Unanswered Questions about 9/11

[gumboot]

CTers often cite the series of questions presented by families of 9/11 victims, which were to be used as a roadmap by the 9/11 Commission.

CTers claim that over half of these questions were never answered, and use this as a basis for dismissing the commission as a joke.

Until recently I wasn't really aware of what the questions were.

They're listed here, and frankly most of them are stupid. I'm not surprised they weren't answered.

Gems like:

1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.

2. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification?

3. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks?

4. Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

1) No. NORAD does not monitor flights. The FAA monitors flights. NORAD intercepts inside the ADIZ are activated only at the request of the FAA. The reason the FAA could not track the flights was because the terrorists disabled the transponders.

2) The longest duration between NORAD being notified of a hijacking, and the hijacked aircraft crashing, was 9 minutes for AA11. Even assuming the precise location of AA11 was known (it wasn't), using your "8 minute" number, that allows the NORAD fighters 1 minute to get from their airfield to Manhattan, intercept AA11, and shoot it down. Need I point out the impossibility of this task?

3) NORAD did not know there WERE any attacks until after UA175 hit WTC2. NORAD and everyone else initially thought the first impact was a small aircraft, and an accident.

4) No aircraft tailed AA11 or UA175. The first fighters launched by NORAD were still on the ground, at Otis, when AA11 hit, and they were aproximately 70mi from Manhattan when UA175 hit. At the time, it was not known that AA11 had hit WTC1, and as a result the Otis fighters continued with their task, tracking down AA11 based on its projected flight path. When NORAD were notified of AA77's hijacking - 2 minutes before it hit The Pentagon - they directed another pair of fighters from Langley to intercept it, however the also were too far away to do anything. NORAD did not find out about UA93 until after it had crashed, thus directing any aircraft to intercept it was not an option (they found out it had crashed 8 minutes later, and in those 8 minutes they had numerous other suspected hijackings to deal with).

One thing that pisses me off about some of the relatives victims is they use emotion to establish a moral high ground, and yet they're guilty of the same gross ignorance in many cases as the rest of the CT crowd. Half their questions can be answered by basic common sense alone.

For example:

(To Bush) As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack?

Er... maybe because the USSS determined it wasn't safe?

-Gumboot

 

[A-Train]

1) No. NORAD does not monitor flights. The FAA monitors flights. NORAD intercepts inside the ADIZ are activated only at the request of the FAA. The reason the FAA could not track the flights was because the terrorists disabled the transponders.

You are correct. NORAD does not monitor flights. The FAA control centers do. When they suspect a hijacking, they are to notify NORAD, who scramble a fighter, who is provided an intercept vector by the same FAA controllers who are monitoring the suspect aircraft. But to say the FAA "could not track" the flights because the terrorists turned off the transponders is completely false. First of all, one of the planes, UAL175, only turned off its transponder for thirty seconds, before switching to an incorrect code. The controllers at Boston and New York centers tracked UAL175 all the way to Manhattan, and were able to glean altitude information as well from its transponder.

The three other flights did turn off their transponders, but the FAA controllers were still able to track the flights by means of primary radar, which displays a blip without speed or altitude information. The only exception is AAL77, which was lost in a "radar hole" for about 8.5 minutes immediately after the hijack, but then reappeared eastbound in Washington center's airspace. Although it could not be positively identified as AAL77, this track was watched by controllers all the way to its final destination. Likewise, AAL11 and UAL93 were also watched by controllers via their primary tags. They also could not be positively identified, but it could be reasonably presumed that all four of the targets were the hijacked planes.

2) The longest duration between NORAD being notified of a hijacking, and the hijacked aircraft crashing, was 9 minutes for AA11. Even assuming the precise location of AA11 was known (it wasn't), using your "8 minute" number, that allows the NORAD fighters 1 minute to get from their airfield to Manhattan, intercept AA11, and shoot it down. Need I point out the impossibility of this task?

No, but could you please point out which of the numerous timelines presented by NORAD you are using for this analysis?

3) NORAD did not know there WERE any attacks until after UA175 hit WTC2. NORAD and everyone else initially thought the first impact was a small aircraft, and an accident.

Even if that's true, the South Tower was hit at 9:03; the Pentagon was struck at 9:37. That's 34 minutes of time "knowing" there were attacks. The first two strikes can be said to have been unpreventable; the Pentagon strike provides grounds for suspicion there was a NORAD stand down.

4) .... and as a result the Otis fighters continued with their task, tracking down AA11 based on its projected flight path. When NORAD were notified of AA77's hijacking - 2 minutes before it hit The Pentagon - they directed another pair of fighters from Langley to intercept it, however the also were too far away to do anything.

You should be a lot more suspicious of the Otis fighters continuing their task, pursuing AAL11 based on its projected flight path. The fighters are sent to intercept targets. In this case the fighters were sent after a coast track, meaning a data block not associated with a target. This seems like a nonsense order. No one would scramble a fighter after a coast track, unless the intention was to occupy the fighters while the attacks proceeded.

One thing that pisses me off about some of the relatives victims is they use emotion to establish a moral high ground, and yet they're guilty of the same gross ignorance in many cases as the rest of the CT crowd. Half their questions can be answered by basic common sense alone.

But you haven't used common sense to answer their questions. You have instead substituted blind faith in the government's account and disregarded common sense evidence to the contrary.

 

[Brainster]

That's why 9-11 Press for Truth strikes me as such a phony documentary; they claim to be just asking questions, but the first one is why didn't the Air Force intercept those planes which were flying around the country for "two hours"? And the second one is, why didn't the Secret Service whisk Bush out of that elementary school?

Now, mind you, these are the Jersey girls, whose husbands all died in the towers. The notion that somehow their husbands could have been saved if Bush (or the Secret Service) had reacted quicker is nutty.

 

[~enigma~]

there was a NORAD stand down.

Woo alert....DANGER...woo alert....DANGER

 

[Spins]

Even if that's true, the South Tower was hit at 9:03; the Pentagon was struck at 9:37. That's 34 minutes of time "knowing" there were attacks. The first two strikes can be said to have been unpreventable; the Pentagon strike provides grounds for suspicion there was a NORAD stand down.

The other day you said...

I, for one, do not believe the "US government planned and carried out the attacks on September11, 2001."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2315984#post2315984

...but if you are saying there are grounds for suspicion there was a NORAD stand down you are saying the US Gov. was in on it, correct? Also according to reports the FAA notified NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked at about 9:25, using your logic doesn't his mean the FAA were in on it?

 

[A-Train]

...but if you are saying there are grounds for suspicion there was a NORAD stand down you are saying the US Gov. was in on it, correct? Also according to reports the FAA notified NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked at about 9:25, using your logic doesn't his mean the FAA were in on it?

The FAA certainly is not "in on it." They did their jobs as best they could. They notified the appropriate authorities at the appropriate times. They have been bullied into remaining silent about the key question: when did they know the planes were hijacked. Most of them have kept quiet, out of fear of losing their jobs; others have spilled the beans that hijackings were suspected immediately. None of them, meaning the FAA controllers involved, really understand the importance of what they are covering up. Like most Americans, they believe 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden, and they believe the failure to intercept the planes was the result of a little goof up on the part of them, the military, or some combination of both. So they keep mum. But that doesn't make them part of any conspiracy.

I believe the NORAD stand down was carried out by a very small number of officers within the command structure, who were loyal to a foreign government, and who were acting on their own-- not on orders from their own president or military superiors. The orders to chase the coast track south of New York and the Langley jets scrambled out over the Atlantic to defend against "the Russians" were what I call nonsense orders, to occupy the fighters and give a reasonable cover story after the fact, while the hijacked jets were allowed to carry out their missions.

P.S. Which report states that the FAA notified NORAD at 9:25? According to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD is never notified by the FAA about the hijacking of Flight77, but accidentally learns about it at 9:34. Then we have this:

According to the 9/11 Commission, the FAA Command Center advises FAA headquarters that American 77 is lost in Indianapolis flight control’s airspace, that Indianapolis has no primary radar track, and is looking for the aircraft. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] The Command Center had learned this 16 minutes earlier at 9:09 a.m. (see 9:09 a.m. September 11, 2001). American Airlines headquarters was notified of the same information before 9:00 a.m. (see (Before 9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

Do you believe that Indianapolis Center would have notified American Airlines before 9:00 AM, and their Command Center at 9:09, and then, with images of the two burning WTC towers on every TV screen in the country, they somehow failed to notify NORAD during all this time?

I don't.

 

[PerryLogan]

They have been bullied into remaining silent about the key question: when did they know the planes were hijacked. Most of them have kept quiet, out of fear of losing their jobs; others have spilled the beans that hijackings were suspected immediately. None of them, meaning the FAA controllers involved, really understand the importance of what they are covering up.

Interesting. What information do you have that air traffic controllers have been harassed or intimidated? Why are the controllers so dumb they don't know about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11--and how do you know they're that dumb?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Ahhhh...so thats where that list came from. Thnx, I've seen it a couple of times.

 

[A-Train]

Interesting. What information do you have that air traffic controllers have been harassed or intimidated? Why are the controllers so dumb they don't know about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11--and how do you know they're that dumb?

What I can say for sure about controllers involved with the 9/11 planes is that they have been ordered not to speak publicly about their experiences under threat of potentially losing their jobs.

Two days after the attacks, it is reported that an unnamed New England flight controller ignored a ban on controllers speaking to the media, reportedly claiming “that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93 ... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.” He adds that the fighter pilot “must’ve seen the whole thing.” He reportedly learned this from speaking to controllers who were closer to the crash. [Associated Press, 9/13/2001; Telegraph (Nashua), 9/13/2001]

I wouldn't say controllers are dumb. Perhaps the only "conspiracy theories" they've been exposed to are the ones presented by the mainstream media as being representative of the truth movement, i.e., "Bush did it," "we did it to ourselves," "no-757-Pentagon," etc. They've probably dismissed these ideas as ridiculous as would any intelligent person.

I work with controllers every day. They have a lot of time to chat during the work day. In the past several years since 9/11 I have not heard any conversations among controllers about 9/11, conspiracy or otherwise. Not even one.

 

[Spins]

The FAA certainly is not "in on it." They did their jobs as best they could. They notified the appropriate authorities at the appropriate times. They have been bullied into remaining silent about the key question: when did they know the planes were hijacked. Most of them have kept quiet, out of fear of losing their jobs; others have spilled the beans that hijackings were suspected immediately. None of them, meaning the FAA controllers involved, really understand the importance of what they are covering up. Like most Americans, they believe 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden, and they believe the failure to intercept the planes was the result of a little goof up on the part of them, the military, or some combination of both. So they keep mum. But that doesn't make them part of any conspiracy.

I believe the NORAD stand down was carried out by a very small number of officers within the command structure, who were loyal to a foreign government, and who were acting on their own-- not on orders from their own president or military superiors. The orders to chase the coast track south of New York and the Langley jets scrambled out over the Atlantic to defend against "the Russians" were what I call nonsense orders, to occupy the fighters and give a reasonable cover story after the fact, while the hijacked jets were allowed to carry out their missions.

They have been bullied into remaining silent by who? The "very small number" of officers with inside knowledge of 9/11 at NORAD? The foreign government you talk about? Anyways, if it's all linked to a foreign government and not the US why are these people who know the truth within the FAA (of which there would be many) keeping quiet?

P.S. Which report states that the FAA notified NORAD at 9:25? According to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD is never notified by the FAA about the hijacking of Flight77, but accidentally learns about it at 9:34. Then we have this:

According to the 9/11 Commission, the FAA Command Center advises FAA headquarters that American 77 is lost in Indianapolis flight control’s airspace, that Indianapolis has no primary radar track, and is looking for the aircraft. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] The Command Center had learned this 16 minutes earlier at 9:09 a.m. (see 9:09 a.m. September 11, 2001). American Airlines headquarters was notified of the same information before 9:00 a.m. (see (Before 9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

The link was on my post. Regarding the quote above...

"NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001), but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification." [Federal Aviation Administration, 5/22/2003] Yet in 2004, the 9/11 Commission claims that both NORAD and the FAA are wrong. The 9/11 Commission explains that the notification NEADS received at 9:24 a.m. was the incorrect information that Flight 11 had not hit the WTC and was headed south for Washington, D.C. Thus, according to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD is never notified by the FAA about the hijacking of Flight 77, but accidentally learns about it at 9:34 a.m. (see 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

...fair enough, just goes to show how much confusion there was the day.

 

[uk_dave]

None of them, meaning the FAA controllers involved, really understand the importance of what they are covering up.

Yet more breathtaking arrogance from the CTers.

THEY don't know the imprtance of what they ARE covering up, but you do?

Maybe you should tell them.

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

I believe the NORAD stand down was carried out by a very small number of officers within the command structure,

Name names.

who were loyal to a foreign government, and who were acting on their own--

Which foreign government? C'mon, name names.

not on orders from their own president or military superiors. The orders to chase the coast track south of New York and the Langley jets scrambled out over the Atlantic to defend against "the Russians" were what I call nonsense orders, to occupy the fighters and give a reasonable cover story after the fact, while the hijacked jets were allowed to carry out their missions.

Although your particular conspiracy fantasy may not need the tens of thousands of conspirators that others do, it still seems to reach fairly high into the US Government. You should easily be able to name some names. Please do.

What I can say for sure about controllers involved with the 9/11 planes is that they have been ordered not to speak publicly about their experiences under threat of potentially losing their jobs.

Two days after the attacks, it is reported that an unnamed New England flight controller ignored a ban on controllers speaking to the media, reportedly claiming “that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93 ... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.” He adds that the fighter pilot “must’ve seen the whole thing.” He reportedly learned this from speaking to controllers who were closer to the crash. [Associated Press, 9/13/2001; Telegraph (Nashua), 9/13/2001]

As to the quote you cite, do you have a link? I've tried googling different combinations of the supposed source, but they all lead back to cooperativeresearch.com.

An uncited quote that, to a basic search turns up a fantasy site relating the story of an unnamed source with uncorroborated testimony, doesn't exactly blow my hair back.

Why would an F16 have to make 360-degree loops to remain close? Why not just throttle down?

 

[Calcas]

Interesting. What information do you have that air traffic controllers have been harassed or intimidated? Why are the controllers so dumb they don't know about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11--and how do you know they're that dumb?

Being an ex-controller, I resent that whole insinuation.

There is no such thing as a "dumb" Air Traffic Controller in the FAA. The job is much too demanding. Also, controllers are far from being sheep who would clam up to save their jobs. If anything, I find most controllers to be somewhat militant and would jump at the chance to accuse their bosses of some conspiracy or incompetance.

What other stupid, uninformed lies would these guys like to present?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Which foreign government? C'mon, name names.

Soon it comes... "The joooooos did it".

/S

 

[VespaGuy]

There is no such thing as a "dumb" Air Traffic Controller in the FAA. The job is much too demanding. Also, controllers are far from being sheep who would clam up to save their jobs. If anything, I find most controllers to be somewhat militant and would jump at the chance to accuse their bosses of some conspiracy or incompetance.

Not only that, but in 5+ years time, not one of these air traffic controllers has gotten a new job or left their job and is now in a position to talk? Does the 'ban' from talking follow them from job to job for the rest of their lives?

 

[PerryLogan]

Conspiracy theories always demand that a certain group of people--if not all people--be considered as terribly dumb or brainwashed. It's an inherent weakness in any conspiracy paradigm.

This time it's the air-traffic controllers who have no curiosity or independent thinking ability or gumption. I asked for evidence that they'd been harassed, and you gave me one vague allusion to a request not to speak to the media. You're saying the air traffic controllers are hiding something, but you present nothing close to substantive evidence. Citing their silence about 9/11 as proof of anything is logically weird.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I work with controllers every day. They have a lot of time to chat during the work day. In the past several years since 9/11 I have not heard any conversations among controllers about 9/11, conspiracy or otherwise. Not even one.

Maybe the ones that monitor crop dusters over Jerkwater, USA, have time to chat during the day. These are not necessarily the ones who would have strong opinions about 9/11, five years out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here's why I find the following excerpt...

Two days after the attacks, it is reported that an unnamed New England flight controller ignored a ban on controllers speaking to the media, reportedly claiming “that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93 ... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.” He adds that the fighter pilot “must’ve seen the whole thing.” He reportedly learned this from speaking to controllers who were closer to the crash. [Associated Press, 9/13/2001; Telegraph (Nashua), 9/13/2001]

...unconvincing. The date is 9/13/2001. Why nothing later? If this was important news, why wouldn't the media have expanded on it? Or could it be one of those stories with somewhat shaky confirmation that popped up all over the place in the aftermath of the attacks, spurred on by reporters and editors desperately trying to make sense of what happened?

Secondly, the controller is not speaking from first-hand knowledge, but is relating something he heard. This is no different from an urban legend, heard from a "friend of a friend" who, of course, remains nameless. Is it any wonder the news media didn't pursue something from such a questionable source?

 

[rwguinn]

Conspiracy theories always demand that a certain group of people--if not all people--be considered as terribly dumb or brainwashed. It's an inherent weakness in any conspiracy paradigm.

This time it's the air-traffic controllers who have no curiosity or independent thinking ability or gumption. I asked for evidence that they'd been harassed, and you gave me one vague allusion to a request not to speak to the media. You're saying the air traffic controllers are hiding something, but you present nothing close to substantive evidence. Citing their silence about 9/11 as proof of anything is logically weird.

Not only that, the only reason anybody does anything is either for money or far---er--
the only two reasons anybody does anything are for money, fear, or power
Three! Th...
never mind.
Only CT'er are ever motvated by altruism.
"It's True "TM

 

[beachnut]

I believe the NORAD stand down was carried out by a very small number of officers within the command structure, who were loyal to a foreign government, and who were acting on their own-- not on orders from their own president or military superiors.

You will be wrong forever. This is one of the dumbest beliefs I believe I have seen.

You have no facts to base this on do you? I believe you have no facts at all for any CT about 9/11 except the "official" story; do you?