Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Strange Strange Air Defense Response on 9/11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:44 AM
Original message
The Strange Strange Air Defense Response on 9/11
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 09:45 AM by spooked911
I already knew that officially, according to the 9/11 commission report, no fighters were scrambled in response to the hijackings of flight 11, flight 175, flight 77 or flight 93, over a period of almost one hour and 45 minutes. This of course is completely outrageous.

But it wasn't until I read "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin that I learned that there actually were fighters scrambled to counter a hijacked aircraft. The problem is, that this hijacked aircraft was officially non-existant. This was the "phantom" flight 11 that continued flying after the "real" flight 11 hit the north tower.

As we know, there are reasons to believe that this aircraft DID exist.* However, the important point for now is that this phantom flight 11 officially did not exist.

To quote from Griffin:

...the Commission has generally portrayed FAA personnel as reluctant to notify the military even after they are absolutely confident a hijacking has occurred. But now we are told that a controller, haing a suspicion that must have seemed extremely counterintuitive, expressed this suspicion as a conviction with such confidence to a NEADS technician that this technician passed it on as definite truth to the NEADS commander.

If all this were not implausible enough, we then have to believe that the NEADS commander would, without verifying the truth of this implausible message with the managers at the Boston center, give Langley a scramble order. The 9/11 commission has usually insisted that all such communications follow the the chain-of-command protocol. But here we are told that a conversation between some person at the Boston center and some technician at NEADS-- neither of whom can now be identified-- was sufficient to swing the US military into action.


Highly bizarre, to say the least.

The way this whole episode is treated by the 9/11 commissison undoubtedly indicates they are covering up something important, and my guess that what they are covering up is that this second phantom flight 11 was indeed real**, and was a real threat to Washington DC. In fact, for all we really know, this second flight may have been what actually hit the Pentagon.

But the fact that a second mystery flight 11 existed is a killer to the official 9/11 story, especially since we have reason to think that this second flight 11 was important for how the 9/11 hijackings were carried out.

Another interesting possibility is that this second flight 11 was part of the hijacking exercise that was happening on 9/11, and the fighters that were scrambled were also part of that exercise, rather than a real defensive measure. Indeed, the Langley fighters travelled relatively slowly and did not arrive over Washington DC in time to prevent the Pentagon hit. In fact, these fighters initially went the WRONG WAY for some reason-- east over the ocean-- all the more reason to think they were participating in the wargames that morning.

*http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=629
**http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=780
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. "phantom flight 11 officially did not exist."
phantom jets
phantom terrists

ghost fighting..

Maybe waldo bin laden was flying Phantom 11??

GWOT is a govt excuse for imperial bushevik dreams
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. What is URL for documentation on NORAD scrambling for Phantom 11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. one hour and 45 minutes?
I already knew that officially, according to the 9/11 commission report, no fighters were scrambled in response to the hijackings of flight 11, flight 175, flight 77 or flight 93, over a period of almost one hour and 45 minutes. This of course is completely outrageous. - spooked911

According to the 9/11 commission report Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:14am and fighters were scrambled from Otis Air Force Base at 8:46am. I believe that is less than one hour and forty five minutes.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, fighters were scrambled for flight 11 but obviously too late
and these fighters were not even in time to stop flight 175.

What I meant was that over a course of 1 hour and 45 minutes not one fighter was scrambled to effectively stop one hijacked flight. Particularly in the case of flight 93, this is outrageous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. United 93
If United 93 was intercepted and shot down by a fighter already in the air, for example because it had been recalled from northern guardian or whatever, then it makes no difference that fighters were not scrambled to intercept it.
What bothers me most about the air defense response is the lack of CAP until after the Pentagon had been hit. Even if the vast majority of bases didn't have fighters officially on strip alert, how long does it take to fuel and arm a fighter? Some of the bases seemed real keen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Right. Good point.
Although I still can't get over the fact that officially they didn't intercept flight 93 because they couldn't find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Otis
The Otis info was trotted out several days after the attacks -- when it was obvious that the initial stories (confirmed by Richard Myers to the Senate (under oath?) on 9/13) of no scramble until after the Pentagon was hit were not going to fly (so to speak).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Why do you think planes were scrambled at 8:46?? Myers & NORAD
spokesman both denied this. They said no planes were scambled regarding 9/11 until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38. So why would you believe 8:46?
http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

But there were military jets known to be flying prior to that time for the military war games. Which planes are which?
And why couldn't the war games jets been used to intercept whatever hit the buildings?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. "F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base."
Direct quote from the 9/11 Commission Report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

I thought I made it clear that the information I had posted was from the 9/11 CR.

spooked911 wrote in the original post that according to the 9/11 CR fighters were not scrambled for almost one hour and 45 minutes. That is simply not what the report states.

People are free to disagree (or discount entirely) what the 9/11 CR says, but if it is referred to, it should at least be represented accurately.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Both Gen. Myers and NORAD spokesman contradicted 9/11 Comm. report
They said that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.

It appears that virtually nothing in the 9/11 time line is accurate and matches the testimony and other evidence. So why would you use that report rather than direct testimony or statements at the time of the events???

As Dr. Griffin stated, the 9/11 Commission report was clearly a
"571 page lie"

Do you disagree with Dr. Griffin in that regard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Why don't you ask spooked911?
spooked911 wrote:
I already knew that officially, according to the 9/11 commission report...

Why don't you ask him why he is citing the 911 Commission Report? I was just responding to say that the report did not state what he said it did.
____________________

Is NORAD an acceptable source?

From news release on 9/18/01:
American Airlines Flight 11 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

08:43am - FAA Notification to NEADS

08:46am - Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s)

08:52am - Fighters Airborne

08:46am - Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) (estimated)

http://web.archive.org/web/20020615115751/http://www.norad.mil/presrelNORADTimelines.htm

Is General Meyers?

From the Senate Confirmation Hearing 9/13/01:
BILL NELSON: Mr. Chairman, may I, just for the record? Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. And it is an hour and seven minutes until the crash occurred in Pennsylvania.

LEVIN: The time that we don't have is when the Pentagon was notified, if they were, by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency, relative to any potential threat or any planes having changed direction or anything like that. And that's the same which you will give us because that's...

MYERS: I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately.

So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/myers_confirmation_091301.html

Are those appropriately close enough to 9/11/01?
____________________

philb wrote:
As Dr. Griffin stated, the 9/11 Commission report was clearly a
"571 page lie"

Do you disagree with Dr. Griffin in that regard?

Yes.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Where were the wargames being held?
How do you know they able to intercept?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Nobody really knows
Nobody really knows where all the war games were. Quite possibly there were multiple war games. Some of them might have been over the continental US, but I would imagine Northern Vigilance and Northern Guardian (if that is really what they were called and if they really existed) were somewhere up north (Canada, Alaska). If planes could have been diverted from these then that might be the reason NORAD scrambled relatively few fighters initially.
However, I think the reason NORAD doesn't scramble from other bases initially is that nobody tells them to. Clarke ordered CAP everywhere a couple of minutes after the Pentagon got hit and NORAD was on the blower to the other bases at 9:49. When they were told to do something, they did it pretty quick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. D'accord, completely
Great post, spooky.

I can tell you eight, nine, ten text passages from the 9/11 Commission report and other sources making very clear that air controllers and managers from different ARTCC's as well as FAA officials and NEADS personnel were tracking Flight 11 after the North Tower Crash. The 9/11 CR claims the phantom flight info came from FAA headquarters in Washington: "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information."

This is such a silly lie.

And I support strongly the idea that Flight 11 was itself part of a hijacking exercise. I don't want to go into details, just mention an anecdote. Listen how NEADS mission crew commander Kevin Nasypany was talking about the (phantom) flight 11:

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he’s heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

Strange language. What does he mean with "this guy", "the first guy"?

The pilot? "try to chase this guy down" - chasing down the pilot of a hijacked airliner, with possibly a knife at his throat? Makes no sense.

A hijacker? How does he know hijackers have seized the pilot's seat?Since 13 minutes he knows that two planes crashed in the WTC. Enough time to conclude that terrorist suicide pilots hijacked these planes and took over control? I don't think so.

A pilot of a wargame plane, simulating an air attack against Washington? Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks! I couldn't have done it without you.
About the Nasypany anecdote-- the use of "this guy" is a little odd. But he may be refering just to the plane. This would be particularly the case if he were looking at a blip on a radar screen and talking to someone else. He would point to the blip and say "this guy". If he wasn't looking at a radar screen, the use of "this guy" suggests some familiarity and I think your idea about the pilot of a wargame plane is good.

I don't know why he says "the first guy"-- that is weird.

Overall, just the fact that they scrambled fighters so readily for this "phantom" blip really sets off alarm bells.

And I bet dollars to donuts that the second flight 11 was part of the hijacking exercise going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. What details do you have on the hijacking exercise?
I am not very clear on what happened. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Langley
My understanding is that the fighters at Langley were sitting on the runway more or less ready from some time after 9:00, but they didn't have any specific instructions from the top about what to do or where to go and they seem to be confused about what was going on, so they used the first excuse to launch they got. While a relatively junior officer can order a response to an immediate threat such as a hijacking, what was needed after the second plane hit at 9:03 (assuming they really didn't know where AA 77 was) was CAP everywhere, but I think that order would have to come from Rummy. Is there an SOP for CAP? As far as I know, it had never been done before.
I'm not surprised that there is confusion and that some fighters are sent the wrong way, I am surprised that so few fighters are scrambled - it seems only five before 10:00. Given the FAA thought there were perhaps more than 10 more hijacked planes out there heading God knows where, 5 fighters seems a very small number. Perhaps there were some training flights up as well, but they don't seem to have played a major part in the response, so perhaps they didn't have enough fuel or weapons. Even if the war games were over Canada and Alaska and NORAD was banking on fighters returning from that, then they don't seem to arrive very promptly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. Some good background info...
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 08:50 PM by hack89
in this interview with the commander of the Continental United States NORAD Region, Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold. Feel free to ignore his account of 9/11 if you wish. There is an good account of how the NORAD/FAA coordination should have worked.

Couple of things that caught my eye:

1. The Air National Guard has been responsible for air defense of the US mainland since 1997 - not the Regular air force.

2. On 9/11 there were only 14 aircraft on alert at 7 sites in the entire US.

3. NORAD did not have access to the FAA radar picture.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/jan_02/defense/defense_p.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. How many fighter jet sorties are flown over the Eastern seaboard of the US
on a typical weekday morning?

I mean, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of fighters and fighter pilots stationed on and just off the East Coast between Vermont and North Carolina. Were all of these planes in mothballs or something on 9/11? Did all the fighter pilots get together for a golfing tournament or something?

During the 9/11 crisis, scores of fighter jets and pilots were undoubtedly IN THE AIR and/or being prepared for takeoff within easy range of the hijackings. Sure, few if any would be fully armed. But we're talking about a 757 versus a fighter jet here. A gun (even if loaded with training rounds) should have been more than sufficient. Even if safety mechanisms were being used for some reason, it would have taken just a couple of minutes to land, disengage any safeties and then proceed to intercept any known hijacking. And this process would have been even quicker and easier for any fighter jets that were in the process of being prepared for training sorties that morning.

No, NORAD did not have the "FAA radar picture." But they had their own radar picture plus a myriad of channels and methods to communicate with the FAA.

Anyway, all the excuses in the world don't cut the mustard. If it's really true that no fighter jet was even bearing down on ANY known hijack more than a hour after the SECOND plane hit the WTC, why haven't those responsible been fired for their supreme fuck up? I mean, we are asked to believe that Flight 93's passengers were somehow able to piece together what was happening to them even though they had to contend with armed hijackers and their only line of communication with the outside world was a few telephone calls. So Flight 93's passengers had enough time to ascertain their situation, meet together to plot and plan their response, come to the conclusion that action was necessary and act successfully to bring the plane down BEFORE our 500 billion dollar a year national defense was even able issue an interception order?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Alert aircraft
"On 9/11 there were only 14 aircraft on alert at 7 sites in the entire US."
That's true, but how long does it take to scramble an aircraft that is not officially on strip alert? Perhaps longer than the official 15 minutes for alert planes, but given that the FAA thought there were over 10 more possible hijacks after 9:03, why does the NMCC only order up the five fighters it has on strip alert? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to send up fighters from other bases? In the end it is Clarke who requests CAP and this is after Rummy has done a bunk. There seems to be a lack of urgency about the military response and this lack seems to come from the man at the top who, in the middle of the emergency, forgets he is Secretary of Defense and goes out to play doctors and nurses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Lack of urgency is absolutely right...
They took too long to recognize what was happening - hijacking to them was a law enforcement issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Too long?
"They took too long to recognize what was happening."
How so? There's no way the NMCC could have known multiple hijackings or suicide crashes were going to happen before 8:42 and 8:46 respectively. Shortly after 9:00 (or even just before it) the NMCC and all the other relevant agencies had correctly assessed the situation and were beginning to respond in the appropriate manner. It took 15 to 20 minutes for them to get going, I don't think that's a long time at all. Rumsfeld's conduct was disgraceful - he deserted his post - people have been courtmartialled for less.

"hijacking to them was a law enforcement issue."
When the second plane hit the South Tower, it was abundantly clear that the situation required a more serious response and many other agencies did respond in the next half hour - the secret service got Bush out of the classroom, the FAA issued a ground stop, etc., but the military scrambled a mere three fighters, and that in response to a phantom American 11. Do you really think Rummy did a good job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. No - Rummy did a lousy job.
The Air Force was simply not prepared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-05 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Preparation
The airforce was completely unwilling to improvise. It took over an hour for them to call the base in Toledo and tell them to scramble, it shouldn't take an hour for the NMCC to make that call. However, this isn't a call that a middle-ranking officer can make - it has to come from the top. Rummy does nothing. This is the military's chance to show what they can do and they blow it.

I am curious to know your position about how 9/11 has been used by the current administration. Do you:
(a) Agree with everything the administration has done since 9/11?
(b) Think that the administration has made some bad calls since 9/11 and perhaps manipulated it a little for its own ends, but this doesn't prove they had foreknowledge of 9/11?
(c) Something else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. :chuckle: :chuckle:
"...the secret service got Bush out of the classroom..."
Thanks for the laugh.
:) Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Arnold doesn't seem a very credible source- based on contradictions
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 08:28 AM by philb
between his testimony at 9/11 Commission with other testimony and evidence.

But there is strong evidence that more Air National Guard jets were available on 9/11, such as those at Andrews.

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html
etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC