure would normally ensure that there were).
Also appearing on the 12th and 13th, were columns in the N.Y. Times by William Saffire, wherein "a White House source," (later confirmed by Bush’s Political Strategist, Karl Rove) informed him that the secret service believed,
'Air Force One may be next,' and 'they may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of Presidential procedures].'
Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA, FBI, etc.
Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this shocking possibility.
The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within two weeks it was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever even existed.
"I'm not going to comment on any particular threats coming toward the White House. . . it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to threaten the government of the United States, regardless of whether it's President Bush or any of his predecessors. And that's why there are security precautions taken at the White House as a matter of routine."
(Ari Fleischer, White House Press Sec. Wash. Post, Sept 27. (12)
True, it’s not an uncommon occurrence for the U.S. or the president to be threatened. It’s extremely uncommon for such a "threat" to be taken so seriously that a U.S. President is barred from Washington for nine and one-half hours during a national emergency.
"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This has nothing to do with anything . . . that may or may not have been directed at President Bush. This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)
Translation?
The Washington Post placed this vacuous absence of a response on page eight.
Does it not sound as if we deserve some answers about,
who gave that warning?
why was it heeded?
why were the skies over Washington not considered safe for the president’s return, for eight hours?
Does it not sound as if civilian defense was on holiday? –or out to lunch?
How can we be so certain of the attack’s perpetrators -when the officials blaming them don’t want to admit that somebody on our own end screwed up so badly, as to allow an attack to occur?
Is an examination of one’s own mistakes (first) -not the foundation of moral leadership?
To sum up thus far,
we have a president who is informed by about 8:55, (as he leaves his hotel) that a hijacked plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, (about ten minutes before) in a terrorist attack, and that a second plane has been hijacked, (confirmed since 8:43); then he's updated again at 9:00; then again at 9:05, (likely to tell him of the second attack at 9:02) and he does absolutely nothing about it for almost thirty minutes.
We have the third plane, Flight 77, which goes off-course at or around the time that two other planes are hijack-confirmed, (8:43) and yet the FAA does not request NORAD to regain contact with the plane, (by fighter intercept) until 9:25 -even after Flights 11 and 175 had struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:02.
NORAD, in turn, orders jets to scramble from a base which is ten times the distance from Washington than the closest active one is.
That same day, (we’re later told) Air Force One and the White House are "threatened"... from the ‘inside.’ Then these claims are later dismissed and ignored by the White House officials who originally made them –even though this "false report" caused the absence of the President from Washington for nine hours.
Fundamental questions, left unanswered.
The government, (and the mainstream media) do not want to discuss a glaring, criminal negligence which occurred under its watch.
When we look at the other hijacked flights, however, (11, 175, and 93) our concern must deepen considerably; for here, we see the same, shocking pattern of neglect and incompetence.
For details, see Unanswered Questions, Part 1B, linked below.
Then, when we examine the nature of the FBI investigation, Part 1D, the official explanations, the media coverage, we see the same pattern yet again: critical questions left unanswered, dubious filler material put in place.
We are talking about a system-wide, repeat pattern of negligence and cover-up, operating at a very high level of government: fully documented, from government and mainstream media sources.
There's no need for wacky conspiracy-theories here, or wild assumptions.
It simply needs to be addressed, if we are to take any steps toward real security.
As our governments and media have proved themselves all too willing to gloss over the uncomfortable questions, I sincerely hope that you will take it upon yourself, dear reader, to become fully informed about what may be the most telling event of our time.
Tell others what you know.
Notes
top
1. CNN, "Breaking News" Sept 11, 12:40 am. See cnn.com/transcripts
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/inv.intelligence.board/index.html
# While I can attest to having found these two quotes on a
# www.defense-link website, in my haste to gather information and references, I must confess I neglected to record the specific address. The direct link to the NY Times article is no longer available to non-subscribers, (like myself). Serious researchers who are willing to pay for access to the NY Times archive, should have no trouble verifying the quote. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to track the web-page reference down again.
# http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm This is an excellent article and site for information on American/NATO foreign policy. Ibid
# ibid
#
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ CNN, Sept. 16th. This is a very useful article. In comparison to earlier media reports, it appears to be quite accurate. Compare it, for example, with this earlier summary from the Washington Post of Sept 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
The CNN report also follows the "official" NORAD timeline of events –as per the communications between the FAA, NORAD, and Air Defense. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
# Whether or not NORAD’s version of when the FAA informed NORAD is true or not is still very much open to question; but at least we have the "official" version to work from.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This is a graphic "flash" map which shows the flight-paths of the four planes on Sept 11, and when they deviated from those paths. It appears to be based on direct radar, taken from a reputable source,http://www.flightexplorer.com Another such graphic map, created on a different web site, appears to be from the same source.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
Because the FBI has revealed almost nothing to the public about the specific timelines, (and the ATC conversations) we can only estimate on the exact time when Flight 77 went off-course, for how long, and when it reversed course near Ohio, (for its assault on Washington).
The plane took off at 8:20, and crashed at 9:38: a 1 hour/eighteen minutes journey, or seventy-eight minutes. This is now universally confirmed in all media reports
At first glance, we would probably look on the map, and see that the distances the plane took to get from Washington to the Ohio border –and back again- are roughly equal. We would thus assume that it took Flight 77 half of the seventy-eight minutes, (39) to reach Ohio, (8:59). This roughly corroborates with the Newsday article of Sept 23rd, (cited above) which says that the plane turned around at 8:55; yet we must also take into account the flight deviation on the path away from Washington, (add ten minutes?); and we also remember that when Flight 77 was nearing Washington, it was flying at over four-hundred miles an hour, (see note 10, below) well over the legal speed limit for airliners, (250 mph? –not sure the exact number).
By the time the plane struck the Pentagon, it was flying at 480mph. We can thus assume that Flight 77 took less time to fly back to Washington than it did to fly towards, (subtract ten minutes?).
By this estimate, we could assume that Flight 77 turned around at the Ohio border at approximately 9:09, and took twenty-six minutes to reach Washington. However, this differs markedly with the Newsday article, by fourteen minutes.
In terms of getting at the truth of the matter, (calculating the amount of time it took civilian air defence to respond, and so on) this is an important fourteen minutes.
In many early reports, the estimated time of events were sometimes wildly inaccurrate; so we may initially be skeptical of the Newsday claim. Yet this report is from the 23rd. of Sept., a full ten days after the tragedy, (when most of the "official" timelines had been established). Furthermore, this article does appear to rely heavily on "official" NORAD, military acounts.
At the same time, this doesn't necessarily make the "official" claim accurate; and our calculations based the radar documentation, (our only other credible source on when Flight 77 turned around) cannot be discounted.
It does not make logical sense to say that Flight 77 went well off-course on the path away from Washington, (for what appears to be at least twenty miles in three different directions =60 miles, which would add about fifteen minutes on, at 250mph) and ended up taking less time to reach the Ohio border, than it did to return, (especially with the documented speed-increase upon its return).
It's possible that Flight 77 slowed down considerably after turning around, before picking up speed. We don't know.
For the moment, we have little recourse but to estimate the time that Flight 77 turned around as being halfway between these two credible, yet differing accounts; that is, (add or subtract seven minutes) at 9:02, just after 9am.
By this account, it took Flight 77 about forty-two minutes to reach its furthest westward point. If we look on the radar map, we can see that it is at the approximate halfway-point on this course, that the plane initially goes off-course; thus, half of 42 minutes, (21) plus take-off time, (8:20) = 8:41 is the approximate time we assume that Flight 77 first went off-course.
Until more-specific data is made available, the above estimates will serve as our timeline.
The reader here may be reasonably aghast at the amount of information and numbers bandied about, in the interest of verifying a few event-times; yet in a situation where very little information is being disclosed, we may sometimes have to rely on complex, logical discourse, before we can be confident -as to our ability to "fill in the gaps."
This cannot be helped: goes with the territory; the real, shocking truth is sometimes only arrived at by those willing and able to ride the rollercoaster of painstaking, meticulous research.
8) Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
9) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid) At the same time, 9:25 the FAA, in consultation with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country.
10) CBS News, Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr; an excellent article, based on the real radar reports which showed that Flight 77 did not go near the White House as many officials (and then media) first claimed. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
# The Reuters report is available in the archives,
http://wire.ap.org/ although the original one may have been tampered with, according to Gary North -who offers what he claims is the original version, here:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash437.htm
#
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
NOTE: these last two links have gone dead. Researchers may yet be able to locate the original articles by visiting "freeworldalliance," or by doing a "google" search on "Gary North."
# Return to top
# Move to next section: Part 1B: Flight 11, 175, 93
Feb. 2002
Within a few months, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 became but an echo of the events that followed.
War in Afghanistan, anthrax, unprecedented powers of detention: the public mind moves from one shock to another, appearing to accept the government’s lead.
Now after five, six, seven months, a new world beacons; or perhaps, the old world, from a different vantage point.
For those of us determined to think for ourselves, (and question government pronouncements) the leap to blame Bin Laden, (with little substantial evidence) and the pretext for bombing yet another poor country, was unsatisfactory -right from the start.
Yet this has become a "new reality" which we now have to deal with, taking us further from the events of Sept. 11th with each passing day.
The curtain seems to be descending on the big, unanswered questions that was on virtually everyone’s mind during, (and for weeks after) the attack:
How could Sept. 11th have happened?
How could four planes be hijacked over U.S. skies, within the space of an hour?
How was it that three of them were able to plow into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, in the heart of the most powerful nation on earth -with no planes in the skies to defend them?
Were the perpetrators simply evil geniuses?
Or did these attacks occur alongside the most colossal collapse of airspace security in U.S. history?
In the wake of the devastation, the answer to this last question is: obviously, yes.
Somehow, the terrorists got through.
Even politicians in Washington, (normally staunch defenders of the security apparatus) were initially compelled to express this:
"The government failed the American people." (Rep. Curt Weldon, on CNN, 12:40, Sept. 11th).
A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a thorough inquiry."
Sen. Robert Torricelli, speaking on the Senate floor. (1)
An obvious thing.
This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the military.
To touch on but one example:
two of the four planes commandeered on Sept 11th were in the air, (hijack-confirmed) for almost an hour after the first hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center had been confirmed -with no jet fighter in sight, as routine procedure demands.
The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.
There were safeguards in place, and they were not implemented.
As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was repeated at virtually every level of civilian air defense, in relation to all four planes.
Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented negligence –on the part of those entrusted with the protection of American skies.
Without such an lapse, the attacks of Sept 11th simply would not have been successful.
Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the sheer scope of it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public inquiry; yet the government has strictly avoided opening itself to public scrutiny; instead, it has used the tragedy to wrap the protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.
The congressional committee of review, for example,
"does not in any way lay blame to the dedicated men and women of the U.S. intelligence community." "The point is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is to see where the weaknesses are in our system."
Members of committee, NY Times, Oct 3, 2001(2)
The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30 billion intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on the C.I.A.'s use of unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)
In other words, the assumption is,
‘the government and defense apparatus did everything it could.’
‘We were caught off-guard by fiendishly clever, ruthless, and fanatical foes.’
‘We simply need more resources to make sure it never happens again.’
As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official documents, statements, and mainstream media reports) this assumption is utterly wrong.
More resources were not required.
What was needed on Sept 11th was for procedures that were already in place to be implemented.
A most profound abandonment of routine air-defense procedures accompanied these attacks.
In this particular sense, the attackers did not act alone.
That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush to identify the attackers) is all the more reason that an open, public investigation be initiated.
In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we found it virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal incompetence which must have accompanied it; and our government, media, (and other centers of influence) seem to have found it convenient to inflame our anger –diverting our attention from the outstanding, obvious questions:
How did this happen?
Who within the state apparatus was asleep at the switch?
How do we ensure that this never happens again?
How do we know that some of those involved in the internal "investigation" of the state won’t simply cover over what they don’t want us to see?
In the immediate aftermath of the terror, the government/media made it seem as if anyone who criticized the government was "for" the "other side."
The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government, was temporarily put on hold.
It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public investigation.
There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts –simply an increased budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and state power.
It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for ourselves; and yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months following, may have made such an inquiry seem impossible to us, passe, perhaps even irrelevant.
So I ask you, dear reader, for but a few minutes more of your time: to briefly take a step back with me, unto a morning and a day when our world seemed to change forever.
I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information which have passed across our view screens so quickly, their significance seeming to fade in the absence of meaningful debate.
Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense research: carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential points may be grasped with a clarity and ease, hitherto elusive.
Consider this contention:
the attacks on Sept. 11 may yet represent
one of the most important events in the last fifty years,
(perhaps all human history, for those who choose to examine it):
a turning point, in our understanding of the most-fundamental relationship between appearance and reality.
Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence, I’m sure you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery may lie within.
Recall then, the morning of Sept 11, 2001
According to The New York Times, (Sept 15)
"controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11. And within a few minutes more, controllers would have known that both United 175 (the second plane to hit the World Trade Center) and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon) had probably been hijacked." (3)
[Note: all the hijacked planes had their tracking beacons turned off at various times, but they were still visible on various radar screens].
George W. Bush
Top
Within ten minutes of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush was aware of it.
"He got out of his hotel suite this morning, [on his way to a school] was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later." (ABC's John Cochran, Peter Jennings)
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm#mybust
Then, (according to CNN) he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school, (CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31, Sept.11).
Then the President was updated a third time.
According to Associated Press, he was
"In Sarasota, Florida.... reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear." ['AP' 12 September 2001, This also appeared on TV] (4)
And what did George W. Bush do when he received the third update from Andrew Card?
Apparently, nothing.
"The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later." ['AP' 12 September, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001 Pg. A 20]. (5)
Further, according to CNN’s Garrett, (on the scene)
"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on television sets here at the elementary school... Shortly before [his] statement [addressing the tragedy] he was actually sitting down with some children here at the elementary school reading them a book.... Reporters asked him if he was aware of the situation in New York. He nodded a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say about that shortly.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html ("Breaking News" 9:25)
To the suggestion, (made by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan) that this "exchange of questions with the president came at... a sensitive time... sitting in front of a bunch of schoolchildren... not wanting to scare [them]," Garrett replies:
"Well, precisely. And the president has a way of letting reporters know that it's either an appropriate... or inappropriate time to take questions. He does that in many different environments, many different situations. Clearly this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an even keel, keep the situation under control as best as possible. He just nodded and said -- we'll talk about this later."
Just after 9:30, the President excused himself from the classroom to make a statement that a "terrorist attack on America has occurred." (CNN, "Breaking News, 9:31)
So, for almost thirty minutes after President Bush was officially updated about this for the the third time, he remained sitting in a classroom of children, (apparently, reading a book about goats).
Does this not seem rather negligent?
As we shall soon see, officials would repeatedly claim that the President was the only one who could order a domestic airliner to be shot down.
Why did he remain sitting in the classroom? Why did he even GO into the classroom in the first place? -if he had already been informed, not once but twice, of an unprecedented attack on America?
Was he not told the whole story?
Three months later, on nationwide TV, President Bush tells a captive audience,
"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
This is a very interesting statement for Bush to make, seeing as the first plane, (at that time) was not actually caught on network TV -striking the tower. Only the second one was.
Clearly, the President is giving the impression that he was not then aware that this plane crash was a terrorist attack; but is this, in fact what we would expect from the commander-in-chief?
As supreme commander, the President is tied into civilian air defense through the secret service.
There are time-honored, standard procedures -whereby, the command-center in the Pentagon, radar defense, the National Security Council, and the President are quickly informed of any national emergencies, including hijackings.
As Vice-President Dick Cheney says on the Sept. 16th edition of "Meet The Press,"
"The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
Cheney neglects to finish his sentence, but the implications are clear.
The FAA suspected that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:20, and confirmed it with NORAD at 8:38, well before the plane struck the tower at 8:46; thus, the Pentagon, and the secret service also knew. (See Unanaswered Questions, Part 1B, for full documentation).
By the time that George W. Bush first admits knowing about the crash, (ten minutes later, about 8:55) he has already been briefed, for he shows no emotional response to either his chief of staff, or the reporters question.
Not only the crash of a single, hijacked plane, but two other planes in close proximity are hijack-suspected/confirmed.
A national emergency is in progress.
All this would have been known by the secret service -and hence, the President.
After his first public admission of being informed, George W. Bush is updated five minutes later, (at 9:00) then five minutes later again, (presumably, about the second plane which crashed into the World Trade Center, at 9:02).
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)
Yet he continues sitting in the classroom with the children; and when reporters dare to ask whether he’s going to do something about it, he appears to suggest that (presumably by some kind of stern expression) ‘now is not an "appropriate" time to talk about it’?
We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that he has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that he is among the first to be informed, not the last.
Only at 9:30 did the President finally confirm what the FAA, the military, and the secret service had already known fifty minutes before -and what the entire television-watching world had known for forty.
Tentative conclusion?
Either the President was criminally mis-informed by his own secret service/staff; or he was deliberately mis-representing the extent to which he knew that a national emergency was underway.
His inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following events.
Flight 77
top
By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at approx. 8:46). It had made a huge northward /westward/southward loop, before resuming its proper course again. (7)
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This fact, (based on the actual radar reports from government and private industry) was likely the source of the above statement, that,
"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have known that... Flight 77 had probably been hijacked." (NY Times, Sept 15)
At the same time,
"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed [at 8:46] CNN, Sept 16, ibid."
Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)
Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic Control officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also aware that another plane on the east coast had been hijacked-confirmed.
Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight 175 had been declared "hijacked," (at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid, earlier than the NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is based on official government, NORAD, timeline).
Thus, two other planes were officially confirmed as hijacked, by the time that Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course.
Within minutes, these officials would be informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center.
They should have been extremely concerned.
Flight 77 managed to return to it's proper westward course, after flying about twenty miles north, then west, then south; yet officials should have still been on a high state of alert.
[NOTE: we don't know what kind of radio communications existed between ATC officials and Flight 77; because, for some reason, the FBI has not publicly released the tapes; so it's possible that, with radio contact, (and a clear sign of "ok" from the pilot) officials were convinced that things were under control, once the plane was back on its original course].
Yet the fact remains that the plane these officials were monitoring had been well off-course around the same time that two other planes in the area had been hijacked; and now, by 9:05 (at the same time that President Bush was updated the third time) a second crash into the World Trade Center had occurred, in what was now confirmed to be two, intentional terrorist attacks.
At the very least, the officials must have had suspicians, (as the NY Times article, cited above, clearly suggests).
Then, at approx. 9:00am, Flight 77 ceases its transponder signal.
For a very short period of time, (as they frantically try to regain radar contact through other facilities) ATC officials would have been unaware that Flight 77 had made a 180 degree turn near the Ohio state border, and was heading straight back for Washington.
(NOTE: according to Newsday, (Sept 23rd) this occurred at 8:55,
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
calculations based on the above radar map, take-off time, crash time, etc. suggests it was likely about five minutes after that. See note 7).
At any rate, according to the above source,
"9:06, Washington notifies all air traffic facilities nationwide of the suspected hijacking of Flight 11."
This was as clear an expression of a national emergency as these officials had ever known; and yet, although "military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do," (N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, ibid) air traffic control continued to watch Flight 77 on the radar screen without any fighters scrambled to intercept it.
Then, at 9:25, the F.A.A. (the Federal Aviation Authority, oversight body of all ATC centers) notifies NORAD (military air-radar defense) that Flight 77 may have been hijacked. CNN, Sept 16, ibid (9)
That is:
Forty-plus minutes after two other planes had been hijack-confirmed: (Flight 11 at 8:38, Flight 175 at 8:43, CNN Sept 16, ibid.)
Approximately forty minutes after Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course, (radar map, USA Today, ibid)
Almost forty minutes after ATC officials would have known that Flight 11 had struck the World Trade Center; (CNN, ibid)
Thirty-five minutes after ATC officials "would have known that... American 77 had probably been hijacked" (NY Times, ibid)
About twenty-five minutes after Flight 77 had ceased its transponder signal, and made a 180 degree turn over West Virginia, (when it was now just thirteen minutes from the Pentagon,Newsday, ibid);
Over twenty minutes after a second plane had struck the World Trade Centre, (9:02, CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
And finally:
Nineteen minutes after every other air traffic facility in the country knew that Flight 77 was likely hijacked,(Newsday, ibid) the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked?
May have been hijacked?!?
This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine procedures of ATC and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,
9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept United Airlines flight 77. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid )
Now, let’s be absolutely clear about this.It is the sworn duty of the FAA to follow certain safety procedures; such as,
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (ibid)
The reason for this is simple: in busy airspace, an airliner without radio and transponder contact is a collision waiting to happen.
When an airliner goes off course, it is equally, (if not more) dangerous.
Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.]
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (ibid)
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re deviating from course." 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." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY
[Note: According to the actual (NTSB) National Transportation Safety Board report of the "Payne Stewart" incident,
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
the fighters were not all that quickly dispatched. It appears to have taken ATC officials about twenty minutes to call in the airforce, and an hour for a jet to be vectored into position.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs14.htm
This is odd, considering the fact that the first jet contacted was already in flight, (on a training mission). Why would it take forty minutes for an already airborne F-16 to catch up to a much slower-moving plane in distress? The possibility remains that this report has been doctored, (a not uncommon occurence with government websites); and/or, this at least points to more-or-less routine negligence on the part of the FAA/military, in not holding themselves accountable to their own emergency procedures. (See the excellent book by Mary Schiavo, former inspector-general of the NTSB, "Flying Blind, Flying Safe").
At any rate, the "Payne Stewart" incident is very different from that of Flight 77. Whereas a small jet with four passengers was in apparent distress, here you have a large commercial jet with over a hundred passengers, in busy airspace, hijack- suspected, just after two other hijack-confirmed planes had attacked the World Trade Center.
If the "Payne Stewart" incident shows both, standard operating procedure in action, and its somewhat negligent enforcement, Flight 77 shows such negligence rocketing into the stratosphere.
The standing rule of NORAD officals, (at the central U.S. radar facility, Cheyenne Mountain) is to give unknown airplanes which are approaching U.S. airspace, (off any of the coasts of North America) two minutes to make a satisfactory identification.
After two minutes, fighter-intercepts are ordered to scramble, without exception.
On the other side of the world, the head of the (rather antiquated) Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, has this to say, (of the Sept 11 attacks)
"such a scenario is impossible. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents in Russia] too.... as soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)
Let’s also be absolutely clear about what is meant by "interception."
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
FAA:
"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."
"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."
This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.
The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (ibid)
So, it is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners, in order to regain contact with the pilot. Just how routine, and how quickly they routinely respond, is still open to question; yet we should be clear that it is not necessary that a hijacking be declared, for the military to be called in.
"Intercept" and "shoot-down" are two entirely different commands.
The question of whether an airliner may have to be shot down, (and who might give the order) is completely irrelevant to the fact that fighter-intercepts should have been ordered into the air, at the first sign that a national emergency was underway.
Let's now review the course of events in the light of the above regulations:
Flight 77 was wildly off-course at about 8:46.
If accompanied by lost radio contact, the standard procedure here would seem to include notifying military authorities of a possible emergency.
According to our above radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
Flight 77 went about fifteen miles off-course, and was off-course for approximately ten minutes.
The fact that the plane returned to its orginial course, suggests that contact with the pilot had not been lost; yet given the fact that Flight 77 went so far off-course after Flights 11 and 175 had been hijack-confirmed, should have motivated ATC/FAA officials to contact higher authorities, to make a report, to inform NORAD and/or an appropriate Air National Guard (ANG) base.
Apparently not.
Then, when the ATC officials (watching Flight 77) were informed, (likely by 8:48) that Flight 11 had struck the World trade Center, (8:46) surely NORAD should have been informed that this other plane had been, (or was) off-course/in trouble.
Still nothing was done when transponder contact with Flight 77 was lost, even after Flight 175 had hit the World Trade Center at 9:02.
Flight 77 was visible on various radar screens, heading back towards Washington -for another 23 minutes, before the FAA informed NORAD that the plane may have been hijacked.
Shocking, unbelievable: is it not?
What were these officials doing?
According to the above-mentioned Newsday article,
"After losing [i.e. transponder] track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military."
The most sophisticated air-traffic communications system in the world: regional radar systems, national satellite radar, command centers in the Pentagon: essentially, not responding.
Flight 77 continued to fly towards Washington, unopposed.
When the FAA finally informs NORAD, the plane is little more than thirty miles outside the Capital. (10)
According to CBS News, (transportation correspondent Bob Orr)
"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph." (10)
The N.Y. Times, (Sept. 15) adds,
"the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
So the question remains:
why weren’t intercept aircraft scrambled in time to intercept Flight 77?
Why did it take the FAA thirty-five minutes after the first hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center –to inform NORAD? –when Flight 77 was already clearly in trouble, (likely hijacked) and another plane (175) had also been hijack-confirmed?
Is this not an incredibly lax response?
Is this negligence not worth a mention from government officials - so certain in their knowledge of who's responsible for the attacks, as to invade another country for it?
But there’s more.
When officials at NORAD issued the order to scramble jets, (at 9:27) they chose Langley Air Force Base, which is one-hundred and thirty miles outside of Washington, (where Flight 77 was at the time). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Given the time to scramble, (seven minutes) and the fourteen minutes it takes the planes to fly to Washington, ("at 720 knots, breaking the sound barrier," CNN, ibid) the planes could not possibly have gotten there in time to prevent a direct attack on the Pentagon, the White House, or any of the major buildings in the Capital.
And yet, Andrews Air Force base is located right on the outskirts of Washington, (ten miles away) and is home to two 'combat-ready' squadrons:
* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters. (10)
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
The mission of 121 Fighter-Wing reads, in part,
"provide capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." (10)
F-16 Fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were actually put into the air over Washington on Sept 11th, but only after the attack on the Pentagon was completed, (after planes from Langley were on their way).
" Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001
" an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon... Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon’..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (ibid)
Is this not rather astounding?
A few days later, another version began to appear in the mainstream press:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17, ibid))
The Emperor's-Clothes site, (www.tenc.net ibid) claims that the Andrew's AFB website was "down" after Sept. 11, and re-emerged a few weeks later -with the descriptions of the battle-ready fighter squadrons removed.
Also curious, what appears to be the reputable, well-documented website of the American Federation of Scientists lists the top speed of the F-16 fighters as 1500mph; which means that, according to NORAD and CNN, the fighters from Langley flew at less than half their top speed. (720 knots, about 650mph)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
Given the weight of fuel and weaponry, this top speed may not have been achievable; but is 720 knots the best they could have done -given the extreme nature of the emergency?
The Pentagon also has surface-to-air missiles surrounding it. Why weren’t they used?
Neither was the Pentagon evacuated, until the plane had struck its target, (CNN, Sept 16, ibid).
Does all this not sound as if nobody was minding the store in regards to Flight 77?
Are there not too many inconsistencies here to be ignored?
Would the terrorists on Flight 77 have been able to get to Washington, (and the Pentagon) if the air defense had functioned properly?
Do we not deserve some answers?
Clearly, without gross incompetence on the part of ATC, FAA, and/or NORAD officials, Flight 77 would have not got near Washington -without being "intercepted."
Whether or not a pilot would have been authorized to shoot down the airliner is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that no planes were in the air in time –as routine procedure clearly demanded.
Now, at this point, we don’t know exactly where the breakdown in communication occurred.
By the above information, it would appear that ATC and the FAA were more at fault than NORAD, (though not appreciably); and yet, these communication timelines come to us largely from NORAD.
We don’t know, for example, whether or not ATC and the FAA notified NORAD early on, and whether NORAD simply lied about it -and that the military end was largely or solely responsible for the breakdown in communication.
What we do know, however, is that by official NORAD statements, there was at least a thirty-five minute delay between the time when planes should have been ordered to scramble, and when they actually were.
If routine procedures had been followed, Flight 77 would not have made it to Washington.
The fourth hijacked plane, meanwhile, "was being tracked by the Pentagon," (according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) "and could have been shot down." (NY Times, Sept 15, ibid)
That plane, (Flight 93) crashed into rural Pennsylvania at about 10:10.
Wolfowitz says that "any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President George W. Bush." (ibid)
If true, and since George Bush didn’t immediately excuse himself from the classroom, (at 9:00 am, or 9:05 at the latest) -to assume his role as commander in chief- then we must include his actions in with the above list of organizations: guilty of criminal incompetence.
The fact that his negligence would have made no difference, (i.e. no planes in the air, even if the President was on duty) matters not.
Moral authority begins with admitting one’s own mistakes: only then can one be forgiven them.
The fact that the President has completely overlooked his own ineptitude in this affair, while declaring holy war on nations and citizens alike, strongly suggests that not only is an incompetent at the helm of the most-powerful nation on earth, but a morally incompetent one as well.
Air Force One
top
Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during an absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try to leave for Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may still recall) his plane was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska, and he didn’t return to Washington until 7pm –ten hours after the first attack!!
According to White House spokespersons, this was because,
"There was real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets"
Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN, (3:10) the next day. (11)
So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in time to intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the President that it was "not safe" for the President to fly back to Washington.
Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient planes in the air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure would normally ensure that there were).
Also appearing on the 12th and 13th, were columns in the N.Y. Times by William Saffire, wherein "a White House source," (later confirmed by Bush’s Political Strategist, Karl Rove) informed him that the secret service believed,
'Air Force One may be next,' and 'they may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of Presidential procedures].'
Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA, FBI, etc.
Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this shocking possibility.
The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within two weeks it was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever even existed.
"I'm not going to comment on any particular threats coming toward the White House. . . it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to threaten the government of the United States, regardless of whether it's President Bush or any of his predecessors. And that's why there are security precautions taken at the White House as a matter of routine."
(Ari Fleischer, White House Press Sec. Wash. Post, Sept 27. (12)
True, it’s not an uncommon occurrence for the U.S. or the president to be threatened. It’s extremely uncommon for such a "threat" to be taken so seriously that a U.S. President is barred from Washington for nine and one-half hours during a national emergency.
"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This has nothing to do with anything . . . that may or may not have been directed at President Bush. This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)
Translation?
The Washington Post placed this vacuous absence of a response on page eight.
Does it not sound as if we deserve some answers about,
who gave that warning?
why was it heeded?
why were the skies over Washington not considered safe for the president’s return, for eight hours?
Does it not sound as if civilian defense was on holiday? –or out to lunch?
How can we be so certain of the attack’s perpetrators -when the officials blaming them don’t want to admit that somebody on our own end screwed up so badly, as to allow an attack to occur?
Is an examination of one’s own mistakes (first) -not the foundation of moral leadership?
To sum up thus far,
we have a president who is informed by about 8:55, (as he leaves his hotel) that a hijacked plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, (about ten minutes before) in a terrorist attack, and that a second plane has been hijacked, (confirmed since 8:43); then he's updated again at 9:00; then again at 9:05, (likely to tell him of the second attack at 9:02) and he does absolutely nothing about it for almost thirty minutes.
We have the third plane, Flight 77, which goes off-course at or around the time that two other planes are hijack-confirmed, (8:43) and yet the FAA does not request NORAD to regain contact with the plane, (by fighter intercept) until 9:25 -even after Flights 11 and 175 had struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:02.
NORAD, in turn, orders jets to scramble from a base which is ten times the distance from Washington than the closest active one is.
That same day, (we’re later told) Air Force One and the White House are "threatened"... from the ‘inside.’ Then these claims are later dismissed and ignored by the White House officials who originally made them –even though this "false report" caused the absence of the President from Washington for nine hours.
Fundamental questions, left unanswered.
The government, (and the mainstream media) do not want to discuss a glaring, criminal negligence which occurred under its watch.
When we look at the other hijacked flights, however, (11, 175, and 93) our concern must deepen considerably; for here, we see the same, shocking pattern of neglect and incompetence.
For details, see Unanswered Questions, Part 1B, linked below.
Then, when we examine the nature of the FBI investigation, Part 1D, the official explanations, the media coverage, we see the same pattern yet again: critical questions left unanswered, dubious filler material put in place.
We are talking about a system-wide, repeat pattern of negligence and cover-up, operating at a very high level of government: fully documented, from government and mainstream media sources.
There's no need for wacky conspiracy-theories here, or wild assumptions.
It simply needs to be addressed, if we are to take any steps toward real security.
As our governments and media have proved themselves all too willing to gloss over the uncomfortable questions, I sincerely hope that you will take it upon yourself, dear reader, to become fully informed about what may be the most telling event of our time.
Tell others what you know.
Notes
top
1. CNN, "Breaking News" Sept 11, 12:40 am. See cnn.com/transcripts
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/inv.intelligence.board/index.html
# While I can attest to having found these two quotes on a
# www.defense-link website, in my haste to gather information and references, I must confess I neglected to record the specific address. The direct link to the NY Times article is no longer available to non-subscribers, (like myself). Serious researchers who are willing to pay for access to the NY Times archive, should have no trouble verifying the quote. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to track the web-page reference down again.
# http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm This is an excellent article and site for information on American/NATO foreign policy. Ibid
# ibid
#
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ CNN, Sept. 16th. This is a very useful article. In comparison to earlier media reports, it appears to be quite accurate. Compare it, for example, with this earlier summary from the Washington Post of Sept 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
The CNN report also follows the "official" NORAD timeline of events –as per the communications between the FAA, NORAD, and Air Defense. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
# Whether or not NORAD’s version of when the FAA informed NORAD is true or not is still very much open to question; but at least we have the "official" version to work from.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This is a graphic "flash" map which shows the flight-paths of the four planes on Sept 11, and when they deviated from those paths. It appears to be based on direct radar, taken from a reputable source,http://www.flightexplorer.com Another such graphic map, created on a different web site, appears to be from the same source.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
Because the FBI has revealed almost nothing to the public about the specific timelines, (and the ATC conversations) we can only estimate on the exact time when Flight 77 went off-course, for how long, and when it reversed course near Ohio, (for its assault on Washington).
The plane took off at 8:20, and crashed at 9:38: a 1 hour/eighteen minutes journey, or seventy-eight minutes. This is now universally confirmed in all media reports
At first glance, we would probably look on the map, and see that the distances the plane took to get from Washington to the Ohio border –and back again- are roughly equal. We would thus assume that it took Flight 77 half of the seventy-eight minutes, (39) to reach Ohio, (8:59). This roughly corroborates with the Newsday article of Sept 23rd, (cited above) which says that the plane turned around at 8:55; yet we must also take into account the flight deviation on the path away from Washington, (add ten minutes?); and we also remember that when Flight 77 was nearing Washington, it was flying at over four-hundred miles an hour, (see note 10, below) well over the legal speed limit for airliners, (250 mph? –not sure the exact number).
By the time the plane struck the Pentagon, it was flying at 480mph. We can thus assume that Flight 77 took less time to fly back to Washington than it did to fly towards, (subtract ten minutes?).
By this estimate, we could assume that Flight 77 turned around at the Ohio border at approximately 9:09, and took twenty-six minutes to reach Washington. However, this differs markedly with the Newsday article, by fourteen minutes.
In terms of getting at the truth of the matter, (calculating the amount of time it took civilian air defence to respond, and so on) this is an important fourteen minutes.
In many early reports, the estimated time of events were sometimes wildly inaccurrate; so we may initially be skeptical of the Newsday claim. Yet this report is from the 23rd. of Sept., a full ten days after the tragedy, (when most of the "official" timelines had been established). Furthermore, this article does appear to rely heavily on "official" NORAD, military acounts.
At the same time, this doesn't necessarily make the "official" claim accurate; and our calculations based the radar documentation, (our only other credible source on when Flight 77 turned around) cannot be discounted.
It does not make logical sense to say that Flight 77 went well off-course on the path away from Washington, (for what appears to be at least twenty miles in three different directions =60 miles, which would add about fifteen minutes on, at 250mph) and ended up taking less time to reach the Ohio border, than it did to return, (especially with the documented speed-increase upon its return).
It's possible that Flight 77 slowed down considerably after turning around, before picking up speed. We don't know.
For the moment, we have little recourse but to estimate the time that Flight 77 turned around as being halfway between these two credible, yet differing accounts; that is, (add or subtract seven minutes) at 9:02, just after 9am.
By this account, it took Flight 77 about forty-two minutes to reach its furthest westward point. If we look on the radar map, we can see that it is at the approximate halfway-point on this course, that the plane initially goes off-course; thus, half of 42 minutes, (21) plus take-off time, (8:20) = 8:41 is the approximate time we assume that Flight 77 first went off-course.
Until more-specific data is made available, the above estimates will serve as our timeline.
The reader here may be reasonably aghast at the amount of information and numbers bandied about, in the interest of verifying a few event-times; yet in a situation where very little information is being disclosed, we may sometimes have to rely on complex, logical discourse, before we can be confident -as to our ability to "fill in the gaps."
This cannot be helped: goes with the territory; the real, shocking truth is sometimes only arrived at by those willing and able to ride the rollercoaster of painstaking, meticulous research.
8) Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
9) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid) At the same time, 9:25 the FAA, in consultation with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country.
10) CBS News, Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr; an excellent article, based on the real radar reports which showed that Flight 77 did not go near the White House as many officials (and then media) first claimed. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
# The Reuters report is available in the archives,
http://wire.ap.org/ although the original one may have been tampered with, according to Gary North -who offers what he claims is the original version, here:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash437.htm
#
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
by MalcontentX
Index Page
Part 1A:
* Introduction
* George W. Bush
* Flight 77
* Air Force One
* Notes
Introduction
Feb. 2002
Within a few months, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 became but an echo of the events that followed.
War in Afghanistan, anthrax, unprecedented powers of detention: the public mind moves from one shock to another, appearing to accept the government’s lead.
Now after five, six, seven months, a new world beacons; or perhaps, the old world, from a different vantage point.
For those of us determined to think for ourselves, (and question government pronouncements) the leap to blame Bin Laden, (with little substantial evidence) and the pretext for bombing yet another poor country, was unsatisfactory -right from the start.
Yet this has become a "new reality" which we now have to deal with, taking us further from the events of Sept. 11th with each passing day.
The curtain seems to be descending on the big, unanswered questions that was on virtually everyone’s mind during, (and for weeks after) the attack:
How could Sept. 11th have happened?
How could four planes be hijacked over U.S. skies, within the space of an hour?
How was it that three of them were able to plow into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, in the heart of the most powerful nation on earth -with no planes in the skies to defend them?
Were the perpetrators simply evil geniuses?
Or did these attacks occur alongside the most colossal collapse of airspace security in U.S. history?
In the wake of the devastation, the answer to this last question is: obviously, yes.
Somehow, the terrorists got through.
Even politicians in Washington, (normally staunch defenders of the security apparatus) were initially compelled to express this:
"The government failed the American people." (Rep. Curt Weldon, on CNN, 12:40, Sept. 11th).
A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a thorough inquiry."
Sen. Robert Torricelli, speaking on the Senate floor. (1)
An obvious thing.
This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the military.
To touch on but one example:
two of the four planes commandeered on Sept 11th were in the air, (hijack-confirmed) for almost an hour after the first hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center had been confirmed -with no jet fighter in sight, as routine procedure demands.
The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.
There were safeguards in place, and they were not implemented.
As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was repeated at virtually every level of civilian air defense, in relation to all four planes.
Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented negligence –on the part of those entrusted with the protection of American skies.
Without such an lapse, the attacks of Sept 11th simply would not have been successful.
Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the sheer scope of it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public inquiry; yet the government has strictly avoided opening itself to public scrutiny; instead, it has used the tragedy to wrap the protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.
The congressional committee of review, for example,
"does not in any way lay blame to the dedicated men and women of the U.S. intelligence community." "The point is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is to see where the weaknesses are in our system."
Members of committee, NY Times, Oct 3, 2001(2)
The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30 billion intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on the C.I.A.'s use of unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)
In other words, the assumption is,
‘the government and defense apparatus did everything it could.’
‘We were caught off-guard by fiendishly clever, ruthless, and fanatical foes.’
‘We simply need more resources to make sure it never happens again.’
As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official documents, statements, and mainstream media reports) this assumption is utterly wrong.
More resources were not required.
What was needed on Sept 11th was for procedures that were already in place to be implemented.
A most profound abandonment of routine air-defense procedures accompanied these attacks.
In this particular sense, the attackers did not act alone.
That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush to identify the attackers) is all the more reason that an open, public investigation be initiated.
In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we found it virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal incompetence which must have accompanied it; and our government, media, (and other centers of influence) seem to have found it convenient to inflame our anger –diverting our attention from the outstanding, obvious questions:
How did this happen?
Who within the state apparatus was asleep at the switch?
How do we ensure that this never happens again?
How do we know that some of those involved in the internal "investigation" of the state won’t simply cover over what they don’t want us to see?
In the immediate aftermath of the terror, the government/media made it seem as if anyone who criticized the government was "for" the "other side."
The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government, was temporarily put on hold.
It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public investigation.
There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts –simply an increased budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and state power.
It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for ourselves; and yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months following, may have made such an inquiry seem impossible to us, passe, perhaps even irrelevant.
So I ask you, dear reader, for but a few minutes more of your time: to briefly take a step back with me, unto a morning and a day when our world seemed to change forever.
I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information which have passed across our view screens so quickly, their significance seeming to fade in the absence of meaningful debate.
Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense research: carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential points may be grasped with a clarity and ease, hitherto elusive.
Consider this contention:
the attacks on Sept. 11 may yet represent
one of the most important events in the last fifty years,
(perhaps all human history, for those who choose to examine it):
a turning point, in our understanding of the most-fundamental relationship between appearance and reality.
Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence, I’m sure you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery may lie within.
Recall then, the morning of Sept 11, 2001
According to The New York Times, (Sept 15)
"controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11. And within a few minutes more, controllers would have known that both United 175 (the second plane to hit the World Trade Center) and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon) had probably been hijacked." (3)
[Note: all the hijacked planes had their tracking beacons turned off at various times, but they were still visible on various radar screens].
George W. Bush
Top
Within ten minutes of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush was aware of it.
"He got out of his hotel suite this morning, [on his way to a school] was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later." (ABC's John Cochran, Peter Jennings)
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm#mybust
Then, (according to CNN) he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school, (CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31, Sept.11).
Then the President was updated a third time.
According to Associated Press, he was
"In Sarasota, Florida.... reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear." ['AP' 12 September 2001, This also appeared on TV] (4)
And what did George W. Bush do when he received the third update from Andrew Card?
Apparently, nothing.
"The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later." ['AP' 12 September, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001 Pg. A 20]. (5)
Further, according to CNN’s Garrett, (on the scene)
"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on television sets here at the elementary school... Shortly before [his] statement [addressing the tragedy] he was actually sitting down with some children here at the elementary school reading them a book.... Reporters asked him if he was aware of the situation in New York. He nodded a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say about that shortly.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html ("Breaking News" 9:25)
To the suggestion, (made by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan) that this "exchange of questions with the president came at... a sensitive time... sitting in front of a bunch of schoolchildren... not wanting to scare [them]," Garrett replies:
"Well, precisely. And the president has a way of letting reporters know that it's either an appropriate... or inappropriate time to take questions. He does that in many different environments, many different situations. Clearly this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an even keel, keep the situation under control as best as possible. He just nodded and said -- we'll talk about this later."
Just after 9:30, the President excused himself from the classroom to make a statement that a "terrorist attack on America has occurred." (CNN, "Breaking News, 9:31)
So, for almost thirty minutes after President Bush was officially updated about this for the the third time, he remained sitting in a classroom of children, (apparently, reading a book about goats).
Does this not seem rather negligent?
As we shall soon see, officials would repeatedly claim that the President was the only one who could order a domestic airliner to be shot down.
Why did he remain sitting in the classroom? Why did he even GO into the classroom in the first place? -if he had already been informed, not once but twice, of an unprecedented attack on America?
Was he not told the whole story?
Three months later, on nationwide TV, President Bush tells a captive audience,
"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
This is a very interesting statement for Bush to make, seeing as the first plane, (at that time) was not actually caught on network TV -striking the tower. Only the second one was.
Clearly, the President is giving the impression that he was not then aware that this plane crash was a terrorist attack; but is this, in fact what we would expect from the commander-in-chief?
As supreme commander, the President is tied into civilian air defense through the secret service.
There are time-honored, standard procedures -whereby, the command-center in the Pentagon, radar defense, the National Security Council, and the President are quickly informed of any national emergencies, including hijackings.
As Vice-President Dick Cheney says on the Sept. 16th edition of "Meet The Press,"
"The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
Cheney neglects to finish his sentence, but the implications are clear.
The FAA suspected that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:20, and confirmed it with NORAD at 8:38, well before the plane struck the tower at 8:46; thus, the Pentagon, and the secret service also knew. (See Unanaswered Questions, Part 1B, for full documentation).
By the time that George W. Bush first admits knowing about the crash, (ten minutes later, about 8:55) he has already been briefed, for he shows no emotional response to either his chief of staff, or the reporters question.
Not only the crash of a single, hijacked plane, but two other planes in close proximity are hijack-suspected/confirmed.
A national emergency is in progress.
All this would have been known by the secret service -and hence, the President.
After his first public admission of being informed, George W. Bush is updated five minutes later, (at 9:00) then five minutes later again, (presumably, about the second plane which crashed into the World Trade Center, at 9:02).
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)
Yet he continues sitting in the classroom with the children; and when reporters dare to ask whether he’s going to do something about it, he appears to suggest that (presumably by some kind of stern expression) ‘now is not an "appropriate" time to talk about it’?
We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that he has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that he is among the first to be informed, not the last.
Only at 9:30 did the President finally confirm what the FAA, the military, and the secret service had already known fifty minutes before -and what the entire television-watching world had known for forty.
Tentative conclusion?
Either the President was criminally mis-informed by his own secret service/staff; or he was deliberately mis-representing the extent to which he knew that a national emergency was underway.
His inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following events.
Flight 77
top
By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at approx. 8:46). It had made a huge northward /westward/southward loop, before resuming its proper course again. (7)
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This fact, (based on the actual radar reports from government and private industry) was likely the source of the above statement, that,
"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have known that... Flight 77 had probably been hijacked." (NY Times, Sept 15)
At the same time,
"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed [at 8:46] CNN, Sept 16, ibid."
Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)
Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic Control officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also aware that another plane on the east coast had been hijacked-confirmed.
Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight 175 had been declared "hijacked," (at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid, earlier than the NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is based on official government, NORAD, timeline).
Thus, two other planes were officially confirmed as hijacked, by the time that Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course.
Within minutes, these officials would be informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center.
They should have been extremely concerned.
Flight 77 managed to return to it's proper westward course, after flying about twenty miles north, then west, then south; yet officials should have still been on a high state of alert.
[NOTE: we don't know what kind of radio communications existed between ATC officials and Flight 77; because, for some reason, the FBI has not publicly released the tapes; so it's possible that, with radio contact, (and a clear sign of "ok" from the pilot) officials were convinced that things were under control, once the plane was back on its original course].
Yet the fact remains that the plane these officials were monitoring had been well off-course around the same time that two other planes in the area had been hijacked; and now, by 9:05 (at the same time that President Bush was updated the third time) a second crash into the World Trade Center had occurred, in what was now confirmed to be two, intentional terrorist attacks.
At the very least, the officials must have had suspicians, (as the NY Times article, cited above, clearly suggests).
Then, at approx. 9:00am, Flight 77 ceases its transponder signal.
For a very short period of time, (as they frantically try to regain radar contact through other facilities) ATC officials would have been unaware that Flight 77 had made a 180 degree turn near the Ohio state border, and was heading straight back for Washington.
(NOTE: according to Newsday, (Sept 23rd) this occurred at 8:55,
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
calculations based on the above radar map, take-off time, crash time, etc. suggests it was likely about five minutes after that. See note 7).
At any rate, according to the above source,
"9:06, Washington notifies all air traffic facilities nationwide of the suspected hijacking of Flight 11."
This was as clear an expression of a national emergency as these officials had ever known; and yet, although "military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do," (N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, ibid) air traffic control continued to watch Flight 77 on the radar screen without any fighters scrambled to intercept it.
Then, at 9:25, the F.A.A. (the Federal Aviation Authority, oversight body of all ATC centers) notifies NORAD (military air-radar defense) that Flight 77 may have been hijacked. CNN, Sept 16, ibid (9)
That is:
Forty-plus minutes after two other planes had been hijack-confirmed: (Flight 11 at 8:38, Flight 175 at 8:43, CNN Sept 16, ibid.)
Approximately forty minutes after Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course, (radar map, USA Today, ibid)
Almost forty minutes after ATC officials would have known that Flight 11 had struck the World Trade Center; (CNN, ibid)
Thirty-five minutes after ATC officials "would have known that... American 77 had probably been hijacked" (NY Times, ibid)
About twenty-five minutes after Flight 77 had ceased its transponder signal, and made a 180 degree turn over West Virginia, (when it was now just thirteen minutes from the Pentagon,Newsday, ibid);
Over twenty minutes after a second plane had struck the World Trade Centre, (9:02, CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
And finally:
Nineteen minutes after every other air traffic facility in the country knew that Flight 77 was likely hijacked,(Newsday, ibid) the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked?
May have been hijacked?!?
This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine procedures of ATC and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,
9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept United Airlines flight 77. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid )
Now, let’s be absolutely clear about this.It is the sworn duty of the FAA to follow certain safety procedures; such as,
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (ibid)
The reason for this is simple: in busy airspace, an airliner without radio and transponder contact is a collision waiting to happen.
When an airliner goes off course, it is equally, (if not more) dangerous.
Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.]
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (ibid)
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re deviating from course." 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." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY
[Note: According to the actual (NTSB) National Transportation Safety Board report of the "Payne Stewart" incident,
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
the fighters were not all that quickly dispatched. It appears to have taken ATC officials about twenty minutes to call in the airforce, and an hour for a jet to be vectored into position.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs14.htm
This is odd, considering the fact that the first jet contacted was already in flight, (on a training mission). Why would it take forty minutes for an already airborne F-16 to catch up to a much slower-moving plane in distress? The possibility remains that this report has been doctored, (a not uncommon occurence with government websites); and/or, this at least points to more-or-less routine negligence on the part of the FAA/military, in not holding themselves accountable to their own emergency procedures. (See the excellent book by Mary Schiavo, former inspector-general of the NTSB, "Flying Blind, Flying Safe").
At any rate, the "Payne Stewart" incident is very different from that of Flight 77. Whereas a small jet with four passengers was in apparent distress, here you have a large commercial jet with over a hundred passengers, in busy airspace, hijack- suspected, just after two other hijack-confirmed planes had attacked the World Trade Center.
If the "Payne Stewart" incident shows both, standard operating procedure in action, and its somewhat negligent enforcement, Flight 77 shows such negligence rocketing into the stratosphere.
The standing rule of NORAD officals, (at the central U.S. radar facility, Cheyenne Mountain) is to give unknown airplanes which are approaching U.S. airspace, (off any of the coasts of North America) two minutes to make a satisfactory identification.
After two minutes, fighter-intercepts are ordered to scramble, without exception.
On the other side of the world, the head of the (rather antiquated) Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, has this to say, (of the Sept 11 attacks)
"such a scenario is impossible. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents in Russia] too.... as soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)
Let’s also be absolutely clear about what is meant by "interception."
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
FAA:
"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."
"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."
This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.
The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (ibid)
So, it is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners, in order to regain contact with the pilot. Just how routine, and how quickly they routinely respond, is still open to question; yet we should be clear that it is not necessary that a hijacking be declared, for the military to be called in.
"Intercept" and "shoot-down" are two entirely different commands.
The question of whether an airliner may have to be shot down, (and who might give the order) is completely irrelevant to the fact that fighter-intercepts should have been ordered into the air, at the first sign that a national emergency was underway.
Let's now review the course of events in the light of the above regulations:
Flight 77 was wildly off-course at about 8:46.
If accompanied by lost radio contact, the standard procedure here would seem to include notifying military authorities of a possible emergency.
According to our above radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
Flight 77 went about fifteen miles off-course, and was off-course for approximately ten minutes.
The fact that the plane returned to its orginial course, suggests that contact with the pilot had not been lost; yet given the fact that Flight 77 went so far off-course after Flights 11 and 175 had been hijack-confirmed, should have motivated ATC/FAA officials to contact higher authorities, to make a report, to inform NORAD and/or an appropriate Air National Guard (ANG) base.
Apparently not.
Then, when the ATC officials (watching Flight 77) were informed, (likely by 8:48) that Flight 11 had struck the World trade Center, (8:46) surely NORAD should have been informed that this other plane had been, (or was) off-course/in trouble.
Still nothing was done when transponder contact with Flight 77 was lost, even after Flight 175 had hit the World Trade Center at 9:02.
Flight 77 was visible on various radar screens, heading back towards Washington -for another 23 minutes, before the FAA informed NORAD that the plane may have been hijacked.
Shocking, unbelievable: is it not?
What were these officials doing?
According to the above-mentioned Newsday article,
"After losing [i.e. transponder] track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military."
The most sophisticated air-traffic communications system in the world: regional radar systems, national satellite radar, command centers in the Pentagon: essentially, not responding.
Flight 77 continued to fly towards Washington, unopposed.
When the FAA finally informs NORAD, the plane is little more than thirty miles outside the Capital. (10)
According to CBS News, (transportation correspondent Bob Orr)
"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph." (10)
The N.Y. Times, (Sept. 15) adds,
"the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
So the question remains:
why weren’t intercept aircraft scrambled in time to intercept Flight 77?
Why did it take the FAA thirty-five minutes after the first hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center –to inform NORAD? –when Flight 77 was already clearly in trouble, (likely hijacked) and another plane (175) had also been hijack-confirmed?
Is this not an incredibly lax response?
Is this negligence not worth a mention from government officials - so certain in their knowledge of who's responsible for the attacks, as to invade another country for it?
But there’s more.
When officials at NORAD issued the order to scramble jets, (at 9:27) they chose Langley Air Force Base, which is one-hundred and thirty miles outside of Washington, (where Flight 77 was at the time). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Given the time to scramble, (seven minutes) and the fourteen minutes it takes the planes to fly to Washington, ("at 720 knots, breaking the sound barrier," CNN, ibid) the planes could not possibly have gotten there in time to prevent a direct attack on the Pentagon, the White House, or any of the major buildings in the Capital.
And yet, Andrews Air Force base is located right on the outskirts of Washington, (ten miles away) and is home to two 'combat-ready' squadrons:
* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters. (10)
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
The mission of 121 Fighter-Wing reads, in part,
"provide capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." (10)
F-16 Fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were actually put into the air over Washington on Sept 11th, but only after the attack on the Pentagon was completed, (after planes from Langley were on their way).
" Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001
" an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon... Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon’..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (ibid)
Is this not rather astounding?
A few days later, another version began to appear in the mainstream press:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17, ibid))
The Emperor's-Clothes site, (www.tenc.net ibid) claims that the Andrew's AFB website was "down" after Sept. 11, and re-emerged a few weeks later -with the descriptions of the battle-ready fighter squadrons removed.
Also curious, what appears to be the reputable, well-documented website of the American Federation of Scientists lists the top speed of the F-16 fighters as 1500mph; which means that, according to NORAD and CNN, the fighters from Langley flew at less than half their top speed. (720 knots, about 650mph)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
Given the weight of fuel and weaponry, this top speed may not have been achievable; but is 720 knots the best they could have done -given the extreme nature of the emergency?
The Pentagon also has surface-to-air missiles surrounding it. Why weren’t they used?
Neither was the Pentagon evacuated, until the plane had struck its target, (CNN, Sept 16, ibid).
Does all this not sound as if nobody was minding the store in regards to Flight 77?
Are there not too many inconsistencies here to be ignored?
Would the terrorists on Flight 77 have been able to get to Washington, (and the Pentagon) if the air defense had functioned properly?
Do we not deserve some answers?
Clearly, without gross incompetence on the part of ATC, FAA, and/or NORAD officials, Flight 77 would have not got near Washington -without being "intercepted."
Whether or not a pilot would have been authorized to shoot down the airliner is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that no planes were in the air in time –as routine procedure clearly demanded.
Now, at this point, we don’t know exactly where the breakdown in communication occurred.
By the above information, it would appear that ATC and the FAA were more at fault than NORAD, (though not appreciably); and yet, these communication timelines come to us largely from NORAD.
We don’t know, for example, whether or not ATC and the FAA notified NORAD early on, and whether NORAD simply lied about it -and that the military end was largely or solely responsible for the breakdown in communication.
What we do know, however, is that by official NORAD statements, there was at least a thirty-five minute delay between the time when planes should have been ordered to scramble, and when they actually were.
If routine procedures had been followed, Flight 77 would not have made it to Washington.
The fourth hijacked plane, meanwhile, "was being tracked by the Pentagon," (according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) "and could have been shot down." (NY Times, Sept 15, ibid)
That plane, (Flight 93) crashed into rural Pennsylvania at about 10:10.
Wolfowitz says that "any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President George W. Bush." (ibid)
If true, and since George Bush didn’t immediately excuse himself from the classroom, (at 9:00 am, or 9:05 at the latest) -to assume his role as commander in chief- then we must include his actions in with the above list of organizations: guilty of criminal incompetence.
The fact that his negligence would have made no difference, (i.e. no planes in the air, even if the President was on duty) matters not.
Moral authority begins with admitting one’s own mistakes: only then can one be forgiven them.
The fact that the President has completely overlooked his own ineptitude in this affair, while declaring holy war on nations and citizens alike, strongly suggests that not only is an incompetent at the helm of the most-powerful nation on earth, but a morally incompetent one as well.
Air Force One
top
Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during an absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try to leave for Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may still recall) his plane was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska, and he didn’t return to Washington until 7pm –ten hours after the first attack!!
According to White House spokespersons, this was because,
"There was real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets"
Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN, (3:10) the next day. (11)
So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in time to intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the President that it was "not safe" for the President to fly back to Washington.
Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient planes in the air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure would normally ensure that there were).
Also appearing on the 12th and 13th, were columns in the N.Y. Times by William Saffire, wherein "a White House source," (later confirmed by Bush’s Political Strategist, Karl Rove) informed him that the secret service believed,
'Air Force One may be next,' and 'they may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of Presidential procedures].'
Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA, FBI, etc.
Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this shocking possibility.
The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within two weeks it was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever even existed.
"I'm not going to comment on any particular threats coming toward the White House. . . it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to threaten the government of the United States, regardless of whether it's President Bush or any of his predecessors. And that's why there are security precautions taken at the White House as a matter of routine."
(Ari Fleischer, White House Press Sec. Wash. Post, Sept 27. (12)
True, it’s not an uncommon occurrence for the U.S. or the president to be threatened. It’s extremely uncommon for such a "threat" to be taken so seriously that a U.S. President is barred from Washington for nine and one-half hours during a national emergency.
"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This has nothing to do with anything . . . that may or may not have been directed at President Bush. This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)
Translation?
The Washington Post placed this vacuous absence of a response on page eight.
Does it not sound as if we deserve some answers about,
who gave that warning?
why was it heeded?
why were the skies over Washington not considered safe for the president’s return, for eight hours?
Does it not sound as if civilian defense was on holiday? –or out to lunch?
How can we be so certain of the attack’s perpetrators -when the officials blaming them don’t want to admit that somebody on our own end screwed up so badly, as to allow an attack to occur?
Is an examination of one’s own mistakes (first) -not the foundation of moral leadership?
To sum up thus far,
we have a president who is informed by about 8:55, (as he leaves his hotel) that a hijacked plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, (about ten minutes before) in a terrorist attack, and that a second plane has been hijacked, (confirmed since 8:43); then he's updated again at 9:00; then again at 9:05, (likely to tell him of the second attack at 9:02) and he does absolutely nothing about it for almost thirty minutes.
We have the third plane, Flight 77, which goes off-course at or around the time that two other planes are hijack-confirmed, (8:43) and yet the FAA does not request NORAD to regain contact with the plane, (by fighter intercept) until 9:25 -even after Flights 11 and 175 had struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:02.
NORAD, in turn, orders jets to scramble from a base which is ten times the distance from Washington than the closest active one is.
That same day, (we’re later told) Air Force One and the White House are "threatened"... from the ‘inside.’ Then these claims are later dismissed and ignored by the White House officials who originally made them –even though this "false report" caused the absence of the President from Washington for nine hours.
Fundamental questions, left unanswered.
The government, (and the mainstream media) do not want to discuss a glaring, criminal negligence which occurred under its watch.
When we look at the other hijacked flights, however, (11, 175, and 93) our concern must deepen considerably; for here, we see the same, shocking pattern of neglect and incompetence.
For details, see Unanswered Questions, Part 1B, linked below.
Then, when we examine the nature of the FBI investigation, Part 1D, the official explanations, the media coverage, we see the same pattern yet again: critical questions left unanswered, dubious filler material put in place.
We are talking about a system-wide, repeat pattern of negligence and cover-up, operating at a very high level of government: fully documented, from government and mainstream media sources.
There's no need for wacky conspiracy-theories here, or wild assumptions.
It simply needs to be addressed, if we are to take any steps toward real security.
As our governments and media have proved themselves all too willing to gloss over the uncomfortable questions, I sincerely hope that you will take it upon yourself, dear reader, to become fully informed about what may be the most telling event of our time.
Tell others what you know.
Notes
top
1. CNN, "Breaking News" Sept 11, 12:40 am. See cnn.com/transcripts
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/inv.intelligence.board/index.html
# While I can attest to having found these two quotes on a
# www.defense-link website, in my haste to gather information and references, I must confess I neglected to record the specific address. The direct link to the NY Times article is no longer available to non-subscribers, (like myself). Serious researchers who are willing to pay for access to the NY Times archive, should have no trouble verifying the quote. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to track the web-page reference down again.
# http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm This is an excellent article and site for information on American/NATO foreign policy. Ibid
# ibid
#
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ CNN, Sept. 16th. This is a very useful article. In comparison to earlier media reports, it appears to be quite accurate. Compare it, for example, with this earlier summary from the Washington Post of Sept 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
The CNN report also follows the "official" NORAD timeline of events –as per the communications between the FAA, NORAD, and Air Defense. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
# Whether or not NORAD’s version of when the FAA informed NORAD is true or not is still very much open to question; but at least we have the "official" version to work from.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This is a graphic "flash" map which shows the flight-paths of the four planes on Sept 11, and when they deviated from those paths. It appears to be based on direct radar, taken from a reputable source,http://www.flightexplorer.com Another such graphic map, created on a different web site, appears to be from the same source.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
Because the FBI has revealed almost nothing to the public about the specific timelines, (and the ATC conversations) we can only estimate on the exact time when Flight 77 went off-course, for how long, and when it reversed course near Ohio, (for its assault on Washington).
The plane took off at 8:20, and crashed at 9:38: a 1 hour/eighteen minutes journey, or seventy-eight minutes. This is now universally confirmed in all media reports
At first glance, we would probably look on the map, and see that the distances the plane took to get from Washington to the Ohio border –and back again- are roughly equal. We would thus assume that it took Flight 77 half of the seventy-eight minutes, (39) to reach Ohio, (8:59). This roughly corroborates with the Newsday article of Sept 23rd, (cited above) which says that the plane turned around at 8:55; yet we must also take into account the flight deviation on the path away from Washington, (add ten minutes?); and we also remember that when Flight 77 was nearing Washington, it was flying at over four-hundred miles an hour, (see note 10, below) well over the legal speed limit for airliners, (250 mph? –not sure the exact number).
By the time the plane struck the Pentagon, it was flying at 480mph. We can thus assume that Flight 77 took less time to fly back to Washington than it did to fly towards, (subtract ten minutes?).
By this estimate, we could assume that Flight 77 turned around at the Ohio border at approximately 9:09, and took twenty-six minutes to reach Washington. However, this differs markedly with the Newsday article, by fourteen minutes.
In terms of getting at the truth of the matter, (calculating the amount of time it took civilian air defence to respond, and so on) this is an important fourteen minutes.
In many early reports, the estimated time of events were sometimes wildly inaccurrate; so we may initially be skeptical of the Newsday claim. Yet this report is from the 23rd. of Sept., a full ten days after the tragedy, (when most of the "official" timelines had been established). Furthermore, this article does appear to rely heavily on "official" NORAD, military acounts.
At the same time, this doesn't necessarily make the "official" claim accurate; and our calculations based the radar documentation, (our only other credible source on when Flight 77 turned around) cannot be discounted.
It does not make logical sense to say that Flight 77 went well off-course on the path away from Washington, (for what appears to be at least twenty miles in three different directions =60 miles, which would add about fifteen minutes on, at 250mph) and ended up taking less time to reach the Ohio border, than it did to return, (especially with the documented speed-increase upon its return).
It's possible that Flight 77 slowed down considerably after turning around, before picking up speed. We don't know.
For the moment, we have little recourse but to estimate the time that Flight 77 turned around as being halfway between these two credible, yet differing accounts; that is, (add or subtract seven minutes) at 9:02, just after 9am.
By this account, it took Flight 77 about forty-two minutes to reach its furthest westward point. If we look on the radar map, we can see that it is at the approximate halfway-point on this course, that the plane initially goes off-course; thus, half of 42 minutes, (21) plus take-off time, (8:20) = 8:41 is the approximate time we assume that Flight 77 first went off-course.
Until more-specific data is made available, the above estimates will serve as our timeline.
The reader here may be reasonably aghast at the amount of information and numbers bandied about, in the interest of verifying a few event-times; yet in a situation where very little information is being disclosed, we may sometimes have to rely on complex, logical discourse, before we can be confident -as to our ability to "fill in the gaps."
This cannot be helped: goes with the territory; the real, shocking truth is sometimes only arrived at by those willing and able to ride the rollercoaster of painstaking, meticulous research.
8) Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
9) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid) At the same time, 9:25 the FAA, in consultation with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country.
10) CBS News, Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr; an excellent article, based on the real radar reports which showed that Flight 77 did not go near the White House as many officials (and then media) first claimed. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
# The Reuters report is available in the archives,
http://wire.ap.org/ although the original one may have been tampered with, according to Gary North -who offers what he claims is the original version, here:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash437.htm
#
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
NOTE: these last two links have gone dead. Researchers may yet be able to locate the original articles by visiting "freeworldalliance," or by doing a "google" search on "Gary North."
# Return to top
# Move to next section: Part 1B: Flight 11, 175, 93
Feb. 2002
Within a few months, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 became but an echo of the events that followed.
War in Afghanistan, anthrax, unprecedented powers of detention: the public mind moves from one shock to another, appearing to accept the government’s lead.
Now after five, six, seven months, a new world beacons; or perhaps, the old world, from a different vantage point.
For those of us determined to think for ourselves, (and question government pronouncements) the leap to blame Bin Laden, (with little substantial evidence) and the pretext for bombing yet another poor country, was unsatisfactory -right from the start.
Yet this has become a "new reality" which we now have to deal with, taking us further from the events of Sept. 11th with each passing day.
The curtain seems to be descending on the big, unanswered questions that was on virtually everyone’s mind during, (and for weeks after) the attack:
How could Sept. 11th have happened?
How could four planes be hijacked over U.S. skies, within the space of an hour?
How was it that three of them were able to plow into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, in the heart of the most powerful nation on earth -with no planes in the skies to defend them?
Were the perpetrators simply evil geniuses?
Or did these attacks occur alongside the most colossal collapse of airspace security in U.S. history?
In the wake of the devastation, the answer to this last question is: obviously, yes.
Somehow, the terrorists got through.
Even politicians in Washington, (normally staunch defenders of the security apparatus) were initially compelled to express this:
"The government failed the American people." (Rep. Curt Weldon, on CNN, 12:40, Sept. 11th).
A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a thorough inquiry."
Sen. Robert Torricelli, speaking on the Senate floor. (1)
An obvious thing.
This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the military.
To touch on but one example:
two of the four planes commandeered on Sept 11th were in the air, (hijack-confirmed) for almost an hour after the first hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center had been confirmed -with no jet fighter in sight, as routine procedure demands.
The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.
There were safeguards in place, and they were not implemented.
As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was repeated at virtually every level of civilian air defense, in relation to all four planes.
Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented negligence –on the part of those entrusted with the protection of American skies.
Without such an lapse, the attacks of Sept 11th simply would not have been successful.
Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the sheer scope of it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public inquiry; yet the government has strictly avoided opening itself to public scrutiny; instead, it has used the tragedy to wrap the protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.
The congressional committee of review, for example,
"does not in any way lay blame to the dedicated men and women of the U.S. intelligence community." "The point is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is to see where the weaknesses are in our system."
Members of committee, NY Times, Oct 3, 2001(2)
The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30 billion intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on the C.I.A.'s use of unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)
In other words, the assumption is,
‘the government and defense apparatus did everything it could.’
‘We were caught off-guard by fiendishly clever, ruthless, and fanatical foes.’
‘We simply need more resources to make sure it never happens again.’
As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official documents, statements, and mainstream media reports) this assumption is utterly wrong.
More resources were not required.
What was needed on Sept 11th was for procedures that were already in place to be implemented.
A most profound abandonment of routine air-defense procedures accompanied these attacks.
In this particular sense, the attackers did not act alone.
That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush to identify the attackers) is all the more reason that an open, public investigation be initiated.
In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we found it virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal incompetence which must have accompanied it; and our government, media, (and other centers of influence) seem to have found it convenient to inflame our anger –diverting our attention from the outstanding, obvious questions:
How did this happen?
Who within the state apparatus was asleep at the switch?
How do we ensure that this never happens again?
How do we know that some of those involved in the internal "investigation" of the state won’t simply cover over what they don’t want us to see?
In the immediate aftermath of the terror, the government/media made it seem as if anyone who criticized the government was "for" the "other side."
The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government, was temporarily put on hold.
It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public investigation.
There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts –simply an increased budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and state power.
It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for ourselves; and yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months following, may have made such an inquiry seem impossible to us, passe, perhaps even irrelevant.
So I ask you, dear reader, for but a few minutes more of your time: to briefly take a step back with me, unto a morning and a day when our world seemed to change forever.
I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information which have passed across our view screens so quickly, their significance seeming to fade in the absence of meaningful debate.
Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense research: carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential points may be grasped with a clarity and ease, hitherto elusive.
Consider this contention:
the attacks on Sept. 11 may yet represent
one of the most important events in the last fifty years,
(perhaps all human history, for those who choose to examine it):
a turning point, in our understanding of the most-fundamental relationship between appearance and reality.
Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence, I’m sure you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery may lie within.
Recall then, the morning of Sept 11, 2001
According to The New York Times, (Sept 15)
"controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11. And within a few minutes more, controllers would have known that both United 175 (the second plane to hit the World Trade Center) and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon) had probably been hijacked." (3)
[Note: all the hijacked planes had their tracking beacons turned off at various times, but they were still visible on various radar screens].
George W. Bush
Top
Within ten minutes of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush was aware of it.
"He got out of his hotel suite this morning, [on his way to a school] was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later." (ABC's John Cochran, Peter Jennings)
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm#mybust
Then, (according to CNN) he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school, (CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31, Sept.11).
Then the President was updated a third time.
According to Associated Press, he was
"In Sarasota, Florida.... reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear." ['AP' 12 September 2001, This also appeared on TV] (4)
And what did George W. Bush do when he received the third update from Andrew Card?
Apparently, nothing.
"The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later." ['AP' 12 September, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001 Pg. A 20]. (5)
Further, according to CNN’s Garrett, (on the scene)
"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on television sets here at the elementary school... Shortly before [his] statement [addressing the tragedy] he was actually sitting down with some children here at the elementary school reading them a book.... Reporters asked him if he was aware of the situation in New York. He nodded a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say about that shortly.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html ("Breaking News" 9:25)
To the suggestion, (made by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan) that this "exchange of questions with the president came at... a sensitive time... sitting in front of a bunch of schoolchildren... not wanting to scare [them]," Garrett replies:
"Well, precisely. And the president has a way of letting reporters know that it's either an appropriate... or inappropriate time to take questions. He does that in many different environments, many different situations. Clearly this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an even keel, keep the situation under control as best as possible. He just nodded and said -- we'll talk about this later."
Just after 9:30, the President excused himself from the classroom to make a statement that a "terrorist attack on America has occurred." (CNN, "Breaking News, 9:31)
So, for almost thirty minutes after President Bush was officially updated about this for the the third time, he remained sitting in a classroom of children, (apparently, reading a book about goats).
Does this not seem rather negligent?
As we shall soon see, officials would repeatedly claim that the President was the only one who could order a domestic airliner to be shot down.
Why did he remain sitting in the classroom? Why did he even GO into the classroom in the first place? -if he had already been informed, not once but twice, of an unprecedented attack on America?
Was he not told the whole story?
Three months later, on nationwide TV, President Bush tells a captive audience,
"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
This is a very interesting statement for Bush to make, seeing as the first plane, (at that time) was not actually caught on network TV -striking the tower. Only the second one was.
Clearly, the President is giving the impression that he was not then aware that this plane crash was a terrorist attack; but is this, in fact what we would expect from the commander-in-chief?
As supreme commander, the President is tied into civilian air defense through the secret service.
There are time-honored, standard procedures -whereby, the command-center in the Pentagon, radar defense, the National Security Council, and the President are quickly informed of any national emergencies, including hijackings.
As Vice-President Dick Cheney says on the Sept. 16th edition of "Meet The Press,"
"The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
Cheney neglects to finish his sentence, but the implications are clear.
The FAA suspected that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:20, and confirmed it with NORAD at 8:38, well before the plane struck the tower at 8:46; thus, the Pentagon, and the secret service also knew. (See Unanaswered Questions, Part 1B, for full documentation).
By the time that George W. Bush first admits knowing about the crash, (ten minutes later, about 8:55) he has already been briefed, for he shows no emotional response to either his chief of staff, or the reporters question.
Not only the crash of a single, hijacked plane, but two other planes in close proximity are hijack-suspected/confirmed.
A national emergency is in progress.
All this would have been known by the secret service -and hence, the President.
After his first public admission of being informed, George W. Bush is updated five minutes later, (at 9:00) then five minutes later again, (presumably, about the second plane which crashed into the World Trade Center, at 9:02).
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)
Yet he continues sitting in the classroom with the children; and when reporters dare to ask whether he’s going to do something about it, he appears to suggest that (presumably by some kind of stern expression) ‘now is not an "appropriate" time to talk about it’?
We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that he has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that he is among the first to be informed, not the last.
Only at 9:30 did the President finally confirm what the FAA, the military, and the secret service had already known fifty minutes before -and what the entire television-watching world had known for forty.
Tentative conclusion?
Either the President was criminally mis-informed by his own secret service/staff; or he was deliberately mis-representing the extent to which he knew that a national emergency was underway.
His inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following events.
Flight 77
top
By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at approx. 8:46). It had made a huge northward /westward/southward loop, before resuming its proper course again. (7)
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This fact, (based on the actual radar reports from government and private industry) was likely the source of the above statement, that,
"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have known that... Flight 77 had probably been hijacked." (NY Times, Sept 15)
At the same time,
"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed [at 8:46] CNN, Sept 16, ibid."
Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)
Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic Control officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also aware that another plane on the east coast had been hijacked-confirmed.
Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight 175 had been declared "hijacked," (at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid, earlier than the NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is based on official government, NORAD, timeline).
Thus, two other planes were officially confirmed as hijacked, by the time that Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course.
Within minutes, these officials would be informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center.
They should have been extremely concerned.
Flight 77 managed to return to it's proper westward course, after flying about twenty miles north, then west, then south; yet officials should have still been on a high state of alert.
[NOTE: we don't know what kind of radio communications existed between ATC officials and Flight 77; because, for some reason, the FBI has not publicly released the tapes; so it's possible that, with radio contact, (and a clear sign of "ok" from the pilot) officials were convinced that things were under control, once the plane was back on its original course].
Yet the fact remains that the plane these officials were monitoring had been well off-course around the same time that two other planes in the area had been hijacked; and now, by 9:05 (at the same time that President Bush was updated the third time) a second crash into the World Trade Center had occurred, in what was now confirmed to be two, intentional terrorist attacks.
At the very least, the officials must have had suspicians, (as the NY Times article, cited above, clearly suggests).
Then, at approx. 9:00am, Flight 77 ceases its transponder signal.
For a very short period of time, (as they frantically try to regain radar contact through other facilities) ATC officials would have been unaware that Flight 77 had made a 180 degree turn near the Ohio state border, and was heading straight back for Washington.
(NOTE: according to Newsday, (Sept 23rd) this occurred at 8:55,
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
calculations based on the above radar map, take-off time, crash time, etc. suggests it was likely about five minutes after that. See note 7).
At any rate, according to the above source,
"9:06, Washington notifies all air traffic facilities nationwide of the suspected hijacking of Flight 11."
This was as clear an expression of a national emergency as these officials had ever known; and yet, although "military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do," (N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, ibid) air traffic control continued to watch Flight 77 on the radar screen without any fighters scrambled to intercept it.
Then, at 9:25, the F.A.A. (the Federal Aviation Authority, oversight body of all ATC centers) notifies NORAD (military air-radar defense) that Flight 77 may have been hijacked. CNN, Sept 16, ibid (9)
That is:
Forty-plus minutes after two other planes had been hijack-confirmed: (Flight 11 at 8:38, Flight 175 at 8:43, CNN Sept 16, ibid.)
Approximately forty minutes after Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course, (radar map, USA Today, ibid)
Almost forty minutes after ATC officials would have known that Flight 11 had struck the World Trade Center; (CNN, ibid)
Thirty-five minutes after ATC officials "would have known that... American 77 had probably been hijacked" (NY Times, ibid)
About twenty-five minutes after Flight 77 had ceased its transponder signal, and made a 180 degree turn over West Virginia, (when it was now just thirteen minutes from the Pentagon,Newsday, ibid);
Over twenty minutes after a second plane had struck the World Trade Centre, (9:02, CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
And finally:
Nineteen minutes after every other air traffic facility in the country knew that Flight 77 was likely hijacked,(Newsday, ibid) the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked?
May have been hijacked?!?
This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine procedures of ATC and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,
9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept United Airlines flight 77. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid )
Now, let’s be absolutely clear about this.It is the sworn duty of the FAA to follow certain safety procedures; such as,
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (ibid)
The reason for this is simple: in busy airspace, an airliner without radio and transponder contact is a collision waiting to happen.
When an airliner goes off course, it is equally, (if not more) dangerous.
Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.]
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (ibid)
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re deviating from course." 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." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY
[Note: According to the actual (NTSB) National Transportation Safety Board report of the "Payne Stewart" incident,
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
the fighters were not all that quickly dispatched. It appears to have taken ATC officials about twenty minutes to call in the airforce, and an hour for a jet to be vectored into position.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs14.htm
This is odd, considering the fact that the first jet contacted was already in flight, (on a training mission). Why would it take forty minutes for an already airborne F-16 to catch up to a much slower-moving plane in distress? The possibility remains that this report has been doctored, (a not uncommon occurence with government websites); and/or, this at least points to more-or-less routine negligence on the part of the FAA/military, in not holding themselves accountable to their own emergency procedures. (See the excellent book by Mary Schiavo, former inspector-general of the NTSB, "Flying Blind, Flying Safe").
At any rate, the "Payne Stewart" incident is very different from that of Flight 77. Whereas a small jet with four passengers was in apparent distress, here you have a large commercial jet with over a hundred passengers, in busy airspace, hijack- suspected, just after two other hijack-confirmed planes had attacked the World Trade Center.
If the "Payne Stewart" incident shows both, standard operating procedure in action, and its somewhat negligent enforcement, Flight 77 shows such negligence rocketing into the stratosphere.
The standing rule of NORAD officals, (at the central U.S. radar facility, Cheyenne Mountain) is to give unknown airplanes which are approaching U.S. airspace, (off any of the coasts of North America) two minutes to make a satisfactory identification.
After two minutes, fighter-intercepts are ordered to scramble, without exception.
On the other side of the world, the head of the (rather antiquated) Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, has this to say, (of the Sept 11 attacks)
"such a scenario is impossible. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents in Russia] too.... as soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)
Let’s also be absolutely clear about what is meant by "interception."
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
FAA:
"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."
"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."
This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.
The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (ibid)
So, it is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners, in order to regain contact with the pilot. Just how routine, and how quickly they routinely respond, is still open to question; yet we should be clear that it is not necessary that a hijacking be declared, for the military to be called in.
"Intercept" and "shoot-down" are two entirely different commands.
The question of whether an airliner may have to be shot down, (and who might give the order) is completely irrelevant to the fact that fighter-intercepts should have been ordered into the air, at the first sign that a national emergency was underway.
Let's now review the course of events in the light of the above regulations:
Flight 77 was wildly off-course at about 8:46.
If accompanied by lost radio contact, the standard procedure here would seem to include notifying military authorities of a possible emergency.
According to our above radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
Flight 77 went about fifteen miles off-course, and was off-course for approximately ten minutes.
The fact that the plane returned to its orginial course, suggests that contact with the pilot had not been lost; yet given the fact that Flight 77 went so far off-course after Flights 11 and 175 had been hijack-confirmed, should have motivated ATC/FAA officials to contact higher authorities, to make a report, to inform NORAD and/or an appropriate Air National Guard (ANG) base.
Apparently not.
Then, when the ATC officials (watching Flight 77) were informed, (likely by 8:48) that Flight 11 had struck the World trade Center, (8:46) surely NORAD should have been informed that this other plane had been, (or was) off-course/in trouble.
Still nothing was done when transponder contact with Flight 77 was lost, even after Flight 175 had hit the World Trade Center at 9:02.
Flight 77 was visible on various radar screens, heading back towards Washington -for another 23 minutes, before the FAA informed NORAD that the plane may have been hijacked.
Shocking, unbelievable: is it not?
What were these officials doing?
According to the above-mentioned Newsday article,
"After losing [i.e. transponder] track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military."
The most sophisticated air-traffic communications system in the world: regional radar systems, national satellite radar, command centers in the Pentagon: essentially, not responding.
Flight 77 continued to fly towards Washington, unopposed.
When the FAA finally informs NORAD, the plane is little more than thirty miles outside the Capital. (10)
According to CBS News, (transportation correspondent Bob Orr)
"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph." (10)
The N.Y. Times, (Sept. 15) adds,
"the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
So the question remains:
why weren’t intercept aircraft scrambled in time to intercept Flight 77?
Why did it take the FAA thirty-five minutes after the first hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center –to inform NORAD? –when Flight 77 was already clearly in trouble, (likely hijacked) and another plane (175) had also been hijack-confirmed?
Is this not an incredibly lax response?
Is this negligence not worth a mention from government officials - so certain in their knowledge of who's responsible for the attacks, as to invade another country for it?
But there’s more.
When officials at NORAD issued the order to scramble jets, (at 9:27) they chose Langley Air Force Base, which is one-hundred and thirty miles outside of Washington, (where Flight 77 was at the time). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Given the time to scramble, (seven minutes) and the fourteen minutes it takes the planes to fly to Washington, ("at 720 knots, breaking the sound barrier," CNN, ibid) the planes could not possibly have gotten there in time to prevent a direct attack on the Pentagon, the White House, or any of the major buildings in the Capital.
And yet, Andrews Air Force base is located right on the outskirts of Washington, (ten miles away) and is home to two 'combat-ready' squadrons:
* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters. (10)
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
The mission of 121 Fighter-Wing reads, in part,
"provide capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." (10)
F-16 Fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were actually put into the air over Washington on Sept 11th, but only after the attack on the Pentagon was completed, (after planes from Langley were on their way).
" Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001
" an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon... Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon’..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (ibid)
Is this not rather astounding?
A few days later, another version began to appear in the mainstream press:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17, ibid))
The Emperor's-Clothes site, (www.tenc.net ibid) claims that the Andrew's AFB website was "down" after Sept. 11, and re-emerged a few weeks later -with the descriptions of the battle-ready fighter squadrons removed.
Also curious, what appears to be the reputable, well-documented website of the American Federation of Scientists lists the top speed of the F-16 fighters as 1500mph; which means that, according to NORAD and CNN, the fighters from Langley flew at less than half their top speed. (720 knots, about 650mph)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
Given the weight of fuel and weaponry, this top speed may not have been achievable; but is 720 knots the best they could have done -given the extreme nature of the emergency?
The Pentagon also has surface-to-air missiles surrounding it. Why weren’t they used?
Neither was the Pentagon evacuated, until the plane had struck its target, (CNN, Sept 16, ibid).
Does all this not sound as if nobody was minding the store in regards to Flight 77?
Are there not too many inconsistencies here to be ignored?
Would the terrorists on Flight 77 have been able to get to Washington, (and the Pentagon) if the air defense had functioned properly?
Do we not deserve some answers?
Clearly, without gross incompetence on the part of ATC, FAA, and/or NORAD officials, Flight 77 would have not got near Washington -without being "intercepted."
Whether or not a pilot would have been authorized to shoot down the airliner is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that no planes were in the air in time –as routine procedure clearly demanded.
Now, at this point, we don’t know exactly where the breakdown in communication occurred.
By the above information, it would appear that ATC and the FAA were more at fault than NORAD, (though not appreciably); and yet, these communication timelines come to us largely from NORAD.
We don’t know, for example, whether or not ATC and the FAA notified NORAD early on, and whether NORAD simply lied about it -and that the military end was largely or solely responsible for the breakdown in communication.
What we do know, however, is that by official NORAD statements, there was at least a thirty-five minute delay between the time when planes should have been ordered to scramble, and when they actually were.
If routine procedures had been followed, Flight 77 would not have made it to Washington.
The fourth hijacked plane, meanwhile, "was being tracked by the Pentagon," (according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) "and could have been shot down." (NY Times, Sept 15, ibid)
That plane, (Flight 93) crashed into rural Pennsylvania at about 10:10.
Wolfowitz says that "any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President George W. Bush." (ibid)
If true, and since George Bush didn’t immediately excuse himself from the classroom, (at 9:00 am, or 9:05 at the latest) -to assume his role as commander in chief- then we must include his actions in with the above list of organizations: guilty of criminal incompetence.
The fact that his negligence would have made no difference, (i.e. no planes in the air, even if the President was on duty) matters not.
Moral authority begins with admitting one’s own mistakes: only then can one be forgiven them.
The fact that the President has completely overlooked his own ineptitude in this affair, while declaring holy war on nations and citizens alike, strongly suggests that not only is an incompetent at the helm of the most-powerful nation on earth, but a morally incompetent one as well.
Air Force One
top
Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during an absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try to leave for Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may still recall) his plane was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska, and he didn’t return to Washington until 7pm –ten hours after the first attack!!
According to White House spokespersons, this was because,
"There was real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets"
Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN, (3:10) the next day. (11)
So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in time to intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the President that it was "not safe" for the President to fly back to Washington.
Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient planes in the air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure would normally ensure that there were).
Also appearing on the 12th and 13th, were columns in the N.Y. Times by William Saffire, wherein "a White House source," (later confirmed by Bush’s Political Strategist, Karl Rove) informed him that the secret service believed,
'Air Force One may be next,' and 'they may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of Presidential procedures].'
Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA, FBI, etc.
Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this shocking possibility.
The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within two weeks it was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever even existed.
"I'm not going to comment on any particular threats coming toward the White House. . . it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to threaten the government of the United States, regardless of whether it's President Bush or any of his predecessors. And that's why there are security precautions taken at the White House as a matter of routine."
(Ari Fleischer, White House Press Sec. Wash. Post, Sept 27. (12)
True, it’s not an uncommon occurrence for the U.S. or the president to be threatened. It’s extremely uncommon for such a "threat" to be taken so seriously that a U.S. President is barred from Washington for nine and one-half hours during a national emergency.
"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This has nothing to do with anything . . . that may or may not have been directed at President Bush. This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)
Translation?
The Washington Post placed this vacuous absence of a response on page eight.
Does it not sound as if we deserve some answers about,
who gave that warning?
why was it heeded?
why were the skies over Washington not considered safe for the president’s return, for eight hours?
Does it not sound as if civilian defense was on holiday? –or out to lunch?
How can we be so certain of the attack’s perpetrators -when the officials blaming them don’t want to admit that somebody on our own end screwed up so badly, as to allow an attack to occur?
Is an examination of one’s own mistakes (first) -not the foundation of moral leadership?
To sum up thus far,
we have a president who is informed by about 8:55, (as he leaves his hotel) that a hijacked plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, (about ten minutes before) in a terrorist attack, and that a second plane has been hijacked, (confirmed since 8:43); then he's updated again at 9:00; then again at 9:05, (likely to tell him of the second attack at 9:02) and he does absolutely nothing about it for almost thirty minutes.
We have the third plane, Flight 77, which goes off-course at or around the time that two other planes are hijack-confirmed, (8:43) and yet the FAA does not request NORAD to regain contact with the plane, (by fighter intercept) until 9:25 -even after Flights 11 and 175 had struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:02.
NORAD, in turn, orders jets to scramble from a base which is ten times the distance from Washington than the closest active one is.
That same day, (we’re later told) Air Force One and the White House are "threatened"... from the ‘inside.’ Then these claims are later dismissed and ignored by the White House officials who originally made them –even though this "false report" caused the absence of the President from Washington for nine hours.
Fundamental questions, left unanswered.
The government, (and the mainstream media) do not want to discuss a glaring, criminal negligence which occurred under its watch.
When we look at the other hijacked flights, however, (11, 175, and 93) our concern must deepen considerably; for here, we see the same, shocking pattern of neglect and incompetence.
For details, see Unanswered Questions, Part 1B, linked below.
Then, when we examine the nature of the FBI investigation, Part 1D, the official explanations, the media coverage, we see the same pattern yet again: critical questions left unanswered, dubious filler material put in place.
We are talking about a system-wide, repeat pattern of negligence and cover-up, operating at a very high level of government: fully documented, from government and mainstream media sources.
There's no need for wacky conspiracy-theories here, or wild assumptions.
It simply needs to be addressed, if we are to take any steps toward real security.
As our governments and media have proved themselves all too willing to gloss over the uncomfortable questions, I sincerely hope that you will take it upon yourself, dear reader, to become fully informed about what may be the most telling event of our time.
Tell others what you know.
Notes
top
1. CNN, "Breaking News" Sept 11, 12:40 am. See cnn.com/transcripts
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/inv.intelligence.board/index.html
# While I can attest to having found these two quotes on a
# www.defense-link website, in my haste to gather information and references, I must confess I neglected to record the specific address. The direct link to the NY Times article is no longer available to non-subscribers, (like myself). Serious researchers who are willing to pay for access to the NY Times archive, should have no trouble verifying the quote. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to track the web-page reference down again.
# http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm This is an excellent article and site for information on American/NATO foreign policy. Ibid
# ibid
#
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ CNN, Sept. 16th. This is a very useful article. In comparison to earlier media reports, it appears to be quite accurate. Compare it, for example, with this earlier summary from the Washington Post of Sept 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
The CNN report also follows the "official" NORAD timeline of events –as per the communications between the FAA, NORAD, and Air Defense. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
# Whether or not NORAD’s version of when the FAA informed NORAD is true or not is still very much open to question; but at least we have the "official" version to work from.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This is a graphic "flash" map which shows the flight-paths of the four planes on Sept 11, and when they deviated from those paths. It appears to be based on direct radar, taken from a reputable source,http://www.flightexplorer.com Another such graphic map, created on a different web site, appears to be from the same source.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html
Because the FBI has revealed almost nothing to the public about the specific timelines, (and the ATC conversations) we can only estimate on the exact time when Flight 77 went off-course, for how long, and when it reversed course near Ohio, (for its assault on Washington).
The plane took off at 8:20, and crashed at 9:38: a 1 hour/eighteen minutes journey, or seventy-eight minutes. This is now universally confirmed in all media reports
At first glance, we would probably look on the map, and see that the distances the plane took to get from Washington to the Ohio border –and back again- are roughly equal. We would thus assume that it took Flight 77 half of the seventy-eight minutes, (39) to reach Ohio, (8:59). This roughly corroborates with the Newsday article of Sept 23rd, (cited above) which says that the plane turned around at 8:55; yet we must also take into account the flight deviation on the path away from Washington, (add ten minutes?); and we also remember that when Flight 77 was nearing Washington, it was flying at over four-hundred miles an hour, (see note 10, below) well over the legal speed limit for airliners, (250 mph? –not sure the exact number).
By the time the plane struck the Pentagon, it was flying at 480mph. We can thus assume that Flight 77 took less time to fly back to Washington than it did to fly towards, (subtract ten minutes?).
By this estimate, we could assume that Flight 77 turned around at the Ohio border at approximately 9:09, and took twenty-six minutes to reach Washington. However, this differs markedly with the Newsday article, by fourteen minutes.
In terms of getting at the truth of the matter, (calculating the amount of time it took civilian air defence to respond, and so on) this is an important fourteen minutes.
In many early reports, the estimated time of events were sometimes wildly inaccurrate; so we may initially be skeptical of the Newsday claim. Yet this report is from the 23rd. of Sept., a full ten days after the tragedy, (when most of the "official" timelines had been established). Furthermore, this article does appear to rely heavily on "official" NORAD, military acounts.
At the same time, this doesn't necessarily make the "official" claim accurate; and our calculations based the radar documentation, (our only other credible source on when Flight 77 turned around) cannot be discounted.
It does not make logical sense to say that Flight 77 went well off-course on the path away from Washington, (for what appears to be at least twenty miles in three different directions =60 miles, which would add about fifteen minutes on, at 250mph) and ended up taking less time to reach the Ohio border, than it did to return, (especially with the documented speed-increase upon its return).
It's possible that Flight 77 slowed down considerably after turning around, before picking up speed. We don't know.
For the moment, we have little recourse but to estimate the time that Flight 77 turned around as being halfway between these two credible, yet differing accounts; that is, (add or subtract seven minutes) at 9:02, just after 9am.
By this account, it took Flight 77 about forty-two minutes to reach its furthest westward point. If we look on the radar map, we can see that it is at the approximate halfway-point on this course, that the plane initially goes off-course; thus, half of 42 minutes, (21) plus take-off time, (8:20) = 8:41 is the approximate time we assume that Flight 77 first went off-course.
Until more-specific data is made available, the above estimates will serve as our timeline.
The reader here may be reasonably aghast at the amount of information and numbers bandied about, in the interest of verifying a few event-times; yet in a situation where very little information is being disclosed, we may sometimes have to rely on complex, logical discourse, before we can be confident -as to our ability to "fill in the gaps."
This cannot be helped: goes with the territory; the real, shocking truth is sometimes only arrived at by those willing and able to ride the rollercoaster of painstaking, meticulous research.
8) Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
9) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid) At the same time, 9:25 the FAA, in consultation with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country.
10) CBS News, Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr; an excellent article, based on the real radar reports which showed that Flight 77 did not go near the White House as many officials (and then media) first claimed. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
# The Reuters report is available in the archives,
http://wire.ap.org/ although the original one may have been tampered with, according to Gary North -who offers what he claims is the original version, here:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash437.htm
#
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
Another Heavy quote...enjoy
HeavyStick said:
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
Part 1B
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
Flights 11,175, 93
by MalcontentX
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html
Index
[Note to Readers: By your intent to read Part 1B,
we assume that you have already read Part 1A, (concerning Flight 77);
as such, you are to be commended for your willingness
to take the time that is necessary to inform yourself, (no small matter).
Many are those who become so burdened with the weight
of words, as to give up the search at the first sign of fatigue.
This burden is found in the ground of social, economic, and spiritual oppression,
where few of us have the time or energy to devote to a serious study of a serious situation.
Thus, one of our most powerful means of achieving freedom -the interior light of the mind-
is often left to the darkness of easy explanations echoing off a sea of silent souls.
You who choose to persevere shall not long know the light in isolation.
Flight 11
Flight 11 took off from Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:59 am.
Approximately twenty minutes into the flight, (8:20) Flight 11 stops transmitting its’ IFF (transponder) beacon. (CNN, Sept 16th, ibid)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
The Village Voice of Sept 13th adds,
When the flight was 15 to 20 minutes out, the controller gave the pilot the OK to ascend from 29,000 to 31,000 feet. Nothing happened. The controller repeated his permission to go up. Still nothing. He tried to contact the pilot on the emergency frequency. No answer. Then the controllers noticed the plane's transponders, which tells them the aircraft's altitude, had stopped working, no longer sending a radar pulse."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
According to the following source,
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html
the New York Times of Sept 13 said much the same thing,
"The plane held on course, almost due west, for only 16 minutes.... Just past Worcester, Mass., instead of taking a southerly turn, the Boeing 767 swung to the north at 8:15. It had been taken over . . . "Five minutes later, at 8:20, Flight 11 failed to follow an instruction to climb to its cruising altitude of 31,00 feet. It was this point that air controllers suspected something was wrong. And just about then the plane's transponder, a piece of equipment that broadcast its location, went out."
"A Plane Left Boston and Skimmed Over River and Mountain in a Deadly Detour."
We should remember here that, although Flight 11 was no longer sending a specific transponder signal, it was still giving off a generalized radar; thus,
"an Air Force facility in Rome, N.Y., tracks planes based solely on the radar reflection off the skin of the aircraft. That alone would allow the Air Force to track the flight." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp
The Village Voice article continues,
"At 8:28 the radar showed the jet veer south."
Our graphic radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
shows Flight 11 way off course, (thirty miles or more) by the time that it veered south -and that it must have, indeed, begun to go off-course at around the time that transponder /cockpit contact was first lost.
To review thus far:
at 8:15, Flight 11 begins to go off-course. At 8:20, Boston ATC loses radio and transponder contact with the plane. At 8:28, Flight 11 veers sharply south.
The FAA’s Boston Center knew... that Flight 11 had made a dramatic, roughly 100-degree left-hand turn to the south. (MSNBC, ibid)
Let’s briefly recall our documentation from Part 1A, (Flight 77) for rules regarding airline emergencies.
Re: flight path
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." (MSNBC, Sept 12, ibid)
Re: transponder/radio contact
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
And what do the fighter planes typically do?
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted... typically handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front... can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or... down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 www.tenc.net (ibid)
So first off, the emergency begins when the plane begins to go off-course at 8:15.
[Note: We can see here the confused nature of the N. Y. Times piece, [a document yet to be located, admittedly] which suggests that it was five minutes after the plane was off-course "that air controllers suspected something was wrong." A commercial airliner with one hundred+ passengers on board in the busiest of airspaces is a serious emergency. Five minutes is a long time. If the above reporting is accurate, it would be most interesting to see a transcript of the conversations between the pilots and ATC while they still had contact. [i.e. What would the pilots be saying to explain their being well off-course for that long?].
Five minutes later, at 8:20, transponder/cockpit contact with Flight 11 is lost; and what does Boston ATC do?
It appears they did essentially nothing until 8:38.
Boston ATC notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked at 8:38 (CNN, Sept 16, ibid), eighteen minutes after the transponder signal first went silent -twenty-three minutes after the plane was off-course.
This seems rather negligent, (and/or out of the ordinary) does it not?
Standard FAA procedure, when radar and cockpit contact is lost, (and when the plane goes off-course) would appear to be: get a plane up in the air to regain contact with the pilot.
Now, whether this "standard," "routine procedure" is actually acted upon, (and to what standard of proficiency) is still open to question. Our latest understanding of the "Payne Stewart" incident, is that it took over twenty-minutes for the Air Force to be called in after radio control was lost, (see note 13 for a correction on earlier analysis). A crucial difference here, of course, is that the "Stewart" plane was carrying four passengers in relatively remote airspace, (higher altitudes) while Flight 11 was in very busy airspace with, (usually) a hundred+ passengers, and its transponder signal had also been turned off.
The kicker here, of course..... is that at approximately 8:28, ten minutes before NORAD says ATC contacted them, the air traffic controllers confirmed that the plane had been hijacked.
"The plane turned [south toward New York], and then they heard the transmission with the terrorist in the background....The voice upset [the controller] because he knew right then that he was working a hijack. Several other people heard the voice, and they could tell by the sound of it, intuitively, that this was a bad situation..... the Nashua [New Hampshire] controllers didn't know when the military was contacted, but said it was routine to do so immediately when a hijacking is under way. (Christian Science Monitor, quoted in both the MSNBC and Village Voice articles, cited above)
Thirteen minutes after a commercial airline goes way off-course, eight minutes after radar/transponder contact is lost, and it takes ATC ten more minutes to contact NORAD and tell them the plane has been hijacked?
An off-course/no contact airliner is a standing emergency. A possible hijacking is only the most logical of scenarios to consider.
It is not necessary for ATC to wait until a hijacking is confirmed, in order to contact NORAD or an ANG base.
Whether or not partial contact is regained, whether or not those intercepts actually get in the air, (or are called-off) the ATC/FAA should have at least notified civilian air defence immediately... as if
"an aircraft emergency exists."
Whether ATC tried to contact local ANG bases, (Air National Guard) or not, we do not know; whether NORAD was contacted earlier and simply did not respond, is still a possibility. Practically everything about these issues is being kept secret by the FBI and other agencies. The critical evidence we do know is that NORAD was (supposedly) not informed until twenty-three minutes after the emergency existed, and ten minutes after a hijacking had been confirmed.
This is serious negligence, no?
Occuring on the same day as the even more-negligent monitoring of Flight 77, (Part 1A) this has to raise serious doubts in the minds of readers -as to what else was going on... that day... besides the hijackings, that may have allowed them to occur, and what needs to be done on the level of civilian defense, (not secret service enhancements) to make sure this doesn't happen again.
We need an open, thorough, public investigation.
And there's still more.
When NORAD was (apparently) contacted, it took them another six minutes to contact an air base.
--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters to scramble. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
and this, one minute after
--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.
Why would it take six minutes for NORAD to get the hijack-confirmation, choose an appropriate air base, make a phone call -and for that to be translated into an order to scramble?
One, two, three minutes, maybe; but six?
Now we’re up to twenty-nine minutes -between the time when officials first lost contact with Flight 11, and when the order to get jets in the air was given.
This is absurd; and, as we have documented an even greater degree of negligence in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A) we can thus see that this was no "fluke," no "isolated accident," no infrequent "bad day at the office."
We don’t yet know where the exact disconnect point is, (ATC? FAA? NORAD?) but we can clearly see a repeated, glaring gap in credible response time.
By 8:38 Flight 11 was already nearing the outskirts of New York City, eight minutes away from its target.
Now notice what Air Base NORAD chooses to scramble fighters from: Otis Air Force Base, on the eastern-most tip of Massachusetts, (Cape Cod, on the Atlantic coast).
This is about two-hundred miles away from where Flight 11 was.
Wouldn’t it have made sense to order jets to scramble from a closer base?
As it was, it was already too late for Flight 11.
It struck the WTC at 8:46am, (CNN, April 16, ibid). The intercept planes would not be in the air for another six minutes.
--8:52 a.m.: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis ANG Base in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
It had taken civilain air defense thirty-seven minutes to get fighter-intercepts into the air, from the first point of an emergency.
It would take those jets another seventeen minutes to get to New York City.
Why wouldn’t NORAD order other planes from other bases to scramble, as well? -far closer to the hijacked plane(s)?
The significance of this non-order becomes huge, when we consider that it came one minute after NORAD was informed that Flight 175 had also been hijacked, (8:43/44). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Flight 175
top
In the space of five minutes, officials at NORAD were made aware that two planes had been hijacked, and were presently within about fifty miles from one another, (just outside New York).
We are not told how or why ATC/FAA officials knew that Flight 175 was hijacked; but based on the record of Flights 77 and 11, it may be safe for us to assume that there was another glaring delay -between the time when trouble was first observed, and when NORAD was first notified.
Now, NORAD would also be among the first to know that Flight 11 had struck a building, (at 8:46, ibid).
Was this not an extreme emergency?
By this time, Flight 175 was thirty-one minutes into its doomed forty-eight minute flight-path. This would place it approximately half-way between Albany and New York City, (50 miles north of NYC) two-hundred miles from Otis Air Force Base, and heading in the opposite direction, (towards Baltimore).
It would have only made the most elementary sense for NORAD, (or ATC) to order other jets scrambled, from other bases closer to the plane -and in a position to intercept it.
Outside Philadelphia, for example, at Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, is 111 Fighter wing, whose "Mission Statement" is,
"To maintain highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military forces in order to provide combat-ready A-10 aircraft for wartime requirements. To provide trained personnel to support state and local authorities in time of natural disaster or civil strife at the command of the Governor." 111th FW Home Page
and further,
"the 111th Fighter Wing has a state mission to protect the safety and security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania."
http://www.ang.state.pa.us
A "battle-ready" squadron of F-16’s were also stationed with the 177 Fighter Wing out of Atlantic City, less than half the distance from New York City, compared to Otis AFB.
Such bases, of course, are not only restricted to defending the air-space within their own state line.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section 2.6
# Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp
Now, it is true that escorts/intercepts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base near Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia; but this not always the case:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
Thus, when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
We are told by military officials that,
"The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
If we take this "official" speed, (just under 10 miles/minute) and calculate the distance, (approx. 190 miles, calculated from online Yahoo maps) it would have taken the planes from Otis about twenty minutes to reach Flight 175’s last known position; and judging from Flight 175’s last known speed and direction, (precise speed unknown, let's say 300 mph) in twenty minutes the airliner would still be another one hundred miles away.
So we can see that it would take about thirty minutes for the Otis fighters to reach Flight 175.
If, on the other hand, NORAD ordered jets to scramble from outside Philadelphia, (at say, 8:50, and even allowing for the eight minutes it took the Otis fighters to get into the air) those jets could be expected to make visual contact with Flight 175 in approximately thirteen minutes.
If Atlantic City had been chosen, two planes could have scrambled and flown the less than one-hundred miles (to intercept) in less than twenty minutes.
Neither of these bases received an order to scramble.
Again, we see the same pattern as in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A); in both cases: significant, then incredible FAA delays in notifying NORAD, and NORAD choosing bases which are far away.
This picture is further complicated by the fact that, according to the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
the top speed of the F-15 is over 1800 mph.
This top speed is rarely achieved, given the weight of weapons and extra fuel; but given the extreme nature of the emergency, would it not be reasonable to assume that the F-15's should have achieved a speed of at least 1,000 or 1,200 mph? about 20 miles/minute?
Apparently, that's not what happened.
According to the NORAD timeline, (CNN, Sept. 16, ibid) the two F-15's left Otis AFB at 8:52. When Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center at 9:02, (ten minutes later) the
"F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away."
If we calculate the distance between OTIS and NYC, (about 190 miles, see note 14) and the time it took the planes to get there, they flew about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph: less than half their top speed, hardly what we'd expect.
In total then, it took civilain air defence, (on Sept. 11, 2001) fifty-five minutes to get two fighters to an interception point, (NYC, ten minutes flight-time away) after the initial airline emergency had commenced.
Even given the discrepencies over the "official" flight speed, we should also remember that, if ATC or NORAD had responded to Flight 11 in a reasonable amount of time, numerous other bases in the area could have been called upon to put jets in the air, such as,
The 104 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Westfield, Massachusetts, (center/west part of the state)
The 174 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Syracuse, New York, (which was directly in Flight 11’s flight-path, until it turned south)
Or the 103, or 118 Fighter Wings, (ANG) twenty miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, (100 miles N/E of NYC).
The "state" mission of 174 Fighter Wing, for example, is as follows:
"protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety. State missions, which are funded by the state, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires; search and rescue; protection of vital public services; and support to civil defense."
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/ang/nyang.html
[NOTE: This author is not suggesting that all of these bases had jets on "strip alert," ready-to-go; yet, as we discuss the "official" explanations for the Air Force delay/absence in some detail in Part 1E, it seems rather incredible to suggest that none of the numerous bases with "battle-ready" fighter squadrons had any jets ready, nor that there weren't already a few jets in the air, on routine training missions, when the emergencies began].
As most American citizens know very well, the primary, stated purpose of the Air National Guard is civil defence.
For some reason, even though this was the most extreme of civil emergencies, no other jets were scrambled on Sept 11 -besides those under the direct control of NORAD, (Otis and Langley, as we shall see).
All the other National Guard bases were left un-activated.
Even given the outrageous twenty-nine minute delay in responding to Flight 11, (which irrevocably doomed it to its’ fate) jets still should have been scrambled from Westfield, MA., Hartford CT., Philadelphia, or Atlantic City; and they would have then been in the air in time to intercept Flight 175.
As it was, Flight 175 made a sharp turn south, (towards Atlantic City) which would have brought it into closer range with both 111, and 177 Fighter Wings.
--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
IF NORAD had acted decisively -even after the first confirmed attack on the World Trade Centre- there still would have been a chance to avert the second attack, but the needed order to scramble additional jets never came.
--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Thus it was colossal incompetence/negligence, (and perhaps something more) which allowed two hijacked planes to crash into the World trade Center towers -as had also been the case, (only moreso) for Flight 77, (see Part 1A).
Thousands of American citizens would not have lost their lives if ATC, FAA, NORAD, and/or Pentagon officials had done their jobs, (though again, we don’t yet know exactly whom, and to what degree).
The same pattern of incompetence remains:
For Flight 11, no effective actions were taken to regain visual contact, (via an escort) once cockpit/transponder contact with an off-course airliner had been lost.
A response only occurred twenty-nine minutes after the plane had been off course, without radio/transponder contact, and at least ten minutes after it had been obviously hijacked.
In the case of both Flight 11 and 175, the base chosen to scramble jets from was a great distance away, (relative to numerous other fighter-bases). The planes flew at less than half their top speed -proving themselves utterly incapable of defending the citizens and property of New York City.
Was Boston ATC in charge of both flights?
Who was responsible for the ensuing decisions made at NORAD?
By the close proximity of attack-times between the two planes, and the outrageously long response-time/ineptitude of ATC/FAA and/or NORAD, two cargoes of innocents were condemned to an infamous fate.
In this, let us be perfectly clear: the source of our outrage is not for vengeance against those who may have unconsciously donned the uniform of criminal negligence on Sept 11; for, even when thousands of lives are lost, the heart of a nation can be very large. We may yet choose to understand that, in the midst of a crisis, some people in positions of high authority may have "lost their heads," "missed their cue" -when their skills and training were most needed.
What we cannot countenance, however, is being lied to; and so long as the government utterly refuses to acknowledge the criminal negligence that the available documentation clearly implies, then the possiblity that there are very good and reasonable explanations for the security failure on Sept 11th remains on very thin ground indeed.
Flight 93
top
The general timeline for the final voyage of Flight 93 is as follows:
--8:42 a.m.: United Airlines flight 93 takes off from Newark
International Airport, bound for San Francisco. [Note: the plane was forty minutes late departing...
originally scheduled to depart at 8:00 am].
--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have
been hijacked.
--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and radar
contact is lost.
--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected
near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
CNN, Sept 16. ibid http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
By numerous accounts, Flight 93 is believed to have crashed at 10:06 EST, or a few minutes after. (See Note 15)
Many of us will remember, during the first few hours after the crash, hearing reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane.
This was flatly denied by the White House and military officials, and the mention of it was soon dropped in the media coverage.
There is much evidence to suggest that Flight 93 was shot down, (which we shall discuss in a subsequent report). An excellent resource for information on this is available at www.flight93crash.com (.)
From the standpoint of our inquiry so far, the question of whether the plane was shot down or not is largely irrelevant.
If a military plane had shot down the airliner, (after three other planes had devastated three highly populated buildings) few people would have found fault with the military for carrying out the gruesome task.
In fact, it is far more damning of the U.S. Air Force, and civilian defense, that officials are claiming there were not any fighters in the immediate vicinity.
Let’s take a closer look at the timeline.
According to the above CNN report, (based on NORAD’s own statement) the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16.
The plane crashed at 10:06.
That means it was in the air, hijack-confirmed for almost an hour, (fifty minutes) with no jets intercepting it -after two planes had struck the World Trade Center.
Is this not incredible?
We are told that the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77, (the third plane) "may have been hijacked" at 9:25; and only then, at 9:27, did NORAD order jets to be scrambled from Langley.
But why, (for God’s sake) did NORAD not order jets to be scrambled from Langley at 9:16, when first informed that Flight 93 had been hijacked? -after the first two planes had struck?
If they had immediately ordered jets airborne at 9:16, the F-16’s from Langley would have actually made it to Washington before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, (9:38).
If NORAD had responded as it is mandated to do, the F-16’s from Langley would have caught up to Flight 93 soon after it altered its course near Cleveland.
Nor would fighters from Langley have been the most logical squadrons to call upon.
Andrews Air Force base would have been closer.
Near Toledo, Ohio, less than 100 miles west of Cleveland, is 180 Fighter Wing, and about thirty miles west of Columbus Ohio, is 178 Fighter wing.
http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/Military_Install_N_R.html#ohio
http://www.ang.af.mil/directory/ANGDir.html
Also, recall from the earlier reports, (cited above) that F-16/15 Fighters were scrambled from both, Langley AFB and Andrews AFB, for protection over Washington, D.C.
From those reports, which said the Andrew’s planes were in the air "within minutes" of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, (at 8:38) (Sunday Telegraph) -and the Langley planes which arrived at about 9:49, (CNN. Sept 16, ibid) eleven minutes after the crash- we can reasonably assume there was extra fighter-power over Washington by 9:50.
Furthermore, Flight 93 was widely believed to be headed toward Washington. It had made a 180-degree turn over Cleveland, and was heading in the direction of the capital.
Recall the radar map, previously cited,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
and,
"As we walked, a voice over a fire truck loud speaker told everyone to move as far away from the Pentagon as possible due to a second plane coming toward the Pentagon. Evidently, this plane was American Flight #93 that crashed east of Pittsburgh."
Lt. Col. Alan Maitland, Pentagon employee
http://www.easttexasnews.com/news/story6_10_21.htm
and further,
At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline. Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning.
"A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "
Tuesday October 16 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller
By MATTHEW L. WALD with KEVIN SACK, The New York Times(16)
When Flight 93 crashed east of Pittsburgh, it was approximately 150 miles away from Washington, (approximately twenty minutes away, by airliner, at 400 mph, or fourteen minutes away, by super-sonic jet).
The FAA had ordered all commercial planes to be grounded at 9:25.
There were very few planes left in the sky. There would have been virtually no other planes on radar that could have threatened Washington, D.C., (even without the extra fighters in the air) -that is, besides the hijacked plane which had reversed course and was barreling towards Washington at a ferocious speed.
If the main priority of those jets was to protect Washington, why were some of them not sent to intercept flight 93? even at 9:50? -well before the crash, some sixteen minutes later?
If there were no fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93 when it crashed, there bloody-well should have been.
Apparently some of these planes were eventually ordered to intercept; but we have not been told when, and how close they were; and again, they appeared to arrive upon the scene about ten minutes after the plane had crashed -in a now familiar pattern.
Although we will cover other aspects of Flight 93, in the document, FURTHER Unanswered Questions, (Part 2) a very complete and well-referenced examination of this matter may be found at, http://www.flight93crash.com.
Notes
13) Dear Reader, I regret to note that I, amongst other writers, was in error in my initial reading of the "Payne Stewart" incident. (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm) The confusion arose from the fighter-intercept's crossover from Eastern to Central Daylight time. Instead of the plane taking "eighteen" minutes to be "vectored into position," it appears to have taken over an hour. Whereas I had earlier quoted another report, (http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138) which said, "departs. 9:24... pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33... The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot... For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38.... the controller calls in the military..." -it is not clear exactly when the military was called in. (According to USA Today, http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story it took twenty-four minutes). There are a number of factors which should be taken into account here, in trying to assess the comparative value: i.e. the "Stewart" plane was heading at higher speed than commercial, away from the the Florida base; it was at a high altitude; it was not a commercial airline with hundreds of passengers on board, transponder operational, no hijacking, etc. The MSNBC report, (http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY) of Sept. 12, says that "interceptors were quickly dispatched" during this incident. Now, it's possible that the NTSB document has been doctored, (not a first for government web pages). The fact that a fighter was already in the air, yet took forty minutes to catch up to the jet, along with the report that the "Stewart" plane was "handed over from the pilot of one Florida base to another," suggests much confusion. All of this merely re-iterates the importance of getting some hard statistics on this, and numerous other flight incidents, that we may clearly establish routine procedure, responses achieved, and so on. I apologize for any inaccurate impression my reading of this document may have caused.
At any rate, this error on my part holds very little significance to the facts taken as a whole. Having been removed from this document, I believe the reader would have to agree that this document still stands justified in its call for a thorough, public investigation.
14)The distance between Otis AFB and New York City is about 188 miles,
[NOTE: According to the following site,
http://airtravel.about.com/library/misc/blmileageair.htm
the air mile distance between Boston and New York City is 188 miles. A look on a map located through yahoo.com shows that Otis AFB is on the outer edge of Cape Cod, (on the shores of the Atlantic). Thus, it appears as if Otis is as far, (if not further) from New York City as Boston. I include this rather lengthy explanation here, due to the fact that numerous other sources have repeatedly under-estimated the distance by a wide margin.]
If we subtract the 70 miles from the 188, that leaves about 118 miles that the F-15's travelled in ten minutes. That's about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph.
15)10:06, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Sept 13,
10:10, Washington Post, Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
16)10: 06 NY Times online, http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/WTC_Shanksville.html
Note: the reference to this NY Times article is from the site of Holocaust denier David Irving. This simply shows that relevant information can sometimes be gained from sources that are otherwise suppliers of consistent dis-information.
# Return to top
# Continue on to Part 1C:
Summation of Civilian Air Defense: Who is to Blame?
.
Approximately twenty minutes into the flight, (8:20) Flight 11 stops transmitting its’ IFF (transponder) beacon. (CNN, Sept 16th, ibid)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
The Village Voice of Sept 13th adds,
When the flight was 15 to 20 minutes out, the controller gave the pilot the OK to ascend from 29,000 to 31,000 feet. Nothing happened. The controller repeated his permission to go up. Still nothing. He tried to contact the pilot on the emergency frequency. No answer. Then the controllers noticed the plane's transponders, which tells them the aircraft's altitude, had stopped working, no longer sending a radar pulse."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
According to the following source,
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html
the New York Times of Sept 13 said much the same thing,
"The plane held on course, almost due west, for only 16 minutes.... Just past Worcester, Mass., instead of taking a southerly turn, the Boeing 767 swung to the north at 8:15. It had been taken over . . . "Five minutes later, at 8:20, Flight 11 failed to follow an instruction to climb to its cruising altitude of 31,00 feet. It was this point that air controllers suspected something was wrong. And just about then the plane's transponder, a piece of equipment that broadcast its location, went out."
"A Plane Left Boston and Skimmed Over River and Mountain in a Deadly Detour."
We should remember here that, although Flight 11 was no longer sending a specific transponder signal, it was still giving off a generalized radar; thus,
"an Air Force facility in Rome, N.Y., tracks planes based solely on the radar reflection off the skin of the aircraft. That alone would allow the Air Force to track the flight." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp
The Village Voice article continues,
"At 8:28 the radar showed the jet veer south."
Our graphic radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
shows Flight 11 way off course, (thirty miles or more) by the time that it veered south -and that it must have, indeed, begun to go off-course at around the time that transponder /cockpit contact was first lost.
To review thus far:
at 8:15, Flight 11 begins to go off-course. At 8:20, Boston ATC loses radio and transponder contact with the plane. At 8:28, Flight 11 veers sharply south.
The FAA’s Boston Center knew... that Flight 11 had made a dramatic, roughly 100-degree left-hand turn to the south. (MSNBC, ibid)
Let’s briefly recall our documentation from Part 1A, (Flight 77) for rules regarding airline emergencies.
Re: flight path
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." (MSNBC, Sept 12, ibid)
Re: transponder/radio contact
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
And what do the fighter planes typically do?
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted... typically handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front... can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or... down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 www.tenc.net (ibid)
So first off, the emergency begins when the plane begins to go off-course at 8:15.
[Note: We can see here the confused nature of the N. Y. Times piece, [a document yet to be located, admittedly] which suggests that it was five minutes after the plane was off-course "that air controllers suspected something was wrong." A commercial airliner with one hundred+ passengers on board in the busiest of airspaces is a serious emergency. Five minutes is a long time. If the above reporting is accurate, it would be most interesting to see a transcript of the conversations between the pilots and ATC while they still had contact. [i.e. What would the pilots be saying to explain their being well off-course for that long?].
Five minutes later, at 8:20, transponder/cockpit contact with Flight 11 is lost; and what does Boston ATC do?
It appears they did essentially nothing until 8:38.
Boston ATC notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked at 8:38 (CNN, Sept 16, ibid), eighteen minutes after the transponder signal first went silent -twenty-three minutes after the plane was off-course.
This seems rather negligent, (and/or out of the ordinary) does it not?
Standard FAA procedure, when radar and cockpit contact is lost, (and when the plane goes off-course) would appear to be: get a plane up in the air to regain contact with the pilot.
Now, whether this "standard," "routine procedure" is actually acted upon, (and to what standard of proficiency) is still open to question. Our latest understanding of the "Payne Stewart" incident, is that it took over twenty-minutes for the Air Force to be called in after radio control was lost, (see note 13 for a correction on earlier analysis). A crucial difference here, of course, is that the "Stewart" plane was carrying four passengers in relatively remote airspace, (higher altitudes) while Flight 11 was in very busy airspace with, (usually) a hundred+ passengers, and its transponder signal had also been turned off.
The kicker here, of course..... is that at approximately 8:28, ten minutes before NORAD says ATC contacted them, the air traffic controllers confirmed that the plane had been hijacked.
"The plane turned [south toward New York], and then they heard the transmission with the terrorist in the background....The voice upset [the controller] because he knew right then that he was working a hijack. Several other people heard the voice, and they could tell by the sound of it, intuitively, that this was a bad situation..... the Nashua [New Hampshire] controllers didn't know when the military was contacted, but said it was routine to do so immediately when a hijacking is under way. (Christian Science Monitor, quoted in both the MSNBC and Village Voice articles, cited above)
Thirteen minutes after a commercial airline goes way off-course, eight minutes after radar/transponder contact is lost, and it takes ATC ten more minutes to contact NORAD and tell them the plane has been hijacked?
An off-course/no contact airliner is a standing emergency. A possible hijacking is only the most logical of scenarios to consider.
It is not necessary for ATC to wait until a hijacking is confirmed, in order to contact NORAD or an ANG base.
Whether or not partial contact is regained, whether or not those intercepts actually get in the air, (or are called-off) the ATC/FAA should have at least notified civilian air defence immediately... as if
"an aircraft emergency exists."
Whether ATC tried to contact local ANG bases, (Air National Guard) or not, we do not know; whether NORAD was contacted earlier and simply did not respond, is still a possibility. Practically everything about these issues is being kept secret by the FBI and other agencies. The critical evidence we do know is that NORAD was (supposedly) not informed until twenty-three minutes after the emergency existed, and ten minutes after a hijacking had been confirmed.
This is serious negligence, no?
Occuring on the same day as the even more-negligent monitoring of Flight 77, (Part 1A) this has to raise serious doubts in the minds of readers -as to what else was going on... that day... besides the hijackings, that may have allowed them to occur, and what needs to be done on the level of civilian defense, (not secret service enhancements) to make sure this doesn't happen again.
We need an open, thorough, public investigation.
And there's still more.
When NORAD was (apparently) contacted, it took them another six minutes to contact an air base.
--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters to scramble. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
and this, one minute after
--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.
Why would it take six minutes for NORAD to get the hijack-confirmation, choose an appropriate air base, make a phone call -and for that to be translated into an order to scramble?
One, two, three minutes, maybe; but six?
Now we’re up to twenty-nine minutes -between the time when officials first lost contact with Flight 11, and when the order to get jets in the air was given.
This is absurd; and, as we have documented an even greater degree of negligence in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A) we can thus see that this was no "fluke," no "isolated accident," no infrequent "bad day at the office."
We don’t yet know where the exact disconnect point is, (ATC? FAA? NORAD?) but we can clearly see a repeated, glaring gap in credible response time.
By 8:38 Flight 11 was already nearing the outskirts of New York City, eight minutes away from its target.
Now notice what Air Base NORAD chooses to scramble fighters from: Otis Air Force Base, on the eastern-most tip of Massachusetts, (Cape Cod, on the Atlantic coast).
This is about two-hundred miles away from where Flight 11 was.
Wouldn’t it have made sense to order jets to scramble from a closer base?
As it was, it was already too late for Flight 11.
It struck the WTC at 8:46am, (CNN, April 16, ibid). The intercept planes would not be in the air for another six minutes.
--8:52 a.m.: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis ANG Base in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
It had taken civilain air defense thirty-seven minutes to get fighter-intercepts into the air, from the first point of an emergency.
It would take those jets another seventeen minutes to get to New York City.
Why wouldn’t NORAD order other planes from other bases to scramble, as well? -far closer to the hijacked plane(s)?
The significance of this non-order becomes huge, when we consider that it came one minute after NORAD was informed that Flight 175 had also been hijacked, (8:43/44). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Flight 175
top
In the space of five minutes, officials at NORAD were made aware that two planes had been hijacked, and were presently within about fifty miles from one another, (just outside New York).
We are not told how or why ATC/FAA officials knew that Flight 175 was hijacked; but based on the record of Flights 77 and 11, it may be safe for us to assume that there was another glaring delay -between the time when trouble was first observed, and when NORAD was first notified.
Now, NORAD would also be among the first to know that Flight 11 had struck a building, (at 8:46, ibid).
Was this not an extreme emergency?
By this time, Flight 175 was thirty-one minutes into its doomed forty-eight minute flight-path. This would place it approximately half-way between Albany and New York City, (50 miles north of NYC) two-hundred miles from Otis Air Force Base, and heading in the opposite direction, (towards Baltimore).
It would have only made the most elementary sense for NORAD, (or ATC) to order other jets scrambled, from other bases closer to the plane -and in a position to intercept it.
Outside Philadelphia, for example, at Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, is 111 Fighter wing, whose "Mission Statement" is,
"To maintain highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military forces in order to provide combat-ready A-10 aircraft for wartime requirements. To provide trained personnel to support state and local authorities in time of natural disaster or civil strife at the command of the Governor." 111th FW Home Page
and further,
"the 111th Fighter Wing has a state mission to protect the safety and security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania."
http://www.ang.state.pa.us
A "battle-ready" squadron of F-16’s were also stationed with the 177 Fighter Wing out of Atlantic City, less than half the distance from New York City, compared to Otis AFB.
Such bases, of course, are not only restricted to defending the air-space within their own state line.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section 2.6
# Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp
Now, it is true that escorts/intercepts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base near Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia; but this not always the case:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
Thus, when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
We are told by military officials that,
"The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
If we take this "official" speed, (just under 10 miles/minute) and calculate the distance, (approx. 190 miles, calculated from online Yahoo maps) it would have taken the planes from Otis about twenty minutes to reach Flight 175’s last known position; and judging from Flight 175’s last known speed and direction, (precise speed unknown, let's say 300 mph) in twenty minutes the airliner would still be another one hundred miles away.
So we can see that it would take about thirty minutes for the Otis fighters to reach Flight 175.
If, on the other hand, NORAD ordered jets to scramble from outside Philadelphia, (at say, 8:50, and even allowing for the eight minutes it took the Otis fighters to get into the air) those jets could be expected to make visual contact with Flight 175 in approximately thirteen minutes.
If Atlantic City had been chosen, two planes could have scrambled and flown the less than one-hundred miles (to intercept) in less than twenty minutes.
Neither of these bases received an order to scramble.
Again, we see the same pattern as in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A); in both cases: significant, then incredible FAA delays in notifying NORAD, and NORAD choosing bases which are far away.
This picture is further complicated by the fact that, according to the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
the top speed of the F-15 is over 1800 mph.
This top speed is rarely achieved, given the weight of weapons and extra fuel; but given the extreme nature of the emergency, would it not be reasonable to assume that the F-15's should have achieved a speed of at least 1,000 or 1,200 mph? about 20 miles/minute?
Apparently, that's not what happened.
According to the NORAD timeline, (CNN, Sept. 16, ibid) the two F-15's left Otis AFB at 8:52. When Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center at 9:02, (ten minutes later) the
"F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away."
If we calculate the distance between OTIS and NYC, (about 190 miles, see note 14) and the time it took the planes to get there, they flew about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph: less than half their top speed, hardly what we'd expect.
In total then, it took civilain air defence, (on Sept. 11, 2001) fifty-five minutes to get two fighters to an interception point, (NYC, ten minutes flight-time away) after the initial airline emergency had commenced.
Even given the discrepencies over the "official" flight speed, we should also remember that, if ATC or NORAD had responded to Flight 11 in a reasonable amount of time, numerous other bases in the area could have been called upon to put jets in the air, such as,
The 104 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Westfield, Massachusetts, (center/west part of the state)
The 174 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Syracuse, New York, (which was directly in Flight 11’s flight-path, until it turned south)
Or the 103, or 118 Fighter Wings, (ANG) twenty miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, (100 miles N/E of NYC).
The "state" mission of 174 Fighter Wing, for example, is as follows:
"protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety. State missions, which are funded by the state, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires; search and rescue; protection of vital public services; and support to civil defense."
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/ang/nyang.html
[NOTE: This author is not suggesting that all of these bases had jets on "strip alert," ready-to-go; yet, as we discuss the "official" explanations for the Air Force delay/absence in some detail in Part 1E, it seems rather incredible to suggest that none of the numerous bases with "battle-ready" fighter squadrons had any jets ready, nor that there weren't already a few jets in the air, on routine training missions, when the emergencies began].
As most American citizens know very well, the primary, stated purpose of the Air National Guard is civil defence.
For some reason, even though this was the most extreme of civil emergencies, no other jets were scrambled on Sept 11 -besides those under the direct control of NORAD, (Otis and Langley, as we shall see).
All the other National Guard bases were left un-activated.
Even given the outrageous twenty-nine minute delay in responding to Flight 11, (which irrevocably doomed it to its’ fate) jets still should have been scrambled from Westfield, MA., Hartford CT., Philadelphia, or Atlantic City; and they would have then been in the air in time to intercept Flight 175.
As it was, Flight 175 made a sharp turn south, (towards Atlantic City) which would have brought it into closer range with both 111, and 177 Fighter Wings.
--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
IF NORAD had acted decisively -even after the first confirmed attack on the World Trade Centre- there still would have been a chance to avert the second attack, but the needed order to scramble additional jets never came.
--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Thus it was colossal incompetence/negligence, (and perhaps something more) which allowed two hijacked planes to crash into the World trade Center towers -as had also been the case, (only moreso) for Flight 77, (see Part 1A).
Thousands of American citizens would not have lost their lives if ATC, FAA, NORAD, and/or Pentagon officials had done their jobs, (though again, we don’t yet know exactly whom, and to what degree).
The same pattern of incompetence remains:
For Flight 11, no effective actions were taken to regain visual contact, (via an escort) once cockpit/transponder contact with an off-course airliner had been lost.
A response only occurred twenty-nine minutes after the plane had been off course, without radio/transponder contact, and at least ten minutes after it had been obviously hijacked.
In the case of both Flight 11 and 175, the base chosen to scramble jets from was a great distance away, (relative to numerous other fighter-bases). The planes flew at less than half their top speed -proving themselves utterly incapable of defending the citizens and property of New York City.
Was Boston ATC in charge of both flights?
Who was responsible for the ensuing decisions made at NORAD?
By the close proximity of attack-times between the two planes, and the outrageously long response-time/ineptitude of ATC/FAA and/or NORAD, two cargoes of innocents were condemned to an infamous fate.
In this, let us be perfectly clear: the source of our outrage is not for vengeance against those who may have unconsciously donned the uniform of criminal negligence on Sept 11; for, even when thousands of lives are lost, the heart of a nation can be very large. We may yet choose to understand that, in the midst of a crisis, some people in positions of high authority may have "lost their heads," "missed their cue" -when their skills and training were most needed.
What we cannot countenance, however, is being lied to; and so long as the government utterly refuses to acknowledge the criminal negligence that the available documentation clearly implies, then the possiblity that there are very good and reasonable explanations for the security failure on Sept 11th remains on very thin ground indeed.
Flight 93
top
The general timeline for the final voyage of Flight 93 is as follows:
--8:42 a.m.: United Airlines flight 93 takes off from Newark
International Airport, bound for San Francisco. [Note: the plane was forty minutes late departing...
originally scheduled to depart at 8:00 am].
--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have
been hijacked.
--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and radar
contact is lost.
--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected
near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
CNN, Sept 16. ibid http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
By numerous accounts, Flight 93 is believed to have crashed at 10:06 EST, or a few minutes after. (See Note 15)
Many of us will remember, during the first few hours after the crash, hearing reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane.
This was flatly denied by the White House and military officials, and the mention of it was soon dropped in the media coverage.
There is much evidence to suggest that Flight 93 was shot down, (which we shall discuss in a subsequent report). An excellent resource for information on this is available at www.flight93crash.com (.)
From the standpoint of our inquiry so far, the question of whether the plane was shot down or not is largely irrelevant.
If a military plane had shot down the airliner, (after three other planes had devastated three highly populated buildings) few people would have found fault with the military for carrying out the gruesome task.
In fact, it is far more damning of the U.S. Air Force, and civilian defense, that officials are claiming there were not any fighters in the immediate vicinity.
Let’s take a closer look at the timeline.
According to the above CNN report, (based on NORAD’s own statement) the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16.
The plane crashed at 10:06.
That means it was in the air, hijack-confirmed for almost an hour, (fifty minutes) with no jets intercepting it -after two planes had struck the World Trade Center.
Is this not incredible?
We are told that the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77, (the third plane) "may have been hijacked" at 9:25; and only then, at 9:27, did NORAD order jets to be scrambled from Langley.
But why, (for God’s sake) did NORAD not order jets to be scrambled from Langley at 9:16, when first informed that Flight 93 had been hijacked? -after the first two planes had struck?
If they had immediately ordered jets airborne at 9:16, the F-16’s from Langley would have actually made it to Washington before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, (9:38).
If NORAD had responded as it is mandated to do, the F-16’s from Langley would have caught up to Flight 93 soon after it altered its course near Cleveland.
Nor would fighters from Langley have been the most logical squadrons to call upon.
Andrews Air Force base would have been closer.
Near Toledo, Ohio, less than 100 miles west of Cleveland, is 180 Fighter Wing, and about thirty miles west of Columbus Ohio, is 178 Fighter wing.
http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/Military_Install_N_R.html#ohio
http://www.ang.af.mil/directory/ANGDir.html
Also, recall from the earlier reports, (cited above) that F-16/15 Fighters were scrambled from both, Langley AFB and Andrews AFB, for protection over Washington, D.C.
From those reports, which said the Andrew’s planes were in the air "within minutes" of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, (at 8:38) (Sunday Telegraph) -and the Langley planes which arrived at about 9:49, (CNN. Sept 16, ibid) eleven minutes after the crash- we can reasonably assume there was extra fighter-power over Washington by 9:50.
Furthermore, Flight 93 was widely believed to be headed toward Washington. It had made a 180-degree turn over Cleveland, and was heading in the direction of the capital.
Recall the radar map, previously cited,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
and,
"As we walked, a voice over a fire truck loud speaker told everyone to move as far away from the Pentagon as possible due to a second plane coming toward the Pentagon. Evidently, this plane was American Flight #93 that crashed east of Pittsburgh."
Lt. Col. Alan Maitland, Pentagon employee
http://www.easttexasnews.com/news/story6_10_21.htm
and further,
At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline. Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning.
"A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "
Tuesday October 16 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller
By MATTHEW L. WALD with KEVIN SACK, The New York Times(16)
When Flight 93 crashed east of Pittsburgh, it was approximately 150 miles away from Washington, (approximately twenty minutes away, by airliner, at 400 mph, or fourteen minutes away, by super-sonic jet).
The FAA had ordered all commercial planes to be grounded at 9:25.
There were very few planes left in the sky. There would have been virtually no other planes on radar that could have threatened Washington, D.C., (even without the extra fighters in the air) -that is, besides the hijacked plane which had reversed course and was barreling towards Washington at a ferocious speed.
If the main priority of those jets was to protect Washington, why were some of them not sent to intercept flight 93? even at 9:50? -well before the crash, some sixteen minutes later?
If there were no fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93 when it crashed, there bloody-well should have been.
Apparently some of these planes were eventually ordered to intercept; but we have not been told when, and how close they were; and again, they appeared to arrive upon the scene about ten minutes after the plane had crashed -in a now familiar pattern.
Although we will cover other aspects of Flight 93, in the document, FURTHER Unanswered Questions, (Part 2) a very complete and well-referenced examination of this matter may be found at, http://www.flight93crash.com.
Notes
13) Dear Reader, I regret to note that I, amongst other writers, was in error in my initial reading of the "Payne Stewart" incident. (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm) The confusion arose from the fighter-intercept's crossover from Eastern to Central Daylight time. Instead of the plane taking "eighteen" minutes to be "vectored into position," it appears to have taken over an hour. Whereas I had earlier quoted another report, (http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138) which said, "departs. 9:24... pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33... The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot... For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38.... the controller calls in the military..." -it is not clear exactly when the military was called in. (According to USA Today, http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story it took twenty-four minutes). There are a number of factors which should be taken into account here, in trying to assess the comparative value: i.e. the "Stewart" plane was heading at higher speed than commercial, away from the the Florida base; it was at a high altitude; it was not a commercial airline with hundreds of passengers on board, transponder operational, no hijacking, etc. The MSNBC report, (http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY) of Sept. 12, says that "interceptors were quickly dispatched" during this incident. Now, it's possible that the NTSB document has been doctored, (not a first for government web pages). The fact that a fighter was already in the air, yet took forty minutes to catch up to the jet, along with the report that the "Stewart" plane was "handed over from the pilot of one Florida base to another," suggests much confusion. All of this merely re-iterates the importance of getting some hard statistics on this, and numerous other flight incidents, that we may clearly establish routine procedure, responses achieved, and so on. I apologize for any inaccurate impression my reading of this document may have caused.
At any rate, this error on my part holds very little significance to the facts taken as a whole. Having been removed from this document, I believe the reader would have to agree that this document still stands justified in its call for a thorough, public investigation.
14)The distance between Otis AFB and New York City is about 188 miles,
[NOTE: According to the following site,
http://airtravel.about.com/library/misc/blmileageair.htm
the air mile distance between Boston and New York City is 188 miles. A look on a map located through yahoo.com shows that Otis AFB is on the outer edge of Cape Cod, (on the shores of the Atlantic). Thus, it appears as if Otis is as far, (if not further) from New York City as Boston. I include this rather lengthy explanation here, due to the fact that numerous other sources have repeatedly under-estimated the distance by a wide margin.]
If we subtract the 70 miles from the 188, that leaves about 118 miles that the F-15's travelled in ten minutes. That's about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph.
15)10:06, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Sept 13,
10:10, Washington Post, Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
16)10: 06 NY Times online, http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/WTC_Shanksville.html
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
Flights 11,175, 93
by MalcontentX
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html
Index
[Note to Readers: By your intent to read Part 1B,
we assume that you have already read Part 1A, (concerning Flight 77);
as such, you are to be commended for your willingness
to take the time that is necessary to inform yourself, (no small matter).
Many are those who become so burdened with the weight
of words, as to give up the search at the first sign of fatigue.
This burden is found in the ground of social, economic, and spiritual oppression,
where few of us have the time or energy to devote to a serious study of a serious situation.
Thus, one of our most powerful means of achieving freedom -the interior light of the mind-
is often left to the darkness of easy explanations echoing off a sea of silent souls.
You who choose to persevere shall not long know the light in isolation.
Flight 11
Flight 11 took off from Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:59 am.
Approximately twenty minutes into the flight, (8:20) Flight 11 stops transmitting its’ IFF (transponder) beacon. (CNN, Sept 16th, ibid)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
The Village Voice of Sept 13th adds,
When the flight was 15 to 20 minutes out, the controller gave the pilot the OK to ascend from 29,000 to 31,000 feet. Nothing happened. The controller repeated his permission to go up. Still nothing. He tried to contact the pilot on the emergency frequency. No answer. Then the controllers noticed the plane's transponders, which tells them the aircraft's altitude, had stopped working, no longer sending a radar pulse."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
According to the following source,
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html
the New York Times of Sept 13 said much the same thing,
"The plane held on course, almost due west, for only 16 minutes.... Just past Worcester, Mass., instead of taking a southerly turn, the Boeing 767 swung to the north at 8:15. It had been taken over . . . "Five minutes later, at 8:20, Flight 11 failed to follow an instruction to climb to its cruising altitude of 31,00 feet. It was this point that air controllers suspected something was wrong. And just about then the plane's transponder, a piece of equipment that broadcast its location, went out."
"A Plane Left Boston and Skimmed Over River and Mountain in a Deadly Detour."
We should remember here that, although Flight 11 was no longer sending a specific transponder signal, it was still giving off a generalized radar; thus,
"an Air Force facility in Rome, N.Y., tracks planes based solely on the radar reflection off the skin of the aircraft. That alone would allow the Air Force to track the flight." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp
The Village Voice article continues,
"At 8:28 the radar showed the jet veer south."
Our graphic radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
shows Flight 11 way off course, (thirty miles or more) by the time that it veered south -and that it must have, indeed, begun to go off-course at around the time that transponder /cockpit contact was first lost.
To review thus far:
at 8:15, Flight 11 begins to go off-course. At 8:20, Boston ATC loses radio and transponder contact with the plane. At 8:28, Flight 11 veers sharply south.
The FAA’s Boston Center knew... that Flight 11 had made a dramatic, roughly 100-degree left-hand turn to the south. (MSNBC, ibid)
Let’s briefly recall our documentation from Part 1A, (Flight 77) for rules regarding airline emergencies.
Re: flight path
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." (MSNBC, Sept 12, ibid)
Re: transponder/radio contact
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
And what do the fighter planes typically do?
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted... typically handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front... can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or... down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 www.tenc.net (ibid)
So first off, the emergency begins when the plane begins to go off-course at 8:15.
[Note: We can see here the confused nature of the N. Y. Times piece, [a document yet to be located, admittedly] which suggests that it was five minutes after the plane was off-course "that air controllers suspected something was wrong." A commercial airliner with one hundred+ passengers on board in the busiest of airspaces is a serious emergency. Five minutes is a long time. If the above reporting is accurate, it would be most interesting to see a transcript of the conversations between the pilots and ATC while they still had contact. [i.e. What would the pilots be saying to explain their being well off-course for that long?].
Five minutes later, at 8:20, transponder/cockpit contact with Flight 11 is lost; and what does Boston ATC do?
It appears they did essentially nothing until 8:38.
Boston ATC notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked at 8:38 (CNN, Sept 16, ibid), eighteen minutes after the transponder signal first went silent -twenty-three minutes after the plane was off-course.
This seems rather negligent, (and/or out of the ordinary) does it not?
Standard FAA procedure, when radar and cockpit contact is lost, (and when the plane goes off-course) would appear to be: get a plane up in the air to regain contact with the pilot.
Now, whether this "standard," "routine procedure" is actually acted upon, (and to what standard of proficiency) is still open to question. Our latest understanding of the "Payne Stewart" incident, is that it took over twenty-minutes for the Air Force to be called in after radio control was lost, (see note 13 for a correction on earlier analysis). A crucial difference here, of course, is that the "Stewart" plane was carrying four passengers in relatively remote airspace, (higher altitudes) while Flight 11 was in very busy airspace with, (usually) a hundred+ passengers, and its transponder signal had also been turned off.
The kicker here, of course..... is that at approximately 8:28, ten minutes before NORAD says ATC contacted them, the air traffic controllers confirmed that the plane had been hijacked.
"The plane turned [south toward New York], and then they heard the transmission with the terrorist in the background....The voice upset [the controller] because he knew right then that he was working a hijack. Several other people heard the voice, and they could tell by the sound of it, intuitively, that this was a bad situation..... the Nashua [New Hampshire] controllers didn't know when the military was contacted, but said it was routine to do so immediately when a hijacking is under way. (Christian Science Monitor, quoted in both the MSNBC and Village Voice articles, cited above)
Thirteen minutes after a commercial airline goes way off-course, eight minutes after radar/transponder contact is lost, and it takes ATC ten more minutes to contact NORAD and tell them the plane has been hijacked?
An off-course/no contact airliner is a standing emergency. A possible hijacking is only the most logical of scenarios to consider.
It is not necessary for ATC to wait until a hijacking is confirmed, in order to contact NORAD or an ANG base.
Whether or not partial contact is regained, whether or not those intercepts actually get in the air, (or are called-off) the ATC/FAA should have at least notified civilian air defence immediately... as if
"an aircraft emergency exists."
Whether ATC tried to contact local ANG bases, (Air National Guard) or not, we do not know; whether NORAD was contacted earlier and simply did not respond, is still a possibility. Practically everything about these issues is being kept secret by the FBI and other agencies. The critical evidence we do know is that NORAD was (supposedly) not informed until twenty-three minutes after the emergency existed, and ten minutes after a hijacking had been confirmed.
This is serious negligence, no?
Occuring on the same day as the even more-negligent monitoring of Flight 77, (Part 1A) this has to raise serious doubts in the minds of readers -as to what else was going on... that day... besides the hijackings, that may have allowed them to occur, and what needs to be done on the level of civilian defense, (not secret service enhancements) to make sure this doesn't happen again.
We need an open, thorough, public investigation.
And there's still more.
When NORAD was (apparently) contacted, it took them another six minutes to contact an air base.
--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters to scramble. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
and this, one minute after
--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.
Why would it take six minutes for NORAD to get the hijack-confirmation, choose an appropriate air base, make a phone call -and for that to be translated into an order to scramble?
One, two, three minutes, maybe; but six?
Now we’re up to twenty-nine minutes -between the time when officials first lost contact with Flight 11, and when the order to get jets in the air was given.
This is absurd; and, as we have documented an even greater degree of negligence in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A) we can thus see that this was no "fluke," no "isolated accident," no infrequent "bad day at the office."
We don’t yet know where the exact disconnect point is, (ATC? FAA? NORAD?) but we can clearly see a repeated, glaring gap in credible response time.
By 8:38 Flight 11 was already nearing the outskirts of New York City, eight minutes away from its target.
Now notice what Air Base NORAD chooses to scramble fighters from: Otis Air Force Base, on the eastern-most tip of Massachusetts, (Cape Cod, on the Atlantic coast).
This is about two-hundred miles away from where Flight 11 was.
Wouldn’t it have made sense to order jets to scramble from a closer base?
As it was, it was already too late for Flight 11.
It struck the WTC at 8:46am, (CNN, April 16, ibid). The intercept planes would not be in the air for another six minutes.
--8:52 a.m.: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis ANG Base in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
It had taken civilain air defense thirty-seven minutes to get fighter-intercepts into the air, from the first point of an emergency.
It would take those jets another seventeen minutes to get to New York City.
Why wouldn’t NORAD order other planes from other bases to scramble, as well? -far closer to the hijacked plane(s)?
The significance of this non-order becomes huge, when we consider that it came one minute after NORAD was informed that Flight 175 had also been hijacked, (8:43/44). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Flight 175
top
In the space of five minutes, officials at NORAD were made aware that two planes had been hijacked, and were presently within about fifty miles from one another, (just outside New York).
We are not told how or why ATC/FAA officials knew that Flight 175 was hijacked; but based on the record of Flights 77 and 11, it may be safe for us to assume that there was another glaring delay -between the time when trouble was first observed, and when NORAD was first notified.
Now, NORAD would also be among the first to know that Flight 11 had struck a building, (at 8:46, ibid).
Was this not an extreme emergency?
By this time, Flight 175 was thirty-one minutes into its doomed forty-eight minute flight-path. This would place it approximately half-way between Albany and New York City, (50 miles north of NYC) two-hundred miles from Otis Air Force Base, and heading in the opposite direction, (towards Baltimore).
It would have only made the most elementary sense for NORAD, (or ATC) to order other jets scrambled, from other bases closer to the plane -and in a position to intercept it.
Outside Philadelphia, for example, at Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, is 111 Fighter wing, whose "Mission Statement" is,
"To maintain highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military forces in order to provide combat-ready A-10 aircraft for wartime requirements. To provide trained personnel to support state and local authorities in time of natural disaster or civil strife at the command of the Governor." 111th FW Home Page
and further,
"the 111th Fighter Wing has a state mission to protect the safety and security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania."
http://www.ang.state.pa.us
A "battle-ready" squadron of F-16’s were also stationed with the 177 Fighter Wing out of Atlantic City, less than half the distance from New York City, compared to Otis AFB.
Such bases, of course, are not only restricted to defending the air-space within their own state line.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section 2.6
# Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp
Now, it is true that escorts/intercepts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base near Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia; but this not always the case:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
Thus, when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
We are told by military officials that,
"The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
If we take this "official" speed, (just under 10 miles/minute) and calculate the distance, (approx. 190 miles, calculated from online Yahoo maps) it would have taken the planes from Otis about twenty minutes to reach Flight 175’s last known position; and judging from Flight 175’s last known speed and direction, (precise speed unknown, let's say 300 mph) in twenty minutes the airliner would still be another one hundred miles away.
So we can see that it would take about thirty minutes for the Otis fighters to reach Flight 175.
If, on the other hand, NORAD ordered jets to scramble from outside Philadelphia, (at say, 8:50, and even allowing for the eight minutes it took the Otis fighters to get into the air) those jets could be expected to make visual contact with Flight 175 in approximately thirteen minutes.
If Atlantic City had been chosen, two planes could have scrambled and flown the less than one-hundred miles (to intercept) in less than twenty minutes.
Neither of these bases received an order to scramble.
Again, we see the same pattern as in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A); in both cases: significant, then incredible FAA delays in notifying NORAD, and NORAD choosing bases which are far away.
This picture is further complicated by the fact that, according to the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
the top speed of the F-15 is over 1800 mph.
This top speed is rarely achieved, given the weight of weapons and extra fuel; but given the extreme nature of the emergency, would it not be reasonable to assume that the F-15's should have achieved a speed of at least 1,000 or 1,200 mph? about 20 miles/minute?
Apparently, that's not what happened.
According to the NORAD timeline, (CNN, Sept. 16, ibid) the two F-15's left Otis AFB at 8:52. When Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center at 9:02, (ten minutes later) the
"F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away."
If we calculate the distance between OTIS and NYC, (about 190 miles, see note 14) and the time it took the planes to get there, they flew about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph: less than half their top speed, hardly what we'd expect.
In total then, it took civilain air defence, (on Sept. 11, 2001) fifty-five minutes to get two fighters to an interception point, (NYC, ten minutes flight-time away) after the initial airline emergency had commenced.
Even given the discrepencies over the "official" flight speed, we should also remember that, if ATC or NORAD had responded to Flight 11 in a reasonable amount of time, numerous other bases in the area could have been called upon to put jets in the air, such as,
The 104 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Westfield, Massachusetts, (center/west part of the state)
The 174 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Syracuse, New York, (which was directly in Flight 11’s flight-path, until it turned south)
Or the 103, or 118 Fighter Wings, (ANG) twenty miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, (100 miles N/E of NYC).
The "state" mission of 174 Fighter Wing, for example, is as follows:
"protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety. State missions, which are funded by the state, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires; search and rescue; protection of vital public services; and support to civil defense."
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/ang/nyang.html
[NOTE: This author is not suggesting that all of these bases had jets on "strip alert," ready-to-go; yet, as we discuss the "official" explanations for the Air Force delay/absence in some detail in Part 1E, it seems rather incredible to suggest that none of the numerous bases with "battle-ready" fighter squadrons had any jets ready, nor that there weren't already a few jets in the air, on routine training missions, when the emergencies began].
As most American citizens know very well, the primary, stated purpose of the Air National Guard is civil defence.
For some reason, even though this was the most extreme of civil emergencies, no other jets were scrambled on Sept 11 -besides those under the direct control of NORAD, (Otis and Langley, as we shall see).
All the other National Guard bases were left un-activated.
Even given the outrageous twenty-nine minute delay in responding to Flight 11, (which irrevocably doomed it to its’ fate) jets still should have been scrambled from Westfield, MA., Hartford CT., Philadelphia, or Atlantic City; and they would have then been in the air in time to intercept Flight 175.
As it was, Flight 175 made a sharp turn south, (towards Atlantic City) which would have brought it into closer range with both 111, and 177 Fighter Wings.
--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
IF NORAD had acted decisively -even after the first confirmed attack on the World Trade Centre- there still would have been a chance to avert the second attack, but the needed order to scramble additional jets never came.
--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Thus it was colossal incompetence/negligence, (and perhaps something more) which allowed two hijacked planes to crash into the World trade Center towers -as had also been the case, (only moreso) for Flight 77, (see Part 1A).
Thousands of American citizens would not have lost their lives if ATC, FAA, NORAD, and/or Pentagon officials had done their jobs, (though again, we don’t yet know exactly whom, and to what degree).
The same pattern of incompetence remains:
For Flight 11, no effective actions were taken to regain visual contact, (via an escort) once cockpit/transponder contact with an off-course airliner had been lost.
A response only occurred twenty-nine minutes after the plane had been off course, without radio/transponder contact, and at least ten minutes after it had been obviously hijacked.
In the case of both Flight 11 and 175, the base chosen to scramble jets from was a great distance away, (relative to numerous other fighter-bases). The planes flew at less than half their top speed -proving themselves utterly incapable of defending the citizens and property of New York City.
Was Boston ATC in charge of both flights?
Who was responsible for the ensuing decisions made at NORAD?
By the close proximity of attack-times between the two planes, and the outrageously long response-time/ineptitude of ATC/FAA and/or NORAD, two cargoes of innocents were condemned to an infamous fate.
In this, let us be perfectly clear: the source of our outrage is not for vengeance against those who may have unconsciously donned the uniform of criminal negligence on Sept 11; for, even when thousands of lives are lost, the heart of a nation can be very large. We may yet choose to understand that, in the midst of a crisis, some people in positions of high authority may have "lost their heads," "missed their cue" -when their skills and training were most needed.
What we cannot countenance, however, is being lied to; and so long as the government utterly refuses to acknowledge the criminal negligence that the available documentation clearly implies, then the possiblity that there are very good and reasonable explanations for the security failure on Sept 11th remains on very thin ground indeed.
Flight 93
top
The general timeline for the final voyage of Flight 93 is as follows:
--8:42 a.m.: United Airlines flight 93 takes off from Newark
International Airport, bound for San Francisco. [Note: the plane was forty minutes late departing...
originally scheduled to depart at 8:00 am].
--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have
been hijacked.
--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and radar
contact is lost.
--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected
near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
CNN, Sept 16. ibid http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
By numerous accounts, Flight 93 is believed to have crashed at 10:06 EST, or a few minutes after. (See Note 15)
Many of us will remember, during the first few hours after the crash, hearing reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane.
This was flatly denied by the White House and military officials, and the mention of it was soon dropped in the media coverage.
There is much evidence to suggest that Flight 93 was shot down, (which we shall discuss in a subsequent report). An excellent resource for information on this is available at www.flight93crash.com (.)
From the standpoint of our inquiry so far, the question of whether the plane was shot down or not is largely irrelevant.
If a military plane had shot down the airliner, (after three other planes had devastated three highly populated buildings) few people would have found fault with the military for carrying out the gruesome task.
In fact, it is far more damning of the U.S. Air Force, and civilian defense, that officials are claiming there were not any fighters in the immediate vicinity.
Let’s take a closer look at the timeline.
According to the above CNN report, (based on NORAD’s own statement) the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16.
The plane crashed at 10:06.
That means it was in the air, hijack-confirmed for almost an hour, (fifty minutes) with no jets intercepting it -after two planes had struck the World Trade Center.
Is this not incredible?
We are told that the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77, (the third plane) "may have been hijacked" at 9:25; and only then, at 9:27, did NORAD order jets to be scrambled from Langley.
But why, (for God’s sake) did NORAD not order jets to be scrambled from Langley at 9:16, when first informed that Flight 93 had been hijacked? -after the first two planes had struck?
If they had immediately ordered jets airborne at 9:16, the F-16’s from Langley would have actually made it to Washington before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, (9:38).
If NORAD had responded as it is mandated to do, the F-16’s from Langley would have caught up to Flight 93 soon after it altered its course near Cleveland.
Nor would fighters from Langley have been the most logical squadrons to call upon.
Andrews Air Force base would have been closer.
Near Toledo, Ohio, less than 100 miles west of Cleveland, is 180 Fighter Wing, and about thirty miles west of Columbus Ohio, is 178 Fighter wing.
http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/Military_Install_N_R.html#ohio
http://www.ang.af.mil/directory/ANGDir.html
Also, recall from the earlier reports, (cited above) that F-16/15 Fighters were scrambled from both, Langley AFB and Andrews AFB, for protection over Washington, D.C.
From those reports, which said the Andrew’s planes were in the air "within minutes" of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, (at 8:38) (Sunday Telegraph) -and the Langley planes which arrived at about 9:49, (CNN. Sept 16, ibid) eleven minutes after the crash- we can reasonably assume there was extra fighter-power over Washington by 9:50.
Furthermore, Flight 93 was widely believed to be headed toward Washington. It had made a 180-degree turn over Cleveland, and was heading in the direction of the capital.
Recall the radar map, previously cited,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
and,
"As we walked, a voice over a fire truck loud speaker told everyone to move as far away from the Pentagon as possible due to a second plane coming toward the Pentagon. Evidently, this plane was American Flight #93 that crashed east of Pittsburgh."
Lt. Col. Alan Maitland, Pentagon employee
http://www.easttexasnews.com/news/story6_10_21.htm
and further,
At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline. Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning.
"A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "
Tuesday October 16 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller
By MATTHEW L. WALD with KEVIN SACK, The New York Times(16)
When Flight 93 crashed east of Pittsburgh, it was approximately 150 miles away from Washington, (approximately twenty minutes away, by airliner, at 400 mph, or fourteen minutes away, by super-sonic jet).
The FAA had ordered all commercial planes to be grounded at 9:25.
There were very few planes left in the sky. There would have been virtually no other planes on radar that could have threatened Washington, D.C., (even without the extra fighters in the air) -that is, besides the hijacked plane which had reversed course and was barreling towards Washington at a ferocious speed.
If the main priority of those jets was to protect Washington, why were some of them not sent to intercept flight 93? even at 9:50? -well before the crash, some sixteen minutes later?
If there were no fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93 when it crashed, there bloody-well should have been.
Apparently some of these planes were eventually ordered to intercept; but we have not been told when, and how close they were; and again, they appeared to arrive upon the scene about ten minutes after the plane had crashed -in a now familiar pattern.
Although we will cover other aspects of Flight 93, in the document, FURTHER Unanswered Questions, (Part 2) a very complete and well-referenced examination of this matter may be found at, http://www.flight93crash.com.
Notes
13) Dear Reader, I regret to note that I, amongst other writers, was in error in my initial reading of the "Payne Stewart" incident. (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm) The confusion arose from the fighter-intercept's crossover from Eastern to Central Daylight time. Instead of the plane taking "eighteen" minutes to be "vectored into position," it appears to have taken over an hour. Whereas I had earlier quoted another report, (http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138) which said, "departs. 9:24... pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33... The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot... For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38.... the controller calls in the military..." -it is not clear exactly when the military was called in. (According to USA Today, http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story it took twenty-four minutes). There are a number of factors which should be taken into account here, in trying to assess the comparative value: i.e. the "Stewart" plane was heading at higher speed than commercial, away from the the Florida base; it was at a high altitude; it was not a commercial airline with hundreds of passengers on board, transponder operational, no hijacking, etc. The MSNBC report, (http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY) of Sept. 12, says that "interceptors were quickly dispatched" during this incident. Now, it's possible that the NTSB document has been doctored, (not a first for government web pages). The fact that a fighter was already in the air, yet took forty minutes to catch up to the jet, along with the report that the "Stewart" plane was "handed over from the pilot of one Florida base to another," suggests much confusion. All of this merely re-iterates the importance of getting some hard statistics on this, and numerous other flight incidents, that we may clearly establish routine procedure, responses achieved, and so on. I apologize for any inaccurate impression my reading of this document may have caused.
At any rate, this error on my part holds very little significance to the facts taken as a whole. Having been removed from this document, I believe the reader would have to agree that this document still stands justified in its call for a thorough, public investigation.
14)The distance between Otis AFB and New York City is about 188 miles,
[NOTE: According to the following site,
http://airtravel.about.com/library/misc/blmileageair.htm
the air mile distance between Boston and New York City is 188 miles. A look on a map located through yahoo.com shows that Otis AFB is on the outer edge of Cape Cod, (on the shores of the Atlantic). Thus, it appears as if Otis is as far, (if not further) from New York City as Boston. I include this rather lengthy explanation here, due to the fact that numerous other sources have repeatedly under-estimated the distance by a wide margin.]
If we subtract the 70 miles from the 188, that leaves about 118 miles that the F-15's travelled in ten minutes. That's about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph.
15)10:06, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Sept 13,
10:10, Washington Post, Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
16)10: 06 NY Times online, http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/WTC_Shanksville.html
Note: the reference to this NY Times article is from the site of Holocaust denier David Irving. This simply shows that relevant information can sometimes be gained from sources that are otherwise suppliers of consistent dis-information.
# Return to top
# Continue on to Part 1C:
Summation of Civilian Air Defense: Who is to Blame?
.
Approximately twenty minutes into the flight, (8:20) Flight 11 stops transmitting its’ IFF (transponder) beacon. (CNN, Sept 16th, ibid)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
The Village Voice of Sept 13th adds,
When the flight was 15 to 20 minutes out, the controller gave the pilot the OK to ascend from 29,000 to 31,000 feet. Nothing happened. The controller repeated his permission to go up. Still nothing. He tried to contact the pilot on the emergency frequency. No answer. Then the controllers noticed the plane's transponders, which tells them the aircraft's altitude, had stopped working, no longer sending a radar pulse."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php
According to the following source,
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html
the New York Times of Sept 13 said much the same thing,
"The plane held on course, almost due west, for only 16 minutes.... Just past Worcester, Mass., instead of taking a southerly turn, the Boeing 767 swung to the north at 8:15. It had been taken over . . . "Five minutes later, at 8:20, Flight 11 failed to follow an instruction to climb to its cruising altitude of 31,00 feet. It was this point that air controllers suspected something was wrong. And just about then the plane's transponder, a piece of equipment that broadcast its location, went out."
"A Plane Left Boston and Skimmed Over River and Mountain in a Deadly Detour."
We should remember here that, although Flight 11 was no longer sending a specific transponder signal, it was still giving off a generalized radar; thus,
"an Air Force facility in Rome, N.Y., tracks planes based solely on the radar reflection off the skin of the aircraft. That alone would allow the Air Force to track the flight." (MSNBC, Sept 12)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp
The Village Voice article continues,
"At 8:28 the radar showed the jet veer south."
Our graphic radar map,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
shows Flight 11 way off course, (thirty miles or more) by the time that it veered south -and that it must have, indeed, begun to go off-course at around the time that transponder /cockpit contact was first lost.
To review thus far:
at 8:15, Flight 11 begins to go off-course. At 8:20, Boston ATC loses radio and transponder contact with the plane. At 8:28, Flight 11 veers sharply south.
The FAA’s Boston Center knew... that Flight 11 had made a dramatic, roughly 100-degree left-hand turn to the south. (MSNBC, ibid)
Let’s briefly recall our documentation from Part 1A, (Flight 77) for rules regarding airline emergencies.
Re: flight path
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." (MSNBC, Sept 12, ibid)
Re: transponder/radio contact
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5
And what do the fighter planes typically do?
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted... typically handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front... can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or... down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 www.tenc.net (ibid)
So first off, the emergency begins when the plane begins to go off-course at 8:15.
[Note: We can see here the confused nature of the N. Y. Times piece, [a document yet to be located, admittedly] which suggests that it was five minutes after the plane was off-course "that air controllers suspected something was wrong." A commercial airliner with one hundred+ passengers on board in the busiest of airspaces is a serious emergency. Five minutes is a long time. If the above reporting is accurate, it would be most interesting to see a transcript of the conversations between the pilots and ATC while they still had contact. [i.e. What would the pilots be saying to explain their being well off-course for that long?].
Five minutes later, at 8:20, transponder/cockpit contact with Flight 11 is lost; and what does Boston ATC do?
It appears they did essentially nothing until 8:38.
Boston ATC notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked at 8:38 (CNN, Sept 16, ibid), eighteen minutes after the transponder signal first went silent -twenty-three minutes after the plane was off-course.
This seems rather negligent, (and/or out of the ordinary) does it not?
Standard FAA procedure, when radar and cockpit contact is lost, (and when the plane goes off-course) would appear to be: get a plane up in the air to regain contact with the pilot.
Now, whether this "standard," "routine procedure" is actually acted upon, (and to what standard of proficiency) is still open to question. Our latest understanding of the "Payne Stewart" incident, is that it took over twenty-minutes for the Air Force to be called in after radio control was lost, (see note 13 for a correction on earlier analysis). A crucial difference here, of course, is that the "Stewart" plane was carrying four passengers in relatively remote airspace, (higher altitudes) while Flight 11 was in very busy airspace with, (usually) a hundred+ passengers, and its transponder signal had also been turned off.
The kicker here, of course..... is that at approximately 8:28, ten minutes before NORAD says ATC contacted them, the air traffic controllers confirmed that the plane had been hijacked.
"The plane turned [south toward New York], and then they heard the transmission with the terrorist in the background....The voice upset [the controller] because he knew right then that he was working a hijack. Several other people heard the voice, and they could tell by the sound of it, intuitively, that this was a bad situation..... the Nashua [New Hampshire] controllers didn't know when the military was contacted, but said it was routine to do so immediately when a hijacking is under way. (Christian Science Monitor, quoted in both the MSNBC and Village Voice articles, cited above)
Thirteen minutes after a commercial airline goes way off-course, eight minutes after radar/transponder contact is lost, and it takes ATC ten more minutes to contact NORAD and tell them the plane has been hijacked?
An off-course/no contact airliner is a standing emergency. A possible hijacking is only the most logical of scenarios to consider.
It is not necessary for ATC to wait until a hijacking is confirmed, in order to contact NORAD or an ANG base.
Whether or not partial contact is regained, whether or not those intercepts actually get in the air, (or are called-off) the ATC/FAA should have at least notified civilian air defence immediately... as if
"an aircraft emergency exists."
Whether ATC tried to contact local ANG bases, (Air National Guard) or not, we do not know; whether NORAD was contacted earlier and simply did not respond, is still a possibility. Practically everything about these issues is being kept secret by the FBI and other agencies. The critical evidence we do know is that NORAD was (supposedly) not informed until twenty-three minutes after the emergency existed, and ten minutes after a hijacking had been confirmed.
This is serious negligence, no?
Occuring on the same day as the even more-negligent monitoring of Flight 77, (Part 1A) this has to raise serious doubts in the minds of readers -as to what else was going on... that day... besides the hijackings, that may have allowed them to occur, and what needs to be done on the level of civilian defense, (not secret service enhancements) to make sure this doesn't happen again.
We need an open, thorough, public investigation.
And there's still more.
When NORAD was (apparently) contacted, it took them another six minutes to contact an air base.
--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters to scramble. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
and this, one minute after
--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.
Why would it take six minutes for NORAD to get the hijack-confirmation, choose an appropriate air base, make a phone call -and for that to be translated into an order to scramble?
One, two, three minutes, maybe; but six?
Now we’re up to twenty-nine minutes -between the time when officials first lost contact with Flight 11, and when the order to get jets in the air was given.
This is absurd; and, as we have documented an even greater degree of negligence in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A) we can thus see that this was no "fluke," no "isolated accident," no infrequent "bad day at the office."
We don’t yet know where the exact disconnect point is, (ATC? FAA? NORAD?) but we can clearly see a repeated, glaring gap in credible response time.
By 8:38 Flight 11 was already nearing the outskirts of New York City, eight minutes away from its target.
Now notice what Air Base NORAD chooses to scramble fighters from: Otis Air Force Base, on the eastern-most tip of Massachusetts, (Cape Cod, on the Atlantic coast).
This is about two-hundred miles away from where Flight 11 was.
Wouldn’t it have made sense to order jets to scramble from a closer base?
As it was, it was already too late for Flight 11.
It struck the WTC at 8:46am, (CNN, April 16, ibid). The intercept planes would not be in the air for another six minutes.
--8:52 a.m.: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis ANG Base in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
It had taken civilain air defense thirty-seven minutes to get fighter-intercepts into the air, from the first point of an emergency.
It would take those jets another seventeen minutes to get to New York City.
Why wouldn’t NORAD order other planes from other bases to scramble, as well? -far closer to the hijacked plane(s)?
The significance of this non-order becomes huge, when we consider that it came one minute after NORAD was informed that Flight 175 had also been hijacked, (8:43/44). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Flight 175
top
In the space of five minutes, officials at NORAD were made aware that two planes had been hijacked, and were presently within about fifty miles from one another, (just outside New York).
We are not told how or why ATC/FAA officials knew that Flight 175 was hijacked; but based on the record of Flights 77 and 11, it may be safe for us to assume that there was another glaring delay -between the time when trouble was first observed, and when NORAD was first notified.
Now, NORAD would also be among the first to know that Flight 11 had struck a building, (at 8:46, ibid).
Was this not an extreme emergency?
By this time, Flight 175 was thirty-one minutes into its doomed forty-eight minute flight-path. This would place it approximately half-way between Albany and New York City, (50 miles north of NYC) two-hundred miles from Otis Air Force Base, and heading in the opposite direction, (towards Baltimore).
It would have only made the most elementary sense for NORAD, (or ATC) to order other jets scrambled, from other bases closer to the plane -and in a position to intercept it.
Outside Philadelphia, for example, at Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, is 111 Fighter wing, whose "Mission Statement" is,
"To maintain highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military forces in order to provide combat-ready A-10 aircraft for wartime requirements. To provide trained personnel to support state and local authorities in time of natural disaster or civil strife at the command of the Governor." 111th FW Home Page
and further,
"the 111th Fighter Wing has a state mission to protect the safety and security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania."
http://www.ang.state.pa.us
A "battle-ready" squadron of F-16’s were also stationed with the 177 Fighter Wing out of Atlantic City, less than half the distance from New York City, compared to Otis AFB.
Such bases, of course, are not only restricted to defending the air-space within their own state line.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section 2.6
# Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp
Now, it is true that escorts/intercepts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base near Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia; but this not always the case:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
Thus, when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
We are told by military officials that,
"The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
If we take this "official" speed, (just under 10 miles/minute) and calculate the distance, (approx. 190 miles, calculated from online Yahoo maps) it would have taken the planes from Otis about twenty minutes to reach Flight 175’s last known position; and judging from Flight 175’s last known speed and direction, (precise speed unknown, let's say 300 mph) in twenty minutes the airliner would still be another one hundred miles away.
So we can see that it would take about thirty minutes for the Otis fighters to reach Flight 175.
If, on the other hand, NORAD ordered jets to scramble from outside Philadelphia, (at say, 8:50, and even allowing for the eight minutes it took the Otis fighters to get into the air) those jets could be expected to make visual contact with Flight 175 in approximately thirteen minutes.
If Atlantic City had been chosen, two planes could have scrambled and flown the less than one-hundred miles (to intercept) in less than twenty minutes.
Neither of these bases received an order to scramble.
Again, we see the same pattern as in the case of Flight 77, (Part 1A); in both cases: significant, then incredible FAA delays in notifying NORAD, and NORAD choosing bases which are far away.
This picture is further complicated by the fact that, according to the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
the top speed of the F-15 is over 1800 mph.
This top speed is rarely achieved, given the weight of weapons and extra fuel; but given the extreme nature of the emergency, would it not be reasonable to assume that the F-15's should have achieved a speed of at least 1,000 or 1,200 mph? about 20 miles/minute?
Apparently, that's not what happened.
According to the NORAD timeline, (CNN, Sept. 16, ibid) the two F-15's left Otis AFB at 8:52. When Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center at 9:02, (ten minutes later) the
"F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away."
If we calculate the distance between OTIS and NYC, (about 190 miles, see note 14) and the time it took the planes to get there, they flew about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph: less than half their top speed, hardly what we'd expect.
In total then, it took civilain air defence, (on Sept. 11, 2001) fifty-five minutes to get two fighters to an interception point, (NYC, ten minutes flight-time away) after the initial airline emergency had commenced.
Even given the discrepencies over the "official" flight speed, we should also remember that, if ATC or NORAD had responded to Flight 11 in a reasonable amount of time, numerous other bases in the area could have been called upon to put jets in the air, such as,
The 104 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Westfield, Massachusetts, (center/west part of the state)
The 174 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Syracuse, New York, (which was directly in Flight 11’s flight-path, until it turned south)
Or the 103, or 118 Fighter Wings, (ANG) twenty miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, (100 miles N/E of NYC).
The "state" mission of 174 Fighter Wing, for example, is as follows:
"protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety. State missions, which are funded by the state, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires; search and rescue; protection of vital public services; and support to civil defense."
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/ang/nyang.html
[NOTE: This author is not suggesting that all of these bases had jets on "strip alert," ready-to-go; yet, as we discuss the "official" explanations for the Air Force delay/absence in some detail in Part 1E, it seems rather incredible to suggest that none of the numerous bases with "battle-ready" fighter squadrons had any jets ready, nor that there weren't already a few jets in the air, on routine training missions, when the emergencies began].
As most American citizens know very well, the primary, stated purpose of the Air National Guard is civil defence.
For some reason, even though this was the most extreme of civil emergencies, no other jets were scrambled on Sept 11 -besides those under the direct control of NORAD, (Otis and Langley, as we shall see).
All the other National Guard bases were left un-activated.
Even given the outrageous twenty-nine minute delay in responding to Flight 11, (which irrevocably doomed it to its’ fate) jets still should have been scrambled from Westfield, MA., Hartford CT., Philadelphia, or Atlantic City; and they would have then been in the air in time to intercept Flight 175.
As it was, Flight 175 made a sharp turn south, (towards Atlantic City) which would have brought it into closer range with both 111, and 177 Fighter Wings.
--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
IF NORAD had acted decisively -even after the first confirmed attack on the World Trade Centre- there still would have been a chance to avert the second attack, but the needed order to scramble additional jets never came.
--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Thus it was colossal incompetence/negligence, (and perhaps something more) which allowed two hijacked planes to crash into the World trade Center towers -as had also been the case, (only moreso) for Flight 77, (see Part 1A).
Thousands of American citizens would not have lost their lives if ATC, FAA, NORAD, and/or Pentagon officials had done their jobs, (though again, we don’t yet know exactly whom, and to what degree).
The same pattern of incompetence remains:
For Flight 11, no effective actions were taken to regain visual contact, (via an escort) once cockpit/transponder contact with an off-course airliner had been lost.
A response only occurred twenty-nine minutes after the plane had been off course, without radio/transponder contact, and at least ten minutes after it had been obviously hijacked.
In the case of both Flight 11 and 175, the base chosen to scramble jets from was a great distance away, (relative to numerous other fighter-bases). The planes flew at less than half their top speed -proving themselves utterly incapable of defending the citizens and property of New York City.
Was Boston ATC in charge of both flights?
Who was responsible for the ensuing decisions made at NORAD?
By the close proximity of attack-times between the two planes, and the outrageously long response-time/ineptitude of ATC/FAA and/or NORAD, two cargoes of innocents were condemned to an infamous fate.
In this, let us be perfectly clear: the source of our outrage is not for vengeance against those who may have unconsciously donned the uniform of criminal negligence on Sept 11; for, even when thousands of lives are lost, the heart of a nation can be very large. We may yet choose to understand that, in the midst of a crisis, some people in positions of high authority may have "lost their heads," "missed their cue" -when their skills and training were most needed.
What we cannot countenance, however, is being lied to; and so long as the government utterly refuses to acknowledge the criminal negligence that the available documentation clearly implies, then the possiblity that there are very good and reasonable explanations for the security failure on Sept 11th remains on very thin ground indeed.
Flight 93
top
The general timeline for the final voyage of Flight 93 is as follows:
--8:42 a.m.: United Airlines flight 93 takes off from Newark
International Airport, bound for San Francisco. [Note: the plane was forty minutes late departing...
originally scheduled to depart at 8:00 am].
--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have
been hijacked.
--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and radar
contact is lost.
--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected
near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
CNN, Sept 16. ibid http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
By numerous accounts, Flight 93 is believed to have crashed at 10:06 EST, or a few minutes after. (See Note 15)
Many of us will remember, during the first few hours after the crash, hearing reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane.
This was flatly denied by the White House and military officials, and the mention of it was soon dropped in the media coverage.
There is much evidence to suggest that Flight 93 was shot down, (which we shall discuss in a subsequent report). An excellent resource for information on this is available at www.flight93crash.com (.)
From the standpoint of our inquiry so far, the question of whether the plane was shot down or not is largely irrelevant.
If a military plane had shot down the airliner, (after three other planes had devastated three highly populated buildings) few people would have found fault with the military for carrying out the gruesome task.
In fact, it is far more damning of the U.S. Air Force, and civilian defense, that officials are claiming there were not any fighters in the immediate vicinity.
Let’s take a closer look at the timeline.
According to the above CNN report, (based on NORAD’s own statement) the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16.
The plane crashed at 10:06.
That means it was in the air, hijack-confirmed for almost an hour, (fifty minutes) with no jets intercepting it -after two planes had struck the World Trade Center.
Is this not incredible?
We are told that the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77, (the third plane) "may have been hijacked" at 9:25; and only then, at 9:27, did NORAD order jets to be scrambled from Langley.
But why, (for God’s sake) did NORAD not order jets to be scrambled from Langley at 9:16, when first informed that Flight 93 had been hijacked? -after the first two planes had struck?
If they had immediately ordered jets airborne at 9:16, the F-16’s from Langley would have actually made it to Washington before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, (9:38).
If NORAD had responded as it is mandated to do, the F-16’s from Langley would have caught up to Flight 93 soon after it altered its course near Cleveland.
Nor would fighters from Langley have been the most logical squadrons to call upon.
Andrews Air Force base would have been closer.
Near Toledo, Ohio, less than 100 miles west of Cleveland, is 180 Fighter Wing, and about thirty miles west of Columbus Ohio, is 178 Fighter wing.
http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/Military_Install_N_R.html#ohio
http://www.ang.af.mil/directory/ANGDir.html
Also, recall from the earlier reports, (cited above) that F-16/15 Fighters were scrambled from both, Langley AFB and Andrews AFB, for protection over Washington, D.C.
From those reports, which said the Andrew’s planes were in the air "within minutes" of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, (at 8:38) (Sunday Telegraph) -and the Langley planes which arrived at about 9:49, (CNN. Sept 16, ibid) eleven minutes after the crash- we can reasonably assume there was extra fighter-power over Washington by 9:50.
Furthermore, Flight 93 was widely believed to be headed toward Washington. It had made a 180-degree turn over Cleveland, and was heading in the direction of the capital.
Recall the radar map, previously cited,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
and,
"As we walked, a voice over a fire truck loud speaker told everyone to move as far away from the Pentagon as possible due to a second plane coming toward the Pentagon. Evidently, this plane was American Flight #93 that crashed east of Pittsburgh."
Lt. Col. Alan Maitland, Pentagon employee
http://www.easttexasnews.com/news/story6_10_21.htm
and further,
At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline. Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning.
"A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "
Tuesday October 16 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller
By MATTHEW L. WALD with KEVIN SACK, The New York Times(16)
When Flight 93 crashed east of Pittsburgh, it was approximately 150 miles away from Washington, (approximately twenty minutes away, by airliner, at 400 mph, or fourteen minutes away, by super-sonic jet).
The FAA had ordered all commercial planes to be grounded at 9:25.
There were very few planes left in the sky. There would have been virtually no other planes on radar that could have threatened Washington, D.C., (even without the extra fighters in the air) -that is, besides the hijacked plane which had reversed course and was barreling towards Washington at a ferocious speed.
If the main priority of those jets was to protect Washington, why were some of them not sent to intercept flight 93? even at 9:50? -well before the crash, some sixteen minutes later?
If there were no fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93 when it crashed, there bloody-well should have been.
Apparently some of these planes were eventually ordered to intercept; but we have not been told when, and how close they were; and again, they appeared to arrive upon the scene about ten minutes after the plane had crashed -in a now familiar pattern.
Although we will cover other aspects of Flight 93, in the document, FURTHER Unanswered Questions, (Part 2) a very complete and well-referenced examination of this matter may be found at, http://www.flight93crash.com.
Notes
13) Dear Reader, I regret to note that I, amongst other writers, was in error in my initial reading of the "Payne Stewart" incident. (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm) The confusion arose from the fighter-intercept's crossover from Eastern to Central Daylight time. Instead of the plane taking "eighteen" minutes to be "vectored into position," it appears to have taken over an hour. Whereas I had earlier quoted another report, (http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138) which said, "departs. 9:24... pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33... The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot... For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38.... the controller calls in the military..." -it is not clear exactly when the military was called in. (According to USA Today, http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story it took twenty-four minutes). There are a number of factors which should be taken into account here, in trying to assess the comparative value: i.e. the "Stewart" plane was heading at higher speed than commercial, away from the the Florida base; it was at a high altitude; it was not a commercial airline with hundreds of passengers on board, transponder operational, no hijacking, etc. The MSNBC report, (http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY) of Sept. 12, says that "interceptors were quickly dispatched" during this incident. Now, it's possible that the NTSB document has been doctored, (not a first for government web pages). The fact that a fighter was already in the air, yet took forty minutes to catch up to the jet, along with the report that the "Stewart" plane was "handed over from the pilot of one Florida base to another," suggests much confusion. All of this merely re-iterates the importance of getting some hard statistics on this, and numerous other flight incidents, that we may clearly establish routine procedure, responses achieved, and so on. I apologize for any inaccurate impression my reading of this document may have caused.
At any rate, this error on my part holds very little significance to the facts taken as a whole. Having been removed from this document, I believe the reader would have to agree that this document still stands justified in its call for a thorough, public investigation.
14)The distance between Otis AFB and New York City is about 188 miles,
[NOTE: According to the following site,
http://airtravel.about.com/library/misc/blmileageair.htm
the air mile distance between Boston and New York City is 188 miles. A look on a map located through yahoo.com shows that Otis AFB is on the outer edge of Cape Cod, (on the shores of the Atlantic). Thus, it appears as if Otis is as far, (if not further) from New York City as Boston. I include this rather lengthy explanation here, due to the fact that numerous other sources have repeatedly under-estimated the distance by a wide margin.]
If we subtract the 70 miles from the 188, that leaves about 118 miles that the F-15's travelled in ten minutes. That's about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph.
15)10:06, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Sept 13,
10:10, Washington Post, Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
16)10: 06 NY Times online, http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/WTC_Shanksville.html
brokenbrainwave
Just draggin around
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Posts
- 18,892
Re: BBW
Not to worry, someone set me straight. You're the local ambulance chaser. We all must have a dream.
lol, dittohead? funny my acne cleared up years back. I was just curious how you have time to come up with such a bullshit laden 100plus page of nonsense without being some welfare case thats causing my taxes to continually rise.REDWAVE said:I appreciate your deifying me, bbw, but awesome and impressive as I am, I'm just a man, not a God-- lol.
"Suckling from the teat of the government sow"-- you're giving away the fact that you're a dittohead right there.
Not to worry, someone set me straight. You're the local ambulance chaser. We all must have a dream.
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
Unanswered Questions, Part 1C:
Summation of Civilian Air Defense, Sept 11, 2001
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.org/MainIndexMX.html
Index
WHO IS TO BLAME?
[Dear reader: We now enter into a serious investigation.
Thus far, we have only laid down the groundwork for why an investigation
is warranted. You are now engaging in a much wider, more-complex landscape of
facts, times, dates, possibilities, conclusions. I want to encourage you, in the
strongest way possible, to trust your own instincts.
When you feel that you're being asked, to cram
so much information into your brain,
as to oppress your heart, your hope, your health; please, turn to
something else. Put the page down, close the computer screen, or just take
a deep breath. By all means, use this work to feed your own
expression: write, sing, paint, draw, dance.
More than anything else: may you feel empowered
to listen more-deeply, to that voice within you,
which hears the call of justice; and without which,
the better world we seek must remain
but a distant dream.
In our review of the events of Sept 11th, (thus far) we have found a consistent pattern, whereby, Air Traffic Control, the FAA, and NORAD consistently failed to do their jobs -in anything approaching a reasonable frame of time.
In the case of Flight 11, Boston ATC took twenty-three minutes to notify NORAD, after the plane had begun going dramatically off-course, then after radio, transponder contact was lost, and some ten minutes after the plane was hijack-confirmed.
When NORAD was notified, it took six minutes for the call for jets to scramble to go through; and the order was sent to a base which was two hundred miles away, when numerous other "battle-ready" fighter squadrons in Philadelphia, Atlantic City, and Hartford were far closer. (The question of whether any of those planes were on "strip alert" or not we shall look at shortly).
This galling, unprecedented delay, coupled with NORAD’s inept judgement, also doomed Flight 175 to its ignoble destruction, sixteen minutes later.
Flight 77 was clearly in trouble before Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center at 8:46. ATC officials watching Flight 77 were aware that Flight 11 had been hijacked before it crashed; yet it took the FAA until 9:25, over thirty-five minutes later, to inform NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked.
NORAD again responded by ordering planes to scramble from a base (Langley) which was 130 miles away from where Flight 77 was, (just outside Washington) when active fighters were stationed at Andrews AFB, just ten to fifteen miles away.
Flight 93 was hijack-confirmed at 9:16, fifty minutes before it crashed in rural Pennsylvania –with not a single fighter being close enough to intercept it, (or so we are told).
When the President of the United States, George W. Bush, was first informed that a hijacked plane had crashed into the World trade center, (and another plane hijacked) at about 8:55, he made no change in his plans. After being updated at 9:00 am, then 9:05 (presumably about the second attack) he did nothing for another twenty-five minutes, even though he was supposedly the only one authorized to shoot the planes down.
When the president tried to leave Florida for Washington, his plane, (Air Force One) was re-routed to Louisiana, and then Nebraska. He limped home, nine hours after the attacks, because of "credible evidence of a threat to Air Force One and the White House", which were later denied and dismissed by the very officials who first mouthed them.
It is now exceedingly clear that, alongside a terrorist attack on Sept 11th, there existed a campaign of gross negligence at practically all levels of American air defense: ATC, FAA, NORAD, and the Executive.
Without this colossal incompetence, the collisions of Flights 11, 175, and 77 -into those buildings- simply could not have occurred.
Within this above group we must also include the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense, which is at the center of all command and control decisions in the case of hijackings, (and other national emergencies).
"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.
"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
This gives specific clarification to a previous reference in Part 1A, (New York Times, Sept 15)
"military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do,"
All of this is now a confirmation of what everyone (with access to a television) instinctively knew on Sept 11:
something went horribly wrong with American airspace security;
somebody was asleep at the switch.
Now we can see, that it was not just one official, in one department; it was system-wide; and we can further see why the government, and the military, do not want us to ask too many questions about it.
This gross, systematic incompetence points to one of three probable causes:
1) criminal negligence, which miraculously occurred at all five levels of civilian air defense at the same time, (with varying degrees of culpability)
or,
2) criminal negligence, emanating primarily from the highest levels of governmental authority,
or,
3) intentional sabotage, (treason) operating from within the government, (which then may have caused other negligent acts to occur).
The first scenario is not very likely.
It would mean that a long process of decay, apathy, and inefficiency would have set in: a ticking time-bomb, in place, imperceivable, waiting for a terrorist group to eventually take advantage.
While such a degradation of the overall system may have played a part in the Sept 11th breakdown, it seems far more likely that a particular ingrediant set it off: either unintended criminal negligence at a very high level, or intentional negligence, (sabotage) at a middle to high level.
It's also possible that very little negligence existed at the lower levels of the FAA and ATC; and instead, occurred in the upper echelons of the military.
For example: NORAD and the Pentagon are the last leg of communication in civilian air-defence; negligence at this level, means that the planes don't get airborne, no matter what ATC and the FAA do.
While it's also true that the planes don't get airborne if the military is not informed, it's less-likely that such negligence would occur across numerous branches of Air Traffic Control centers, and the FAA, all at the same time. The fact that the President was also utterly incapacitated, points to command and control centers in the military.
We should further remember that much of what we know of as evidence in mainstream publications -timelines, who did what, etc- ultimately comes to us from the military.
In matters of "national-security," the FAA and ATC bow to the military authority -for the final word on what "officially" transpired.
See, for example, the previously cited Newsday article, (Sept 23) wherein we read,
"FAA spokesman William Shumann said the agency would not comment on its actions during the Sept. 11 crisis."
"because the attacks are under investigation, the agency is not discussing the timing of its alerts to the military."
By the "official" documentation gathered thus far, it appears that the FAA and ATC is more at fault -for not informing NORAD in time- than is NORAD, (for not ordering the appropriate bases to respond); yet this documentation comes to us largely from NORAD; and we would not expect to publicly hear from ATC or FAA officials, if their experience differed markedly from the "official" line.
It's possible that the ATC and FAA officials did everything by the book on Sept 11 -and that NORAD simply refused to act, or the Pentagon ordered bases not to respond, (for whatever reason).
The fact that no FAA/ATC officials have been publicly charged with negligence, would suggest that the military, (which holds ultimate authority here) is either covering up for them, (taking heat onto itself) or is not charging anyone to cover up its own culpability.
Anyone familiar with the U.S. military knows that the first option, (the act of a senior authority passing up an opportunity to pin the blame for a disaster on a guilty subordinate) is the far less likely of the two.
If the negligence was intentional, (i.e. sabotage) then it still would have had to occur at a fairly high level -for it to have a critical, causitive affect across so many jurisdictions and levels of authority: ATC, FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and the President.
The infrastructure of civilian air defence is very complex: it may take some time before we are able to pinpoint precisely who was responsible for what, and to what degree of concious intent.
Intentional or not, such gross negligence and incompetence demands a full public hearing –and for those responsible to be brought to trial.
The only way for this to happen is for individual citizens and groups to spread the word, gather together evidence, separate fact from conjecture, cease accepting government pronouncements as gospel, then make our voices heard across the entire body-politic.
The fact that the whole affair has been overlooked by the Bush Administration, Congress, (and the mainstream media, as we shall see) does not bode well for the search for justice -for the thousands of innocents who needlessly died.
Such is the challenge which befalls the sacred duty of citizens -living in a free society.
Now: while we still do not have a conclusive idea of where the criminal negligence of Sept 11th emanated from, we may be able to shed some further light on the subject, by expanding the scope of our investigation.
That is: if the negligence of Sept. 11th emanated from a high level in the military, (and/or executive) then we should also see it reflected in other jurisdictions which are lower than the military authority, but higher than the FAA/ATC.
If it is not, this would make it more plausible for us to assume that the negligence came from the lower ranks.
It is in this regard the the "official" FBI investigation now represents a potentially fertile ground for gathering evidence -as to exactly where the breakdown (and/or collusion) of authority occurred.
It is to this that we now turn our attention.
# Return to top
of this page.
# Continue on with Part 1D:
The FBI Investigation.
Summation of Civilian Air Defense, Sept 11, 2001
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.org/MainIndexMX.html
Index
WHO IS TO BLAME?
[Dear reader: We now enter into a serious investigation.
Thus far, we have only laid down the groundwork for why an investigation
is warranted. You are now engaging in a much wider, more-complex landscape of
facts, times, dates, possibilities, conclusions. I want to encourage you, in the
strongest way possible, to trust your own instincts.
When you feel that you're being asked, to cram
so much information into your brain,
as to oppress your heart, your hope, your health; please, turn to
something else. Put the page down, close the computer screen, or just take
a deep breath. By all means, use this work to feed your own
expression: write, sing, paint, draw, dance.
More than anything else: may you feel empowered
to listen more-deeply, to that voice within you,
which hears the call of justice; and without which,
the better world we seek must remain
but a distant dream.
In our review of the events of Sept 11th, (thus far) we have found a consistent pattern, whereby, Air Traffic Control, the FAA, and NORAD consistently failed to do their jobs -in anything approaching a reasonable frame of time.
In the case of Flight 11, Boston ATC took twenty-three minutes to notify NORAD, after the plane had begun going dramatically off-course, then after radio, transponder contact was lost, and some ten minutes after the plane was hijack-confirmed.
When NORAD was notified, it took six minutes for the call for jets to scramble to go through; and the order was sent to a base which was two hundred miles away, when numerous other "battle-ready" fighter squadrons in Philadelphia, Atlantic City, and Hartford were far closer. (The question of whether any of those planes were on "strip alert" or not we shall look at shortly).
This galling, unprecedented delay, coupled with NORAD’s inept judgement, also doomed Flight 175 to its ignoble destruction, sixteen minutes later.
Flight 77 was clearly in trouble before Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center at 8:46. ATC officials watching Flight 77 were aware that Flight 11 had been hijacked before it crashed; yet it took the FAA until 9:25, over thirty-five minutes later, to inform NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked.
NORAD again responded by ordering planes to scramble from a base (Langley) which was 130 miles away from where Flight 77 was, (just outside Washington) when active fighters were stationed at Andrews AFB, just ten to fifteen miles away.
Flight 93 was hijack-confirmed at 9:16, fifty minutes before it crashed in rural Pennsylvania –with not a single fighter being close enough to intercept it, (or so we are told).
When the President of the United States, George W. Bush, was first informed that a hijacked plane had crashed into the World trade center, (and another plane hijacked) at about 8:55, he made no change in his plans. After being updated at 9:00 am, then 9:05 (presumably about the second attack) he did nothing for another twenty-five minutes, even though he was supposedly the only one authorized to shoot the planes down.
When the president tried to leave Florida for Washington, his plane, (Air Force One) was re-routed to Louisiana, and then Nebraska. He limped home, nine hours after the attacks, because of "credible evidence of a threat to Air Force One and the White House", which were later denied and dismissed by the very officials who first mouthed them.
It is now exceedingly clear that, alongside a terrorist attack on Sept 11th, there existed a campaign of gross negligence at practically all levels of American air defense: ATC, FAA, NORAD, and the Executive.
Without this colossal incompetence, the collisions of Flights 11, 175, and 77 -into those buildings- simply could not have occurred.
Within this above group we must also include the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense, which is at the center of all command and control decisions in the case of hijackings, (and other national emergencies).
"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.
"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
This gives specific clarification to a previous reference in Part 1A, (New York Times, Sept 15)
"military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do,"
All of this is now a confirmation of what everyone (with access to a television) instinctively knew on Sept 11:
something went horribly wrong with American airspace security;
somebody was asleep at the switch.
Now we can see, that it was not just one official, in one department; it was system-wide; and we can further see why the government, and the military, do not want us to ask too many questions about it.
This gross, systematic incompetence points to one of three probable causes:
1) criminal negligence, which miraculously occurred at all five levels of civilian air defense at the same time, (with varying degrees of culpability)
or,
2) criminal negligence, emanating primarily from the highest levels of governmental authority,
or,
3) intentional sabotage, (treason) operating from within the government, (which then may have caused other negligent acts to occur).
The first scenario is not very likely.
It would mean that a long process of decay, apathy, and inefficiency would have set in: a ticking time-bomb, in place, imperceivable, waiting for a terrorist group to eventually take advantage.
While such a degradation of the overall system may have played a part in the Sept 11th breakdown, it seems far more likely that a particular ingrediant set it off: either unintended criminal negligence at a very high level, or intentional negligence, (sabotage) at a middle to high level.
It's also possible that very little negligence existed at the lower levels of the FAA and ATC; and instead, occurred in the upper echelons of the military.
For example: NORAD and the Pentagon are the last leg of communication in civilian air-defence; negligence at this level, means that the planes don't get airborne, no matter what ATC and the FAA do.
While it's also true that the planes don't get airborne if the military is not informed, it's less-likely that such negligence would occur across numerous branches of Air Traffic Control centers, and the FAA, all at the same time. The fact that the President was also utterly incapacitated, points to command and control centers in the military.
We should further remember that much of what we know of as evidence in mainstream publications -timelines, who did what, etc- ultimately comes to us from the military.
In matters of "national-security," the FAA and ATC bow to the military authority -for the final word on what "officially" transpired.
See, for example, the previously cited Newsday article, (Sept 23) wherein we read,
"FAA spokesman William Shumann said the agency would not comment on its actions during the Sept. 11 crisis."
"because the attacks are under investigation, the agency is not discussing the timing of its alerts to the military."
By the "official" documentation gathered thus far, it appears that the FAA and ATC is more at fault -for not informing NORAD in time- than is NORAD, (for not ordering the appropriate bases to respond); yet this documentation comes to us largely from NORAD; and we would not expect to publicly hear from ATC or FAA officials, if their experience differed markedly from the "official" line.
It's possible that the ATC and FAA officials did everything by the book on Sept 11 -and that NORAD simply refused to act, or the Pentagon ordered bases not to respond, (for whatever reason).
The fact that no FAA/ATC officials have been publicly charged with negligence, would suggest that the military, (which holds ultimate authority here) is either covering up for them, (taking heat onto itself) or is not charging anyone to cover up its own culpability.
Anyone familiar with the U.S. military knows that the first option, (the act of a senior authority passing up an opportunity to pin the blame for a disaster on a guilty subordinate) is the far less likely of the two.
If the negligence was intentional, (i.e. sabotage) then it still would have had to occur at a fairly high level -for it to have a critical, causitive affect across so many jurisdictions and levels of authority: ATC, FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and the President.
The infrastructure of civilian air defence is very complex: it may take some time before we are able to pinpoint precisely who was responsible for what, and to what degree of concious intent.
Intentional or not, such gross negligence and incompetence demands a full public hearing –and for those responsible to be brought to trial.
The only way for this to happen is for individual citizens and groups to spread the word, gather together evidence, separate fact from conjecture, cease accepting government pronouncements as gospel, then make our voices heard across the entire body-politic.
The fact that the whole affair has been overlooked by the Bush Administration, Congress, (and the mainstream media, as we shall see) does not bode well for the search for justice -for the thousands of innocents who needlessly died.
Such is the challenge which befalls the sacred duty of citizens -living in a free society.
Now: while we still do not have a conclusive idea of where the criminal negligence of Sept 11th emanated from, we may be able to shed some further light on the subject, by expanding the scope of our investigation.
That is: if the negligence of Sept. 11th emanated from a high level in the military, (and/or executive) then we should also see it reflected in other jurisdictions which are lower than the military authority, but higher than the FAA/ATC.
If it is not, this would make it more plausible for us to assume that the negligence came from the lower ranks.
It is in this regard the the "official" FBI investigation now represents a potentially fertile ground for gathering evidence -as to exactly where the breakdown (and/or collusion) of authority occurred.
It is to this that we now turn our attention.
# Return to top
of this page.
# Continue on with Part 1D:
The FBI Investigation.
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
HeavyStick said:
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
Part 1D
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
by MalcontentX
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html
"The Investigation"
FBI, CIA, and other agencies.
Index
First recall that the CIA/FBI initially claimed they had no real warning of the Sept 11th attacks.
"we didn’t see this one coming": Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorism operations.
"there were no warning signs that I’m aware of": FBI Director Robert Mueller
"something we had never even thought of": U.S. Air Force General
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
In the first few months after the attacks, (when the first edition of this report was being gathered) such claims were dubious in the extreme.
The CIA alone has an "official" budget of $30 billion/yr.
It was only after the revelations of May, 2002, that the FBI director would admit that his agency has "to do a better job.... that "red flags... dots should have been connected."
http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol67/143/opinion/oped1.html
The substance of those revelations were stunning in the extreme.
First there was the leaked memo of a top-level August 6, 2001, intelligence briefing between the CIA director, George Tenet, President Bush and his cabinet, which "carried the headline, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,' and "suggested that bin Laden followers might aim to hijack U.S. airliners."
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0502/18memo.html
A few days after this story appeared, it was revealed that "When FBI agent Kenneth Williams wrote a memo last July warning that Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers might be training in American flight schools, no one listened."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238574,00.html
Then FBI agent Colleen Rowley's 13-page letter to Director Mueller, (in which she outlined investigative "obstruction," "roadblocks," and "altering of reports" by her superiors) became front-page news.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html
Soon after that came FBI agent Robert Wright's similar charges of interference,
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/FBI_agent_I_was_stymied_in_terror_probe.htm
For those of us following this story closely from the beginning, such reports of upper level "obstruction" and "interference" were nothing new.
Greg Palast of the BBC had reported interviews with FBI agents making similar claims back in Nov. of 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram
http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html
These, of course, are only the reports that received the most attention. There are others,
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html
and a great deal of information showing the variety of ways in which foreknowledge would have been in ample supply,
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAadvanceinfo.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAadvanceinfo.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052002.html
Indeed, it may be that, (from what we have since discovered about the collusion of the mainstream press in not asking the obvious questions) such revelations only came out eight months after the attacks... because the press could not sit on them any longer. There's no question but that the above FBI agents only went public after it became clear that they would not get a hearing otherwise; and even then, such mainstream revelations were often "old news" for those of us investigating online.
Yet true to form, despite some rather passionate criticisms from even establishment voices,
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=5897
http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0205/22/a11-494538.htm
the status quo managed to turn such revelations into a call for increased funding to the various security agencies,
http://www.counterpunch.org/sperry0613.html
citing the causes of the intelligence failures as due to, "resource constraints," "[inabilities] for sharing information," and that, "internal CIA guidelines that limited the agency's cooperation with people suspected of human rights violations had a 'chilling effect on operations.'" (What a chilling statement).
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020718-788789.htm
So while we can clearly see that the CIA/FBI leadership is utterly insincere in its earlier claim of having had NO advance warning, the fact remains that it took them only a few days to discover the identities of all sixteen hijackers, their backgrounds, where they traveled, trained to fly, etc.
Within the first week after the attack, German intelligence officials are shocked, (and a little angry) to find that U.S. intelligence forces had been monitoring the suspected terrorist cells in Germany for four years, and had massive files of information on them -yet hadn’t told the Germans a thing. (Analyst John Cooley, "Democracy Now" archive, Sept 26, www.webactive.com)
Let's look at "the terrorists" more-closely.
The FBI says that a number of the terrorist/pilots were trained at certain small-engine flight schools in Florida.
The instructors at those schools freely admit that such training would have been of no significant help to someone wanting to fly commercial airliners. They are "completely different systems." (www.tenc.net Interview with Huffman Aviation).
Remember that the hijacker-pilots were near-universally recognized to have "extraordinary skill," (Washington Post, Sept. 12). It would seem to take significant amount of discipline and training to be able to fly a jet airliner, travelling at 480 miles an hour, (apparently, twice the legal speed) into a target not much wider than an airplane. (Not to mention the above-noted acrobatics over the Pentagon, Part 1A).
Here’s how the various instructors described these "pilots,"
Mohammed Atta, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, (Flight 11)
"neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept."
The Washington Post (September 19, 2001)
Nawaq Alhazmi, Khaid Al-Midhar, (Flight 175)
"Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse... like they had hardly even ever driven a car ... in the plane, they were dumb and dumber."
The Washington Post (September 24, 2001)
And how about Hani Hanjour? -the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who was supposed to do the Pentagon air-show?
"... Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors.... three times... [hoping] to rent a plane from the airport.... after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo.... [he] had 600 hours listed in his log book... and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience." (pg. 1.) The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), September 18.
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/valentine.htm#hani_hanjour
Second, while even the most seasoned military strategists were shocked at the sophistication and precision of the Sept 11th operation, the clumsiness of the terrorists -in leaving evidence behind, in hotel rooms, suitcases, and loud public behavior, etc.- was impressive in turn.
There’s the crop dusting manuals, maps, diagrams -that we’ve all heard about.
"In one case, we’re told that two of these super devout Moslems spent the night before their suicidal act drinking in strip bars -a double blasphemy." (whatreallyhappened.com)
"Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks."
"the men in [the] bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards.... They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,'" the owner of the strip bar was quoted as saying."
"Furthermore, [the bar owner] said that he gave the FBI their credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one of the suspects and most amazingly, a copy of a Koran that one of the men had left at the bar."
Associated Press, September 13
Early in the morning of Sept 11th, there was reported to be a "road rage" incident at Boston’s Logan Airport -involving four Arabic-looking people. A witness to this later led police to the vehicle, in the airport parking lot.
They found there: Arabic flight training manuals, and a Koran packed away in a suitcase, (something not done by devout Moslems).
(investigator John Judge, www.astridmm.com/radio/archive.htm)
Then we find out that the FBI doesn’t really have a firm handle on who most of the hijackers were. Of the sixteen originally identified, two are now known to be still alive, (and living in the middle east); at least one has been dead for two years, and the possibility of forged documents has not been ruled out in all but a few cases.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/who.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-warid1021.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
This may partly explain why, when we check the list of passengers on the planes which went down,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
we find that the passenger-count for each plane is short four or five of the listed total; and none of the names listed are Arabic-sounding. We may assume from this that because the identities used by the hijackers may not have been their real ones, the FBI may have asked the airlines to keep those names secret; but it remains a mystery.
Yet the pictures of these various "hijackers" are plastered across every major newspaper in the country -as if it’s a fact- for months after most of their identities are proven to be uncertain.
An outstanding report on this subject has recently been produced, (Aug. 2002) by researcher Paul Thompson. Providing actual photographs, and a fully referenced, coherent text, he shows:
how, on numerous occassions a certain pilot was reported in different parts of the world at the same time, and identified by two passport photos on the FBI website that were not from the same person;
that five of "the hijackers" identified, in fact, are still alive, (one dead for two years);
that another five of "the hijackers" also appear in FBI and Mainstream press reports... as being at least two different people each.
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAjarrah.html
There were apparently seven phone calls made from the various hijacked planes; only one of them, (Flight 93) mentions the hijackers being of middle-eastern origin. This may be particularly significant because one of the callers was Barbara Olsen, the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General, (who argued before the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore). She was, herself, a noted author, journalist. Are we to believe she simply neglected to mention an important identifying characteristic?
Then we find that five of the suspects appeared to have lived at and/or "got some training at American military bases." (Newsweek, Sept 15) Does this mean that the terrorists had inside help? Or that the identities had been stolen?
We are not likely to hear.
There's the "chilling" final letter of instruction to the terrorists which conveniently connects the three different flights: one in the baggage that "accidentally" got left behind, one in an airport parking-lot garbage-can; and one, intact, at the Pennsylvania crash site where "everything [was] all but obliterated."
A veteran Middle East reporter, Robert Fisk, described the authors of the letter as being "surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion" -due to numerous expressions in the letter, foreign to practicing Moslems, (The Independent, Sept 29, 2001)
"The document begins with the words, 'In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate... In the name of God, of myself, and of my family.... The time of fun and waste is gone.'
"The problem is that no Molsem -however ill-taught- would include his family in such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after he mentioned God in the first line. Lebanese and Palestinian suicide bombers have never been known to refer to 'the time of fun and waste' -because a true Muslim would not have 'wasted' his time and would regard pleasure as a reward of the after-life."
"The full Arabic text has not been released by the FBI. The translation, as it stands, suggest an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt -asking to be forgiven for sins, explaining that the fear of death is natural, that 'a believer is always plagued with problems.'"
Yet the effect of this "chilling" disclosure, (mouthed by Attorney General John Ashcroft on national TV) is instrumental in helping to pull the strings of assumed guilt closed around the "terrorists" -in the minds of many.
Then we have the question of the so-called "black boxes": the flight data recorder, and the cockpit voice recorder, designed to withstand a crash of great intensity. Each plane had both, an FDR and CVR.
Only the boxes from the crash in Pennsylvania have been recovered: one unusable, the other blank. All of these occurrences are exceptionally rare.
Yet while none of the eight flight recorders have been found intact, it seems investigators were fortunate enough to find one of the terrorists’ passports in good shape, a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center had been.
Apparently, the passport must have fallen into the air just as the crash occurred, survived the almost 1,000 degree heat of the fire, then come across a strong wind to blow it several blocks away -according to New York Police Commissione Bernard Kerik, and Deputy Chief Barry Mawn.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
Can you believe this?
The shoddy, convenient, and questionable nature of such "evidence" is so brazen, that it must be obvious to any thinking person that investigators, (at least to some degree) put a "case" together, to re-assure the public -when, in fact, they had no clear idea who was actually involved, responsible, how they did it, etc. (and/or didn’t want to admit what it was they knew).
Obviously, there's a lot more involved to an investigation of this nature, than what we have covered here; but,
pilots who can’t fly the planes?
Hijackers whose actual identities seem irrelevant?
Behavior absolutely inconsistent with devout Muslims?
Eight missing black boxes?
Indestructible passports?
How stupid do they think we are?
The fact that much of the information on "the perpetrators" came out within a week of the attacks, and has been soundly forgotten by the mainstream press, suggests that it was designed to quickly close the books on the case, and move on to other, less-contentious matters.
That few cries of protest have arisen amongst the general public is no vindication that we are stupid -or that there is nothing to protest against: it's simply a reflection of the fact that most citizens are so pre-occupied with trying to earn a living, raise a family, and maintain some sense of normalcy in the wake of a traumatic attack, that the thought of powerful forces in government fabricating evidence was too much to bear.
Nor have we all swallowed the story.
Both President Bush, (at the U.N. General Assembly)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wackyconspiracy.html
and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, (ABC News, AP, Dec.9)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/t12092001_t1209abc.html
have been compelled to publicly speak about "outrageous conspiracy theories."
This is of no small significance; for men of power know that the best way to discredit something is to ignore it; they only speak of things which threaten to temporarily take the freshed-buffed sheen off their face when they feel they can no longer afford to ignore them.
For many observers, it was the ridiculous nature of the FBI investigation which told them that their initial doubts about American civil air defense on Sept 11th were justified.
This poor excuse for a case clearly implicates the FBI in the cover-up of the criminal negligence which occurred within the ranks of civilian air defence on Sept 11th.
Whether Attorney-General John Ashcroft himself, (nominal head of the FBI) was directly involved in this cover-up, (or whether he was just "fed" -and then blindly delivered- information convenient to closing the case) remains to be seen.
The N.Y. Police commissioner's participation in the passport charade, (noted above) is an indictaion of how the various local police and investigative forces were likely subordinated to the FBI's authority; and, as in the case of civilian air defense, the network of influence within the police services is a complex one: it may take us some time to discover exactly who did what, when, and by what authority.
The significance of this FBI fabrication, for us, is clear: it strongly affirms the probability that the criminal negligence in civilian air-defence must have occurred at a very high level: higher than the FBI; that is, in the Department of Defense/Pentagon, and/or the Executive Branch.
The Executive has already been implicated in the negligence, by the President's refusal to act during a critical thirty minutes of the attack; and if the military was directly involved in an act of intentional treason, it's possible that that this was done under the direction of the White House.
In terms of immediate, concrete fact, however, the decision or inability of the Air Force to put fighter-intercepts into the air must have come through the military.
In comparison to the absence of fighter-intercepts, the documented negligence of George W. Bush pales. His inaction would only have been recognized by citizens as serious if the fighter-intercepts had been scrambled, (as they were supposed to have been); then Bush's refusal to leave the children's classroom, (to authorize the shoot-downs) would have clearly been the deciding factor in why the hijacked-planes "got through."
The military controls daily operations. In terms of a "spontaneous" event, where unintended criminal negligence prevails, the lead agency would have to be the military. The Executive could only be considered as a possible lead agency if a planned, treasonous negligence had been undertaken.
Other areas relevant to airspace/national security still remain to be explored, (airports, the CIA); yet sufficient evidence now lies before us, that we may be justified in attempting to zero in on elements within the Defense Dept. and the Pentagon -as prime suspects in the negligence and/or treason surrounding 9/11.
For such a secretive, tightly-controlled organization as the military, practically the only source of information we have on it's Sept. 11th behavior is through its' "official" explanations of how the tragedy occurred -as revealed in the mainstream media.
So it is there to which we now turn.
Unanswered Questions, Part 1E:
"Official" (military) Explanations
Index
"Official" Explanation: explained
# Return to
Top (Top of This Page)
# Note
Return To Main Index
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
by MalcontentX
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html
"The Investigation"
FBI, CIA, and other agencies.
Index
First recall that the CIA/FBI initially claimed they had no real warning of the Sept 11th attacks.
"we didn’t see this one coming": Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorism operations.
"there were no warning signs that I’m aware of": FBI Director Robert Mueller
"something we had never even thought of": U.S. Air Force General
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
In the first few months after the attacks, (when the first edition of this report was being gathered) such claims were dubious in the extreme.
The CIA alone has an "official" budget of $30 billion/yr.
It was only after the revelations of May, 2002, that the FBI director would admit that his agency has "to do a better job.... that "red flags... dots should have been connected."
http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol67/143/opinion/oped1.html
The substance of those revelations were stunning in the extreme.
First there was the leaked memo of a top-level August 6, 2001, intelligence briefing between the CIA director, George Tenet, President Bush and his cabinet, which "carried the headline, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,' and "suggested that bin Laden followers might aim to hijack U.S. airliners."
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0502/18memo.html
A few days after this story appeared, it was revealed that "When FBI agent Kenneth Williams wrote a memo last July warning that Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers might be training in American flight schools, no one listened."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238574,00.html
Then FBI agent Colleen Rowley's 13-page letter to Director Mueller, (in which she outlined investigative "obstruction," "roadblocks," and "altering of reports" by her superiors) became front-page news.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html
Soon after that came FBI agent Robert Wright's similar charges of interference,
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/FBI_agent_I_was_stymied_in_terror_probe.htm
For those of us following this story closely from the beginning, such reports of upper level "obstruction" and "interference" were nothing new.
Greg Palast of the BBC had reported interviews with FBI agents making similar claims back in Nov. of 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram
http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html
These, of course, are only the reports that received the most attention. There are others,
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html
and a great deal of information showing the variety of ways in which foreknowledge would have been in ample supply,
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAadvanceinfo.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAadvanceinfo.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052002.html
Indeed, it may be that, (from what we have since discovered about the collusion of the mainstream press in not asking the obvious questions) such revelations only came out eight months after the attacks... because the press could not sit on them any longer. There's no question but that the above FBI agents only went public after it became clear that they would not get a hearing otherwise; and even then, such mainstream revelations were often "old news" for those of us investigating online.
Yet true to form, despite some rather passionate criticisms from even establishment voices,
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=5897
http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0205/22/a11-494538.htm
the status quo managed to turn such revelations into a call for increased funding to the various security agencies,
http://www.counterpunch.org/sperry0613.html
citing the causes of the intelligence failures as due to, "resource constraints," "[inabilities] for sharing information," and that, "internal CIA guidelines that limited the agency's cooperation with people suspected of human rights violations had a 'chilling effect on operations.'" (What a chilling statement).
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020718-788789.htm
So while we can clearly see that the CIA/FBI leadership is utterly insincere in its earlier claim of having had NO advance warning, the fact remains that it took them only a few days to discover the identities of all sixteen hijackers, their backgrounds, where they traveled, trained to fly, etc.
Within the first week after the attack, German intelligence officials are shocked, (and a little angry) to find that U.S. intelligence forces had been monitoring the suspected terrorist cells in Germany for four years, and had massive files of information on them -yet hadn’t told the Germans a thing. (Analyst John Cooley, "Democracy Now" archive, Sept 26, www.webactive.com)
Let's look at "the terrorists" more-closely.
The FBI says that a number of the terrorist/pilots were trained at certain small-engine flight schools in Florida.
The instructors at those schools freely admit that such training would have been of no significant help to someone wanting to fly commercial airliners. They are "completely different systems." (www.tenc.net Interview with Huffman Aviation).
Remember that the hijacker-pilots were near-universally recognized to have "extraordinary skill," (Washington Post, Sept. 12). It would seem to take significant amount of discipline and training to be able to fly a jet airliner, travelling at 480 miles an hour, (apparently, twice the legal speed) into a target not much wider than an airplane. (Not to mention the above-noted acrobatics over the Pentagon, Part 1A).
Here’s how the various instructors described these "pilots,"
Mohammed Atta, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, (Flight 11)
"neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept."
The Washington Post (September 19, 2001)
Nawaq Alhazmi, Khaid Al-Midhar, (Flight 175)
"Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse... like they had hardly even ever driven a car ... in the plane, they were dumb and dumber."
The Washington Post (September 24, 2001)
And how about Hani Hanjour? -the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who was supposed to do the Pentagon air-show?
"... Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors.... three times... [hoping] to rent a plane from the airport.... after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo.... [he] had 600 hours listed in his log book... and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience." (pg. 1.) The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), September 18.
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/valentine.htm#hani_hanjour
Second, while even the most seasoned military strategists were shocked at the sophistication and precision of the Sept 11th operation, the clumsiness of the terrorists -in leaving evidence behind, in hotel rooms, suitcases, and loud public behavior, etc.- was impressive in turn.
There’s the crop dusting manuals, maps, diagrams -that we’ve all heard about.
"In one case, we’re told that two of these super devout Moslems spent the night before their suicidal act drinking in strip bars -a double blasphemy." (whatreallyhappened.com)
"Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks."
"the men in [the] bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards.... They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,'" the owner of the strip bar was quoted as saying."
"Furthermore, [the bar owner] said that he gave the FBI their credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one of the suspects and most amazingly, a copy of a Koran that one of the men had left at the bar."
Associated Press, September 13
Early in the morning of Sept 11th, there was reported to be a "road rage" incident at Boston’s Logan Airport -involving four Arabic-looking people. A witness to this later led police to the vehicle, in the airport parking lot.
They found there: Arabic flight training manuals, and a Koran packed away in a suitcase, (something not done by devout Moslems).
(investigator John Judge, www.astridmm.com/radio/archive.htm)
Then we find out that the FBI doesn’t really have a firm handle on who most of the hijackers were. Of the sixteen originally identified, two are now known to be still alive, (and living in the middle east); at least one has been dead for two years, and the possibility of forged documents has not been ruled out in all but a few cases.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/who.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-warid1021.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
This may partly explain why, when we check the list of passengers on the planes which went down,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
we find that the passenger-count for each plane is short four or five of the listed total; and none of the names listed are Arabic-sounding. We may assume from this that because the identities used by the hijackers may not have been their real ones, the FBI may have asked the airlines to keep those names secret; but it remains a mystery.
Yet the pictures of these various "hijackers" are plastered across every major newspaper in the country -as if it’s a fact- for months after most of their identities are proven to be uncertain.
An outstanding report on this subject has recently been produced, (Aug. 2002) by researcher Paul Thompson. Providing actual photographs, and a fully referenced, coherent text, he shows:
how, on numerous occassions a certain pilot was reported in different parts of the world at the same time, and identified by two passport photos on the FBI website that were not from the same person;
that five of "the hijackers" identified, in fact, are still alive, (one dead for two years);
that another five of "the hijackers" also appear in FBI and Mainstream press reports... as being at least two different people each.
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAjarrah.html
There were apparently seven phone calls made from the various hijacked planes; only one of them, (Flight 93) mentions the hijackers being of middle-eastern origin. This may be particularly significant because one of the callers was Barbara Olsen, the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General, (who argued before the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore). She was, herself, a noted author, journalist. Are we to believe she simply neglected to mention an important identifying characteristic?
Then we find that five of the suspects appeared to have lived at and/or "got some training at American military bases." (Newsweek, Sept 15) Does this mean that the terrorists had inside help? Or that the identities had been stolen?
We are not likely to hear.
There's the "chilling" final letter of instruction to the terrorists which conveniently connects the three different flights: one in the baggage that "accidentally" got left behind, one in an airport parking-lot garbage-can; and one, intact, at the Pennsylvania crash site where "everything [was] all but obliterated."
A veteran Middle East reporter, Robert Fisk, described the authors of the letter as being "surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion" -due to numerous expressions in the letter, foreign to practicing Moslems, (The Independent, Sept 29, 2001)
"The document begins with the words, 'In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate... In the name of God, of myself, and of my family.... The time of fun and waste is gone.'
"The problem is that no Molsem -however ill-taught- would include his family in such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after he mentioned God in the first line. Lebanese and Palestinian suicide bombers have never been known to refer to 'the time of fun and waste' -because a true Muslim would not have 'wasted' his time and would regard pleasure as a reward of the after-life."
"The full Arabic text has not been released by the FBI. The translation, as it stands, suggest an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt -asking to be forgiven for sins, explaining that the fear of death is natural, that 'a believer is always plagued with problems.'"
Yet the effect of this "chilling" disclosure, (mouthed by Attorney General John Ashcroft on national TV) is instrumental in helping to pull the strings of assumed guilt closed around the "terrorists" -in the minds of many.
Then we have the question of the so-called "black boxes": the flight data recorder, and the cockpit voice recorder, designed to withstand a crash of great intensity. Each plane had both, an FDR and CVR.
Only the boxes from the crash in Pennsylvania have been recovered: one unusable, the other blank. All of these occurrences are exceptionally rare.
Yet while none of the eight flight recorders have been found intact, it seems investigators were fortunate enough to find one of the terrorists’ passports in good shape, a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center had been.
Apparently, the passport must have fallen into the air just as the crash occurred, survived the almost 1,000 degree heat of the fire, then come across a strong wind to blow it several blocks away -according to New York Police Commissione Bernard Kerik, and Deputy Chief Barry Mawn.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
Can you believe this?
The shoddy, convenient, and questionable nature of such "evidence" is so brazen, that it must be obvious to any thinking person that investigators, (at least to some degree) put a "case" together, to re-assure the public -when, in fact, they had no clear idea who was actually involved, responsible, how they did it, etc. (and/or didn’t want to admit what it was they knew).
Obviously, there's a lot more involved to an investigation of this nature, than what we have covered here; but,
pilots who can’t fly the planes?
Hijackers whose actual identities seem irrelevant?
Behavior absolutely inconsistent with devout Muslims?
Eight missing black boxes?
Indestructible passports?
How stupid do they think we are?
The fact that much of the information on "the perpetrators" came out within a week of the attacks, and has been soundly forgotten by the mainstream press, suggests that it was designed to quickly close the books on the case, and move on to other, less-contentious matters.
That few cries of protest have arisen amongst the general public is no vindication that we are stupid -or that there is nothing to protest against: it's simply a reflection of the fact that most citizens are so pre-occupied with trying to earn a living, raise a family, and maintain some sense of normalcy in the wake of a traumatic attack, that the thought of powerful forces in government fabricating evidence was too much to bear.
Nor have we all swallowed the story.
Both President Bush, (at the U.N. General Assembly)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wackyconspiracy.html
and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, (ABC News, AP, Dec.9)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/t12092001_t1209abc.html
have been compelled to publicly speak about "outrageous conspiracy theories."
This is of no small significance; for men of power know that the best way to discredit something is to ignore it; they only speak of things which threaten to temporarily take the freshed-buffed sheen off their face when they feel they can no longer afford to ignore them.
For many observers, it was the ridiculous nature of the FBI investigation which told them that their initial doubts about American civil air defense on Sept 11th were justified.
This poor excuse for a case clearly implicates the FBI in the cover-up of the criminal negligence which occurred within the ranks of civilian air defence on Sept 11th.
Whether Attorney-General John Ashcroft himself, (nominal head of the FBI) was directly involved in this cover-up, (or whether he was just "fed" -and then blindly delivered- information convenient to closing the case) remains to be seen.
The N.Y. Police commissioner's participation in the passport charade, (noted above) is an indictaion of how the various local police and investigative forces were likely subordinated to the FBI's authority; and, as in the case of civilian air defense, the network of influence within the police services is a complex one: it may take us some time to discover exactly who did what, when, and by what authority.
The significance of this FBI fabrication, for us, is clear: it strongly affirms the probability that the criminal negligence in civilian air-defence must have occurred at a very high level: higher than the FBI; that is, in the Department of Defense/Pentagon, and/or the Executive Branch.
The Executive has already been implicated in the negligence, by the President's refusal to act during a critical thirty minutes of the attack; and if the military was directly involved in an act of intentional treason, it's possible that that this was done under the direction of the White House.
In terms of immediate, concrete fact, however, the decision or inability of the Air Force to put fighter-intercepts into the air must have come through the military.
In comparison to the absence of fighter-intercepts, the documented negligence of George W. Bush pales. His inaction would only have been recognized by citizens as serious if the fighter-intercepts had been scrambled, (as they were supposed to have been); then Bush's refusal to leave the children's classroom, (to authorize the shoot-downs) would have clearly been the deciding factor in why the hijacked-planes "got through."
The military controls daily operations. In terms of a "spontaneous" event, where unintended criminal negligence prevails, the lead agency would have to be the military. The Executive could only be considered as a possible lead agency if a planned, treasonous negligence had been undertaken.
Other areas relevant to airspace/national security still remain to be explored, (airports, the CIA); yet sufficient evidence now lies before us, that we may be justified in attempting to zero in on elements within the Defense Dept. and the Pentagon -as prime suspects in the negligence and/or treason surrounding 9/11.
For such a secretive, tightly-controlled organization as the military, practically the only source of information we have on it's Sept. 11th behavior is through its' "official" explanations of how the tragedy occurred -as revealed in the mainstream media.
So it is there to which we now turn.
Unanswered Questions, Part 1E:
"Official" (military) Explanations
Index
"Official" Explanation: explained
# Return to
Top (Top of This Page)
# Note
Return To Main Index
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
HeavyStick said:
Wow. Scintillating.
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
Part 1E
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
by MalcontentX
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html
Index
Part 1E:
* "Official" (military) Explanations:
* Confusion
* "The Pentagon"
"We didn’t know"
"Weren’t Informed"
* Contusion
* "Official" Explanations: explained
"Official" (military) Explanations
top
As we have already determined, the ultimate authority for the "official" explanation for the air defense failure of Sept. 11th is the U.S. military.
In matters of defense, the military holds the power, authority, and critical information. Even where the media "fills in" certain parts on its own, (which don't directly relate to civilian air defense) we find they do tend to correspond quite tightly to the military line; so our examination of the "official" explanation is also about the behavior of the media.
Whether the "official" explanation is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, (and to what degree) this is where the military stands. By examining the "official" explanation in some detail, we come closer to understanding the military's role in the tragedy.
The "official" military explanation may be summarized as follows:
The delayed response in getting planes into the air was primarily the fault of the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control. [FAA Delay] This made it impossible for Air Defense to intercept the hijacked planes in time. A companion to this component is also looked at here: 'we really tried.'
[Note: as we shall see, the military doesn't actually "talk" about the FAA delay, (which, in itself, is significant); the delay simple stands as a fact, indicating blame]
The reason that the bases, (chosen to scramble jets from) were far away from their targets, was because military cutbacks caused a drastic reduction in the number of bases with planes on "standby" "strip alert." [few planes available]
Officials also raise the question of what fighter pilots would have done if they had been able to intercept the Airliners -suggesting that, this "terrible decision" may have caused some delay in responding. [To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down]
Then there are a number of "smaller" factors, (such as transponder technologies, foreign intelligence, "airline watch lists," communications, etc.) all of which are said to have added to the culture of [confusion] which prevailed on the morning of Sept 11th. Themes here include: 'We're all a little to blame,' and 'we could not have foreseen.'
Let's look at each one of these positions, and see if they hold up to serious scrutiny, and/or whether they provide any insight as to what went wrong on Sept. 11th.
FAA Delay
top
Reflected Spin
Readers may recall that the "official" NORAD timeline of events, contained in the Sept. 16th report from CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)
was the starting point for our discovery that, a shocking abandonment of routine procedure, and delays in responding to the hijackings had occurred on Sept 11th. In this, the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control appears to be directly responsible for: ['leaving the Air Force no opportunity to respond in time'].
Although most readers would not have taken the time to add and subtract the various times in this article -to clarify the exact length of the delays- the official figures are there; and the negligence they reveal is truly staggering.
Our Newsday article of the 23rd does not hold back any such punches in clarifying the details,
"after the terrorists turned off [Flight 77's] transponder, ....about 29 minutes went by before the FAA alerted the military to the new threat from the airliner,
and,
"After losing track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military.
and,
"Another response-time question involves American Airlines Flight 11... air controllers first knew at about 8:20 a.m. that there had been a probable hijacking of that plane. But the FAA didn't notify the military until 20 minutes later"
"Did critical information get from the FAA to the military quickly enough? The record suggests that teenagers on instant-message networks communicate faster than some federal officials did during the crisis." (Newsday, 23rd, ibid)
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
So an extraordinary negligence on the part of the FAA/ATC is clearly a matter of public record.
The military, we are told, was so handicapped by the delay in being notified, that fighter-intercepts could not be gotten "there" in time.
Thus, we hear the theme
'We Really Tried'
top
Reflected Spin
repeated, implied, in numerous forms and guises.
"Fighter jets were only eight minutes away from one of the hijacked airliners when it crashed into......... Two other military jets were 12 minutes away when an airliner hit..."
http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/terrorism/attack/story/84825p-1141645c.html
and
"Air National Guard fighter jets scrambled in a desperate but vain attempt to intercept two of the hijacked airliners..."
"The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
And from our CNN article of the 16th, (cited above) we read,
"The fighters broke the sound barrier and travelled supersonic at 720 knots to Washington, making the approximately 130 miles in 14 minutes."
If we recall our previously cited information from the website of the American Federation of Scientists, however,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
and,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
we find that the top speeds of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.
While the planes could not be expected to reach their top speeds with a full fuel and weapons load, it seems pretty clear that,
the "official" speeds given were well below what those planes were capable of,
and
the media/military sources described those speeds so as to give a very different impression.
If the F-15's from OTIS AFB, for example, (taking off at 8:52, NORAD/CNN, ibid) had travelled at 1200mph, (20 miles/minute, two thirds their top speed) they would have flown the 190 miles to New York City in 9.5 minutes -in time to intercept Flight 175, before it struck the tower at 9:02.
Given that the pilots (supposedly) 'really tried,' it's rather extraodrinary that:
those supposedly most responsible for forcing those pilots to make "a desperate but vain attempt," (FAA/ATC officials) have not only not been charged with criminal negligence; military officials have not even openly criticised them
Instead, the military has talked about other "factors."
'Few Planes Available'
top
Reflected Spin
Speaking before the Senate Confirmation hearings, soon-to-be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers said,
"far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War."
How many fewer, exactly?
It makes sense that there not be as many fighters on alert, as there was during the Cold War; but no more than two? (three?) active bases for the entire eastern seaboard?
Well, that seems to be exactly what top military officials are suggesting.
In the following article,
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, says,
"During the Cold War, the Air National Guard and Air Force kept planes on ''strip alert'' -- ready to fly within minutes -- at more than 100 bases around the country. But with the decline of the Soviet threat, that number was drastically reduced."
"Since 1997, the Air National Guard has kept two fighter planes on strip alert at only seven bases on the East, South and West coasts of the country to guard against threats coming from outside U.S. borders, Weaver said." (ibid)
This view is repeated in our previously mentioned Newsday article of the 23rd,
"the number of air bases where fighter planes are kept on alert has dwindled sharply in recent years... no longer [including] any bases close to two obvious terrorist targets - Washington, D.C., and New York City...."
Only seven bases? For the entire United States?
This is an extraordinary claim.
First of all, although the Soviet threat has been dramatically reduced, it still is a nuclear power, and an unstable one at that.
Second, the armed forces is not one of those institutions which has a hard time finding a justification to maintain funding in the context of a reduced threat. So while a reduction would be reasonable, from one hundred to seven seems absurd.
Third, since we have documented numerous ANG bases as maintaining full "battle-ready" squadrons, (parts 1B, Flights 11 and 175) and since
"continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard", (above article)
does it not seem reasonable to assume that a few dozen bases, (distributed somewhat evenly across the United States) would have at least two of their "battle-ready" fighters fuelled up and ready to go? -with two pilots on standby?
Does the above "official" statement mean that the internal protection of American skies was entirely abandoned?
If we recall our earlier reference to the Lear Jet of Golf Pro Payne Stewart,
‘First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota.’ --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999" (www.tenc.net ibid)
it certainly doesn't seem as if only seven bases had active jet-fighters on that day.
Fourthly, the fact that four separate reports, (on the scene, Sept 11th) stated that Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington scrambled F-16's, (after the Pentagon was hit) -and that these reports were later denied by the military, (through other media reports)- suggests further room for doubt.
Overall, the claim of "too few planes" stands on shaky ground.
Even if the claim was accurate, however, it would still remain largely irrelevant to the central cause of the Sept 11th failure: the extreme delay in airforce response.
If routine procedures had been carried out, the planes from Otis AFB would have been ordered to scramble within a few minutes of lost transponder/radio contact; they would have intercepted Flights 11 and 175 in time; and the Langley planes would have intercepted Flights 77 and 93. In this latter case, planes could have been routinely scrambled from Montana and they would have still reached the target in time.
So the above claim does not lessen or explain the outrageous delays attributed to the FAA, nor does it explain why the military authorities have said nothing critical about that; it merely serves to spread a small piece of the blame around.
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
top
Reflected Spin
Continuing on with the article....
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.
''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission to do that.''
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air with the capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky."
Meaning what? That we didn't put planes up in the air because we didn't have the presidential authority to shoot them down?
On Sept 16th, Vice-President Dick Cheney was interviewed on the television program "Meet the Press."
Pleading sympathy for the "horrendous decision" that had to be made, (to "shoot it down") he says,
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Although this line was repeated in report after report, this has absolutely nothing to do with why routine, standard procedure was not followed by the FAA/ATC (and others) on Sept 11th.
You and I may expect to experience some hesitation, if we were faced with the decision of authorizing the shoot-down, (just as George W. Bush found a sudden fondness for the third grade); but military personel are trained to follow procedures in emergencies precisely because those procedures put you in the best position to handle unknown contigencies, whenever they come up.
One does not know in advance, -whether the appearance of a fighter-intercept may cause hijackers to turn a plane around, surrender, land, crash, etc. Regardless of the unknowns, you follow routine procedures to the furthest extent possible.
You get the planes in the air.
Truly, the above line of thinking from such top military officials runs contrary to everything the military stands for.
In no way does it help to explain or lessen the FAA delay -nor explain why the FAA is not being openly criticised for having left the Air Force so unable to respond.
It merely deflects attention away.
Confusion
top
Reflected Spin
In our attempts (so far) to find within the "official" explanations something to satisfy our grasp of the facts, the reader may, no doubt, be aware of a growing sense of confusion.
This may be, in part, due to the confused or insubstantial nature of the explanations themselves; yet it's also a reflection of something else.
Confusion, it turns out, is one of the central reasons that the media and the military give as the cause of the civilian air defense failures of Sept 11th.
Within this framework, we see two principle components.
'We're All A Little To Blame'
top
Confusion
Reflected Spin
This is where the blame for the failure of civilian air defense on Sept 11th is spread around to many "factors."
Included in amongst the three components discussed above, (the FAA delay, 'too few planes,' and 'to shoot or not to shoot down,') we read of,
transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military preparedness," "intelligence."
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
In the above article, each one is discussed in some detail, (i.e. a paragraph or two).
Although some of these elements clearly had a role in allowing the initial hijackings to occur, none of them, (as described in the article) would have had any effect on the critical question surrounding Sept. 11th: why routine procedure was not followed in the notification of NORAD by the FAA, such that intercepts were not in the air in time.
The article further informs us,
The nation's sharpest military thinkers simply had never planned for such a massive and well-coordinated assault, one defense official told Newsday.
'I don't think any of us envisioned an internal air threat by big aircraft," he said. "I don't know of anybody that ever thought through that. We're probably all at fault in some way for not thinking through the scope of that.'"
If this "defense official... didn't know anybody" who had thought through the possibility of airliners as weapons, maybe he should try to 'get out' more.
He's certainly not qualified to speak for those in strategic operations.
He is, however, not the only one.
'Could Not Have Forseen'
top
Confusion
Reflected Spin
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski... Pentagon spokesman: 'I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" (Newsday, ibid)
"despite provisions for close communication between civilian and military traffic officials, and extensive procedures for security control over air traffic during attacks on the United states, it does not appear anyone had contemplated the kind of emergency that was unfolding..... They didn’t have a procedure for handling such an occurrence." (N.Y. Times, Sept 15)
" '...The coordinated assault on the world's financial and political capitals caught the United States completely off guard -- despite a massive intelligence and law enforcement network devoted to detecting and thwarting such attacks...[This was because efforts were] focused largely on guarding against bomb threats to overseas targets... ' ('The Washington Post,' September 12, 2001).
We can certainly see a great sense of confusion here.
Just how real it is, may be a little more-difficult to determine.
It's clearly untrue that "no one" had envisioned the hijacking of American airliners as suicide weapons.
Best-selling books had been written about it.
Yoseff Bodanksy, who is not exactly a fringe figure, wrote about airport training camps dedicated to hijacking and suicide air bombings in detail in a book published in 1993 called "Target America."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/coast.htm
Military strategists are paid, (top-dollar) to discuss and plan for every contingency; and while there are practical limits to this, it certainly would have included terrorist hijackings and suicide attacks.
Another example, (from way back in 1994)
"During the cold war, when security agents used to play war games involving terrorist threats to the White House, the one unsolvable problem was a commercial airliner loaded with explosives working its way into the landing pattern at Washington National Airport, then veering off for a suicide plunge into the White House."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/941114/941114.presidency.html
"If reading "old" books is too much work, how about this refresher course: Bush, on his trip to Italy just weeks before 9-11, was aware that there was a threat on his life from precisely such an attack when he was in Genoa. The pictures of the surface-to-air batteries set up to defend Genoa were all over the news media at the time:"
" [excerpt from LA Times] 'WASHINGTON -- U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday'
'Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport.'" [tenc.com, /indict/coast, ibid]
Obviously, the military wouldn't have been as "completely caught off-guard" as the media and the public was.
If the unprecedented nature of the attacks did catch some personel off-guard, this still does not explain the abandonment of routine procedure -for an extremely long period of time- whereby, the FAA and/or NORAD did not get the planes in the air, (in anywhere near the time that they should have).
So the culture of "confusion" we have thus far chronicled seems to be expanding further still.
After examining,
the Extreme FAA Delay, (as yet unexplained, no charges laid)
We Really Tried, (after the fact)
Few Planes available, (on shaky ground)
To Shoot or Not Shoot Down, (irrelevant)
‘all share a part of the blame…’
‘could not have foreseen…’
we find the "official" explanation still standing, but on legs faltering; stumbling 'round inconclusive corners: most-relevant questions, remaining unanswered.
Confusion reigns. To resolve it, we must continue following its' winding trail to the highest peak: to the successful attack on,
The Pentagon
top
Reflected Spin
Nowhere is the confusion surrounding the events of Sept. 11th more clearly expressed than in the attack on the Pentagon; for here is the command centre of the world's most powerful military: unable to defend itself from a hijacked airliner.
Newsday quite rightly says,
"To many Americans, it probably seems inconceivable that an unauthorized aircraft could get that close to the nation's military command center [Pentagon]on any day, let alone one when the nation was under attack." (23rd, ibid)
We are told,
"Although the military's air defense command got word from the FAA about 13 minutes before Flight 77's crash that a hijacked airliner was streaking toward Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides remained unaware of any danger up to the moment of impact, officials said. After learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Rumsfeld remained in his office, and Pentagon security officials took no steps to alert or evacuate the building's 20,000 employees. Neither the White House nor Congress were evacuated, either."
and this,
Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, added: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way."
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
and this, from CNN, Sept 16,:
"Officials at the Pentagon also said they were never made aware of the threat from hijacked United Airlines flight 93 until after it crashed in Pennsylvania."
#
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
In other words:
top Pentagon officials "weren't aware" of hijacked Flights 77 and 93.
This makes no sense, with what we already know about the Pentagon.
At the risk of repetition, readers may recall ,
"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.
"....When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
So, it's absolutely clear (to us now) that the Pentagon and the Department of Defense would have been at the very heart of communications during the hijackings.
Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers, (second-highest U.S. general at the time) verified this during his appearance before the Senate Hearings, (confirming his appointment as Chairman to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See Part 1F).
"At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, [8:46] we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately.... And we started talking to the federal agencies.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm
As we shall see, the General’s recollection of events on that day is extremely hazy, so the actual notification may have been ten minutes earlier than that; or, if ATC and the FAA did their jobs properly, another ten minutes before that still. (The first hijacked plane went off-course/broke contact at 8:20).
NORAD claims the FAA informed them that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:38; by law, the command-center in the Pentagon would have also been informed at that time.
At any rate, the second highest officer in the Pentagon admits that officials were informed by 8:50 about a terrorist attack. This would have surely included information about a second hijacked plane (NORAD-confirmed, at 8:43, also near New York).
In short, they knew that an unprecedented, national emergency was taking place.
General Myers said “I don’t know… [whether it was the FAA that informed the NMCC]” -as law and procedure dictated; but clearly, once the NMCC was informed, then they would have been alerted to every suspect plane, and privy to any relevant radar screen they felt inclined to monitor.
Yet we are told that the Pentagon was
“simply not aware that this plane, [Flight 77] was coming our way,”
“never made aware that Flight 93 was in trouble…” that "the secretary of Defense and his closest aids were “never made aware…”
NORAD and the Pentagon claim the FAA didn’t inform them about Flight 77 being hijacked until 9:25; yet Newsday tells us that,
“at 9:06, Washington notifies all ATC….”
Are we to believe that every Air Traffic Control center in America knew that Flight 77 was hijacked nineteen minutes before NORAD and the Command Centre in the Pentagon did?
General Myers says “we” put the crisis-action team “up”; but he neglects to inform us that he was not even informed of the emergency for another fifty minutes -after “it” was “up”; that is, after the Command Centre was informed of a large-scale assault on America!!
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/myersafrts.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html
Whoa.
As it further turns out, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, (the top-ranking general in the armed forces) was on a plane over the Atlantic at the time, en route to Europe.
So the two top-ranking generals in the armed forces were not even informed of the emergency -much less in on the command decisions- for fifty minutes after the command center had been notified.
Is this not incredible?
Did Generals Myers or Shelton express any anger over this negligent behaviour on the part of their subordinates in the Pentagon’s command centre?
Nope.
Myers said,
“Conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the command centre.”
So now we have the Secretary of Defense, his closest aides, the top two generals, and many other top Pentagon officials, all claiming they were clueless as to what was going on, due to "conflicting reports."
If we recall, (along with General Myer’s “crisis-action statement) our earlier statement from the New York Times, (Sept 15)
“military officials in a command center in the Pentagon were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do…”
it’s absolutely clear that some officials in the Command Center were well aware of what was going on; and that they either didn’t inform their superiors, or their superiors ignored them.
Either way, (and for whatever reason) planes did not get in the air in time; and the entire Pentagon staff afterwards acted as if they were caught completely unaware. They gave the impression they had no idea; that, in effect, the command centre didn’t even exist; so much so, that even when the Pentagon admits being informed by the FAA that Flight 77 was hijacked, (thirteen minutes before it struck) the Pentagon didn’t even warn their own employees to take defensive measures.
"By the time employees inside the Pentagon realized they were the terrorists' next target, it was already over. The sound of Flight 77 slamming into the building - a deafening crash to those nearby, a dull thump elsewhere in the massive structure - was their first alert.
There had been no warning broadcast inside the building that a plane might be approaching, and no orders given to evacuate, even though the FAA had notified air defense commanders that a hijacked airliner was heading toward Washington 13 minutes before it hit the Pentagon.
Even the clear sign of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil - the second plane slamming into the World Trade Center 35 minutes before one hit the Pentagon - barely elevated the state of readiness inside the nation's military headquarters, leaving many of the building's 20,000 workers still sitting at their desks when the plane struck. Some told Newsday they heard the crash but didn't know the plane had hit the Pentagon until they saw it on TV." (Newsday, ibid)
Even after they admit being informed by the FAA, the Pentagon left it's own employees completely unaware -defenseless.
Some readers may recall officials offering an excuse for this outrageous negligence: saying they believed the White House was the original target, and that the plane turned towards the Pentagon at the last minute..
As we have since learned, the actual radar data shows this claim, (repeated in numerous mainstream reports) to be fraudulent, (see above link).
Even if this claim was true, neither did the Pentagon command warn the White House personel to take defensive measures, (“get away from the windows, y’all!”). Nor does this explain why, if the Pentagon admits to following Flight 77 on radar, (i.e. 'we believed it was headed toward the White House') why the Defense secretary and his staff were not even informed of the crisis until after the crash.
Truly, some parts of the command staff were aware of the situation, while others, (the most senior ones) claim they were not.
"Conflicting reports" are claimed as culprit behind the "confusion"; when the actual reports coming from top Pentagon officials themselves simply could not be more conflicting, casual, and clumsy.
This is not the way that the military is supposed to operate.
"Confusion" or ignorance is, in the military, an excuse of those not fit for command.
“Command” means taking responsibility for disorder, when it occurs; a prevailing condition of confusion means failure at the command level; and honour dictates that responsibility for correction must go to the highest level of command at which the confusion prevails.
Only a command coward would pass off his/her own incompetence on the sincere confusion of subordinates -or refuse to chastise those subordinates who neglect to inform their superiors, while refusing to take decisive action.
This spits in the face of everything the military stands for.
Top commanders who claim "confusion" as the cause for inaction are not doing their job.
When such commanders try to hide behind inaction, by suggesting they "weren't informed,"
when a criminal negligence occurs alongside this -resulting in the death of thousands of civilians, for which those commanders hold no one responsible-
then we have found the source of that negligence.
We thus arrive at the foot of the dark door of Sept 11th, 2001: the black hole of accountability, the zone of the unknown, the conduct collapsed.
By a careful, logical analysis of the available documentation, we have woven our way through the fabrications and duty denied.
We do not yet know the intricate details, the motivations, the movements of those involved; but we have established from where the kernel of dis-connection comes.
Without abandoning our careful, consistent approach, it now becomes possible for us to look into the shocking scope of confusion, and see a sudden clarity beginning to emerge.
Thus, we move from confusion, to
Contusion
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
From a command perspective, a condition of confusion is considered a sign of failure; for which, an honourable command takes full responsibility.
Few of us seem to be aware that confusion can also be a weapon, by which a dishonourable command can strike upon its' subordinates -either to gain greater control over them, or cover-up negligent/incompetent behaviour.
Just look at any number of national or international “events,” disasters, emergencies, where certain elements are supposedly in control, yet where “confusion” reigns; here, we see all the lower-level officials, bureaucrats, reporters, frantically running around… trying to maintain some sense of order.
It rarely occurs to them, (or us) just how easy it would be, for top-level commanders to sew a crippling confusion across a vast breadth of jurisdictions -simply by refraining from making their small, but critical, contribution.
Such an elite wouldn’t have to openly interfere with the implementation of standard procedure; they’d merely neglect to fulfill their role, fade into the background, and temporarily become less visible.
In other words: the perpetrators do not appear to be involved.
Citizens, be concious of the command concept!
The conscious creation of confusion does not necessarily mean a completely planned campaign from start to finish; for it may simply be a response to unintended, high-level negligence/confusion, (as damage-control); but either way, the claim of "confusion" is itself the key to understanding the riddle in the middle of the clues.
Such a command wouldn’t, (or couldn't) go too far out of sight; (before its claim to authority begins to be called into question); so soon as the "coast is clear," and/or when "the job" is done, dishonourable command steps back into the picture, providing an explanation for “what went wrong,” and relieves “the people” of the doubt which formerly prevailed.
In fact, in the midst of great shock, whole populations have shown themselves to be grateful for the re-imposition of the most brutal escalations of authoritarian control, (in lieu of the chaotic alternative).
The history of the twentieth century alone is rich with such examples: from countless coup d'etats; to everyday, a shredding of rights in the name of "national security."
In the case of Sept 11, we are not yet sure, the degree to which this criminal confusion was intentional... (at what point it became conscious).
At the very least, top officials in the Department of Defence instituted a system-wide campaign of claimed ignorance and denial, to cover-up the fact that something went horribly wrong in the
Penta-gone
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
It’s now absolutely clear that top Pentagon officials lied about,
"not being aware [of hijacked-Flight 77… before 9:25"] (when the FAA supposedly informed them).
How do we know this?
Every Air Traffic Control station in America knew the plane was hijacked nineteen minutes before that.
The Pentagon’s “crisis-action team” was “up” at 8:50, (thirty-five minutes before).
Ridiculous.
They lied about,
not being aware of hijacked Flight 93… for fifty minutes after NORAD admits being informed by the FAA.
Are we to believe that NORAD was not talking to the Command Centre in the Pentagon all that time? -after two, then three terrorist attacks?
We have General Myers on record as talking to NORAD commander Eberhart “about… the actions he was going to take,” just after the Pentagon was struck, (9:40) thirty minutes before Flight 93 crashed.
Absurd.
The obvious question here is: why?
Why deny an awareness of Flights 77? and 93? Why not simply say, ['we were monitoring the situation from the time of the first hijacking, and the FAA failed to inform NORAD in time']?
Well, the truth is, if it became common knowledge that the Command Centre was informed about the situation at 8:50, then it doesn’t matter what the FAA did or didn’t do: the Pentagon would have been obligated to act; which means,
immediately declare a state of emergency, order NORAD to get as many jets in the air as possible, and tell George W. Bush that Sesame Street is temporarily cancelled, (so that he can authorize any shoot-downs).
The fact that this wasn't done, would have compelled even the lamest of media to ask the Pentagon why it didn't act when it knew what was happening. The Pentagon would then have to admit that it was not "in command" during a national emergency.
In the case of Flight 77, the Pentagon had to claim ignorance, to deflect the obvious questions: why did the military not defend itself? why were no defensive measures taken?
The statement denying knowledge of Flight 93, (a clearly ridiculous one, given that the military, NORAD, admits being informed fifty minutes earlier) was simply to reinforce the falsehood about Flight 77.
(Officials here obviously felt confident enough that, (with the attack on the Pentagon as "evidence") no one in the mainstream media would ask the obvious questions about the command-center being "uninformed" of its own radar facilities).
None of the above officials talked about a knowledge of flights 11 and 175, until General Myers was compelled to acknowledge the existence of the NMCC "crisis-action team" before the somewhat secluded chambers of the Senate.
The Pentagon denied only what it had to, and remained silent about everything else, (citing national security, if necessary).
Again, exactly when such top officials went into the damage-control mode of ignorance and denial is still open to question; what is now abundantly clear is that the “official” timeline, (of when NORAD claims the FAA informed them about the various hijackings) has lost practically all its credibility.
It’s quite possible that the FAA/ATC did everything by the book on Sept 11th, and informed the Pentagon/NORAD within minutes of the first signs of trouble -and that, the Pentagon’s descent into incompetence and negligence began long before Flight 77 struck its’ walls.
Far more likely than the FAA informing NORAD that Flight 77 was hijacked at 9:25, (at least thirty-five minutes after it should have, see Part 1A, Flight 77) is that the Pentagon concocted that story after the attack, so as to make it seem as if they had little time to respond.
The Pentagon would have known that Flight 77 was a suspected hijack by 8:50, (as per radar data, ATC, The NY Times, etc.); with all the necessary radar screens in front of them, they would have known of the lost transponder contact at 8:55/9:00 am (Newsday); yet they warned no one in Washington; as the plane approached, they left their own employees to the mercy of a ruthless attack.
When the Pentagon got hit, most everyone assumed that it must be true: ‘they were caught off-guard.’
In fact, the fact that the Pentagon got hit, that it seems to have been caught off-guard, was the single-most compelling reason why most people assumed that every other department of government must have been caught off-guard, as well.
We can now see that this is simply not true; but the appearance of being caught "off-guard," (with all its attendant sympathies) is largely why the Pentagon could get away with concocting the story about being “unaware” of Flight 77, and being “uninformed” about Flight 93; and why, the entire governmental apparatus got a immediate "pass," (beyond the rank of suspician).
Is it possible that top military officials could be so conscious of damage-control tactics, (and the manipulation of the public mind) that they intentionally did nothing, (even after they admit being informed about the plane) knowing this would increase the apparent credibility of their story?
It boggles the mind to consider, (if the plane had continued on to another target) how long the Pentagon may have continued to stay curled up in its cocoon of isolation, in order to maintain the virtuous vaccuum of "we were not informed."
Within this nebulae of layered-denial, it may be difficult to extract clear information, as to the identities of those directly involved; yet with this criminal confusion now within our conscious grasp, we can turn to look upon the many mirrors by which we have arrived at our vantage point, with a clarity hitherto unseen.
THE "OFFICIAL" EXPLANATIONS:
EXPLAINED
top
Official Explanation
'could not have foreseen'
'all a little to bLAME'
'downplay the FAA Delay'
'We Really Lied'
'phew, planes available'
To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down,(that ain't the question)
The White House as Target
The Military-Media Alliance
Could Not have Foreseen
(In a House of Mirrors)
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
In our earlier examination of 'we could not have foreseen,' we observed such quotes as,
"'I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected...'"
"it does not appear anyone had contemplated..."
"caught the United States completely off guard..."
These claims have little foundation in fact.
Their intent is clear:
Appeal to an emotion that the public is feeling; compel us to sympathize with those in command... to identify with them, as fellow victims.
The editors at the "Emperor’s Clothes" website put it this way,
"This argument resonates with many Americans because it corresponds to how they experienced 9-11... shocked and unsure what to do.
But most Americans are not part of the air traffic control system,.. or the air defense system.
Most are unaware that these systems have routine procedures developed over many years. These procedures, practiced in drills and used in day-to-day situations, are meant to ensure that air safety and air defense personnel can function when confronted with unexpected events, even though ordinary people are understandably at a loss."
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
Here is a call for compassion to cushion the blow;
a solace, seeking
soft sympathy
scrutiny unravelling
in the strings
of tied-up emotional trauma; we wrap
our arms instinctively 'round
the claimants to an equal burden of pain,
and raise high the silent admonition:
'Do not even think of criticizing us now.'
We're All A Little to b-LAME.
Diffuse the Clues
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
We can now clearly see that earlier references to,
transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military preparedness," "intelligence."
primarily serve to diffuse attention from the high-point of decision-making authority.
Diffuse the clues,
spread the blame around,
that the focus forming in towards the core of command,
finds no solid ground;
freedom from doubt
flying in on
the wings of
confusion.
If we recall our earlier list of three possible explanations for the collapse of civilian air defense, (Part 1C: Who is to Blame?) we can see that the military and media authorities have chosen the least-likely scenario, (simultaneous combustion) as the explanation of choice.
The central source of the deception, (The Pentagon) also takes a small share of the heat. This is likely the reason why officials there did not even warn their own employees about Flight 77, thirteen minutes after they admit being notified by the FAA
The failure to evacuate/warn is a small one, in comparison to the planes being allowed to get through.
Yet by taking a small share of the blame, the Pentagon manages to re-gain some credibility, albeit in a rather twisted way.
i.e. ['Yes. We were caught off-guard; but relatively-speaking, only a little'].
In spreading the blame around, the DOD would have known they couldn't be too obvious in laying the blame at the door of the FAA: they'd have to admit being informed at some point; so they made it "thirteen minutes"; and afterwards, laid no charges (nor criticism) in an attempt to,
'Downplay the FAA Delay'
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
For its part, the Military excuses what, (by official accounts) could only be called extreme criminal negligence on the part of the FAA; no charges are laid; nor does the military even openly criticize them.
FAA officials are merely told that they cannot speak directly to the media about the events, (Newsday, 23rd) and any disciplinary action will take place by internal review.
In this case, it appears the primary role in explaining the FAA "lapses" falls to the mainstream press.
From our oft-cited Newsday article of the 23rd, we read,
When the Boeing 757 reached central West Virginia, it was routinely "handed off" by Leesburg to the next air traffic control center, outside Indianapolis.... Flight 77 continued west... [the plane] began to turn slightly - and abruptly disappeared from the radar screens. Suddenly there was no transponder signal."
Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible as what's called a "primary target" or "skinpaint" - a target the radar is picking up but can't identify. The controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana - but they weren't looking for it to reappear far to the east, over West Virginia where the plane had come from, sources said.
"Back in Leesburg, air traffic controllers knew at about 9:05 a.m. that they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no transponder identification.
The simple action of turning them off appears to have given the Flight 77 terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable invisibility as they sped toward Washington.
During the confusion, rumors circulated that Flight 77 might have exploded in midair. It wasn't until 9:24 a.m. that the FAA alerted the military that the plane was heading for Washington."
The only thing confused here is the logic of the reporting:
For those of us now familiar with basic FAA regulations, (see Part 1A , (Flight 77) the loss of transponder signal is considered to be an "emergency situation."
After two planes in the region had, (by this time) been hijacked -and one of them flown into the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack- it's real simple: if you lose transponder signal with a plane, it's an emergency, don't delay, assume the worst. Call the FAA, NORAD, 911, mommy, anybody... 'America is under attack.'
The above report tell us that, "controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana, " (right after telling us: "Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible as what's called a "primary target....").
Are they saying that Indianapolis didn't have access to generalized radar? Why did they have to "wait" for it to re-appear? Could they not have gotten out of their chair to look at another screen? (By this account, one can almost imagine seeing officials craning their necks to look "far to the east, over West Virginia").
How about calling someone down the hall? Or Leesburg? Or NORAD? -to say, "We've got an emergency!!"(?) "Flight 77's off the screen!!!"
['Uh, ya know that plane we've been watching? That went way off-course about twenty-minutes ago?... Uh, no... Not the one that just crashed into the World trade Center... no, not the second plane hijacked outside New York... this is another one.... right... oh, you're on your coffee-break... I had no idea... No, I wouldn't think of...'].
Our 'investigative' reporters tell us that the plane was 'lost' for ten minutes, before Leesburg picked the signal up again; and when they did pick it up, "they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no transponder identification.... [and] during the confusion...."
Now, repeat after me class, (very slowly): no radio contact, no transponder signal = ?
E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y
That's right. No confusion here.
The point at which Flight 77 went silent may have been strategically chosen to maximize confusion amongst ATC officials; but this would have bought the terrorists no more than a minute -at the most- before high level security officials would be called in.
Remember: an emergency within a national emergency existed. "If you're in doubt as to whether a situation is an emergency, handle it as if it is one." (FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c)
And what is the routine response to lost transponder/radar/cockpit contact? You order intercept fighters into the air to re-establish contact.
Warning signals should have been going off all over the place -right to the top.
The article tells us, "The simple action of turning.. off [the transponder] appears to have given the Flight 77 terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable invisibility."
So "valuable," in fact, that the authors appear moved to downplay the nineteen minutes more that it took the FAA to inform NORAD.
The authors repeat this theme in relation to Flight 11,
"One aviation expert said a simple change in the way airliner transponders work could have helped significantly on Sept. 11."
It's a safe explanation, the mantra of the machine: we never have enough technology; look to better systems to solve our problems; don't ask questions about the people in control of them.'
[The only thing "the simple act of" putting such wily words on paper "appears to have given the" above authors is some valuable column space -and the opportunity at self-parody].
Can you see how thin the explanation is?
Yet it's quite effective in diffusing people's attention from the obvious questions.
Why?
The short answer is that this information is coming to us from the military, (whom we have been trained to think of as our "protectors" in times of crises) and is being accepted as fact by every major newspaper and television station in the country, (a fuller explanation to follow, see part Part 1F, Media Summary).
'We Really Lied'
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
In our earlier section, ('we really tried') we were told that the F-15 jets from Otis Airforce Base "flew like a scalded ape, topping 500mph, and that the F-16's from Langley "broke the sound barrier, and travelled supersonic at 720 knots."
We compared this with the apparent fact that the top speed of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.
While the planes would not be expected to reach their top speeds with a standard fuel and weapons payload, it seems clear that the official version shows the planes flying well below their capability, while giving the oppositte impression.
This contradiction may be explained easily enough, given the liklihood that the planes were not even scrambled; that is, that the entire story, was a fabrication.
Consider the following report,
"The new cover story, that "the planes were sent up but they arrived too late" also arrived pretty late: it was first put forth on September 14th on the CBS 6 PM news. Until that time, top officials said that no planes were scrambled to protect Washington, DC until after the Pentagon was hit. Vice President Cheney was giving out the old story as late as September 16th on the NBC TV program, MEET THE PRESS..."
"Dan Rather broadcast this cover story on the CBS 6:00 news, September 14th. This was the first time that anybody said planes were scrambled from Langley AFB on 9-11. We did a little research and found 31 references to Langley in the English-speaking mass media, that is newspapers & TV, worldwide, between September 11th and the CBS News at 6 PM on the 14th."
Not one of these news reports about Langley Air Force Base mentioned Dan Rather's excellent new fact!
"Read the transcript of that CBS news program. You will see that Rather cites no source for his new 'information.' He just says, casually, "CBS News has learned..."
"Four (4) days later, [actually two, see CNN, Sept 16, ibid] also without a word of explanation for this rewriting of history, NORAD incorporated the CBS report in its official timeline. The Langley interceptors had become a Fact."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq2.htm
[NOTE: the above report only specifically refers to the Langley planes, but does, (imo) shed some suggestive light onto the OTIS ones as well].
Also of interest: it seems that in the first few weeks following the Sept 11th tragedy, there was an inordinate amount of media attention paid to praising the military.
Now, in a time of national shock, when a certain patriotic zeal is nearing its height, such praise might not at first seem unusual -that is, for firefighters and police, (who bore the brunt of the rescue attempts).
But for the airforce?
That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the fact that no regular citizen was refering to the Air Force as heroes on Sept 11. If anything, there was a sense of shame: not a vocal protest; more a dissappointment; certainly not praise.
Yet for the first time, (in my memory, at least) there was CNN: carrying live coverage of the Military Ceremonies Confirming General Richard Myers as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -with George W. Bush and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld heaping praise upon praise, amongst others.
It was a long and tedious affair, yet CNN obviously felt it was "newsworthy" enough to take a two-hour dip in the ratings.
Then there's the report I came across, (now where did my "tedious details" folder go?) of Senator Edward Kennedy, presiding over a ceremony at Otis Air Force base, thanking the pilots and ground crew for their 'valiant' attempts to intercept the terrorists.
This appears to be but another arrogant attempt by the military authority to associate the public's grief with its' own.
If some would justify this on the basis of trying to raise the morale of the Air Force, it's a pretty pathetic reflection of the world's most powerful war machine: to be praised in failure, that it doesn't have to look in the bloody mirror.
phew, planes available
top
Official Explanation Explained
In a previous section, ('few planes available') Pentagon spokespersons told us there were "far fewer" bases with planes on standby-alert than there used to be.
How many? exactly?
Seven.
We discussed the improbablity of this figure, based on the number of bases with "battle-ready" squadrons, the still-existing Soviet threat, the legendary budgetary appetite of the armed forces, the use of other bases in previous emergencies, the cover-up surrounding ANDREWS AFB, and so on.
Well, it turns out that,
"Since Tuesday's events, the Defense Department has raised the number of bases where planes are on strip alert to 26." (ibid)
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Now that didn’t take long, did it? (four days).
Thank God for the Air Force! See how quickly they act when they really want to?
We’re safe now.
This sudden capacity for preparedness, was also reflected in the words of General Richard Myers, as he spoke before the Senate on Sept. 13th. (see Part 1F)
In answer to the question,
"are there capabilities or equipment that the armed forces need today to respond to the terrorist attacks that they do not currently have? Or are they able to respond today..."
the General replied,
"I think we are able to respond today.... [there are always improvements] but... we have what we need today to do what we need to do."
So, no new technologies, systems, intelligence needed: "we have what we need," two days after the attacks.
As we have already seen, General Myers himself, (at the Senate hearings) laid the bulk of the blame for the air defense failure on 'two few planes.' Two days later, he says "we have what we need."
Does this mean that we had our 26 bases on strip alert within two days? Or eighteen bases in one day?
It most likely means that the Air Force already had what it needed on Sept 11th, (and that those routine safeguards were not implemented) -as the documentation has been suggesting all along.
As most Americans already know, the protection of American civilian airspace is the specific "mission" of the Air National Guard, (ANG).
We have already discussed this "mission" in some detail -in relation to a few individual squadrons, (see Part 1B, Flights 11, and 175).
Official documents from the National Guard are a little more specific.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section2.5
1. …The National Guard Bureau Operations Center…. Serves as the focal point of all state emergency reports… ANG mobilization… 24hrs. 7days a week and maintains close/immediate operational and reporting connectivity with the ANG Operations Center… at Andrews Air Force Base.
2. Whether a crisis or emergency situation is deemed to be of such a serious nature, or has the potential to escalate to such a level that it would require support or continuous monitoring… a Crisis Action Team [will be activated]. The CAT will bring to bear the entire capability of both the Army and Air national Guard.
Section 2.6
1. Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
Section 2.2:
When an emergency or disaster occurs and waiting for instructions from a higher authority would preclude an effective response, a National Guard commander may do what is necessary and justified to save life…. Support will not be denied or delayed….
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Does it not sound, (as far the regulations go) that the Air National Guard and civilian air defence have an effective security apparatus in place? -which features a healthy reliance on the ability of local commanders to act, (when needed)?
Does it not also seem reasonable that, if the entire Air National Guard force was reduced from a "strip alert" readiness of one-hundred bases to seven, (presumably from orders on high) then this would be a clear betrayal of the Air National Guard’s central reason for existence? -what its members are paid to do?
And should not heads be rolling?
In suggesting the number of bases "on alert" was seven, it’s likely that military spokespersons are playing a slight of hand: describing the seven bases under the direct control of NORAD; when, in fact, other bases are fully capable of putting planes in the air; such as, (noted above) when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course.
A clue to the veracity of this may be found in the following, from our Newsday article of the 23rd, which specifically mentions Andrews AFB twice, in a clear attempt to counter numerous earlier reports that planes had been scrambled from there, (that is, after Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. See Part 1A, Flight 77).
"The fighter jets launched toward Washington took off not from Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the capital, but from Langley Air Force Base near Hampton, Va., 130 miles from Washington."
Then, much later in the article,
"Despite Andrews Air Force Base's proximity to the capital, fighter jets don't "sit alert" there the way they do at Langley, ready to take to the air in 15 minutes. Until Sept. 11, one defense official said, they didn't have to - fighters at Langley would have plenty of time to intercept any enemy aircraft coming from outside the United States."
Do you notice how our "defense official" attempts here to confuse NORAD's external border patrols, (protecting against outside, foreign threats) with protection against domestic air-emergencies? -for which fighter-intercepts are routinely deployed?
The article in question doesn't mention that Andrews is the home of Air Force One, (the President's plane) which obviously implies that they would have fighters on standy-by to protect it; (does anyone remember the "extraordinary escort" Air Force One eventually recieved on Sept 11?).
This further attempt to deny the use of fighters at Andrews on Sept. 11, (see USA Today, Sept. 16) raises the relevance of resolving this contradiction.
Were all four separate, on-the-scene media reports mistaken? -in their description of fighters scrambling from Andrews AFB?
We can see why the military/media alliance would later try to deny the story: because it blows the relevance of the Langley cover; but why would Andrews fighters be scrambled at all? If the Pentagon was claiming "we weren't informed," why not just keep the planes on the ground and maintain the chosen appearance?
The likely answer shows the multi-facted nature of the cover-story:
A lot of people in Washington, (citizens, politicians, and service personel) are fully aware of Andrew's alert status.
If fighters had not been scrambled at all, there would have been a big hue and cry about it in the local press, (which, in Washington, often means national coverage).
By scrambling planes after the attack on the Pentagon, the claim of "we weren't informed" is, at least, not immediately dismissed as absurd.
Afterwards, when the cover-story that Andrews AFB "had no planes available" begins to appear in the national press, Washington area residents can pass this "mistaken" report off as irrelevant, (since the planes made no difference anyway); and they can chalk it up to 'some bozo in the press room not geeting his/her facts straight,' the nature of the rumour-mill, and so on.
According to the above ANG documents, this same Andrews AFB houses the headquarters of the Air National Guard.
May we surmise from this, that if Andrews AFB was to temporarily "stand-down," that the entire Air National Guard would be placed in a similar posture?
Also, it would appear that the "crisis-action team" spoken of in the ANG regulations is the same crisis-action team that General Richard Myers speaks of -as being "up" in the Pentagon, after the first plane attack occurred, (8:50). (see Senate Confirmation Hearings, Part 1F).
At the highest levels of ANG and Pentagon command, at least, there appears to have been no problem with communication.
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
(That Ain't The Question)
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
Knowing what we now know, about the fabrication of timelines, unscrambled planes, and "scalded apes," let's look at this shooty explanation... in a little more detail.
Continuing on with the article....
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.
(Acknowledged? Sounds like the reporter had that answer already in mind ).
''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission to do that.''
(And you’re not going to get it if the President is incapacitated, are you?)
"Only the president could issue such an order," he confirmed in an impromptu hallway interview at the Pentagon.
(Uh huh).
The Guard planes responded nevertheless, Weaver said, on orders from the Northeast Air Defense Sector in Rome, N.Y.
So even though the scrambling of planes was "futile," they did their duty anyway.
How noble.
What a perfect explanation for why the planes were nowhere near being in position to do something, (as standard procedure demands) and just in case the President didn’t happen to be sitting behind a flank of school children with a "do not disturb" sign on his forehead.
"But it remains unclear what their pilots would do if terrorists again succeeded in taking over an airliner and turning it into a flying bomb."
''There are certain rules of engagement for a hijacked plane -- if you know it's a hijacked plane -- or a missing plane or off course,'' Weaver said. ''There's ways of getting their attention. But remember, this is an American carrier with American pilots and Americans on board.
''This is new territory for all of us.''
Do you see what's being said here?
The authorities are going to great lengths to make it seem as if it would not have mattered if the planes had been in position to intercept: so as to suggest that, the question of why they weren't, becomes irrelevant.
That's like the fireman saying to owner of the house which just burnt to the ground, 'It doesn't really matter that we took so long getting here because the hose we're using has a big hole in it.'
They're also making a clear attempt to confuse the issue of shooting a commercial airliner down, with the concept of "interception" -a routine procedure.
Here's Vice-President Dick (oil-slick) Cheney, speaking on the Sept. 16th edition of NBC’s "Meet the Press."
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
Earlier on, he had said,
"I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
deliberately confusing the issue of "interception" (which is done on a routine basis) with shooting a plane down.
Yes, it’s true: shooting down airliners would be somewhat of a "new territory." But does this justify the abandonment of time-honoured, emergency procedure?
So what -if you don’t know what to do before the planes go up? You get the planes in the air so that you have an option, if and when the time comes to act. That's what procedure is for: to follow through on a prepared plan for when the emotions want to spill over.
We didn’t know how the terrorists were going to act on Sept 11, did we? And we still don’t know how a future suicide-pilot might respond to a fighter, sent to intercept them.
Such sentiments issued by the military/media, are shameless appeals for a wounded public to immerse itself in emotional grief, feel sorry for "the boys" in uniform, and leave the question of military order, duty, and responsibility to those "more-qualified."
We find the same "shooty" logic in the following article of Sept. 13th,
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air with the capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky."
(Unless, of course, they’re one hundred miles away).
"At 9.00 UA175 changed direction again - heading straight for Manhattan from the South over a very built up area.
I understand it would have required sanction from the President to shoot down a civilian airliner and he was touring a school in Florida."
(And couldn’t be interrupted) .
"We don't know whether he was even informed about the second plane - until - at five minutes past nine, United airlines Flight 175 with 65 people on board was deliberately crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre."
So, sympathy for the poor, beleaguered officials is the order of the day. Never mind that the F-16’s "in the air" had no "capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky" if they couldn’t get there in time!!
All this is merely a distraction from the real question of why the planes weren’t even in the ballpark.
Nor is it even necessarily true that the President is the only one who can authorize a shoot-down. I mean, what if he's incapacitated? Kidnapped by terrorists? Or forcefully confined by a group of school kids?
While any decision to blow commercial airliners out of the sky would normally require presidential authorization, aviation expert John Nance told WABC Radio's John Gambling on Sept. 15:
"Very often, and all the fighter pilots know this, they may have to make an in-the-field decision even without higher authority."
http://westviewnews.virtualave.net/GIN/Project 911/Flight 93 shot down.html
White House as Target
top
Explanations Explained
Readers may recall (from Part 1A) that top White House officials repeatedly claimed, (on Sept 11 and 12) that Air Force One, (the President’s plane) was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska on Sept 11, because there had been "credible evidence that Air Force One and the White House were targets."
As we have documented, this claim was later dismissed as false and/or irrelevant(!?) by those same top officials.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
It's the 'White House' aspect of this story that was also used to explain why the Pentagon was caught 'off-guard' in relation to Flight 77.
In response to reporters comments about radar data showing a direct path to the Pentagon, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said,
"That's not the radar data we have seen... the plane was headed for the White House."(CBS news, cited below)
Pentagon officials may have been trying to corroborate this when they said,
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski....The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way."
"To call for a general evacuation, at that point, it would have been just guessing," said a Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood. "We evacuate when we know something is a real threat to us."(Newsday, ibid)
Vice-President Dick Cheney also makes his contribution,
"As best we can tell, they [the terrorists on Flight 77] came initially at the White House and... when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement..."
Cheney continues,
"...under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and grabbed me and...
"MR. RUSSERT: Literally grabbed you and moved you?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends..."
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
This colorful commentary from Cheney receives an interesting examination in the following article,
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
comparing his "treatment" by the secret service with that of George. W Bush.
In great detail, the article shows that both Bush and the Secret Service knew about the first terrorist attack before Bush left the hotel in Sarasota Florida, (at about 8:55). The President should have been considered to be in relatively great danger. Terrorist planes were attacking buildings. His intinerary for the morning was well-known. In comparison to Cheney, he was out in the open. Yet absolutely no extra precautions were taken.
Cheney may have indeed been privy to a joy ride to the basement, but the treatment of George W. suggests that it was neither necessary nor consistent with the actual priorities of the secret service on that day.
The most descriptive of all the 'white-house-as-target' stories came from numerous voices in the mainstream press,
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"In the skies over the city flight AA77 was heading straight for the White House when at 9.38 it suddenly veered 270 degrees to right away from White House and headed towards the Pentagon, It crashed into the west side two minutes later."
"Just before the crash a civilian plane was filmed over the city apparently banking hard and there were reports of a military plane circling the US capital. Moments later, the Department of Defense was hit."
and The Washington Post, Sept. 12th
".. the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the sources said." pgs. 1 & 11
This all sounds pretty confident, colorful, right? Is it unanimous?
Readers may recall an earlier report from Bob Orr, CBS Transportation Correspondent,
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
It says,
"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target."
"Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows."
"Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House."
"At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph."
Obviously, these two stories contradict one another, (although they both agree that a sharp turn was made).
One of them is clearly wrong.
Which one?
As Bob Orr shows in his report, the main source of the White-House-as-target story appears to be government officials.
Judging from the fact that,
these same White House officials already played big-time media-spin with the original story about Air Force One, (and White House) as being targets; and since,
CBS news is actually daring to openly contradict the White House position with evidence in hand, (albeit, after nobody cares); and since,
Bob Orr's report is the one with the most accurate timeline; and since,
Dick Cheney has shown himself not to be above making well-crafted lies,
it seems likely that the radar records do indeed show Flight 77 by-passing the White House no-fly zone, heading directly toward the Pentagon.
(NOTE: The term, "new", in the above article, may be journalistic-speak for facts which agree with what most experts and informed reporters already know to be correct -in spite of what the White House is saying.)
It appears far more likely, that White House officials concocted the White-House-as-target story in order to justify George W's absence from Washington for 9 & 1/2 hours, then found a ready excuse for the Pentagon not warning its own employees.
The presentation of this position, to explain why the Pentagon was caught 'off-guard,' merely masks the far more-important falsehood: the Pentagon claiming it was "not informed" about Flight 77 thirty-five minutes before.
As per usual, many in the mainstream media found it more convenient -simply to take the government pronouncements as fact, and reproduce them, (with an artistic flourish of a most consistent, clandestine kind).
# Return to top
of This Page.
# Continue on to Part 1F:
Military/Media Alliance.
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
by MalcontentX
for Main Page:http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html
Index
Part 1E:
* "Official" (military) Explanations:
* Confusion
* "The Pentagon"
"We didn’t know"
"Weren’t Informed"
* Contusion
* "Official" Explanations: explained
"Official" (military) Explanations
top
As we have already determined, the ultimate authority for the "official" explanation for the air defense failure of Sept. 11th is the U.S. military.
In matters of defense, the military holds the power, authority, and critical information. Even where the media "fills in" certain parts on its own, (which don't directly relate to civilian air defense) we find they do tend to correspond quite tightly to the military line; so our examination of the "official" explanation is also about the behavior of the media.
Whether the "official" explanation is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, (and to what degree) this is where the military stands. By examining the "official" explanation in some detail, we come closer to understanding the military's role in the tragedy.
The "official" military explanation may be summarized as follows:
The delayed response in getting planes into the air was primarily the fault of the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control. [FAA Delay] This made it impossible for Air Defense to intercept the hijacked planes in time. A companion to this component is also looked at here: 'we really tried.'
[Note: as we shall see, the military doesn't actually "talk" about the FAA delay, (which, in itself, is significant); the delay simple stands as a fact, indicating blame]
The reason that the bases, (chosen to scramble jets from) were far away from their targets, was because military cutbacks caused a drastic reduction in the number of bases with planes on "standby" "strip alert." [few planes available]
Officials also raise the question of what fighter pilots would have done if they had been able to intercept the Airliners -suggesting that, this "terrible decision" may have caused some delay in responding. [To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down]
Then there are a number of "smaller" factors, (such as transponder technologies, foreign intelligence, "airline watch lists," communications, etc.) all of which are said to have added to the culture of [confusion] which prevailed on the morning of Sept 11th. Themes here include: 'We're all a little to blame,' and 'we could not have foreseen.'
Let's look at each one of these positions, and see if they hold up to serious scrutiny, and/or whether they provide any insight as to what went wrong on Sept. 11th.
FAA Delay
top
Reflected Spin
Readers may recall that the "official" NORAD timeline of events, contained in the Sept. 16th report from CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)
was the starting point for our discovery that, a shocking abandonment of routine procedure, and delays in responding to the hijackings had occurred on Sept 11th. In this, the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control appears to be directly responsible for: ['leaving the Air Force no opportunity to respond in time'].
Although most readers would not have taken the time to add and subtract the various times in this article -to clarify the exact length of the delays- the official figures are there; and the negligence they reveal is truly staggering.
Our Newsday article of the 23rd does not hold back any such punches in clarifying the details,
"after the terrorists turned off [Flight 77's] transponder, ....about 29 minutes went by before the FAA alerted the military to the new threat from the airliner,
and,
"After losing track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military.
and,
"Another response-time question involves American Airlines Flight 11... air controllers first knew at about 8:20 a.m. that there had been a probable hijacking of that plane. But the FAA didn't notify the military until 20 minutes later"
"Did critical information get from the FAA to the military quickly enough? The record suggests that teenagers on instant-message networks communicate faster than some federal officials did during the crisis." (Newsday, 23rd, ibid)
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
So an extraordinary negligence on the part of the FAA/ATC is clearly a matter of public record.
The military, we are told, was so handicapped by the delay in being notified, that fighter-intercepts could not be gotten "there" in time.
Thus, we hear the theme
'We Really Tried'
top
Reflected Spin
repeated, implied, in numerous forms and guises.
"Fighter jets were only eight minutes away from one of the hijacked airliners when it crashed into......... Two other military jets were 12 minutes away when an airliner hit..."
http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/terrorism/attack/story/84825p-1141645c.html
and
"Air National Guard fighter jets scrambled in a desperate but vain attempt to intercept two of the hijacked airliners..."
"The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
And from our CNN article of the 16th, (cited above) we read,
"The fighters broke the sound barrier and travelled supersonic at 720 knots to Washington, making the approximately 130 miles in 14 minutes."
If we recall our previously cited information from the website of the American Federation of Scientists, however,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
and,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
we find that the top speeds of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.
While the planes could not be expected to reach their top speeds with a full fuel and weapons load, it seems pretty clear that,
the "official" speeds given were well below what those planes were capable of,
and
the media/military sources described those speeds so as to give a very different impression.
If the F-15's from OTIS AFB, for example, (taking off at 8:52, NORAD/CNN, ibid) had travelled at 1200mph, (20 miles/minute, two thirds their top speed) they would have flown the 190 miles to New York City in 9.5 minutes -in time to intercept Flight 175, before it struck the tower at 9:02.
Given that the pilots (supposedly) 'really tried,' it's rather extraodrinary that:
those supposedly most responsible for forcing those pilots to make "a desperate but vain attempt," (FAA/ATC officials) have not only not been charged with criminal negligence; military officials have not even openly criticised them
Instead, the military has talked about other "factors."
'Few Planes Available'
top
Reflected Spin
Speaking before the Senate Confirmation hearings, soon-to-be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers said,
"far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War."
How many fewer, exactly?
It makes sense that there not be as many fighters on alert, as there was during the Cold War; but no more than two? (three?) active bases for the entire eastern seaboard?
Well, that seems to be exactly what top military officials are suggesting.
In the following article,
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, says,
"During the Cold War, the Air National Guard and Air Force kept planes on ''strip alert'' -- ready to fly within minutes -- at more than 100 bases around the country. But with the decline of the Soviet threat, that number was drastically reduced."
"Since 1997, the Air National Guard has kept two fighter planes on strip alert at only seven bases on the East, South and West coasts of the country to guard against threats coming from outside U.S. borders, Weaver said." (ibid)
This view is repeated in our previously mentioned Newsday article of the 23rd,
"the number of air bases where fighter planes are kept on alert has dwindled sharply in recent years... no longer [including] any bases close to two obvious terrorist targets - Washington, D.C., and New York City...."
Only seven bases? For the entire United States?
This is an extraordinary claim.
First of all, although the Soviet threat has been dramatically reduced, it still is a nuclear power, and an unstable one at that.
Second, the armed forces is not one of those institutions which has a hard time finding a justification to maintain funding in the context of a reduced threat. So while a reduction would be reasonable, from one hundred to seven seems absurd.
Third, since we have documented numerous ANG bases as maintaining full "battle-ready" squadrons, (parts 1B, Flights 11 and 175) and since
"continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard", (above article)
does it not seem reasonable to assume that a few dozen bases, (distributed somewhat evenly across the United States) would have at least two of their "battle-ready" fighters fuelled up and ready to go? -with two pilots on standby?
Does the above "official" statement mean that the internal protection of American skies was entirely abandoned?
If we recall our earlier reference to the Lear Jet of Golf Pro Payne Stewart,
‘First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota.’ --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999" (www.tenc.net ibid)
it certainly doesn't seem as if only seven bases had active jet-fighters on that day.
Fourthly, the fact that four separate reports, (on the scene, Sept 11th) stated that Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington scrambled F-16's, (after the Pentagon was hit) -and that these reports were later denied by the military, (through other media reports)- suggests further room for doubt.
Overall, the claim of "too few planes" stands on shaky ground.
Even if the claim was accurate, however, it would still remain largely irrelevant to the central cause of the Sept 11th failure: the extreme delay in airforce response.
If routine procedures had been carried out, the planes from Otis AFB would have been ordered to scramble within a few minutes of lost transponder/radio contact; they would have intercepted Flights 11 and 175 in time; and the Langley planes would have intercepted Flights 77 and 93. In this latter case, planes could have been routinely scrambled from Montana and they would have still reached the target in time.
So the above claim does not lessen or explain the outrageous delays attributed to the FAA, nor does it explain why the military authorities have said nothing critical about that; it merely serves to spread a small piece of the blame around.
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
top
Reflected Spin
Continuing on with the article....
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.
''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission to do that.''
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air with the capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky."
Meaning what? That we didn't put planes up in the air because we didn't have the presidential authority to shoot them down?
On Sept 16th, Vice-President Dick Cheney was interviewed on the television program "Meet the Press."
Pleading sympathy for the "horrendous decision" that had to be made, (to "shoot it down") he says,
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Although this line was repeated in report after report, this has absolutely nothing to do with why routine, standard procedure was not followed by the FAA/ATC (and others) on Sept 11th.
You and I may expect to experience some hesitation, if we were faced with the decision of authorizing the shoot-down, (just as George W. Bush found a sudden fondness for the third grade); but military personel are trained to follow procedures in emergencies precisely because those procedures put you in the best position to handle unknown contigencies, whenever they come up.
One does not know in advance, -whether the appearance of a fighter-intercept may cause hijackers to turn a plane around, surrender, land, crash, etc. Regardless of the unknowns, you follow routine procedures to the furthest extent possible.
You get the planes in the air.
Truly, the above line of thinking from such top military officials runs contrary to everything the military stands for.
In no way does it help to explain or lessen the FAA delay -nor explain why the FAA is not being openly criticised for having left the Air Force so unable to respond.
It merely deflects attention away.
Confusion
top
Reflected Spin
In our attempts (so far) to find within the "official" explanations something to satisfy our grasp of the facts, the reader may, no doubt, be aware of a growing sense of confusion.
This may be, in part, due to the confused or insubstantial nature of the explanations themselves; yet it's also a reflection of something else.
Confusion, it turns out, is one of the central reasons that the media and the military give as the cause of the civilian air defense failures of Sept 11th.
Within this framework, we see two principle components.
'We're All A Little To Blame'
top
Confusion
Reflected Spin
This is where the blame for the failure of civilian air defense on Sept 11th is spread around to many "factors."
Included in amongst the three components discussed above, (the FAA delay, 'too few planes,' and 'to shoot or not to shoot down,') we read of,
transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military preparedness," "intelligence."
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
In the above article, each one is discussed in some detail, (i.e. a paragraph or two).
Although some of these elements clearly had a role in allowing the initial hijackings to occur, none of them, (as described in the article) would have had any effect on the critical question surrounding Sept. 11th: why routine procedure was not followed in the notification of NORAD by the FAA, such that intercepts were not in the air in time.
The article further informs us,
The nation's sharpest military thinkers simply had never planned for such a massive and well-coordinated assault, one defense official told Newsday.
'I don't think any of us envisioned an internal air threat by big aircraft," he said. "I don't know of anybody that ever thought through that. We're probably all at fault in some way for not thinking through the scope of that.'"
If this "defense official... didn't know anybody" who had thought through the possibility of airliners as weapons, maybe he should try to 'get out' more.
He's certainly not qualified to speak for those in strategic operations.
He is, however, not the only one.
'Could Not Have Forseen'
top
Confusion
Reflected Spin
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski... Pentagon spokesman: 'I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" (Newsday, ibid)
"despite provisions for close communication between civilian and military traffic officials, and extensive procedures for security control over air traffic during attacks on the United states, it does not appear anyone had contemplated the kind of emergency that was unfolding..... They didn’t have a procedure for handling such an occurrence." (N.Y. Times, Sept 15)
" '...The coordinated assault on the world's financial and political capitals caught the United States completely off guard -- despite a massive intelligence and law enforcement network devoted to detecting and thwarting such attacks...[This was because efforts were] focused largely on guarding against bomb threats to overseas targets... ' ('The Washington Post,' September 12, 2001).
We can certainly see a great sense of confusion here.
Just how real it is, may be a little more-difficult to determine.
It's clearly untrue that "no one" had envisioned the hijacking of American airliners as suicide weapons.
Best-selling books had been written about it.
Yoseff Bodanksy, who is not exactly a fringe figure, wrote about airport training camps dedicated to hijacking and suicide air bombings in detail in a book published in 1993 called "Target America."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/coast.htm
Military strategists are paid, (top-dollar) to discuss and plan for every contingency; and while there are practical limits to this, it certainly would have included terrorist hijackings and suicide attacks.
Another example, (from way back in 1994)
"During the cold war, when security agents used to play war games involving terrorist threats to the White House, the one unsolvable problem was a commercial airliner loaded with explosives working its way into the landing pattern at Washington National Airport, then veering off for a suicide plunge into the White House."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/941114/941114.presidency.html
"If reading "old" books is too much work, how about this refresher course: Bush, on his trip to Italy just weeks before 9-11, was aware that there was a threat on his life from precisely such an attack when he was in Genoa. The pictures of the surface-to-air batteries set up to defend Genoa were all over the news media at the time:"
" [excerpt from LA Times] 'WASHINGTON -- U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday'
'Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport.'" [tenc.com, /indict/coast, ibid]
Obviously, the military wouldn't have been as "completely caught off-guard" as the media and the public was.
If the unprecedented nature of the attacks did catch some personel off-guard, this still does not explain the abandonment of routine procedure -for an extremely long period of time- whereby, the FAA and/or NORAD did not get the planes in the air, (in anywhere near the time that they should have).
So the culture of "confusion" we have thus far chronicled seems to be expanding further still.
After examining,
the Extreme FAA Delay, (as yet unexplained, no charges laid)
We Really Tried, (after the fact)
Few Planes available, (on shaky ground)
To Shoot or Not Shoot Down, (irrelevant)
‘all share a part of the blame…’
‘could not have foreseen…’
we find the "official" explanation still standing, but on legs faltering; stumbling 'round inconclusive corners: most-relevant questions, remaining unanswered.
Confusion reigns. To resolve it, we must continue following its' winding trail to the highest peak: to the successful attack on,
The Pentagon
top
Reflected Spin
Nowhere is the confusion surrounding the events of Sept. 11th more clearly expressed than in the attack on the Pentagon; for here is the command centre of the world's most powerful military: unable to defend itself from a hijacked airliner.
Newsday quite rightly says,
"To many Americans, it probably seems inconceivable that an unauthorized aircraft could get that close to the nation's military command center [Pentagon]on any day, let alone one when the nation was under attack." (23rd, ibid)
We are told,
"Although the military's air defense command got word from the FAA about 13 minutes before Flight 77's crash that a hijacked airliner was streaking toward Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides remained unaware of any danger up to the moment of impact, officials said. After learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Rumsfeld remained in his office, and Pentagon security officials took no steps to alert or evacuate the building's 20,000 employees. Neither the White House nor Congress were evacuated, either."
and this,
Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, added: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way."
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
and this, from CNN, Sept 16,:
"Officials at the Pentagon also said they were never made aware of the threat from hijacked United Airlines flight 93 until after it crashed in Pennsylvania."
#
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
In other words:
top Pentagon officials "weren't aware" of hijacked Flights 77 and 93.
This makes no sense, with what we already know about the Pentagon.
At the risk of repetition, readers may recall ,
"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.
"....When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)
So, it's absolutely clear (to us now) that the Pentagon and the Department of Defense would have been at the very heart of communications during the hijackings.
Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers, (second-highest U.S. general at the time) verified this during his appearance before the Senate Hearings, (confirming his appointment as Chairman to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See Part 1F).
"At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, [8:46] we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately.... And we started talking to the federal agencies.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm
As we shall see, the General’s recollection of events on that day is extremely hazy, so the actual notification may have been ten minutes earlier than that; or, if ATC and the FAA did their jobs properly, another ten minutes before that still. (The first hijacked plane went off-course/broke contact at 8:20).
NORAD claims the FAA informed them that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:38; by law, the command-center in the Pentagon would have also been informed at that time.
At any rate, the second highest officer in the Pentagon admits that officials were informed by 8:50 about a terrorist attack. This would have surely included information about a second hijacked plane (NORAD-confirmed, at 8:43, also near New York).
In short, they knew that an unprecedented, national emergency was taking place.
General Myers said “I don’t know… [whether it was the FAA that informed the NMCC]” -as law and procedure dictated; but clearly, once the NMCC was informed, then they would have been alerted to every suspect plane, and privy to any relevant radar screen they felt inclined to monitor.
Yet we are told that the Pentagon was
“simply not aware that this plane, [Flight 77] was coming our way,”
“never made aware that Flight 93 was in trouble…” that "the secretary of Defense and his closest aids were “never made aware…”
NORAD and the Pentagon claim the FAA didn’t inform them about Flight 77 being hijacked until 9:25; yet Newsday tells us that,
“at 9:06, Washington notifies all ATC….”
Are we to believe that every Air Traffic Control center in America knew that Flight 77 was hijacked nineteen minutes before NORAD and the Command Centre in the Pentagon did?
General Myers says “we” put the crisis-action team “up”; but he neglects to inform us that he was not even informed of the emergency for another fifty minutes -after “it” was “up”; that is, after the Command Centre was informed of a large-scale assault on America!!
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/myersafrts.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html
Whoa.
As it further turns out, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, (the top-ranking general in the armed forces) was on a plane over the Atlantic at the time, en route to Europe.
So the two top-ranking generals in the armed forces were not even informed of the emergency -much less in on the command decisions- for fifty minutes after the command center had been notified.
Is this not incredible?
Did Generals Myers or Shelton express any anger over this negligent behaviour on the part of their subordinates in the Pentagon’s command centre?
Nope.
Myers said,
“Conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the command centre.”
So now we have the Secretary of Defense, his closest aides, the top two generals, and many other top Pentagon officials, all claiming they were clueless as to what was going on, due to "conflicting reports."
If we recall, (along with General Myer’s “crisis-action statement) our earlier statement from the New York Times, (Sept 15)
“military officials in a command center in the Pentagon were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do…”
it’s absolutely clear that some officials in the Command Center were well aware of what was going on; and that they either didn’t inform their superiors, or their superiors ignored them.
Either way, (and for whatever reason) planes did not get in the air in time; and the entire Pentagon staff afterwards acted as if they were caught completely unaware. They gave the impression they had no idea; that, in effect, the command centre didn’t even exist; so much so, that even when the Pentagon admits being informed by the FAA that Flight 77 was hijacked, (thirteen minutes before it struck) the Pentagon didn’t even warn their own employees to take defensive measures.
"By the time employees inside the Pentagon realized they were the terrorists' next target, it was already over. The sound of Flight 77 slamming into the building - a deafening crash to those nearby, a dull thump elsewhere in the massive structure - was their first alert.
There had been no warning broadcast inside the building that a plane might be approaching, and no orders given to evacuate, even though the FAA had notified air defense commanders that a hijacked airliner was heading toward Washington 13 minutes before it hit the Pentagon.
Even the clear sign of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil - the second plane slamming into the World Trade Center 35 minutes before one hit the Pentagon - barely elevated the state of readiness inside the nation's military headquarters, leaving many of the building's 20,000 workers still sitting at their desks when the plane struck. Some told Newsday they heard the crash but didn't know the plane had hit the Pentagon until they saw it on TV." (Newsday, ibid)
Even after they admit being informed by the FAA, the Pentagon left it's own employees completely unaware -defenseless.
Some readers may recall officials offering an excuse for this outrageous negligence: saying they believed the White House was the original target, and that the plane turned towards the Pentagon at the last minute..
As we have since learned, the actual radar data shows this claim, (repeated in numerous mainstream reports) to be fraudulent, (see above link).
Even if this claim was true, neither did the Pentagon command warn the White House personel to take defensive measures, (“get away from the windows, y’all!”). Nor does this explain why, if the Pentagon admits to following Flight 77 on radar, (i.e. 'we believed it was headed toward the White House') why the Defense secretary and his staff were not even informed of the crisis until after the crash.
Truly, some parts of the command staff were aware of the situation, while others, (the most senior ones) claim they were not.
"Conflicting reports" are claimed as culprit behind the "confusion"; when the actual reports coming from top Pentagon officials themselves simply could not be more conflicting, casual, and clumsy.
This is not the way that the military is supposed to operate.
"Confusion" or ignorance is, in the military, an excuse of those not fit for command.
“Command” means taking responsibility for disorder, when it occurs; a prevailing condition of confusion means failure at the command level; and honour dictates that responsibility for correction must go to the highest level of command at which the confusion prevails.
Only a command coward would pass off his/her own incompetence on the sincere confusion of subordinates -or refuse to chastise those subordinates who neglect to inform their superiors, while refusing to take decisive action.
This spits in the face of everything the military stands for.
Top commanders who claim "confusion" as the cause for inaction are not doing their job.
When such commanders try to hide behind inaction, by suggesting they "weren't informed,"
when a criminal negligence occurs alongside this -resulting in the death of thousands of civilians, for which those commanders hold no one responsible-
then we have found the source of that negligence.
We thus arrive at the foot of the dark door of Sept 11th, 2001: the black hole of accountability, the zone of the unknown, the conduct collapsed.
By a careful, logical analysis of the available documentation, we have woven our way through the fabrications and duty denied.
We do not yet know the intricate details, the motivations, the movements of those involved; but we have established from where the kernel of dis-connection comes.
Without abandoning our careful, consistent approach, it now becomes possible for us to look into the shocking scope of confusion, and see a sudden clarity beginning to emerge.
Thus, we move from confusion, to
Contusion
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
From a command perspective, a condition of confusion is considered a sign of failure; for which, an honourable command takes full responsibility.
Few of us seem to be aware that confusion can also be a weapon, by which a dishonourable command can strike upon its' subordinates -either to gain greater control over them, or cover-up negligent/incompetent behaviour.
Just look at any number of national or international “events,” disasters, emergencies, where certain elements are supposedly in control, yet where “confusion” reigns; here, we see all the lower-level officials, bureaucrats, reporters, frantically running around… trying to maintain some sense of order.
It rarely occurs to them, (or us) just how easy it would be, for top-level commanders to sew a crippling confusion across a vast breadth of jurisdictions -simply by refraining from making their small, but critical, contribution.
Such an elite wouldn’t have to openly interfere with the implementation of standard procedure; they’d merely neglect to fulfill their role, fade into the background, and temporarily become less visible.
In other words: the perpetrators do not appear to be involved.
Citizens, be concious of the command concept!
The conscious creation of confusion does not necessarily mean a completely planned campaign from start to finish; for it may simply be a response to unintended, high-level negligence/confusion, (as damage-control); but either way, the claim of "confusion" is itself the key to understanding the riddle in the middle of the clues.
Such a command wouldn’t, (or couldn't) go too far out of sight; (before its claim to authority begins to be called into question); so soon as the "coast is clear," and/or when "the job" is done, dishonourable command steps back into the picture, providing an explanation for “what went wrong,” and relieves “the people” of the doubt which formerly prevailed.
In fact, in the midst of great shock, whole populations have shown themselves to be grateful for the re-imposition of the most brutal escalations of authoritarian control, (in lieu of the chaotic alternative).
The history of the twentieth century alone is rich with such examples: from countless coup d'etats; to everyday, a shredding of rights in the name of "national security."
In the case of Sept 11, we are not yet sure, the degree to which this criminal confusion was intentional... (at what point it became conscious).
At the very least, top officials in the Department of Defence instituted a system-wide campaign of claimed ignorance and denial, to cover-up the fact that something went horribly wrong in the
Penta-gone
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
It’s now absolutely clear that top Pentagon officials lied about,
"not being aware [of hijacked-Flight 77… before 9:25"] (when the FAA supposedly informed them).
How do we know this?
Every Air Traffic Control station in America knew the plane was hijacked nineteen minutes before that.
The Pentagon’s “crisis-action team” was “up” at 8:50, (thirty-five minutes before).
Ridiculous.
They lied about,
not being aware of hijacked Flight 93… for fifty minutes after NORAD admits being informed by the FAA.
Are we to believe that NORAD was not talking to the Command Centre in the Pentagon all that time? -after two, then three terrorist attacks?
We have General Myers on record as talking to NORAD commander Eberhart “about… the actions he was going to take,” just after the Pentagon was struck, (9:40) thirty minutes before Flight 93 crashed.
Absurd.
The obvious question here is: why?
Why deny an awareness of Flights 77? and 93? Why not simply say, ['we were monitoring the situation from the time of the first hijacking, and the FAA failed to inform NORAD in time']?
Well, the truth is, if it became common knowledge that the Command Centre was informed about the situation at 8:50, then it doesn’t matter what the FAA did or didn’t do: the Pentagon would have been obligated to act; which means,
immediately declare a state of emergency, order NORAD to get as many jets in the air as possible, and tell George W. Bush that Sesame Street is temporarily cancelled, (so that he can authorize any shoot-downs).
The fact that this wasn't done, would have compelled even the lamest of media to ask the Pentagon why it didn't act when it knew what was happening. The Pentagon would then have to admit that it was not "in command" during a national emergency.
In the case of Flight 77, the Pentagon had to claim ignorance, to deflect the obvious questions: why did the military not defend itself? why were no defensive measures taken?
The statement denying knowledge of Flight 93, (a clearly ridiculous one, given that the military, NORAD, admits being informed fifty minutes earlier) was simply to reinforce the falsehood about Flight 77.
(Officials here obviously felt confident enough that, (with the attack on the Pentagon as "evidence") no one in the mainstream media would ask the obvious questions about the command-center being "uninformed" of its own radar facilities).
None of the above officials talked about a knowledge of flights 11 and 175, until General Myers was compelled to acknowledge the existence of the NMCC "crisis-action team" before the somewhat secluded chambers of the Senate.
The Pentagon denied only what it had to, and remained silent about everything else, (citing national security, if necessary).
Again, exactly when such top officials went into the damage-control mode of ignorance and denial is still open to question; what is now abundantly clear is that the “official” timeline, (of when NORAD claims the FAA informed them about the various hijackings) has lost practically all its credibility.
It’s quite possible that the FAA/ATC did everything by the book on Sept 11th, and informed the Pentagon/NORAD within minutes of the first signs of trouble -and that, the Pentagon’s descent into incompetence and negligence began long before Flight 77 struck its’ walls.
Far more likely than the FAA informing NORAD that Flight 77 was hijacked at 9:25, (at least thirty-five minutes after it should have, see Part 1A, Flight 77) is that the Pentagon concocted that story after the attack, so as to make it seem as if they had little time to respond.
The Pentagon would have known that Flight 77 was a suspected hijack by 8:50, (as per radar data, ATC, The NY Times, etc.); with all the necessary radar screens in front of them, they would have known of the lost transponder contact at 8:55/9:00 am (Newsday); yet they warned no one in Washington; as the plane approached, they left their own employees to the mercy of a ruthless attack.
When the Pentagon got hit, most everyone assumed that it must be true: ‘they were caught off-guard.’
In fact, the fact that the Pentagon got hit, that it seems to have been caught off-guard, was the single-most compelling reason why most people assumed that every other department of government must have been caught off-guard, as well.
We can now see that this is simply not true; but the appearance of being caught "off-guard," (with all its attendant sympathies) is largely why the Pentagon could get away with concocting the story about being “unaware” of Flight 77, and being “uninformed” about Flight 93; and why, the entire governmental apparatus got a immediate "pass," (beyond the rank of suspician).
Is it possible that top military officials could be so conscious of damage-control tactics, (and the manipulation of the public mind) that they intentionally did nothing, (even after they admit being informed about the plane) knowing this would increase the apparent credibility of their story?
It boggles the mind to consider, (if the plane had continued on to another target) how long the Pentagon may have continued to stay curled up in its cocoon of isolation, in order to maintain the virtuous vaccuum of "we were not informed."
Within this nebulae of layered-denial, it may be difficult to extract clear information, as to the identities of those directly involved; yet with this criminal confusion now within our conscious grasp, we can turn to look upon the many mirrors by which we have arrived at our vantage point, with a clarity hitherto unseen.
THE "OFFICIAL" EXPLANATIONS:
EXPLAINED
top
Official Explanation
'could not have foreseen'
'all a little to bLAME'
'downplay the FAA Delay'
'We Really Lied'
'phew, planes available'
To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down,(that ain't the question)
The White House as Target
The Military-Media Alliance
Could Not have Foreseen
(In a House of Mirrors)
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
In our earlier examination of 'we could not have foreseen,' we observed such quotes as,
"'I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected...'"
"it does not appear anyone had contemplated..."
"caught the United States completely off guard..."
These claims have little foundation in fact.
Their intent is clear:
Appeal to an emotion that the public is feeling; compel us to sympathize with those in command... to identify with them, as fellow victims.
The editors at the "Emperor’s Clothes" website put it this way,
"This argument resonates with many Americans because it corresponds to how they experienced 9-11... shocked and unsure what to do.
But most Americans are not part of the air traffic control system,.. or the air defense system.
Most are unaware that these systems have routine procedures developed over many years. These procedures, practiced in drills and used in day-to-day situations, are meant to ensure that air safety and air defense personnel can function when confronted with unexpected events, even though ordinary people are understandably at a loss."
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
Here is a call for compassion to cushion the blow;
a solace, seeking
soft sympathy
scrutiny unravelling
in the strings
of tied-up emotional trauma; we wrap
our arms instinctively 'round
the claimants to an equal burden of pain,
and raise high the silent admonition:
'Do not even think of criticizing us now.'
We're All A Little to b-LAME.
Diffuse the Clues
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
We can now clearly see that earlier references to,
transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military preparedness," "intelligence."
primarily serve to diffuse attention from the high-point of decision-making authority.
Diffuse the clues,
spread the blame around,
that the focus forming in towards the core of command,
finds no solid ground;
freedom from doubt
flying in on
the wings of
confusion.
If we recall our earlier list of three possible explanations for the collapse of civilian air defense, (Part 1C: Who is to Blame?) we can see that the military and media authorities have chosen the least-likely scenario, (simultaneous combustion) as the explanation of choice.
The central source of the deception, (The Pentagon) also takes a small share of the heat. This is likely the reason why officials there did not even warn their own employees about Flight 77, thirteen minutes after they admit being notified by the FAA
The failure to evacuate/warn is a small one, in comparison to the planes being allowed to get through.
Yet by taking a small share of the blame, the Pentagon manages to re-gain some credibility, albeit in a rather twisted way.
i.e. ['Yes. We were caught off-guard; but relatively-speaking, only a little'].
In spreading the blame around, the DOD would have known they couldn't be too obvious in laying the blame at the door of the FAA: they'd have to admit being informed at some point; so they made it "thirteen minutes"; and afterwards, laid no charges (nor criticism) in an attempt to,
'Downplay the FAA Delay'
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
For its part, the Military excuses what, (by official accounts) could only be called extreme criminal negligence on the part of the FAA; no charges are laid; nor does the military even openly criticize them.
FAA officials are merely told that they cannot speak directly to the media about the events, (Newsday, 23rd) and any disciplinary action will take place by internal review.
In this case, it appears the primary role in explaining the FAA "lapses" falls to the mainstream press.
From our oft-cited Newsday article of the 23rd, we read,
When the Boeing 757 reached central West Virginia, it was routinely "handed off" by Leesburg to the next air traffic control center, outside Indianapolis.... Flight 77 continued west... [the plane] began to turn slightly - and abruptly disappeared from the radar screens. Suddenly there was no transponder signal."
Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible as what's called a "primary target" or "skinpaint" - a target the radar is picking up but can't identify. The controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana - but they weren't looking for it to reappear far to the east, over West Virginia where the plane had come from, sources said.
"Back in Leesburg, air traffic controllers knew at about 9:05 a.m. that they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no transponder identification.
The simple action of turning them off appears to have given the Flight 77 terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable invisibility as they sped toward Washington.
During the confusion, rumors circulated that Flight 77 might have exploded in midair. It wasn't until 9:24 a.m. that the FAA alerted the military that the plane was heading for Washington."
The only thing confused here is the logic of the reporting:
For those of us now familiar with basic FAA regulations, (see Part 1A , (Flight 77) the loss of transponder signal is considered to be an "emergency situation."
After two planes in the region had, (by this time) been hijacked -and one of them flown into the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack- it's real simple: if you lose transponder signal with a plane, it's an emergency, don't delay, assume the worst. Call the FAA, NORAD, 911, mommy, anybody... 'America is under attack.'
The above report tell us that, "controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana, " (right after telling us: "Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible as what's called a "primary target....").
Are they saying that Indianapolis didn't have access to generalized radar? Why did they have to "wait" for it to re-appear? Could they not have gotten out of their chair to look at another screen? (By this account, one can almost imagine seeing officials craning their necks to look "far to the east, over West Virginia").
How about calling someone down the hall? Or Leesburg? Or NORAD? -to say, "We've got an emergency!!"(?) "Flight 77's off the screen!!!"
['Uh, ya know that plane we've been watching? That went way off-course about twenty-minutes ago?... Uh, no... Not the one that just crashed into the World trade Center... no, not the second plane hijacked outside New York... this is another one.... right... oh, you're on your coffee-break... I had no idea... No, I wouldn't think of...'].
Our 'investigative' reporters tell us that the plane was 'lost' for ten minutes, before Leesburg picked the signal up again; and when they did pick it up, "they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no transponder identification.... [and] during the confusion...."
Now, repeat after me class, (very slowly): no radio contact, no transponder signal = ?
E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y
That's right. No confusion here.
The point at which Flight 77 went silent may have been strategically chosen to maximize confusion amongst ATC officials; but this would have bought the terrorists no more than a minute -at the most- before high level security officials would be called in.
Remember: an emergency within a national emergency existed. "If you're in doubt as to whether a situation is an emergency, handle it as if it is one." (FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c)
And what is the routine response to lost transponder/radar/cockpit contact? You order intercept fighters into the air to re-establish contact.
Warning signals should have been going off all over the place -right to the top.
The article tells us, "The simple action of turning.. off [the transponder] appears to have given the Flight 77 terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable invisibility."
So "valuable," in fact, that the authors appear moved to downplay the nineteen minutes more that it took the FAA to inform NORAD.
The authors repeat this theme in relation to Flight 11,
"One aviation expert said a simple change in the way airliner transponders work could have helped significantly on Sept. 11."
It's a safe explanation, the mantra of the machine: we never have enough technology; look to better systems to solve our problems; don't ask questions about the people in control of them.'
[The only thing "the simple act of" putting such wily words on paper "appears to have given the" above authors is some valuable column space -and the opportunity at self-parody].
Can you see how thin the explanation is?
Yet it's quite effective in diffusing people's attention from the obvious questions.
Why?
The short answer is that this information is coming to us from the military, (whom we have been trained to think of as our "protectors" in times of crises) and is being accepted as fact by every major newspaper and television station in the country, (a fuller explanation to follow, see part Part 1F, Media Summary).
'We Really Lied'
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
In our earlier section, ('we really tried') we were told that the F-15 jets from Otis Airforce Base "flew like a scalded ape, topping 500mph, and that the F-16's from Langley "broke the sound barrier, and travelled supersonic at 720 knots."
We compared this with the apparent fact that the top speed of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.
While the planes would not be expected to reach their top speeds with a standard fuel and weapons payload, it seems clear that the official version shows the planes flying well below their capability, while giving the oppositte impression.
This contradiction may be explained easily enough, given the liklihood that the planes were not even scrambled; that is, that the entire story, was a fabrication.
Consider the following report,
"The new cover story, that "the planes were sent up but they arrived too late" also arrived pretty late: it was first put forth on September 14th on the CBS 6 PM news. Until that time, top officials said that no planes were scrambled to protect Washington, DC until after the Pentagon was hit. Vice President Cheney was giving out the old story as late as September 16th on the NBC TV program, MEET THE PRESS..."
"Dan Rather broadcast this cover story on the CBS 6:00 news, September 14th. This was the first time that anybody said planes were scrambled from Langley AFB on 9-11. We did a little research and found 31 references to Langley in the English-speaking mass media, that is newspapers & TV, worldwide, between September 11th and the CBS News at 6 PM on the 14th."
Not one of these news reports about Langley Air Force Base mentioned Dan Rather's excellent new fact!
"Read the transcript of that CBS news program. You will see that Rather cites no source for his new 'information.' He just says, casually, "CBS News has learned..."
"Four (4) days later, [actually two, see CNN, Sept 16, ibid] also without a word of explanation for this rewriting of history, NORAD incorporated the CBS report in its official timeline. The Langley interceptors had become a Fact."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq2.htm
[NOTE: the above report only specifically refers to the Langley planes, but does, (imo) shed some suggestive light onto the OTIS ones as well].
Also of interest: it seems that in the first few weeks following the Sept 11th tragedy, there was an inordinate amount of media attention paid to praising the military.
Now, in a time of national shock, when a certain patriotic zeal is nearing its height, such praise might not at first seem unusual -that is, for firefighters and police, (who bore the brunt of the rescue attempts).
But for the airforce?
That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the fact that no regular citizen was refering to the Air Force as heroes on Sept 11. If anything, there was a sense of shame: not a vocal protest; more a dissappointment; certainly not praise.
Yet for the first time, (in my memory, at least) there was CNN: carrying live coverage of the Military Ceremonies Confirming General Richard Myers as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -with George W. Bush and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld heaping praise upon praise, amongst others.
It was a long and tedious affair, yet CNN obviously felt it was "newsworthy" enough to take a two-hour dip in the ratings.
Then there's the report I came across, (now where did my "tedious details" folder go?) of Senator Edward Kennedy, presiding over a ceremony at Otis Air Force base, thanking the pilots and ground crew for their 'valiant' attempts to intercept the terrorists.
This appears to be but another arrogant attempt by the military authority to associate the public's grief with its' own.
If some would justify this on the basis of trying to raise the morale of the Air Force, it's a pretty pathetic reflection of the world's most powerful war machine: to be praised in failure, that it doesn't have to look in the bloody mirror.
phew, planes available
top
Official Explanation Explained
In a previous section, ('few planes available') Pentagon spokespersons told us there were "far fewer" bases with planes on standby-alert than there used to be.
How many? exactly?
Seven.
We discussed the improbablity of this figure, based on the number of bases with "battle-ready" squadrons, the still-existing Soviet threat, the legendary budgetary appetite of the armed forces, the use of other bases in previous emergencies, the cover-up surrounding ANDREWS AFB, and so on.
Well, it turns out that,
"Since Tuesday's events, the Defense Department has raised the number of bases where planes are on strip alert to 26." (ibid)
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Now that didn’t take long, did it? (four days).
Thank God for the Air Force! See how quickly they act when they really want to?
We’re safe now.
This sudden capacity for preparedness, was also reflected in the words of General Richard Myers, as he spoke before the Senate on Sept. 13th. (see Part 1F)
In answer to the question,
"are there capabilities or equipment that the armed forces need today to respond to the terrorist attacks that they do not currently have? Or are they able to respond today..."
the General replied,
"I think we are able to respond today.... [there are always improvements] but... we have what we need today to do what we need to do."
So, no new technologies, systems, intelligence needed: "we have what we need," two days after the attacks.
As we have already seen, General Myers himself, (at the Senate hearings) laid the bulk of the blame for the air defense failure on 'two few planes.' Two days later, he says "we have what we need."
Does this mean that we had our 26 bases on strip alert within two days? Or eighteen bases in one day?
It most likely means that the Air Force already had what it needed on Sept 11th, (and that those routine safeguards were not implemented) -as the documentation has been suggesting all along.
As most Americans already know, the protection of American civilian airspace is the specific "mission" of the Air National Guard, (ANG).
We have already discussed this "mission" in some detail -in relation to a few individual squadrons, (see Part 1B, Flights 11, and 175).
Official documents from the National Guard are a little more specific.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section2.5
1. …The National Guard Bureau Operations Center…. Serves as the focal point of all state emergency reports… ANG mobilization… 24hrs. 7days a week and maintains close/immediate operational and reporting connectivity with the ANG Operations Center… at Andrews Air Force Base.
2. Whether a crisis or emergency situation is deemed to be of such a serious nature, or has the potential to escalate to such a level that it would require support or continuous monitoring… a Crisis Action Team [will be activated]. The CAT will bring to bear the entire capability of both the Army and Air national Guard.
Section 2.6
1. Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
Section 2.2:
When an emergency or disaster occurs and waiting for instructions from a higher authority would preclude an effective response, a National Guard commander may do what is necessary and justified to save life…. Support will not be denied or delayed….
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Does it not sound, (as far the regulations go) that the Air National Guard and civilian air defence have an effective security apparatus in place? -which features a healthy reliance on the ability of local commanders to act, (when needed)?
Does it not also seem reasonable that, if the entire Air National Guard force was reduced from a "strip alert" readiness of one-hundred bases to seven, (presumably from orders on high) then this would be a clear betrayal of the Air National Guard’s central reason for existence? -what its members are paid to do?
And should not heads be rolling?
In suggesting the number of bases "on alert" was seven, it’s likely that military spokespersons are playing a slight of hand: describing the seven bases under the direct control of NORAD; when, in fact, other bases are fully capable of putting planes in the air; such as, (noted above) when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course.
A clue to the veracity of this may be found in the following, from our Newsday article of the 23rd, which specifically mentions Andrews AFB twice, in a clear attempt to counter numerous earlier reports that planes had been scrambled from there, (that is, after Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. See Part 1A, Flight 77).
"The fighter jets launched toward Washington took off not from Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the capital, but from Langley Air Force Base near Hampton, Va., 130 miles from Washington."
Then, much later in the article,
"Despite Andrews Air Force Base's proximity to the capital, fighter jets don't "sit alert" there the way they do at Langley, ready to take to the air in 15 minutes. Until Sept. 11, one defense official said, they didn't have to - fighters at Langley would have plenty of time to intercept any enemy aircraft coming from outside the United States."
Do you notice how our "defense official" attempts here to confuse NORAD's external border patrols, (protecting against outside, foreign threats) with protection against domestic air-emergencies? -for which fighter-intercepts are routinely deployed?
The article in question doesn't mention that Andrews is the home of Air Force One, (the President's plane) which obviously implies that they would have fighters on standy-by to protect it; (does anyone remember the "extraordinary escort" Air Force One eventually recieved on Sept 11?).
This further attempt to deny the use of fighters at Andrews on Sept. 11, (see USA Today, Sept. 16) raises the relevance of resolving this contradiction.
Were all four separate, on-the-scene media reports mistaken? -in their description of fighters scrambling from Andrews AFB?
We can see why the military/media alliance would later try to deny the story: because it blows the relevance of the Langley cover; but why would Andrews fighters be scrambled at all? If the Pentagon was claiming "we weren't informed," why not just keep the planes on the ground and maintain the chosen appearance?
The likely answer shows the multi-facted nature of the cover-story:
A lot of people in Washington, (citizens, politicians, and service personel) are fully aware of Andrew's alert status.
If fighters had not been scrambled at all, there would have been a big hue and cry about it in the local press, (which, in Washington, often means national coverage).
By scrambling planes after the attack on the Pentagon, the claim of "we weren't informed" is, at least, not immediately dismissed as absurd.
Afterwards, when the cover-story that Andrews AFB "had no planes available" begins to appear in the national press, Washington area residents can pass this "mistaken" report off as irrelevant, (since the planes made no difference anyway); and they can chalk it up to 'some bozo in the press room not geeting his/her facts straight,' the nature of the rumour-mill, and so on.
According to the above ANG documents, this same Andrews AFB houses the headquarters of the Air National Guard.
May we surmise from this, that if Andrews AFB was to temporarily "stand-down," that the entire Air National Guard would be placed in a similar posture?
Also, it would appear that the "crisis-action team" spoken of in the ANG regulations is the same crisis-action team that General Richard Myers speaks of -as being "up" in the Pentagon, after the first plane attack occurred, (8:50). (see Senate Confirmation Hearings, Part 1F).
At the highest levels of ANG and Pentagon command, at least, there appears to have been no problem with communication.
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
(That Ain't The Question)
top
Official Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
Knowing what we now know, about the fabrication of timelines, unscrambled planes, and "scalded apes," let's look at this shooty explanation... in a little more detail.
Continuing on with the article....
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.
(Acknowledged? Sounds like the reporter had that answer already in mind ).
''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission to do that.''
(And you’re not going to get it if the President is incapacitated, are you?)
"Only the president could issue such an order," he confirmed in an impromptu hallway interview at the Pentagon.
(Uh huh).
The Guard planes responded nevertheless, Weaver said, on orders from the Northeast Air Defense Sector in Rome, N.Y.
So even though the scrambling of planes was "futile," they did their duty anyway.
How noble.
What a perfect explanation for why the planes were nowhere near being in position to do something, (as standard procedure demands) and just in case the President didn’t happen to be sitting behind a flank of school children with a "do not disturb" sign on his forehead.
"But it remains unclear what their pilots would do if terrorists again succeeded in taking over an airliner and turning it into a flying bomb."
''There are certain rules of engagement for a hijacked plane -- if you know it's a hijacked plane -- or a missing plane or off course,'' Weaver said. ''There's ways of getting their attention. But remember, this is an American carrier with American pilots and Americans on board.
''This is new territory for all of us.''
Do you see what's being said here?
The authorities are going to great lengths to make it seem as if it would not have mattered if the planes had been in position to intercept: so as to suggest that, the question of why they weren't, becomes irrelevant.
That's like the fireman saying to owner of the house which just burnt to the ground, 'It doesn't really matter that we took so long getting here because the hose we're using has a big hole in it.'
They're also making a clear attempt to confuse the issue of shooting a commercial airliner down, with the concept of "interception" -a routine procedure.
Here's Vice-President Dick (oil-slick) Cheney, speaking on the Sept. 16th edition of NBC’s "Meet the Press."
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
Earlier on, he had said,
"I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
deliberately confusing the issue of "interception" (which is done on a routine basis) with shooting a plane down.
Yes, it’s true: shooting down airliners would be somewhat of a "new territory." But does this justify the abandonment of time-honoured, emergency procedure?
So what -if you don’t know what to do before the planes go up? You get the planes in the air so that you have an option, if and when the time comes to act. That's what procedure is for: to follow through on a prepared plan for when the emotions want to spill over.
We didn’t know how the terrorists were going to act on Sept 11, did we? And we still don’t know how a future suicide-pilot might respond to a fighter, sent to intercept them.
Such sentiments issued by the military/media, are shameless appeals for a wounded public to immerse itself in emotional grief, feel sorry for "the boys" in uniform, and leave the question of military order, duty, and responsibility to those "more-qualified."
We find the same "shooty" logic in the following article of Sept. 13th,
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air with the capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky."
(Unless, of course, they’re one hundred miles away).
"At 9.00 UA175 changed direction again - heading straight for Manhattan from the South over a very built up area.
I understand it would have required sanction from the President to shoot down a civilian airliner and he was touring a school in Florida."
(And couldn’t be interrupted) .
"We don't know whether he was even informed about the second plane - until - at five minutes past nine, United airlines Flight 175 with 65 people on board was deliberately crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre."
So, sympathy for the poor, beleaguered officials is the order of the day. Never mind that the F-16’s "in the air" had no "capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky" if they couldn’t get there in time!!
All this is merely a distraction from the real question of why the planes weren’t even in the ballpark.
Nor is it even necessarily true that the President is the only one who can authorize a shoot-down. I mean, what if he's incapacitated? Kidnapped by terrorists? Or forcefully confined by a group of school kids?
While any decision to blow commercial airliners out of the sky would normally require presidential authorization, aviation expert John Nance told WABC Radio's John Gambling on Sept. 15:
"Very often, and all the fighter pilots know this, they may have to make an in-the-field decision even without higher authority."
http://westviewnews.virtualave.net/GIN/Project 911/Flight 93 shot down.html
White House as Target
top
Explanations Explained
Readers may recall (from Part 1A) that top White House officials repeatedly claimed, (on Sept 11 and 12) that Air Force One, (the President’s plane) was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska on Sept 11, because there had been "credible evidence that Air Force One and the White House were targets."
As we have documented, this claim was later dismissed as false and/or irrelevant(!?) by those same top officials.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
It's the 'White House' aspect of this story that was also used to explain why the Pentagon was caught 'off-guard' in relation to Flight 77.
In response to reporters comments about radar data showing a direct path to the Pentagon, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said,
"That's not the radar data we have seen... the plane was headed for the White House."(CBS news, cited below)
Pentagon officials may have been trying to corroborate this when they said,
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski....The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way."
"To call for a general evacuation, at that point, it would have been just guessing," said a Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood. "We evacuate when we know something is a real threat to us."(Newsday, ibid)
Vice-President Dick Cheney also makes his contribution,
"As best we can tell, they [the terrorists on Flight 77] came initially at the White House and... when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement..."
Cheney continues,
"...under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and grabbed me and...
"MR. RUSSERT: Literally grabbed you and moved you?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends..."
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
This colorful commentary from Cheney receives an interesting examination in the following article,
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
comparing his "treatment" by the secret service with that of George. W Bush.
In great detail, the article shows that both Bush and the Secret Service knew about the first terrorist attack before Bush left the hotel in Sarasota Florida, (at about 8:55). The President should have been considered to be in relatively great danger. Terrorist planes were attacking buildings. His intinerary for the morning was well-known. In comparison to Cheney, he was out in the open. Yet absolutely no extra precautions were taken.
Cheney may have indeed been privy to a joy ride to the basement, but the treatment of George W. suggests that it was neither necessary nor consistent with the actual priorities of the secret service on that day.
The most descriptive of all the 'white-house-as-target' stories came from numerous voices in the mainstream press,
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"In the skies over the city flight AA77 was heading straight for the White House when at 9.38 it suddenly veered 270 degrees to right away from White House and headed towards the Pentagon, It crashed into the west side two minutes later."
"Just before the crash a civilian plane was filmed over the city apparently banking hard and there were reports of a military plane circling the US capital. Moments later, the Department of Defense was hit."
and The Washington Post, Sept. 12th
".. the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the sources said." pgs. 1 & 11
This all sounds pretty confident, colorful, right? Is it unanimous?
Readers may recall an earlier report from Bob Orr, CBS Transportation Correspondent,
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
It says,
"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target."
"Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows."
"Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House."
"At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph."
Obviously, these two stories contradict one another, (although they both agree that a sharp turn was made).
One of them is clearly wrong.
Which one?
As Bob Orr shows in his report, the main source of the White-House-as-target story appears to be government officials.
Judging from the fact that,
these same White House officials already played big-time media-spin with the original story about Air Force One, (and White House) as being targets; and since,
CBS news is actually daring to openly contradict the White House position with evidence in hand, (albeit, after nobody cares); and since,
Bob Orr's report is the one with the most accurate timeline; and since,
Dick Cheney has shown himself not to be above making well-crafted lies,
it seems likely that the radar records do indeed show Flight 77 by-passing the White House no-fly zone, heading directly toward the Pentagon.
(NOTE: The term, "new", in the above article, may be journalistic-speak for facts which agree with what most experts and informed reporters already know to be correct -in spite of what the White House is saying.)
It appears far more likely, that White House officials concocted the White-House-as-target story in order to justify George W's absence from Washington for 9 & 1/2 hours, then found a ready excuse for the Pentagon not warning its own employees.
The presentation of this position, to explain why the Pentagon was caught 'off-guard,' merely masks the far more-important falsehood: the Pentagon claiming it was "not informed" about Flight 77 thirty-five minutes before.
As per usual, many in the mainstream media found it more convenient -simply to take the government pronouncements as fact, and reproduce them, (with an artistic flourish of a most consistent, clandestine kind).
# Return to top
of This Page.
# Continue on to Part 1F:
Military/Media Alliance.
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
HeavyStick said:
brokenbrainwave
Just draggin around
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Posts
- 18,892
LOL you fuckers are killing my DSL connection....
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
HeavyStick said:
Similar threads
