There is no debate on 9/11...

[gumboot]

I don't expect to be able to see all evidence. I'm saying that with the given evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility of the controllers, purposely or not, messing up their job to warn their FAA superiors and subsequently NORAD.

Except we can, because the events of the day clearly show this didn't happen. As I have told you over, and over, and over again.

The FAA did tell NORAD. They were informed in a way that resulted in them learning of the threats faster than they would have if protocol had been followed.

This is supported by ample evidence.

Your assertions of FAA failure are utterly groundless.

Hell, maybe it could have been somewhere in between. When you're looking to corrobate the possibility of a multi-agency screw-up, you have to see the testimonies from the people who had their hands on the radars themselves, or it's just second-hand talk, which may easily be distorted to cover up mistakes...

Available evidence refutes these possibilities completely.

The 9/11 Commission. How many ATCs have they questioned? I've only been able to find one full interview made by them, and that was with four people from the FAA working that day, along with another half dozen folks from NORAD and the air force. I guess you know which one is it. Do you know of other unclassified interviews I may be able to get a link of?

Only three ATC's handled the flights. AA11 and UA175 were being handled by the same controller.

And the FBI... I have never seen those. Nonetheless, just for curiosity, how many ATCs have they interviewed from those hundred-and-so thousand? If you have sources oh please do give me.

Immediately after the event an FAA supervisor recorded hour long interviews with the controllers that handled the flights, so they could use their fresh accounts of what happened to later produce their written reports to the FBI. As agreed by the interviewees, after the reports were written the tapes were destroyed, which caused a bit of a stir.

Google "FAA ATC tape" and no doubt you will find ample articles (although they mainly focus on the tape being destroyed, ignoring the fact that this was the condition under which it was recorded).

I know this argument seems like a fallacy on it's own. But we can't, we can't, if we're willing to consider the chance of a cover-up, trust hearsay from the FBI or the 9/11 Commission. We have to be critical of their investigation, and analyze whether there's a possibility the ATCs could have screwed up, and haven't testified because it would cost them their own job.

WE HAVE PRIMARY EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT SCREW UP. OK?

If you don't get it this time, I won't be continuing this conversation. I have told you countless times that we do know they didn't screw up. By completely ignoring this fact you are demonstrating a total disregard for truth, and an interest only in pushing your agenda.

It's not definitely LIHOI. But there's a chance, notwithstanding.

No there isn't.

And we can't corroborate any theory without having the first hand interviews.

Garbage. Had the controllers done anything to hinder proper proceedure, either through malice or incompetence, do you honestly think they would admit it in a recorded interview?

Their actions speak much louder than their testimonies, especially if you suspect them of being an Al Qaeda insider. Their actions clearly refute all and any allegations you have raised.

Protocol was followed for ALL FOUR FLIGHTS. Protocol failed to generate a response in time for a reaction from NORAD. Protocol was also simultaneously broken on all four flights. This line of action DID generate a response from NORAD.

It's really that simple.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

gumboot, their actions did not speak for themselves.
I do have a problem with the 10+ minutes before notifying NORAD. And so should you. The protocols do not specify time, I acknowledge that. But they do say that NORAD should be informed as soon as possible.
13~17 minutes for AA11.
11 minutes for UA175.
38 minutes? for AA77
28~39 minutes for UA93

Now, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, it could have been the transponder confusion. Sure, it could have been lack of experience with the situation, especially in this unique set of events. I know, hindsight is 20/20. But I strongly disagree there's no need for LIHOI assumption when investigating. That's my opinion, and you have your own. I think it's quite possible, by isolating this scenario on it's own, that they did screw up, especially on flights 93 and 77. I find it even more probable given other information in separate issues, but that's just my CT mind working on it's own.

I'd only make a 100% assumption like your own once I had hands on most first hand testimonies, and had the time to go through them on my own. Until them I give every possibile scenario, a possibility. 15 minutes is well enough time to suspect something's going on. But that is just me and some crazy, retired ATCs.

I'm sorry I can't digest second-hand evidence. It's a CT allergy I got from the 9/11 Commission Report. Thank you nonetheless, I've realized it doesn't look that much of a screw up in some points, at least.

 

[gumboot]

The protocols mention nothing about notifying NORAD.

The protocols dictate that FAA air traffic controllers should notify their centre supervisors as soon as a hijack is confirmed.

Protocols dictate that centre supervisors should immediately notify the FAA National Operations Centre.

Protocol dictates that the NOC should determine whether an intercept is required.

Protocol dictates that, upon determining an intercept is required, the NOC are to immediately notify the hijack coordinator at FAA HQ.

Protocol dictates that the hijack coordinator at FAA HQ must immediately request an intercept order from the National Military Command Centre at the Pentagon.

From this point, FAA protocol ceases, and the NMCC follows its own procedures for issuing intercept orders.

Please note, THIS IS NOT ABOUT NOTIFYING NORAD OF THE HIJACKING.

NORAD are not required to be aware of the hijacking. Nothing in the protocols suggest they are. NORAD are neiter responsible for, neither have any jurisdiction over domestic US airspace. This is about obtaining an intercept order from the military.

The Air Traffic Controllers, on their own initiative decided to notify NORAD as well. NEADS decided, on their own initiative to respond to this information.

Both parties, thus, responded exceptionally, outside their duties, to the attack.

To suggest otherwise is to totally disregard the facts as to their duties, and their actions that day.

-Gumboot

 

[Mobyseven]

Yurebiz:

1. You can't go around accusing people of things because you haven't seen any evidence proving their innocence. Unless you have evidence which suggests they are guilty of something in some way, you have got to consider them innocent.
2. You can't just go around calling the information provided by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission 'hearsay'. The FBI conducted a massive investigation, and presented their findings to the 9/11 Commission. Just because you personally didn't wade through every scrap of information that the FBI had to doesn't mean that their testemony was hearsay. Should all Supreme Court cases have the evidence and transcripts run by you after they are completed? Should the police force come to you for help on leads? Should the CIA share all its information with you?

The whole thing is getting a little bit tiring, Yurebiz...

 

[Yurebiz]

... quote from that 9/11 Commission panel:

MR. GORTON: Okay. Let me go on to you, Mr. Sliney, with a few questions. When you on your first day on the job made two decisions on 9/11, that at one level at least weren't yours to make, did you not? First, that no one should take off; and, second, we should take all civilian aircraft out of the air. Is that not correct?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct.
MR. GORTON: And would you describe how you came to that decision and why you felt it imperative enough to make that decision without going through the usual command structure?
MR. SLINEY: I believed I had the authority to do those things on that day. I was charged with the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system. The ground stop -- the national ground stop was, one, a matter of scope, not of unfamiliarity with the remedy, but a matter of scope. And had -- since we had already put in place ground stops that covered Boston, New York, and essentially the East Coast, and those -- we still had more reports of aircraft whose course or altitude or other aspects of their flight made them suspicious in light of the crashes. The national ground stop was just a natural extension of the smaller scope ground stops.
As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order.
MR. GORTON: Was your career in the FAA either enhanced or hurt in any way by making those decisions as promptly as you did?
MR. SLINEY: I would say in neither respect, sir.
MR. GORTON: On 9/11, the Command Center effectively was the nerve center for information on suspicious aircraft. Yet as I understand it the Command Center had no defined role with respect to obtaining military assistance, fighter assistance. Is that correct? And, if so, why weren't those authorities combined?
MR. SLINEY: Available to us at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.
The normal protocols for the events that were transpiring then -- that is to say hijacked aircraft, which requires a notification to NORAD -- those, at least I was given to understand, were made promptly -- the notifications on each hijack. The --
MR. GORTON: You understood that they were made promptly?
MR. SLINEY: That's correct.
MR. GORTON: It wasn't you -- it wasn't your responsibility to do so?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct. I believe I am correct in stating that that responsibility devolves upon the air route traffic control center in whose jurisdiction that hijack occurs. I was given to understand that all such notifications were made. I had no reason to believe they were not.
The -- I'm getting away from your question, though. You ask me if we had a procedure in place to deal with such an event -- is that what you're asking?
MR. GORTON: At the Command Center.
MR. SLINEY: With -- well, I just want to be clear on this aspect of it. Dealing with aircraft that would be hijacked and used as weapons?
MR. GORTON: No.
MR. SLINEY: No. Dealing with hijacked --
MR. GORTON: Dealing with direct notification to the military or request for assistance from the military.
MR. SLINEY: In direct response to your question was FAA headquarters primarily through the security organization to request assistance from the military. We had no process in place where a Command Center would make such a request for a military assistance. I believe the military was involved, and you know I suppose in hindsight it's too simplistic to say that they all look alike to me. If you tell the military you've told the military. They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.
MR. GORTON: By the Command Center?
MR. SLINEY: Correct.
MR. BELGER: Senator, can I just respond?
MR. GORTON: Yes, you certainly can.
MR. BELGER: Just in direct response to your question, the protocol on that day -- the official protocol on that day was for the FAA headquarters, primarily through the hijack coordinator, who is a senior person in the security organization, to request assistance from the NMCC if there was a need for DOD assistance. I mean, that was the formal protocol that day.

Mr. Sliney says it was protocol for the command center to contact NORAD.

If the command center is notified about anything they would immediately call NORAD, even with the crappy communication lines present on 9/11. Am I wrong? I gotta read through that more carefully and take notes, really.

Mobyseven yes, it is tiring. 9/11 was not your regular criminal case. The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

I admit there's a chance that the FAA might not have screw up like they claim, that it was all protocol incompatibility due to the nature of the attacks, but the thing is, there's a chance they could have done more than warning NORAD 30 minutes after planes are hijacked. I think there's ground to argue for incompetence, and ground to argue there's cover up. If such chances exist, and no lead was followed, nor officials prosecuted, then there's something fishy all about it.

I'll tell you what, had a couple FAA or NORAD guys been (at least) fired I wouldn't be as suspicious for the time gaps blamed on protocols...

 

[gumboot]

... quote from that 9/11 Commission panel:

Mr. Sliney says it was protocol for the command center to contact NORAD.

If the command center is notified about anything they would immediately call NORAD, even with the crappy communication lines present on 9/11. Am I wrong? I gotta read through that more carefully and take notes, really.

Mr Sliny doesn't appear to have a clue what the protocol is at all. He seems rather confused. I'l previously put a link in to the FAA Order that outlines protocol. There really should be no debate on this issue. You've had the opportunity to read the actual FAA Standing Orders on this matter.

The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

If you refuse to believe evidence provided by the FBI and other government agencies, there's really nothing worth discussing.

I admit there's a chance that the FAA might not have screw up like they claim, that it was all protocol incompatibility due to the nature of the attacks, but the thing is, there's a chance they could have done more than warning NORAD 30 minutes after planes are hijacked. I think there's ground to argue for incompetence, and ground to argue there's cover up. If such chances exist, and no lead was followed, nor officials prosecuted, then there's something fishy all about it.

No, there are no grounds at all. There's a chance they could have directly contacted NEADS the moment each aircraft ceased communicatiing, and declared each aircraft was going to be used as a weapon. To prove incompetence or something more severe, you have to prove not that they could have done this, but that the information available to them at the time dictated they should do this. This is simply not true.

Regarding the time delay for notification, AA77 was the only flight in which there was as long a delay as you present. Please provide reasons why Indianapolis Centre should have notified NEADS, and when they should have done so, or else withdraw your accusations.

I'll tell you what, had a couple FAA or NORAD guys been (at least) fired I wouldn't be as suspicious for the time gaps blamed on protocols...

I don't believe you. You've consistently demonstrated a total disregard for the facts of the day, and seem more content with baselessly accusing FAA and NORAD staff of very serious crimes than you do in determining the facts of the matter.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

13~17 minutes for AA11.
11 minutes for UA175.
38 minutes? for AA77
28~39 minutes for UA93

While these are roughly right, I thought I'd clarify from the Timeline.

0824 AA11 Hijack realised
0837 Boston Centre notifies NEADS of the hijacking of AA11

elapsed time: 13 minutes.

0852 Flight 175 known to be hijacked
0903 NEADS are notified of a second hijacking (Flight UA175)

elapsed time: 11 minutes

0856 AA77 hijacking realized.
0921 NEADS told of 3rd Hijack heading for Washington DC (Flight AA77?)
0934 NEADS definately learns of hijack of Flight AA77

elapsed time: 25-38 minutes

0939 Flight UA93 Hijacking realised
1007 NEADS told of UA93 hijacking

elasped time: 28 minutes

 

[Yurebiz]

What about flight 93?
Your own timeline says they suspected it was being hijacked at about 8:56. I don't know where you came up with the information that NEADS found it out by chance at 9:24, but then, I think that means the FAA never notified them about it? if that's it then.. it means there was a ~30 min delay
And on flight 93 there was another 30 min delay.
That I believe is enough ground for suspicion. And classified interviews from the FBI plus second hand accounts won't prove where was the error, it can be pointed at whatever they want it to be. They are the judges and the jury practically...

 

[gumboot]

What about flight 93?
Your own timeline says they suspected it was being hijacked at about 8:56. I don't know where you came up with the information that NEADS found it out by chance at 9:24, but then, I think that means the FAA never notified them about it? if that's it then.. it means there was a ~30 min delay
And on flight 93 there was another 30 min delay.
That I believe is enough ground for suspicion. And classified interviews from the FBI plus second hand accounts won't prove where was the error, it can be pointed at whatever they want it to be. They are the judges and the jury practically...

Please explain what your argument is that ATC should have notified NEADS directly about AA77 at 0856 and UA93 at 0939.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

Please explain what your argument is that ATC should have notified NEADS directly about AA77 at 0856 and UA93 at 0939.

-Gumboot

Because they were suspected hijackings at that time
Deviated from their path, transponders turned off, no response, etc.
And if that's a tricky question, no it isn't directly to NEADS but to the NMCC, which then call the big guns.

 

[gumboot]

Because they were suspected hijackings at that time
Deviated from their path, transponders turned off, no response, etc.
And if that's a tricky question, no it isn't directly to NEADS but to the NMCC, which then call the big guns.

Were they?

How do you know they were suspected hijackings?

Do you know that the ATCs knew they had deviated from their flight path?

On what grounds should the ATCs have contacted the NMCC?

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

Oh I see where you're going gumboot...
You mean that if I shouldn't trust supporting evidence, I shouldn't trust contradictable evidence either, if they both come from the same source...
Is that it? If not, I'm sorry, I'll just answer them anyway.

Yes they were because they said so.
I know because they said so.
I know because they said so.
They should have contacted them on the grounds that suspected hijackings should be reported to the command center immediately, in accord with the protocols that were in place.

 

[gumboot]

Oh I see where you're going gumboot...
You mean that if I shouldn't trust supporting evidence, I shouldn't trust contradictable evidence either, if they both come from the same source...
Is that it? If not, I'm sorry, I'll just answer them anyway.

No, not at all. It's just some of your basic assumptions are false.

Yes they were because they said so.

Yes that's right, at 0856 Indianapolis Centre suspected that AA77 was a hijack, and at 0939 Cleveland Centre suspected UA93 was a hijack.

I know because they said so.

Who said so. It's important that this is followed through, so bear with me. Did someone from Cleveland Centre say that it was a suspected Hijack at 0939? Did Indianapolis Centre say that it was a suspected Hijack at 0856? Did anyone else say they were suspected hijacks at this time?

I know because they said so.

Did they? Who is they? Yes, Cleveland Centre knew, at 0939, that UA93 was deviating from its intended flight path. What did they do with this information?

Are you sure Indianapolis Centre were aware that AA77 had deviated from its scheduled flight path at 0856? How did they know? Bear in mind AA77s transponder was turned off before it changed direction, and they had no primary radar coverage.

Explain how Indianapolis Centre can be aware that an aircraft has changed direction if said aircraft is not on their radar.

They should have contacted them on the grounds that suspected hijackings should be reported to the command center immediately, in accord with the protocols that were in place.

Protocols in place dictated it should be reported to the NMCC? By the ATC Controllers? You're sure about that? The ATCs should just pick up a phone and ring the Pentagon, whilst simultaneously managing numerous flights in their scope, one of which has changed its flight path? Do they have a phone at their desk? Or should they leave their station and just hope none of their flights collide, while they're chatting?

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

gumboot aren't the ATCs able to switch from secondary to primary radar on the spot if the feed is available? If whoever was supposed to keep track of the plane they're responsible for, then that's incompetence right there...
Maybe they didn't know where it was after it went off radar but still it's suspicious enough to inform the command center about it... To assume the plane crashed and keep it quiet is also incompetence in my view. The ATCs should be able to know where their radar coverage ends. And to swap between secondary to primary rapidly.

No it's not the ATCs directly but their supervisors that talk to the FAA headquarters... what's the point though, the delay between an operator and supervisor is almost null. ATC -> Supervisor -> Headquarters, hijacker coordinator -> command center -> NEADS or whatever other military department they wish to request help from
did I miss someone?

 

[PhantomWolf]

As I understand it, AA11 and UA175 were both being controlled by Boston Center. They took 11 and 13 minutes respectively to decide to ignore the protocols and contact NEADS directly rather then going through the appropriate chain of command.

AA77 was controlled by Indianapolis and UA93 by Cleveland Center, both who took about 25-30 minutes to decide to abandon protocol and contact NEADS directly.

This means that your whole argument, Yurebiz, is based on the fact that two of the three took twice as long to think of abandoning protocol and just shortcuting to the end of the chain than the other one did. Right?

 

[CapelDodger]

This means that your whole argument, Yurebiz, is based on the fact that two of the three took twice as long to think of abandoning protocol and just shortcuting to the end of the chain than the other one did. Right?

Which simply demonstrates that the protocols, dictated from on high, were unworkable when put to a practical test. A chain of command into which every conceivable gang of bureaucrats had wedged itself. Hats off to the people on the ground and their well-founded lack of respect for untested protocols.

 

[gumboot]

gumboot aren't the ATCs able to switch from secondary to primary radar on the spot if the feed is available? If whoever was supposed to keep track of the plane they're responsible for, then that's incompetence right there...

There is no switching. Both are displayed together. If secondary is lost, primary remains.

You're missing my point. Where AA77 was hijacked there was no primary radar. You cannot switch to primary radar if there isn't any primary radar to switch to.

Maybe they didn't know where it was after it went off radar but still it's suspicious enough to inform the command center about it...

It would be normal to assume, if you lost radar contact with an aircraft, that it had crashed. Which is precisely what Indianapolis Centre did. Within minutes of losing contact, they notified the FAA National Command Centre that they had lost contact with AA77 and it was feared crashed. A military search and rescue mission was initiated, with the intention of locating the crash site.

The response was correct, and rapid.

The ATCs should be able to know where their radar coverage ends. And to swap between secondary to primary rapidly.

As I've said, you can't switch between primary and secondary radar if there is no primary radar.

No it's not the ATCs directly but their supervisors that talk to the FAA headquarters... what's the point though, the delay between an operator and supervisor is almost null. ATC -> Supervisor -> Headquarters, hijacker coordinator -> command center -> NEADS or whatever other military department they wish to request help from
did I miss someone?

So your assertion is, then, that neither Indianapolis Centre nor Cleveland Centre notified the FAA National Operations Centre of events regarding AA77 and UA93, yes?

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

As I understand it, AA11 and UA175 were both being controlled by Boston Center. They took 11 and 13 minutes respectively to decide to ignore the protocols and contact NEADS directly rather then going through the appropriate chain of command.

AA77 was controlled by Indianapolis and UA93 by Cleveland Center, both who took about 25-30 minutes to decide to abandon protocol and contact NEADS directly.

Pretty much, except that in regards to AA77, NEADS found out by accident while talking to Washington Centre. When Indianapolis Centre realised AA77 might be a hijack rather than a crash, they started looking west, along its projected flight path, for an unknown radar contact.

It was some time before it was suggested that AA77 might have turned east, like the other flights. At this point Indianapolis contacted Washington Centre and told them to be on the look out for an unidentified contact.

It's worth pointing out that the flight numbers were not always associated with events happening. United confirmed the fate of UA175 pretty quickly, so that was known, and American confirmed the fate of AA11 after several hours, however with the number of missing flights, and all airliners being routed to different airports at random, it would have taken a number of days for airlines to sort out what flights were accounted for, and to confirm the fact that it was AA77 and UA93 that had also crashed.

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... quote from that 9/11 Commission panel:

Mr. Sliney says it was protocol for the command center to contact NORAD.

If the command center is notified about anything they would immediately call NORAD, even with the crappy communication lines present on 9/11. Am I wrong? I gotta read through that more carefully and take notes, really.

Mobyseven yes, it is tiring. 9/11 was not your regular criminal case. The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

I admit there's a chance that the FAA might not have screw up like they claim, that it was all protocol incompatibility due to the nature of the attacks, but the thing is, there's a chance they could have done more than warning NORAD 30 minutes after planes are hijacked. I think there's ground to argue for incompetence, and ground to argue there's cover up. If such chances exist, and no lead was followed, nor officials prosecuted, then there's something fishy all about it.

I'll tell you what, had a couple FAA or NORAD guys been (at least) fired I wouldn't be as suspicious for the time gaps blamed on protocols...

Did you even READ past what you bolded?!

. . .
MR. SLINEY: In direct response to your question was FAA headquarters primarily through the security organization to request assistance from the military. We had no process in place where a Command Center would make such a request for a military assistance. I believe the military was involved, and you know I suppose in hindsight it's too simplistic to say that they all look alike to me. If you tell the military you've told the military. They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.
. . .
MR. BELGER: Just in direct response to your question, the protocol on that day -- the official protocol on that day was for the FAA headquarters, primarily through the hijack coordinator, who is a senior person in the security organization, to request assistance from the NMCC if there was a need for DOD assistance. I mean, that was the formal protocol that day.

Jesus jumped up Christ on a pogo stick.

 

[Mobyseven]

Mobyseven yes, it is tiring. 9/11 was not your regular criminal case. The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

So because it wasn't your 'regular criminal case', the FBI suddenly has to answer to you?

It was still a criminal investigation. A federal criminal investigation. Which means that you don't investigate it. The FBI does.

And something tells me that they probably wouldn't be happy about people accusing them of incompetence. But then again, there's the ever present chance they don't care what is said about them on internet forums.

It's a tricky one...