Former conspiracy believer here

[holycanoli]

holycanoli,

I am curious. You suggest that you would have scrambled fighter aircraft immediately upon notification of a plane hijacking. My questions are these:

1. Where would you send the fighters?
2. What orders would you give them?
3. Would you order them to shoot down any airliners, and what criteria would you consider in giving the orders?
4. Which airliners would you have them attack, and when?
5. How would you justify your actions?

You might want to consider the timeline and the mistaken reports of hijackings...

All fair questions. Thanks.

1. It depends on how many planes I have handy. DC for sure.
2. It depends on the capabilities of the aircraft. "Stand by" comes to mind and "await the President's order." The order to ram any suspicious aircraft may come too so I'd have launched any assets that could fly, just not fighters. At the very least, they may have been in a position to observe the hostile aircraft, possibly ram them, and act as a sentry for any other hostiles coming their way like flight 93 may have been doing.
3.

Would you order them to shoot down any airliners, and what criteria would you consider in giving the orders?

See #2.
4. I would say aircraft acting in a hostile manner. As I understand it, 77 did a bold move on the way to the Pentagon. That could be taken as hostile.
5. Incredible question there. No matter what, politically you are skroooed. Even if we shot down the aircraft, you'd probably have significant ground based deaths.

I want to state again because we're now incredibly into the double digits on pages. I'm not stating that anybody in the chain of command let this happen on purpose. I'm not suggesting any type of conspiracy was going on here. I do feel though that there is some measure of accountability that isn't being applied to the parties involved. I would say that with 3,000 deaths and no military intervention until after-the-facts, that something went wrong. Either the plan failed us or it wasn't executed. As stated, if this was success, I'd hate to see failure. If this is a case where all of the pieces worked properly, I'd hate to see what would have happened if someone dropped the ball.

 

[holycanoli]

I don't think Executive Decision is a Tom Clancy story. Executive Orders, the book after Debt of Honor (where the suicide attack occured), may be what you're thinking of (unless I'm wrong about the movie, of course).

I think it was Debt of Honor, followed by Exec Orders, then Bear and Dragon to round out the trip to the Oval Office.

Rainbow Six was an awesome read up until the ending. Then it unravels.

 

[holycanoli]

If the planes were scrambled just what is your problem?

That they took so long to get up in the air. What's yours?

 

[Corsair 115]

That they took so long to get up in the air. What's yours?

But unlike the movies, in the real world things usually take time. Also, directing fighters to an interception of another aircraft is a complicated, tricky affair (there's a reason why AWACS aircraft exist). This is especially true when the airspace is filled with lots of other aircraft.

 

[CptColumbo]

That they took so long to get up in the air. What's yours?

How long do you think it takes on average to scramble a military aircraft over US airspace?

 

[holycanoli]

And NORAD's sole purpose is to organize a defense and counter attack against incoming missiles, bombers, fighters, etc from a foreign territory.

Not to handle civilian aircraft being hijacked.

I'm sure SINCE 9/11 they've had their procedures updated.

But again, pre-9/11, they were 100% meant to defend against military attacks from outside the borders.

You state my point to a small extent...

So you're saying that NORAD wasn't the ones to call with this emergency...do I have that right? Who drew up the plan to call them?

 

[holycanoli]

Oops, slip of the brain.

No prob.

Congratulations on winning the TLA. BTW...what is a TLA?

 

[gumboot]

I don't think Executive Decision is a Tom Clancy story. Executive Orders, the book after Debt of Honor (where the suicide attack occured), may be what you're thinking of (unless I'm wrong about the movie, of course).

You're quite right. It has nothing whatsoever to do with him. It just seems like it should. My bad.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

1. It depends on how many planes I have handy. DC for sure.

Okay so an airliner is hijacked over Texas. Your first action is to send fighters to Washington DC? How about intercepting the airliner?

2. It depends on the capabilities of the aircraft. "Stand by" comes to mind and "await the President's order."

That's useful... Stand by where? How about intercepting the airliner?

The order to ram any suspicious aircraft may come too so I'd have launched any assets that could fly, just not fighters.

Okay so while NORAD's fighters are heading for Washington DC, and a C-130H Hercules is being fueled to get in the air, the hijacked airliner approaches the tallest structure in Dallas (remember the Hijacking was in Texas?). Now what?

At the very least, they may have been in a position to observe the hostile aircraft, possibly ram them, and act as a sentry for any other hostiles coming their way like flight 93 may have been doing.

Well your fighters can't observe anything because they're "standing by" over Washington DC, while the hostile aircraft reaches Dallas. That C-130H is taxiing out to the runway now.

4. I would say aircraft acting in a hostile manner. As I understand it, 77 did a bold move on the way to the Pentagon. That could be taken as hostile.

That airliner nearing Dallas just started a steep descent. Any word from the President yet about those fighters over Washington DC? A C-130H just took off from Pope AFB, NC. Should take it about three hours to cover the 1,000 miles to Dallas.

5. Incredible question there. No matter what, politically you are skroooed. Even if we shot down the aircraft, you'd probably have significant ground based deaths.

Well you won't get a shoot down. That hijacked airliner headed into Dulles Love Field. Turns out it just suffered a catastrophic cabin depressurisation, hence the rapid descent, and the radio was malfunctioning.

But never mind, at least Washington DC is secure. You can send the thirty six C-130's, twelve F-16s, eleven Blackhawks, and that P-3 up in Alaska back to their bases now.

Oh, but the way, the Chief of the Airforce is on line three. He wants to know why you just wasted twenty three million tax payer dollars putting all those aircraft in the air. He's been fielding calls from pissed off Squadron Commanders for the last half hour. I suggest you iron your dress uniform - want to look your best for that Court Martial.

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Actually, he ran it into the Capitol building. Congress is a group of people.
The fact of a plane being used as a WMD is not "unthinkable" as you earlier stated.

OMG, I was wondering where they had meetings. Gee whiz.

And the idiot still used his own plane. So I read the book before 9/11, that is why I thought, for a few minutes, after the second impact, UBL had bought his own jets. Never thought someone would kill the pilots and fly the jets; did you?

Some idiot Major in Desert Storm told our pilots they might be asked to take there tanker (big jet like a 707) and take out a fuel dump. The Major was sent home! And your WMD point?

I still have not found who said we were not prepared for killing pilots and running planes into buildings. If you had only warned us; we could have worn neck braces to prevent bleed out.

Who beats on you when you fail to prevent accidents?

 

[beachnut]

Okay so an airliner is hijacked over Texas. Your first action is to send fighters to Washington DC? How about intercepting the airliner?

That's useful... Stand by where? How about intercepting the airliner?

Okay so while NORAD's fighters are heading for Washington DC, and a C-130H Hercules is being fueled to get in the air, the hijacked airliner approaches the tallest structure in Dallas (remember the Hijacking was in Texas?). Now what?

Well your fighters can't observe anything because they're "standing by" over Washington DC, while the hostile aircraft reaches Dallas. That C-130H is taxiing out to the runway now.

That airliner nearing Dallas just started a steep descent. Any word from the President yet about those fighters over Washington DC? A C-130H just took off from Pope AFB, NC. Should take it about three hours to cover the 1,000 miles to Dallas.

Well you won't get a shoot down. That hijacked airliner headed into Dulles Love Field. Turns out it just suffered a catastrophic cabin depressurisation, hence the rapid descent, and the radio was malfunctioning.

But never mind, at least Washington DC is secure. You can send the thirty six C-130's, twelve F-16s, eleven Blackhawks, and that P-3 up in Alaska back to their bases now.

Oh, but the way, the Chief of the Airforce is on line three. He wants to know why you just wasted twenty three million tax payer dollars putting all those aircraft in the air. He's been fielding calls from pissed off Squadron Commanders for the last half hour. I suggest you iron your dress uniform - want to look your best for that Court Martial.

-Gumboot

I am afraid if holy was in charge my total electrical failure would get me shot down.

I am afraid while shooting me down, a few missiles hit the kinder Care playground! And my plane fell into a high school burning 734 students to their death with 10,000 gallons of fuel which released the heat energy equal to 315 tons of TNT.

I hope we are studying what a jet airliner does when it is shot down? I bet we have to make sure it is done outside major populations centers. I wonder what the ROE are for holy to commit to destroying a jet, and how he authenticates it is a threat?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

At the very least, they may have been in a position to observe the hostile aircraft, possibly ram them, and act as a sentry for any other hostiles coming their way like flight 93 may have been doing.

"Ram them"?? You have the entire US military at your disposal, and the best thing you can think of to do is to waste lives, machinery, and dollars by ramming a passenger plane with our multi-million dollar fighter jets?

We've seen this before. In WWII. The Japanese did it on occasion, but I'm not sure it would be a great thing for the morale of our country if we tried it here.

On the other hand, there'd be no reason to waste all that money on bombs, missiles, and bullets. Ramming speed, captain!

Geez.

 

[tsig]

"Ram them"?? You have the entire US military at your disposal, and the best thing you can think of to do is to waste lives, machinery, and dollars by ramming a passenger plane with our multi-million dollar fighter jets?

We've seen this before. In WWII. The Japanese did it on occasion, but I'm not sure it would be a great thing for the morale of our country if we tried it here.

On the other hand, there'd be no reason to waste all that money on bombs, missiles, and bullets. Ramming speed, captain!

Geez.

Surely you have heard of ram jets?

 

[Bell]

"Ram them"?? You have the entire US military at your disposal, and the best thing you can think of to do is to waste lives, machinery, and dollars by ramming a passenger plane with our multi-million dollar fighter jets?

We've seen this before. In WWII. The Japanese did it on occasion, but I'm not sure it would be a great thing for the morale of our country if we tried it here.

On the other hand, there'd be no reason to waste all that money on bombs, missiles, and bullets. Ramming speed, captain!

Geez.

Actually, afaik, this was considered.

ETA: We are talking about 9/11, right?

 

[funk de fino]

Same old MO

Stupid person with no knowledge of the military or aircraft or the FAA or NORAD thinks he knows better than the experts.


As soon as I saw the "ramming" post I knew it was time to bail

C ya

 

[Architect]

Same old MO

Stupid person with no knowledge of the military or aircraft or the FAA or NORAD thinks he knows better than the experts.


As soon as I saw the "ramming" post I knew it was time to bail

C ya

Whilst understanding your frustration, I'd like to point out that Holy has been measured and polite in his responses; there's no excuse for bandying about such comments.

 

[funk de fino]

In general yes, but read back through his posts, he has told someone they have issues and has also accused me of not thinking outside the box and this may cost me my life.

What do you think of the idea of ramming the planes? Sensible?

 

[Stout]

* lurker mode off *

Good thread guys, I've been haunting it since it's inception and I've got to say I love watching you guys work. I take my hat ( not tinfoil ) off to the wealth of rational thought and real world knowledge that's been presented in effort to expose all of the absurd allegations made on this thread.

When I read about using planes to ram other planes, I spit a mouthful of coffee all over my monitor.

 

[holycanoli]

Sorry for bothering everybody.

I still think that either the system was flawed or somebody didn't execute the sytem properly on that morning.

To date, nobody has been held accountable.

I guess I'm naive in thinking that we should have gotten something airborne--anything--in a position to do something--anything. It appears that I am anyway.

Again sorry to have bothered you good people (and you not so good people as well) with my drivel. I'll go away now.

Grace and peace to all of you.

Holy-Canoli.

 

[TjW]

Sorry for bothering everybody.

I still think that either the system was flawed or somebody didn't execute the sytem properly on that morning.

To date, nobody has been held accountable.

I guess I'm naive in thinking that we should have gotten something airborne--anything--in a position to do something--anything. It appears that I am anyway.

Again sorry to have bothered you good people (and you not so good people as well) with my drivel. I'll go away now.

Grace and peace to all of you.

Holy-Canoli.

Flawed? Of course the system was flawed. Hijacking policy was based, and had been based for forty years, on the policy of "give the hijackers what they want and get the airplane on the ground."

NORAD was designed to look for external, not internal threats.

So the terrorists spotted a flaw, and exploited it, just as computer criminals might spot a flaw in an operating system and exploit it.

I doubt they'll be able to use that flaw again. Flight 93 and several incidents since then have shown that pretty clearly. Passengers aren't going to allow hijackings, even at the cost of their lives. What, after all, have they got to lose?

What one person would you hold accountable for the failure of a policy that had been in place, and apparently working, for forty years?

The controllers took shortcuts, directly contacting the military, even though it wasn't existing policy. Those on alert executed well within the times allowed for by planners. Those military that weren't on alert started physical processes (arming and fueling planes) even before they received orders to do so.

I think the people in the system did an excellent job.

I'm sorry you're unhappy, but in the real world, stuff happens, and you do what you can do. Sometimes, sadly, it isn't enough.