Sceptics re:9/11 only: viable, unanswered questions regarding 9/11

[gumboot]

The reluctance to issue a shoot-down order was due to the unprecedented nature of the threat, the ramifications of the order itself and the wildly inaccurate information being fed to NORAD by the FAA. NORAD had limited resources and could not order intercept ROEs without a clear picture of the battle space - one which was never really painted until it was too late. Had NORAD shot down every reported hijack after the second tower was hit, the death toll that day would have topped 4,000.

That's debatable, because don't forget several of those other "hijacks" were actually their own aircraft, and they only had one man in each...

-Gumboot

 

[stateofgrace]

Were there any other hijackings planned for that day?

Were there "just" the four we know about, or were there other would-be hijackers waiting to take off from the West Coast when those flights were cancelled?

It is an interesting question and one that popped up in a documentary I watched this evening called “Grounded on 911". There is mention of another flight, Flight 23 on which the captain refused to take off after receiving a hijacking warning. Apparently three guys were acting suspiciously and later fled the scene. It's strange I can find very little further information on this incident.

I did find it being discussed here.

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=78736

But there doesn't seem to be too much conclusion on the validity of the story.

(No I'm not putting on a ct hat, I'm just curious, if this story is true why it has received very little media attention).

 

[Cylinder]

That's debatable, because don't forget several of those other "hijacks" were actually their own aircraft, and they only had one man in each...

Right - but IIRC they were being correlated to actual civilian flight numbers. You aspire to command, right? Would you have pulled the trigger (from a battle staff perspective, of course) given the information your research has uncovered and relying only on the information - and all of the information - available to the battle staff that day?

That's not meant to be a sarcastic question, BTW.

 

[gumboot]

Right - but IIRC they were being correlated to actual civilian flight numbers.

Most of the hijack alerts weren't actually specific to flight numbers. Certainly there were some. But in the first 90 minutes at least, there were 11 hijacking reports sent to NEADS, which only involved 5 specific flight numbers - the actual hijacked aircraft and Delta 1989.

At least 2 of those 11 were actually NORAD fighters.

You aspire to command, right? Would you have pulled the trigger (from a battle staff perspective, of course) given the information your research has uncovered and relying only on the information - and all of the information - available to the battle staff that day?

That's not meant to be a sarcastic question, BTW.

It's always a very tricky one - as a member of the Defence Force you swear an oath to protect your fellow citizens - not shoot them out of the sky. I can't see ANYONE approving a shoot down without having made a visual ID and made a confirmation of a hijacking underway.

Indeed, given it's actually a warcrime to specifically target a civilian aircraft, it gets very messy. I'm not the least bit surprised that NORAD waited for permission from the executive before issuing shoot-down orders.

Personally, I feel the "system" lacked imagination. For a shoot-down order to have been effective on 9/11, it had to have been in place in advance.

And as I always maintain, NORAD had virtually no chance of intercepting any of the flights, making a shoot-down order irrelevant.

-Gumboot

 

[Larry Lovage]

Thanks all for the substantial responses to my long post above. I think one reason I was less willing to give the leadership any quarter at all, was at least partly due to being seduced by the CT view of the American military. David Ray Griffin in 9-11 Report Omissions, Distortions..[etc] at one point claims the fighters could have been in the air within two and a half minutes, and somehow tries to make some hay out of the fact that they were not flying until six minutes after the order was given. If you leave aside the wretched quality of the argument, you're still left with a view of astonishing power in the ability to get going in an emergency and get something done. Something that may have been too much to expect.

Lets rush the president to the airport? Is the airport safe?

I kid you not, on a different forum I actually had an argument with a Truther who was claiming there was something suspicious in the fact that the President of the United States was flown out of Florida, despite the fact that "all planes had been grounded"!! WTF?!?

I think maybe the fighters could not have done anything on time, and I absolutely accept that there were breakdowns in communication. But if the passengers on Flight 93 could figure out what was going to happen, in the conditions of the most terrifying stress imaginable, then it's hard to believe that military advisors, trained for exactly this kind of thing, could not rapidly come to the conclusion that two planes may not be the whole attack, and to have advised Bush and Rumsfeld as such. And remember, they did give a shoot-down order, after the time when there were no planes in the sky. So whether they knew about 77 and 93 is irrelevant - they should have issued the shoot down order an hour before they did so. I know it was a day unlike any before it since Pearl Harbour. But keeping your eye on the actual situation - the full extent of the attack - as opposed to sitting in front of TV screens watching two buildlings burn, and not knowing what is going on, is what we pay these people for.

It is of course perfectly possible that my view has also been influenced by the fact that I'm a huge fan of The West Wing. My impression has always been that the US military is good at thinking out all possible scenarios in advance so that they can advise the President quickly and give him the information he needs. If this system simply doesn't work that way, then the Bush administration (and the Clinton before it) was in even more doo-doo than they thought.

I think they knew enough to give the order, but were too cowardly to do so. If that seems harsh, it does I hope substantiate the credentials of the non-CT camp that they aren't government shills or even particularly fond of the Bush administration.

 

[Muckar-duva]

But if the passengers on Flight 93 could figure out what was going to happen, in the conditions of the most terrifying stress imaginable, then it's hard to believe that military advisors, trained for exactly this kind of thing, could not rapidly come to the conclusion that two planes may not be the whole attack, and to have advised Bush and Rumsfeld as such.

"But if the passengers on Flight 93 could figure out what was going to happen, in the conditions of the most terrifying stress imaginable"

meaning, I'm sure, "by phoning loved ones, etc(by airphones or cellphones)".

What military advisors who were trained for "exactly this kind of thing"?

If you have done ANY reading up, you would be baffled over the fact that tha FAA/airlines had done ****all to improve safety over the past few years leading up to 9/11, and abundantly clear that difficulties in such a SIMPLE thing as communications was a major obstacle. The fact that air travel security was a joke, in spite of governmental advice (money issues), and the fact that NSC et al weren't TRAINED for a situation like this, those issues are of no concern to you?

I'm sorry to be the one having to tell you, but the people running your nation, they're nothing but humans. They can make bad decisions, true. But when people make them out to be the enemy because they hovered with a thumb over a button that said "kill our citizens" and they doubted that decision, even I have to say you're an idiot- unless you back your case with evidence.

 

[gumboot]

I think maybe the fighters could not have done anything on time, and I absolutely accept that there were breakdowns in communication. But if the passengers on Flight 93 could figure out what was going to happen, in the conditions of the most terrifying stress imaginable, then it's hard to believe that military advisors, trained for exactly this kind of thing, could not rapidly come to the conclusion that two planes may not be the whole attack, and to have advised Bush and Rumsfeld as such.

That's not really fair. The passengers on UA93 KNEW their plane had been hijacked and they KNEW 3 other aircraft had been hijacked and flown into buildings.

These passenger had very clear information because they had only information of what had ALREADY happened.

In contrast, NEADS, for example, was receiving information about what HAD happened, what WAS happening, what was THOUGHT to be happening, and so forth.

Al Qaeda have stated that their intention was to hit the US with 4 flights in short succession, so there was no time to respond. And they were absolutely right. It all happened so fast, nothing could be done. The only reason UA93 went different was because of a 42 minute delay.

Imagine UA93 departed on schedule at 0800. The aircraft crashed 150 miles from Washington DC - or 17 minutes away ar cruising speed.

It would have reached Washington DC at 0838 - indeed, UA93 would have been the FIRST aircraft to hit its target. And the entire attack would have lasted only an hour.

It takes time to adjust to situations - as Richard Myers pointed out, had the NORAD exercise not been scheduled for that week, it would have taken several hours just to get everyone into place!

The only way the US Military could have responded to such a situation was if it had a 24/7 alert ready to deal with such a situation. Even then, it is unrealistic to expect input from the executive that quickly (what if Bush had been overseas somewhere?).

The proceedures for dealing with such a threat had to be in place BEFORE it happened. As we know, for whatever reason the establishment did not consider such a threat credible, and as such there was no proceedure in place to deal with it.

-Gumboot

 

[Ladewig]

There were reports that the phone on air force 1 did not work.

Credible reports? I find the idea that Air Force One was unable to make a secure communications link with any military base unfathomable. That plane is designed to keep flying after experiencing an EMP from an atomic bomb. Furthermore, even if the communications were out, wouldn't they just land the plane and use ground communication?

.................

As for the opening post's topic, I have one question that may have been answered but I am unaware of it. How credible were the reports that Air Force One flew to Louisiana because the Secret Service had discovered information that the plane might have been a target?

 

[Bell]

As for the opening post's topic, I have one question that may have been answered but I am unaware of it. How credible were the reports that Air Force One flew to Louisiana because the Secret Service had discovered information that the plane might have been a target?

Yes, I remember a report on CNN stating the SS (or FBI?) said they intercepted a messaga saying "Angel is next" and angel supposedly was a codeword for AF1.

 

[Cylinder]

David Ray Griffin in 9-11 Report Omissions, Distortions..[etc] at one point claims the fighters could have been in the air within two and a half minutes, and somehow tries to make some hay out of the fact that they were not flying until six minutes after the order was given.

He is treating air defense as magic pixie dust. Think about it - you have to get the aircrew to their craft, go through a pre-flight, climb aboard, start the engines, taxi to an active runway...

Seven minutes from scramble to wheels-up is an acceptable response time.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, I remember a report on CNN stating the SS (or FBI?) said they intercepted a messaga saying "Angel is next" and angel supposedly was a codeword for AF1.

I understand an aircraft, post ground-stop, came very close to AF1, without communication. NORAD deployed some fighters to tail AF1 for the rest of the day.

He is treating air defense as magic pixie dust. Think about it - you have to get the aircrew to their craft, go through a pre-flight, climb aboard, start the engines, taxi to an active runway...

Seven minutes from scramble to wheels-up is an acceptable response time.

At the time of 9/11 the 14 NORAD alert fighters were on 15 minute response time.

-Gumboot

 

[Ladewig]

I understand an aircraft, post ground-stop, came very close to AF1, without communication. NORAD deployed some fighters to tail AF1 for the rest of the day.

I find that explanation believable and the flight to Louisisana appropriate given how little else was known at that time.


The "angel is next" story is harder for me to swallow. I thought the 9/11 operation was designed so that no communication was necessary. Why would the suicide attackers or their handlers transmit a message at all? What would be gained by transmitting a message in the clear?

 

[Unfit4Command]

I've always been interested in the collapse of the cores of the WTC's. In most pictures and explainations for the collapses I've seen, almost none address the core with great detail.
Also, I'm interested in the holes inside the Pentagon, I've read a lot about them coming from both sides of the 9/11 issue, and as of now the CTs just sound like idiots when quite a few of them are still claiming that a missile hit the Pentagon.

 

[WildCat]

I'v
Also, I'm interested in the holes inside the Pentagon, I've read a lot about them coming from both sides of the 9/11 issue, and as of now the CTs just sound like idiots when quite a few of them are still claiming that a missile hit the Pentagon.

Mackey gives a good summary of the Pentagon Performance report in relation to Russell Pickering's exit hole page here.

 

[MG1962]

The reluctance to issue a shoot-down order was due to the unprecedented nature of the threat, the ramifications of the order itself and the wildly inaccurate information being fed to NORAD by the FAA. NORAD had limited resources and could not order intercept ROEs without a clear picture of the battle space - one which was never really painted until it was too late. Had NORAD shot down every reported hijack after the second tower was hit, the death toll that day would have topped 4,000.

This in a nutshell is the problem, and the source of my greatest frustration. We have a group of ordinary people, caught up in one of the most significant events of modern history -and we expect them to act like superman

To sum the situation in seconds

To formulate the perfect solution in minutes.

Give me a break - these people were in shock as much as the rest of us. Today if it happened...People have had time to train, to learn, to access threats in a fraction of the time.

Does the army throw a guy a gun and send him to the front line

Do we throw a man a bucket and say you are now a fireman.

The terrorist blindsided the US that day. They found a weakness and exploited it... Pure and simple. NORAD for example changed its mission statement as a result of the attacks. To look inward as well as outward.

And shooting the planes down? What would that have achieved. Flaming wreckage spread out over an urban landscape or flying into a building - either course of action would have resulted in huge numbers of dead

 

[tacodaemon]

And shooting the planes down? What would that have achieved. Flaming wreckage spread out over an urban landscape or flying into a building - either course of action would have resulted in huge numbers of dead

Yeah, this is a major pet peeeve of mine too. Many people who say "shoot 'em down!" seem to think that you can just vaporize a plane in the sky, like in a video game or something, and they don't consider that it's inevitably going to hit something, and that something might well include people. I would guess that fighter pilots get some training on minimizing collateral damage on the ground, but obviously there's a limit to how much control they have over what happens when the other plane falls out of the sky. It was a stroke of luck that UAL93 hit uninhabited ground when it went down; even though it was a rural area, there were still things around that could've been hit (I remember something about a high school right nearby -- anyone know if this is so?).

Hey, this is a personal concern for me -- if UAL93 had been shot down very close to DC, then given the direction it was going it could be the apartment high-rise where I live or the office building where I was working at the time that would have been hit by its tumbling wreckage. Heck, that could have killed more people than an attack on the Capitol would have. In the back of my mind during the weeks after 9/11, when there was no civilian air traffic over DC but plenty of fighter planes, was the unpleasant thought that another plane would indeed be shot down and instead of hitting the White House or Capitol it would hit me.

 

[firecoins]

Credible reports? I find the idea that Air Force One was unable to make a secure communications link with any military base unfathomable. That plane is designed to keep flying after experiencing an EMP from an atomic bomb. Furthermore, even if the communications were out, wouldn't they just land the plane and use ground communication?

.................

President Bush himself is the source of this.

 

[Ladewig]

President Bush himself is the source of this.

Wow! I had never heard that. Do you have a specific citation?

 

[uk_dave]

and they don't consider that it's inevitably going to hit something

Not unlike the situation with the scud vrs patriot missiles in the first gulf war.

They managed to hit some, but since they were already on the way down, they really just managed to break them up a bit and spread the falling debris over a wider area.

 

[T.A.M.]

I've always been interested in the collapse of the cores of the WTC's. In most pictures and explainations for the collapses I've seen, almost none address the core with great detail.
Also, I'm interested in the holes inside the Pentagon, I've read a lot about them coming from both sides of the 9/11 issue, and as of now the CTs just sound like idiots when quite a few of them are still claiming that a missile hit the Pentagon.

If I havent already welcomed you, welcome to the JREF Forum Unfit.

TAM