There is no debate on 9/11...

[Belz...]

I know, hindsight is 20/20. But I strongly disagree there's no need for LIHOI assumption when investigating.

Assuming ANY conclusion when investigating is foolish.

That's my opinion, and you have your own.

Not all opinions are equal.

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.

Even were that true, that wouldn't point to a conspiracy.

I'm sorry I can't digest second-hand evidence. It's a CT allergy I got from the 9/11 Commission Report.

And how do you propose to get first-hand evidence ? Time travel ?

 

[Belz...]

The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault?

This is mere rhetoric. Do you have actual evidence, or is your case built on the lack of evidence ?

The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI.

Well that's real convenient to you, isn't it ?

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.

Of course. Everyone can lie. Everything anyone says can be a lie. Reality can be an illusion. Enjoy your road to solipsism.

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.

Why would they call "the big guns" for a suspected hijacking ?

 

[Yurebiz]

gumboot tell me what, I think it's great that they abandoned protocol and called NEADS directly, but why didn't the protocol in place work as it should? It shouldn't take 30 min to contact the hijacker coordinator.
From what I skimmed through that 9/11 commission board, it looks like there were come communication problems? The Command Center wasn't listening to the lines they had set-up for situations like this... and if that's true then that's something they were incompetent of - tell me if I got this right...

MS. GORELICK: Our Staff Statement reflects a very long, 39- minute gap in between when the FAA became aware of the United 93 as a hijacking and when the military was notified at 10:07, which was of course after they impact into the Pentagon. And I want to give you all an opportunity to explain why that occurred -- I'm sorry, not impacted the Pentagon --
MR. BELGER: Well --
MS. GORELICK: -- impact into the ground in Pennsylvania.
MR. BELGER: Right. The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC. That's still frustrating for me to understand how that -- I know how it's supposed to work, but I have to tell you it's still a little frustrating for me to understand how it actually did work on that day. It is clear I think in the record that at 9:20 the FAA operations center did call the National Military Command Center and add them into the hijacking net. The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time. That's the purpose of the hijack net. There are other nets off of that, which some are classified and some are real technical command type of discussions. But the fundamental primary source of information between the FAA, DOD, FBI, Secret Service, and which every other agencies -- the airlines would probably be on that net -- is the FAA hijack net. That was activated with the NMCC at 9:20. It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time.
MS. GORELICK: Did you do anything to ensure that your assumption, a costly one, was correct?
MR. BELGER: No. I did as I was -- I was real busy that morning. I did not ask specifically is the NMCC on. And I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else.
MS. GORELICK: At some point, however, in the course of that call you became aware that the military was not involved in any meaningful way. Is that correct? We heard some rather colorful language came from your mouth at that point.
MR. BELGER: I don't doubt that. Yeah, I mean later in the morning, as I had time to not just react to everything and think, I believe I did ask, you know, Are they on? -- and make sure.
MS. GORELICK: And when you found out that they weren't?
MR. BELGER: No, I wasn't very happy.

Hey gumboot, I've read somewhere that the Director of Civil Aviation Security from the FAA was in frigging Puerto Rico at 9/11. Is he the hijacker manager for what you know, or did he designate someone else? Is that true? Well I gotta read some more.



Arkan, the Sliney guy looks confused so we can't take his words as fact, because he says the command center is required to inform NORAD but then says they had "no process" to notify any military division. I dunno he just waves around, I posted the whole piece because I usually either quote a big part of the whole or I don't quote at all, it's just the way I like to quote.

Belz all investigations are based on assumptions. It shouldn't LEAD your investigation of course, but every question starts with an assumption...
I'm not concluding it was LIHOI I'm having a healthy assumption and seeing if it's possible it might have happened that way. You know, the scientific method thingy.

I'm not arguing for conspiracy necessarily, really. LIHOI ain't conspiracy.

I used the term "second-hand evidence" as the report from people that we're not at the spot, but hearsay witnesses, such as FAA managers, directors, and whatnot, in relation to what specific ATCs have or have not done. The only ones who have first hand evidence for the specific radar readings are those who had their eyes on it, or any record that they might have saved from that day (do they record radar info?)
Yes funny enough, my case is built on lack of primary evidence available to us. Hence the thread topic title...
I used the term "big guns" as to the military. Sorry if thats confusing but I meant NORAD, or the US air force, whatever is capable of intercepting planes. By default it's NORAD that does such a thing of course but the command center has the freedom to call whoever they want with the proper reasons and if protocols seems fit.

 

[beachnut]

No way someone could shoot down Flight 11. No one had a clue it was heading for a WTC impact. How did we let it hit the WTC? Why was it not shot down? This one is easy and is not even a factor. So at the time of impact who knew flight 11 had hit the WTC? When did people learn of flight 11 hitting the WTC? We saw the hole on TV, but when did we know flight 11 was it.

Flight 175, how did we let it hit the WTC? Why was it not shot down? You know, flight 175 was squalking a code, flight 11 was not. When did anyone know 175 was hijacked? When did someone suspect 175 was going to impact the WTC? I think this one is too easy to figure out too. I think it is amazing the fighters set up a cap as soon as they did around NYC. But then I am amazed when in great confusion something is done.

Flight 77, kind of lost somewhere, comes out of the sky into DC does a turn, and hits the Pentagon. The closest fighters were coming from Langley? Or was it some unarmed fighters from Andrews? The Pentagon was not a good target if you want to kill lots of people. Even with 24,000 people in the Pentagon, less than 1 percent were killed, more than ten times safer than being in the WTC on 9/11. I think LCFC will make a big deal of how the Pentagon should have been safer on 9/11, yet 10 to 20 times safer than the WTC offices is safer. Debunked before Dylan puts it out, just the same old hearsay junk endorsed by DRG and spoken by Charlie Sheen.

Flight 93 is confused for another flight nearby. Was there confusion with the other two planes hitting the WTC, there could be some concern on what the heck is going on, so now all 4,000 planes all over the country are suspect terrorist flights. Or what? The passenger stopped the terrorist. What did you do on 9/11? It took you 5 years to get 9/11 wrong, when in minutes the passengers of 93 did something. You got it wrong in 5 years, they got it right in minutes. What do you have to say for yourself?

As it became apparent we were under attack from terrorist, the Air Force units around the country began to fly patrols to help the FAA if any planes were not under control of pilots talking to them. Pilots were told not to let anyone in cockpits, things changed. What is the point of the truth movement? Five years late, still wrong.

 

[gumboot]

gumboot tell me what, I think it's great that they abandoned protocol and called NEADS directly, but why didn't the protocol in place work as it should? It shouldn't take 30 min to contact the hijacker coordinator.

It gets a little complex for AA77.

An important thing to remember is that Indianapolis Centre did not know about events in New York at the time. It was no until 0931 that Herndon told the ARTCCs that absolutely any unusual activity was to be reported to them immediately.

Anyway, back to AA77. As you know it disappeared off the radar in a primary radar black spot. The handler began searching along its projected flight path, as did two supervisors, but they didn't look back east. As such no one picked up when an unknown primary contact reappeared at 0905.

By now American Airlines had been told about the flight, and were beginning lock down procedures.

Now here's where a major SNAFU occurred, and one I didn't know about. At 0908 American Airlines came to the conclusion that AA77 had been the second aircraft to hit the WTC.

At about the same time Indianapolis Centre notified the USAF Search and Rescue at Langley AFB that AA77 was believed crashed.

An 0916 American Airlines talked with Herndon, and revealed they thought AA11 had hit the WTC, and then that the second one might have been AA77 (although the AA specialist didn't understand how that was possible). At this point Herndon had no information about the identity of the two aircraft that hit the WTC, but they said they had a different report for AA77 so it might not be the second one to hit the WTC.

By 0920 Indianapolis Centre knew that two airliners had hit the WTC, and other aircraft were hijacked. They began to question their assumption that AA77 had crashed. Note, this significantly changes the timeline for AA77, as it means it was only suspected as a hijack 17 minutes before it crashed.

From now until AA77 crashed, Herndon began notifying ARTCCs and TRACONs to be on the look out for a primary radar return.

FAA headquarters were notified that AA77 was missing at 0925.

At 0932, after being on the look out for a wayward airliner, Dulles TRACON picked up an unknown radar contact moving at high speed. They didn't know, but this was AA77.

0934 - AA77 begins its turn. At the same time, NEADS put a call through to Washington Centre to get an update on AA11, which they had been told was heading for Washington DC. During the call Washington Centre offhandedly notify NEADS that they are also looking for another possibly hijacked flight - AA77.

At this time American Airlines is still saying it was AA11 and AA77 that hit the WTC.

0937 - Regan airport controllers direct a C-130H to follow the unknown radar contact. At the same time Boston Centre overhears reports about the unknown contact via a conference call, and notifies NEADS. NEADS immediately direct the Langley fighters to intercept. Less than 60 seconds later AA77 hits the Pentagon.


Obviously this new information changes things. I had incorrectly identified the 0856 communication between Indianapolis Centre and Herndon as a hijack notification. It wasn't. In fact no one suspected that AA77 had been hijacked until 0920.

From what I skimmed through that 9/11 commission board, it looks like there were come communication problems? The Command Center wasn't listening to the lines they had set-up for situations like this... and if that's true then that's something they were incompetent of - tell me if I got this right...

You seem obsessed with finding someone anyone to label as incompetent. Why? Why is it you cannot just accept that the hijackers beat the system? Why not accuse the airport security staff who let the hijackers on the aircraft of incompetence? Heck, at least one of them committed suicide they felt so guilty. Why not lay baseless accusations against them? Maybe they were an Al Qaeda insider?

It is now clear that in the case of all flights that hit their targets, there simply was not enough time between knowledge of hijacking and their crash to do anything. The only flight where any grounds for failure due to slow communication is possible is UA93. This was the last flight hijacked, and it was hijacked in the middle of utter chaos - with dozens of suspected hijackings, a nationwide ground stop, and a huge information overload.

This easily explains the UA93 situation.

Also, there's a good argument that UA93 and Delta 1989 were initially mixed up as they were both in the same airspace and had the same profiles. The reason I say this might have been relevant is because Boston Centre notified NEADS that Delta 1989 was hijacked at 0940 - about the same time that reports started arriving at Herndon that UA93 was hijacked.

What's important here is once again it's Boston. They're listening to the conference call between FAA centres, and relaying this info to NEADS. No one else is talking directly to NEADS.

It may be that this Delta 1989 alert that Boston overheard was actually UA93, in which case this might explain the long delay before a military response to UA93.

At 0936 Cleveland Centre specifically asked Herndon if anyone had asked for military assistance, and offered to call a local airbase. Herndon told them (correctly) that others above them in the chain of command had to make that decision. Note that at this point Cleveland were not sure UA93 was hijacked.

It's worth noting the contrast between this and Boston. At Boston, once they had notified Herndon, they immediately made multiple attempts to contact military bases, eventually getting hold of NEADS. Ultimately, Boston became the primary source of information for NEADS.

At 0949, as UA93 closed on Washington DC, Herndon suggested to FAA HQ that someone should make a decision about military assistance. It is worth noting no one had made a decision at this point.

At 0953 FAA HQ told Herndon that the Deputy Director for ATC was talking to the FAA Deputy Administrator about scrambling aircraft.

Nine minutes later UA93 crashed, and no intercept request had been issued to the military.

At 1007 Cleveland Centre - who had originally managed UA93 - decided to go straight to the military, and notified NEADS about the flight. By this time they were no longer handling U93. and thus did not know it had crashed.

At 1010 the Langley fighters arrived over Washington DC and NEADS told them to look for UA93.

At 1017 they rang Washington Centre for an update on UA93, and found out it had crashed.

In the timeline for UA93 I see two critical delays. The first was Herndon's delay in telling FAA HQ they needed to make a decision on military intercept. Arguably, it is not Herndon's job to tell HQ to do anything - their job is to pass on information. Also consider they had a lot of things to deal with at once.

The second delay - and the only real legitimate concern, was how long it took FAA HQ to make a decision on requesting an intercept.

If we look at the timeline, by 0934 there was suspicion of a hijacking, at by 0939 it was almost certain. Thus it took 14 minutes for Head Quarters to begin making the decision about involving the military.

On its own, that's probably not a huge delay, but given that by this time 3 airliners had crashed into buildings, a decision probably could have been made sooner.

Of course that's not taking into account all of the other things the FAA were having to deal with - UA93 was not the only event in front of them. Understandably, the FAA gave priority to the other 4000+ airliners that had not been hijacked.

It is telling that records show it was two deputies making the decision about military involvement with UA93. This suggests their superiors were busy with other matters.

Hey gumboot, I've read somewhere that the Director of Civil Aviation Security from the FAA was in frigging Puerto Rico at 9/11. Is he the hijacker manager for what you know, or did he designate someone else? Is that true? Well I gotta read some more.

I don't know. The role of hijack coordinator is not a person, it's a position. There's no reason to think it was not filled that day.

Arkan, the Sliney guy looks confused so we can't take his words as fact, because he says the command center is required to inform NORAD but then says they had "no process" to notify any military division. I dunno he just waves around, I posted the whole piece because I usually either quote a big part of the whole or I don't quote at all, it's just the way I like to quote.

Can I make a suggestion? If you are going to post enormous chunks of writing, could you bold the pieces you consider most important? Otherwise it can be difficult to identify what you want us to pay attention to.

I used the term "second-hand evidence" as the report from people that we're not at the spot, but hearsay witnesses, such as FAA managers, directors, and whatnot, in relation to what specific ATCs have or have not done. The only ones who have first hand evidence for the specific radar readings are those who had their eyes on it, or any record that they might have saved from that day (do they record radar info?)

Yes, they do record radar info. It was used extensively by the NTSB in constructing their flight path summaries. ATC communications are also recorded, and transcripts of the moments when each flight got hijacked are available.

It's important to note that the actual ATC controller has no duties regarding hijacking, other than to tell their supervisor what is happening. Information regarding what was happening quickly travelled up the chain of command to FAA HQ in the case of all four flights.

Yes funny enough, my case is built on lack of primary evidence available to us. Hence the thread topic title...

Primary evidence is next to useless for us. Would you know what a radar data read out meant? Would you be able to interpret a FDR report? Would you understand ATC transcripts without an accompanying report?

These are highly specialist areas and the primary resources are highly technical. Unfortunately we have to rely on official reports of this information to understand what was going on.

As a skeptic, it is important to look for any inconsistencies or gaps in the official summaries. When we find these, we have to go looking for explanations.

However, skepticism does not mean refusing to believe the official summaries at all, simply because they are official. This is irrational behaviour.

I've looked through all of the official summaries. I've found many holes, and sought documents to fill those holes. I've found military standing orders, FAA directives, US laws, FAA Regulations, tape recordings, studied maps, and so forth. I've tried as best I can to follow the highly technical threads here about FDRs and CVRs. I've dug up news articles and interviews with fighter pilots who were involved on 9/11. And so forth. I've filled all of those gaps. I find one or two here and there, but nothing that directly affects the speed of the military response to 9/11.

As it happens, once all of these gaps have been filled, the timeline I have still reflects those official summaries. That's just how it is.

-Gumboot

 

[CapelDodger]

gumboot tell me what, I think it's great that they abandoned protocol and called NEADS directly, but why didn't the protocol in place work as it should?

Short answer, they were designed from top down by a multi-agency bureaucracy of a particularly ferocious nature. A longer answer would involve the US political system's tendency to spawn federal agencies to embody initiatives, which are spun to be equivalent to solutions.

 

[Belz...]

Belz all investigations are based on assumptions. It shouldn't LEAD your investigation of course, but every question starts with an assumption...
I'm not concluding it was LIHOI I'm having a healthy assumption and seeing if it's possible it might have happened that way. You know, the scientific method thingy.

You said there could be need to ASSUME LIHOI. Isn't "LIHOI" a conclusion ?

 

[boloboffin]

I would only add two more entries to gumboot's remarkable post above.

At 9:20, the FAA issued a ground stop for New York City airports.

At 9:25, around the time they were informed of Flight 77, the FAA initiated a nationwide ground stop on all aircraft in the United States. The ATC got to go through the rest of that timeline while getting every plane in American airspace down on the ground and while monitoring every one of them to make sure they too didn't shut off their transponders and fly into the next available building.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html

 

[gumboot]

I would only add two more entries to gumboot's remarkable post above.

At 9:20, the FAA issued a ground stop for New York City airports.

At 9:25, around the time they were informed of Flight 77, the FAA initiated a nationwide ground stop on all aircraft in the United States. The ATC got to go through the rest of that timeline while getting every plane in American airspace down on the ground and while monitoring every one of them to make sure they too didn't shut off their transponders and fly into the next available building.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html

Just to be pedantic, the "ground stop" only refers to preventing additional flights taking off. Aircraft weren't directed to land ASAP at the nearest airport until about 0945.

The point you make is a good one though, of course. These hijackings did not occur in isolation. ATC controllers still had to handle the other 4,200+ flights in the air at the time.

As an example, at one point after the hijacking UA175 very nearly collided with another flight.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

Cool, so there is ground for LIHOI.
Thank you very much, this session remains adjourned until the next commission report is released in 2009. Yeah, or so I wish. Dismissed.

Oh and by the way, who was the hijacker coordinator at the command center after all? I can't find him.

 

[beachnut]

Cool, so there is ground for LIHOI.
Thank you very much, this session remains adjourned until the next commission report is released in 2009. Yeah, or so I wish. Dismissed.

Oh and by the way, who was the hijacker coordinator at the command center after all? I can't find him.

If you only had some facts and evidence. The only thing you are missing, proof.

 

[Yurebiz]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

 

[gumboot]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

They prove LIHOI how?

(By the way, just because you don't know the hijack coordinator's name doesn't mean they are missing).

-Gumboot

 

[Mobyseven]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

A pair of queens and a joker. Looks like I win.

 

[Yurebiz]

Bump because I still don't know who he is...
Nor do I know where he was...
Does the 9/11 Commission Report says who is it?

gumboot they don't PROVe LIHOI, thats the whole deal
I'm arguing we can't judge what it was 100% because we weren't given enough primary evidence to rule out incompetence. That's all. Hence theres no debate, blablabla.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sorry, not up with all the FLA's (five letter abbreviations) yet. LIHOI?

 

[grmcdorman]

LIHOI - let it happen out of incompetence.

 

[Locknar]

From Slayhamlet: Since there is no debate, as you are unwilling to debate on rational grounds (you know, like providing actual proof, not vague "it doesn't seem right to me" non-expert assertions), I suggest you leave this forum. Your appeals to emotion and personal incredulity simply fail to impress us.

Nicely said!

Yurebiz - You are a total idiot

 

[gumboot]

Bump because I still don't know who he is...
Nor do I know where he was...
Does the 9/11 Commission Report says who is it?

gumboot they don't PROVe LIHOI, thats the whole deal
I'm arguing we can't judge what it was 100% because we weren't given enough primary evidence to rule out incompetence. That's all. Hence theres no debate, blablabla.

We have been provided enough evidence to rule out incompetence. You might not think so, but that says more about you than it does the evidence.

-Gumboot

 

[mortimer]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

How do you know the hijack coordinator was missing? Evidence?