The only 9/11 CT I believe...

[Thunder]

That...is a good point. I doubt traffic cameras in NYC are recorded, so there is no reason to think the good folks in Virginia are any different.

As to ECT curing my wee conspiracy theorist that lerks in side of me, I think I will stick to Gatorade and Raman noodles, the dinner of champions!!!!

 

[~enigma~]

That...is a good point. I doubt traffic cameras in NYC are recorded, so there is no reason to think the good folks in Virginia are any different.

As to ECT curing my wee conspiracy theorist that lerks in side of me, I think I will stick to Gatorade and Raman noodles, the dinner of champions!!!!

At the risk of being cruel...Parky I don't think you know what ECTs are but they have nothing to do with dinner...well maybe scrambled sweetbreads

 

[Gravy]

Just a nitpick... that's not true. Nasypany is clearly angry in the recordings that he does not have permission to fire.

Thanks for that correction. I'll have to listen to those recordings again.

In the event of a full scale attack the military establishes the SCATANA Plan, which transfers full control of US airspace to the military (a limited version of SCATANA was implemented without a few hours of the attacks). Only under SCATANA does the military have free authority to engage any hostile targets at will.

Under regular conditions, it would be illegal for NORAD to engage a civilian target.

-Gumboot

Under regular conditions, yes. But this was a condition where an immediate response was needed because the country was under attack. I believe it would have been justifiable for NORAD, in assisting civilian authorities, to shoot down flight 93 without approval from higher-ups, based on these directives:

DOD memo CJCSI 3610.01A June, 2001 AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. 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 as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

DoD Directive 3025.15, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities", February 18, 1997 ("Reference D" from DOD directive DOD memo CJCSI 3610.01A June, 2001) http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf

Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))

4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following
ways:

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.


DOD Directive 3025.1 Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA) (Reference G" from DoD Directive 3025.15) http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302501p.pdf

4.5. Immediate Response
4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as "Immediate Response."

4.9. Emergency Priorities. When guidance cannot be obtained from higher headquarters on a timely basis, due to attack on the United States or other emergency circumstances, the DoD Components should apply DoD resources to MSCA in the following order of priority:

4.9.1. To save human life and mitigate human suffering, and to protect essential U.S. Government capabilities, including:
4.9.1.1. Continuity of the U.S. Government.
4.9.1.2. Protection of U.S. Government officials.
4.9.1.3. Prevention of loss or destruction to Federal property.
4.9.1.4. Restoration of essential Federal functions.
4.9.2. To preserve or restore services of State and local government.

E2.1.18. Immediate Response. Any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander, under the authority of this Directive and any supplemental guidance prescribed by the Head of a DoD Component, to assist civil authorities or the public to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions occurring where there has not been any declaration of major disaster or emergency by the President or attack.

E2.1.19. Imminently Serious Conditions. Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of the military commander or responsible DoD official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. Under these conditions, timely prior approval from higher headquarters may not be possible before action is necessary for effective response.

 

[gumboot]

Thanks for that correction. I'll have to listen to those recordings again.

Under regular conditions, yes. But this was a condition where an immediate response was needed because the country was under attack. I believe it would have been justifiable for NORAD, in assisting civilian authorities, to shoot down flight 93 without approval from higher-ups, based on these directives:

This may be. It would surely be a contentious discussion after the fact...

The issue here is under US law at the time any terrorist attack was seen as a crime, not an act of war.

The way I see it there's three ways of looking at this:

1) What the letter of the law was
2) What the government's response would be post-event
3) What the commanders felt comfortable doing

I feel confident saying that 2) can be dismissed - I don't think anyone in official circles would have found fault in hindsight with the military shooting down one of the airliners. (Having said that I can see it being an ugly and messy issue with the airline company and relatives of passengers)

The key here, in my mind, is the letter of the law, and what commanders felt comfortable with.

The stuff you've addressed relates to assisting civil authorities, however it mentions nothing about using force, and more importantly military doctrine and directives are still required to abide by Federal legislation - specifically the Posse Comitatus Act. Because terrorism at the time was only recognised as a crime, and because of the Posse Comitatus Act, and because no explicit requests were made to actually use force, it's very unclear whether the use of force against a hijacked civilian airliner would be legal or not.

As such, we come to 3). As a commander, the question is, are you willing to make the decision on your own to use force, possibly illegally, and deal with the consequences later? At what level should this decision be made? The pilots? The Mission Crew Commander? The Commander of NEADS...?

Bear in mind that those from Major Nasypany's level down seemed to have made a decision that force would be needed. However they sought this authority from their commanding officers, who would not permit force until their commanding officers permitted them, and so forth.

Ultimately someone in the NORAD chain of command decided that this decision had to be made by The President.

-Gumboot

 

[Myriad]

Among the many other reasons to hold the Flight 93 passengers as heroes is that their actions spared the nation the need to decide -- or live with the consequences of the decision either way -- whether to deliberately take their lives to protect others.

Erm, others have said that the order to shoot had already been issued - just not in time to actually execute it - so their actions spared no decision.

Based on the information referenced subsequently in this thread, I stand by my original assessment.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's not entirely accurate. The military did have authorization to act on its own against an imminent air threat, which flight 93 certainly was. On the NORAD tapes we hear Colonel Nasypany giving a "negative shoot down" order to fighters that had spotted a target near D.C. The pilots were told to get "Type, ID, tail." Good thing, because the planes they had on their radar scopes were fighters. The point is, Nasypany, not a higher-up, was legally giving the order to shoot or not to shoot.

i got something different from the transcripts

NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…

it seems to me hes not happy with the negative clearance, the actual tape would probably put it in a better context, but thats how i interprested that

ETA: i see gumboot got to this already