There is no debate on 9/11...

[T.A.M.]

Re: the hijacker signal thing, did pilots being hijacked pre-9/11 really think "oh no, this might be a hijacking, I must punch in 7500 on the transponder before I'm slaughtered"? Because I think it's more likely they would investigate a situation first, thinking that if necessary they could do that in a couple of minutes time.

Exactly...

Pre-9/11 mindset....

Pilots: Do what hijacker says...everything will work out
Passengers: Do what hijacker says...everything will work out
ATC: Hijackers will have demands...want to be seen and heard, THEY DO NOT TURN OFF THEIR TRANSPONDERS.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

Is it that easy to penetrate a Boeing cockpit? Don't they have security doors and such? I reckon that hijackers can enter it over time by pressuring the flight crew, but wouldn't the pilots become aware of the hassle before they come in?

Obviously we don't know what actually happened on the flights, but we can speculate.

FAA regulations stipulated that cockpit doors had to remain locked during flight, however this wasn't strictly adhered to by all airlines. We do know that all of the flight attendants on AA11 had keys to the cockpit, and a similar situation was probably in place on the other flights.

We know that the Al Qaeda hijackers were specifically trained on this part of the operation. Their training stipulated that the priority was to seize the cockpit - controlling passengers was of secondary importance. You will notice that in all the flights they had people right up the front nearest the cockpit door.

From there they could monitor movement in and out of the cockpit and, for example, strike when a flight attendant was in the doorway (so it was open).

So they did keep track of all planes except flight 77?

Yup.

There wa indeed a lot of confusion. I just want to know whether this confusion is due to human err, or is it really all the protocol incompatibilities with the situation..

The hijackers intentionally created confusion. It was a big element of the operation.

Other factors caused problems to.

When a major air disaster happens, most airlines have a standard response protocol where they go into lock down. While the crisis is unfolding they stop any information being released about the flight affected, to protect the privacy of the passengers, crew, and their families.

On 9/11 this was a problem, because it meant American Airlines didn't confirm the loss of AA11 until nearly 2 hours after it crashed (airlines track their aircraft independent of the FAA). This allowed, for example, the false report that AA11 was still in the air and headed for Washington DC.

There wasn't a huge amount of confusion however. The big problem was there was no confirmed hijacking. Obviously you don't want to start making drastic moves and cause utter chaos, as well as delaying literally millions of passengers without good reason.

The controllers spent some time in each case trying to contact the flights, before deciding they were hijackings. This is why there was a delay in the military being notified of the threat.

The main problem was time, really. The attacks happened quickly, tightly timed together, and there simply wasn't sufficient time for the FAA and NORAD to respond to the threat. They were in "peace mode". In order to respond to something like 9/11 they really needed to be at an elevated threat level.

If you take the fighters, for example, it's not like jumping in a car, turning on the ignition, and just pulling out onto the road. It takes time to go through all the pre-flight checks, power up, get the engines up to temperature, taxi out to the runway, take off, climb to altitude, and head to the target area.

On 9/11, NORAD allowed 15 minutes for this to occur.

Now, let's look at a breakdown of the flights:

AA11
0759 - AA11 Departs Logan International
+14mins - AA11 Hijacked
+21mins - AA11 turns off IFF beacon and deviates from flightpath
+25mins - AA11 turns for New York - now clear it has been hijacked
+38mins - Boston ARTCC notifies NEADS of hijack
+39mins - Otis fighters put on battle stations
+45mins - Otis fighters launched despite no clear coordinate to AA11
+47mins - AA11 hits WTC1
+53mins - Otis fighters in the air

UA175
0814 - UA175 departs Logan International
+30mins - UA175 Hijacked
+38mins - UA175 turns off course - now clear it has been hijacked
+49mins - New York ARTCC notifies NEADS of hijack
+49mins - UA175 hits WTC2 (Otis fighters are approx 120miles away)

AA77
0820 - AA77 departs Washington Dulles International
+34mins - AA77 hijacked, transponder turns off. Vanishes from Indianapolis radar and assumed crashed
+36mins - FAA notified that AA77 may be hijacked
+74mins - NEADS find out by chance that AA77 is also suspected hijacked, current location unknown
+75mins - AA77 is detected on radar headed for White House
+76mins - Langley fighters (already in air) are directed to Washington DC
+77mins - AA77 hits The Pentagon. The Langley fighters are approx 150 miles away

UA93
0842 - UA93 departs Newark International
+46mins - UA93 Hijacked
+57mins - Now clear that UA93 has been hijacked
+81mins - UA93 crashes
+85mins - NEADS told UA93 is hijacked
+100mins - NEADS told UA93 has crashed

-Gumboot

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is it that easy to penetrate a Boeing cockpit? Don't they have security doors and such? I reckon that hijackers can enter it over time by pressuring the flight crew, but wouldn't the pilots become aware of the hassle before they come in?

It's not clear how the hijackers got access to the cockpits, but here are some facts from the 9/11 Commission's "Four Flights Monograph".

* The doors used on 9/11 were "not strong enough to preclude forced entry". I recall that improving the security of the doors was one of the first measures proposed after the horse had bolted.

* Although the doors were meant to be kept locked, this often wasn't observed in practice, and the FAA didn't do spot checks. (The door on flight 93 would have been locked, because the pilot had been warned of a possible incursion.)

* On some flights (again, 93 is an exception) it was policy for all flight crew to carry a key. You could get one by stabbing a stewardess.

* On 9/11, the same key fitted every door on every 757 and 767. Yes, it's hard to believe, isn't it?

* The terrorists sometimes claimed to be carrying bombs. "Let us in or we blow up the plane" is a pretty good threat.

"While the hijacking response doctrine, known as the commerrcial aviation industry's "Common Strategy", taught the flight crew to keep hijackers out of the cockpit, it above all urged nonconfrontation and co-operation."

So there are lots of ways they might have got into the cockpits.

So they did keep track of all planes except flight 77? I was under the impression that they didn't.

They didn't. Apparently turning the transponder off makes the plane hard to find: I don't quite follow the technical stuff in the following passage:

"Almost immediately, however, a problem arose. The Weapons Director asked: "MCC, I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to ..." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, the plane only appeared as a primary track on radar. The fighters were vectored to military airspace near Long Island while NEADS personnel searched frantically for the missing flight."

That was flight 11.

When flight 175's transponder went off, the ATC who should have noticed this was the same ATC who was busy looking for flight 11.

I don't think you're going to find some human error so great as to constitute real negligence.

 

[gumboot]

They didn't. Apparently turning the transponder off makes the plane hard to find: I don't quite follow the technical stuff in the following passage:

"Almost immediately, however, a problem arose. The Weapons Director asked: "MCC, I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to ..." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, the plane only appeared as a primary track on radar. The fighters were vectored to military airspace near Long Island while NEADS personnel searched frantically for the missing flight."

Just to clarify, turning off the transponders greatly impaired the military's ability to locate the flights. It had no significant impact on the FAA's ability to track the flights.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

If the FAA had the planes in primary... then the only reason NORAD could not find the airplanes was... *drums* error in communication between them and NORAD.
They can come up and say whatever they want. But no one was ever charged for any error. And that's an investigation that was never carried out, at least that we know of.

Is it hard to imagine that in between these 4 flights and short time intervals, there could have been massive human error? especially flight 93 where there's almost no excuses yet it took so long to inform NORAD.

Was there any criminal investigation ever carried on the ATCs that we know of? The 9/11 Commission wasn't assembled to provide culprits, I know.

 

[gumboot]

If the FAA had the planes in primary... then the only reason NORAD could not find the airplanes was... *drums* error in communication between them and NORAD.

Not at all. NORAD's radar were inferior to the FAA's. The ARTCC could locate the flights, but NORAD couldn't because they had a different type of radar - one that was obsolete.

They can come up and say whatever they want. But no one was ever charged for any error. And that's an investigation that was never carried out, at least that we know of.

The FAA and NORAD did much better than anyone could have expected them to do under the circumstances. Intercepting any of the four flights was an impossible task.

Is it hard to imagine that in between these 4 flights and short time intervals, there could have been massive human error? especially flight 93 where there's almost no excuses yet it took so long to inform NORAD.

I have already explained to you the protocol for intercepts. The protocol does not allow for rapid involvement of NORAD. NORAD found out about all four flights much faster than they would have if protocol had been followed.

Was there any criminal investigation ever carried on the ATCs that we know of? The 9/11 Commission wasn't assembled to provide culprits, I know.

No criminal act was carried out by either the ARTCC or NORAD, and frankly your implication that there was is utterly disgusting. You insult the effort these people made to try and stop something they had no chance of stopping.

To make these sort of accusations at all is shameful. To do so out of utter ignorance is totally unacceptable.

-Gumboot

 

[jamrat]

Lihoi

Let me get this straight. LIHOI stands for "let it happen out of ignorance". So that means they let something happen because they were ignorant of it? Say it ain't so Yurebiz!

 

[gumboot]

Let me get this straight. LIHOI stands for "let it happen out of ignorance". So that means they let something happen because they were ignorant of it? Say it ain't so Yurebiz!

Normally it's used as "Let it happen out of incompetence".

-Gumboot

 

[jamrat]

Normally it's used as "Let it happen out of incompetence".

-Gumboot

Sorry, I was just quoting Yurebiz.

 

[Yurebiz]

Let me put this some other way. Is it outrageous to think Al Qaeda might have had insiders on the FAA or involved ATC towers?

 

[gumboot]

Let me put this some other way. Is it outrageous to think Al Qaeda might have had insiders on the FAA or involved ATC towers?

Not entirely, however unless they were in a position of authority (say a Center Supervisor) they can't actually do a lot). Regardless of whether an Al Qaeda insider could disrupt things or not, the evidence indicates this did not happen.

The response from both ARTCC and NORAD was much faster than called for by protocol. The problem is the attacks were faster.

-Gumboot

 

[jamrat]

Let me put this some other way. Is it outrageous to think Al Qaeda might have had insiders on the FAA or involved ATC towers?

Certainly not, however it is outrageous to believe it without evidence. Which is where the truthers err, IMHO.

 

[Yurebiz]

Given the possibility, why haven't we come to know of any criminal investigations...?
Let me ask something I missed also: Couldn't the FAA help out NORAD by passing on exact coordinates of the hijacked planes?

 

[T.A.M.]

re LIHOI:

I think it is used for both now, and when I first used it (some say I coined it...whoopdy doo) I meant it for both. Certainly most of the time, though, it is used with the "incompetence" line of thinking in mind.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

Given the possibility, why haven't we come to know of any criminal investigations...?
Let me ask something I missed also: Couldn't the FAA help out NORAD by passing on exact coordinates of the hijacked planes?

Did you read what I wrote?

It's hypothetically possible. In the context of 9/11, it did not happen. There was an enormous criminal investigation into 9/11. Had there been any Al Qaeda operatives on the "inside" the FBI would have uncovered them.

No the FAA cannot help NORAD by giving "exact coordinates" of the aircraft. It doesn't work like that. They need a radar contact.

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Is it hard to imagine that in between these 4 flights and short time intervals, there could have been massive human error? especially flight 93 where there's almost no excuses yet it took so long to inform NORAD.

Was there any criminal investigation ever carried on the ATCs that we know of? The 9/11 Commission wasn't assembled to provide culprits, I know.

We never shot down hijacked planes before 9/11. Name one hijacked plane before 9/11 escorted by an armed fighter and how long did it take to intercept it over the United States.

Trouble with surprise, it was a surprise attack.

Flight 93 did not tell the anyone they were Hijacked, how did you know it was hijacked on 9/11, are you a terrorist. Tell me how anyone on 9/11 is suppose to know what is going to happen. You are living in the future and you have not researched the past.

When before 9/11 did an armed fighter stand by to shoot down an airliner over the United States in case they flew into a building, and how long did it take the fighter to get on station over the United States. Not over the ocean, over the United States. ?

 

[Civilized Worm]

I'll keep it simple so as to save you time. I sincerely believe I'm too much of a nuisance for you especially on this subject where I have been wrong so much. I still want to figure out some things though.

No, the nuisances are the people who refuse to admit they are wrong.

 

[Yurebiz]

Thank you for the answers.
We do not know what had the FBI unveiled since it's classified.
We cannot know, as mere civilians, if they could be criminally charged, since the individual ATCs in question, as far as we know, were not even questioned by any agency other than their own, which would gladly make itself the favor to shut up and not admit incompetence. Hence no one got demoted.
Hence there can't be a debate. Tell me where I'm wrong again.

Theres nothing wrong with trusting agency reports but one has to be aware of the underlying probabilities of it being covering up their own mistakes. You tell me the FBI carried such investigations. It is alleged there was no such thing. Fine, then why aren't we fed these investigation files? If the FBI has gone through every ATC and confirmed they all did they job flawlessly and are no screwballs nor al-qaeda insiders, I want to see that... I don't want to see some FAA directors saying there wasn't anything they could do and the 9/11 Commission taking their word for it, ending it there.

And one other thing: why couldn't the FAA send coordinates? I see the situation like this, FAA tells NORAD "oh look there's a plane here that's deviating it's flight path, go check it out", NORAD goes "wtf, wut plane?? Ain't nuttin on my radar...", then 15 min later, boom, plane crashes. Four times consecutively. Wouldn't it be easier if the FAA told them where it was?

 

[gumboot]

Thank you for the answers.
We do not know what had the FBI unveiled since it's classified.

No it's not. It was publicly presented in evidence in court.

In fact the FBI investigation into 9/11 is probably unique in the history of criminal investigations because such an enormous amount of material collected by them as evidence was publicly released.

We cannot know, as mere civilians, if they could be criminally charged, since the individual ATCs in question, as far as we know, were not even questioned by any agency other than their own, which would gladly make itself the favor to shut up and not admit incompetence. Hence no one got demoted.
Hence there can't be a debate. Tell me where I'm wrong again.

The controllers who handled the flights were interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, FAA staff were interviewed by the FBI, and all ATCs who handled hijacked flights on 9/11 provided written statements to the FBI.

I just want to make it clear again, because you seem to be ignoring it - there is NO evidence that any FAA employees on 9/11 in any way intentionally hindered the military response to any hijackings. In contrast, Boston Center especially made a huge effort to assist the military.

ou tell me the FBI carried such investigations. It is alleged there was no such thing. Fine, then why aren't we fed these investigation files?

Is the public normally told the details of every single investigation that ever occurs?

The FBI conducted 167,000 interviews and took 45,000 crime scene photos as part of their investigation. Do you expect a transcript of every single interview and copy of every single photo?

How about the 800,000 leads the FBI covered? You want notes on every single one?

If the FBI has gone through every ATC and confirmed they all did they job flawlessly and are no screwballs nor al-qaeda insiders, I want to see that...

You can see that. Did the FBI charge any ATCs? No. Therefore none were suspected of any wrongdoing.

And one other thing: why couldn't the FAA send coordinates? I see the situation like this, FAA tells NORAD "oh look there's a plane here that's deviating it's flight path, go check it out", NORAD goes "wtf, wut plane?? Ain't nuttin on my radar...", then 15 min later, boom, plane crashes. Four times consecutively. Wouldn't it be easier if the FAA told them where it was?

No offence, but you don't seem to have learned anything from my posts. NORAD do not get notified as soon as flights go off course. NORAD did scramble fighters in response to the hijackings.

Air interception is an incredibly complex mission. It's not as simple as saying "he's at this spot, go get him tiger".

The NORAD controllers handle the fighters. If they can't identify the airliner on their scopes, directing the fighters to the airliner is extremely difficult.

Certainly rough locations can be used - and that's what happened.

You have to remember there's four layers here... there's the aircraft itself in the air, there's the FAA radar, there's the NORAD radar, and there's the fighters in the air, with their own radar.

Those systems don't talk directly to each other. The various tracks are travelling at enormous speed, and surrounded by 4,000 other aircraft travelling at enormous speed.

-Gumboot

 

[Yurebiz]

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. 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...

We have two sources of interviews:

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?

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.

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. The investigators may have had the same mindset as you, gumboot. That they could not have done anything wrong simply because it was a fast and surprise attack, and let them go at the first say they have about it. It's simply convenient for everyone to let them go.

It's not definitely LIHOI. But there's a chance, notwithstanding. And we can't corroborate any theory without having the first hand interviews. I had not ever seen them, if they're undisclosed, then I'll retract from my FAA "criminal involvement" accusation once I skim through them.
Thank you for being patient enough with me. I know I'm an incredulous ass somewhat.