There is no debate on 9/11...

[Yurebiz]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook. It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so.

No wonder there's nothing to debate.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC. Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.
----

and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795

[Tbone]

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.

You provided no evidence to cover-ups or any reason at all to believe something is "fishy."

[MG1962]

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.


Well there is no Conspiracy theory either. Everyone seems to hold to their version of what occured and why. So maybe get your own house in order before poking sticks into our little ant hill

[beachnut]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook. It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so.

No wonder there's nothing to debate.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC. Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.
----

and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795
You are right it is not a debate. Either you have facts and evidence or you do not. You must not have facts and you want to say something but you have no facts.

You want to say NORAD stood down. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it? Where are the facts? Why were f-15s in the air on 9/11, all day long after we all finally figured out people were doing something new, as in a surprise. Oops you forgot to get a job in NORAD and tell us all it was coming. It was your fault.

You want to say so much but you are unable because you have no facts on 9/11. Every single thing you did not day but tried to say is junk and you will never find evidence to present a valid argument.

I did not know a few anti-knowledge people had started a 9/11 truth movement until I heard Charlie Sheen say 19 guys could not do it. Charlie Sheen said no one could fly those fancy maneuvers on 9/11. I am a pilot, have been flying for 33 years as a pilot/instructor with an FAA ATP license. There were no fancy maneuvers on 9/11, just rookie flying. Any kid off the street could do the flying on 9/11, it was too easy to do. This is one of the many red flags to identify truthers.

You know someone is a truther without facts when they say what Charlie said, or they say NORAD stood down, or "free fall", or "pull it", and then it gets even easier with, dustification, vaporized, beam weapon, and so many other truly insane statements. Truthers do not even try hard to research their own lack of facts and evidence. Why?

Yes from the moment I heard Charlie Sheen I looked up some stuff on 9/11 and found so much anti-knowledge information on 9/11 I was wonder how the people could function in a world where the ability to think comes in handy. I found so called expert like Fetzer spewing so many lies I could not understand how anyone could believe anything the entire 9/11 truth movement had to say. No fact, no evidence, just lies and liars.

I am not sure why you try to even support the movement with zero facts to support outlandishly wild conclusions not backed up by any facts.

What is real funny over 99.9 percent of all engineers in the US, are not in the truth movement and only people with out the ability to use knowledge and rational thinking are in the cult of 9/11 "truth" made up of lies.

Why are all truthers unable to find any facts to support their movement? And why do they present real bad videos with no facts?

[beachnut]

I have tried to give each member, who is in the 9/11 truth movement, a chance to give me one fact to support their ideas on 9/11. No one can.

I have talked to Fetzer, emailed him, and found not one single fact. I was trying to find anything. Pilots for truth, no facts. LCF no facts.

Why? Why are is the entire 9/11 truth movement facts less and unable to see it?

Where are your facts, you left them out of your first post, why?

[Quad4_72]

Read the NIST report and then tell us why it is wrong. Thanks.

[John Blonn]

There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..

You should first define your terms. What do you mean by "debate?" To me, there is nothing to "debate" because I consider most 9/11 questions solved. So what exactly should be under discussion?

There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

What do you want, one HUGE, 50,000 page book detailing every single bit and piece of the story? Why should this even matter? There is never, ever one "master narrative" of any event, so why should this be any different?

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

Congress? What do they have to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

Maybe NORAD and FAA are making no "charges" against anybody because there are no charges to make.

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?[quote]

9/11 Commission + NIST are as "official" as you are going to get. The government has a position on this event; apparently they need to put it in a multi-volume masterwork for you to consider it.

[quote]There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

Yeah, that's basically how it went.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook.

Evidence? And an appeal to emotion.

It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

Umm...you answered your own question here.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so. No wonder there's nothing to debate.

Sigh. Please stop the weasel words. Very annoying.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

No actually most skeptics are content to pore over various, disperse works. They don't need "9/11 for Dummies."

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Evidence that they are "covering up their asses?"

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

I think you'll find most JREFs are quite critical of the government on the whole.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

Your rhetorical style does nothing. Please make an argument using evidence.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

Thanks for the respect. But evidence for said fishyness?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

Argument by assertion. Please provide evidence.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

Made up of whom? And for what purpose?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

LOL! Right, we're gonna go ahead and "compile" a new 9/11 report. While I'm at it, let me go reinvent the wheel. Three times.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

"We?" What exactly is a "standing paper?"

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

So you're LIHOP here. But above you insinuated MIHOP. I don't understand how you can hold these incommensurable positions, unless of course you just WANT something to be "fishy" about that day.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC.

You assume that we aren't "skeptical" of the government's information because we accept their explanation. Has it occured to you that maybe we did in fact evaluate the evidence with a critical mind and, shock, came to agree with it because it represented a theory best supported by the evidence?

Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.

This post sounds like one large plea. You've got nothing left except this desperate rant. Time to move on, most of the nation has.

[Corsair 115]

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers.I fail to see what was "explosive" about the way the twin towers collapsed. In fact, they looked just like what I'd expect to see if large structures were collapsing as a result of structural failure. Nothing "explosive" about it at all.

[sivazh]

The number 1 tell tale sign of troofers and their absolute lack of perspective is that they NEVER try to debunk any actual evidence. EVER.

They can point to WTC7 all day long and say it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. They can speculate about suitcase nukes, beam weapons, dustification, blah, blah, blah, but who cares?

One, they can't prove their theoris. So, right there it's over.

But, notice how they NEVER even attempt to debunk the "official conspiracy theory?" Simply saying it's lies or that every single person who supports it works for the CIA doesn't cut it.

Debunk the 9/11 Commission Report. Debunk NIST. Debunk Popular Mechanics. Debunk "Inside 9/11." Debunk "World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon."

Debunk every single piece of evidence, photos, videos, interviews, audio and video tapes, pictures, documents, etc. etc. in those works, and then we can talk.

[LashL]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

:socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks:

[hellaeon]

IF you can explain why the NIST report or any other report is wrong cool, fire away. Also please show us the evidence of the 'paper trail' and 'money trail'.
Rather then sit there and complain and offer an emotional piece about your disdain of policy, debunk the 9/11 Commission Report, debunk NIST and debunk Popular Mechanics.

You simply have a lack of understanding of government policies, departmental procedures and codes and other such advanced political and legal processes. Even in your opening post you have mentioned several items that I know have been explained to you in detail. You have chosen to abandom the logical reasoning offered to you and embrace your own conclusions regardless.

And you wonder why some people grow hostile to your cause? How many times do you want it explained? You wont hear anything till its the answer you want.

Cheers

[Mobyseven]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government
Many side reports and documents may explain what happened, but there's not a single collection of these reports in one paper.

How can there be a debate on government complicity when congress does not wish to debate?

How can there be a debate for accountability when NORAD and FAA makes no charges against any official that may have been responsible for the so many errors?

How can I argue that the Official Account given by the government is false, when there is NONE?

There's nothing to debate. Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings fell down.

The 9/11 Commission Report is a scam. If you accept that trash as the story that will run down in your children's history books, you're a crook. It did not cover the money trail nor any other involvement besides de 19 hijackers. It was not assigned to do so.

The NIST is impartial and does not cover the explosive collapses of the twin towers. It was not assigned to do so.

No wonder there's nothing to debate.

If anything, can we debate on why isn't there a unified document given by the government yet? Or better yet, why do you self-labeled skeptics ACCEPT that there's yet no such work put out by them?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to, you know be SKEPTIC about them covering up their asses?

Shouldn't YOU skeptics be the first to push for accountability?

Apparently, NO.

Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks. See, there's a few timelines here and some tapes here. Yup. Massive error in multiple agencies. There's no reason to look for the money trail folks, we know those stinky arabs were in it. Yeah.

I respect you guys deeply for all your scientific credentials and all. But god, can you please be real skeptics for once?

Can you admit that something smells fishy?

LIHOI, LIHOP, MIHOP, doesn't matter.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.

I have no time to put up an official timeline to what happened. You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. You have not done so. Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened. Therefore the need for a new investigation.

There's nothing to debate. There's a need for accountability and real skepticism. Real skepticism this time. For our own good. Or else, those who made the same mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen, might to it again.

Stop making a big case out of Conspiracy Theorists... and take a good look at how these same agencies have been taking care of you. Start being skeptic of what they disclose for you, not on whatever CD explanation some Joe put up on SLC. Be skeptic to the papers that really matter. And get off your OCT high horse until you have a real Official Story to defend. That's when you'll have a real and caring government to defend.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong. Except in not being a loyalist.
----

and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795

I hate to sound predictable, but:

You say there is no official story. I assume this means that you don't consider the NIST report to be part of the government's story? Or the 9/11 Commission Report?

Yes or no?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You want to say NORAD stood down. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it? Where are the facts?

You want to say 19 hijackers did it. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it?

Where are the FACTS?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

IF you can explain why the NIST report or any other report is wrong cool, fire away. Also please show us the evidence of the 'paper trail' and 'money trail'.
Rather then sit there and complain and offer an emotional piece about your disdain of policy, debunk the 9/11 Commission Report, debunk NIST and debunk Popular Mechanics.

Many entire books have been written, doing just this.

I would start a thread, posting David Ray Griffin's Omissions And Distortions and Debunking the Debunkers books, one paragraph at a time, but I'm sure somebody would immediately censor me here for posting copyrighted text. Or, Beachnut will just scream "he's a liar!"

[Mobyseven]

Many entire books have been written, doing just this.

I would start a thread, posting David Ray Griffin's Omissions And Distortions and Debunking the Debunkers books, one paragraph at a time, but I'm sure somebody would immediately censor me here for posting copyrighted text. Or, Beachnut will just scream "he's a liar!"

Hey, SCG - this is on the first page of the forum! You don't have to post anything about it, because it's already been looked at and evaluated! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2562336&postcount=13)

If you have any criticisms, you might want to post them in that thread.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Hey, SCG - this is on the first page of the forum! You don't have to post anything about it, because it's already been looked at and evaluated! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2562336&postcount=13)

If you have any criticisms, you might want to post them in that thread.

Looked at and evaluated. MMMMKAY.

I'll check it on out. I just read about 10 points. Same old "debunking." If I find time this week I'll go through Gumboots analysis, as I read the book. Thanks for the link!

[Mobyseven]

Looked at and evaluated. MMMMKAY.

I'll check it on out. I just read about 10 points. Same old "debunking." If I find time this week I'll go through Gumboots analysis, as I read the book. Thanks for the link!

No worries.

I would like to point out that it's the same old debunking because unlike many conpiracy sites, the reality of what happened doesn't change with each retelling...

[skepticalcriticalguy]

No worries.

I would like to point out that it's the same old debunking because unlike many conpiracy sites, the reality of what happened doesn't change with each retelling...

Ummm...

The reality never changes.

But the JREF/debunker/OCT story does. It is constantly changing. Like this article (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists) points out. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

The last time I posted this article, the responses I got were "that's from 2003! How about something more recent!" Well, it makes a point. A good one. Read it, please.

[qarnos]

You want to say 19 hijackers did it. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it?

Where are the FACTS?

Shamelessly pulled from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks), with source-links intact.


Witness reports of hijackers

American Airlines Flight 11

Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B." [1] (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm). Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport and described them as Middle Eastern[1] (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm). She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card info of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta al-Sayed[2] (http://web.archive.org/web/20020921045555/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20020921045555/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html).

American Airlines Flight 77

Two hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed were identified by clerks as having bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, NJ with $1,842.25 in cash [1] (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm). Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, used a cell phone to call her mother in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane[3] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/23/FLIGHTS.TMP). Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States stating the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers had knives and box cutters [4] (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html). Two of the passengers had been on the FBI's terrorist-alert list: Khalid Almihdhar, and Nawaf Alhazmi.

United Airlines Flight 93

Jeremy Glick stated that the hijackers were Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, carrying knives.[1] (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm)[2] (http://web.archive.org/web/20020921045555/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20020921045555/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html). ABC news acquired an apparent inadvertent radio transmission with a voice identified as Ziad Jarrah announcing "Hi, this is the captain, We'd like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they had our demands, so please remain quiet."[3] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/23/FLIGHTS.TMP)

United Airlines Flight 175

A United mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[4] (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html)


So what do you have about the alleged NORAD stand-down?

[Cylinder]

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but can you point out the errors made by NORAD on 9-11?

[MikeW]

Ummm...

The reality never changes.

But the JREF/debunker/OCT story does. It is constantly changing. Like this article (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists) points out. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

The last time I posted this article, the responses I got were "that's from 2003! How about something more recent!" Well, it makes a point. A good one. Read it, please.
How does that prove the official story is "constantly changing"?

Holmgren says that "For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes", for instance, then says when confronted with this people suggest they used false ID, which leads to other problems etc. Trouble is, he's just making that up. Only the Inside Job movement says that there were no Arabs on the plane, everyone else says that's untrue. No changes required here at all.

He then says that "the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes", and so has to invent excuses as to why they're completely vapourised. But guess what? Only people peddling straw men say that. It's not something claimed by anyone else.

Then we get another straw man about the jet fuel having to melt steel (not necessary), and a truly laughable claim that 100 degrees C is enough to destroy DNA. There's the fiction about Flight 77 crashing through 6 walls before exiting, a suggestion that there's a problem about the lawn not being scarred (there isn't, it didn't hit the lawn), and on, and on, and on it goes. Endless straw men and debunked nonsense. You're right, it's unfair to insist on newer articles, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for better ones. Because I really don't think that one does a good job of arguing your case.

[westprog]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...
I haven't had time to mine reports for a single timeline as I said I would.. so instead...
I stuck up with Greening's topic line "What debate?" from a few weeks ago and come up with the following rant...
-----
There's nothing to debate.. because this debate has never started..
There is no official story provided by the government


The role of the government is not to write stories. It's interesting that "story" is the word most used from the CT viewpoint.




Everything is OK, it was all explained to us. The twoof movement is delusional and all there's in to 9/11 was a gigantic cock-up to our defense system. Nothing to worry about folks.

Nothing to worry about? 19 Arabs can kill thousands of people and destroy billions of dollars of property and there's nothing to worry about?

This is where the CT's have their most negative effect. They've hindered a real investigation into the real issues by introducing fantasies.


and I leave ya with a video that just came out of 9/11 Blogger. Whistleblowers, sweet. :|

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795


I can only speak for myself, but I don't intend to watch any more videos. If a transcript were provided, possibly. That tends to point out the hollowness of the arguments.

[sleahead]

SKG, I've read the Holgrem article from the link you provided and I entirely concur with MikeW. Actually, I'm a little shocked that you would link to such a poor article.

[Mobyseven]

Ummm...

The reality never changes.

But the JREF/debunker/OCT story does. It is constantly changing. Like this article (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists) points out. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

The last time I posted this article, the responses I got were "that's from 2003! How about something more recent!" Well, it makes a point. A good one. Read it, please.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

The reality never changes. The strawmans used by the conspiracy theorists occasionally do though.

Honestly, if you're going to argue with us, argue against the actual claims being made, not some half-cocked fantasy notion you've concocted.

[Yurebiz]

Predictable responses...
Look, there can be no debate because there was no criminal investigation undisclosed to us.

We can only speculate on what the India press meant with the ISI connection allegation.
We can only speculate on what models are the most accurate on depicting the collapse of the buildings.

Fact is, no one ever got punished for letting the planes crash in the FAA.
Fact is, the leads were not followed, the 9/11 Commission did not investigate any further than the 19 hijackers' faction.
Fact is, there was a cover up, and there still is, of information regarding pre-9/11 information.
Those two put together should be enough to raise the eyebrows of the most naive critical thinkers. Yet there's no single suspicion, no minimal probability given to a... even a LIHOI scenario, which has ZERO craziness, in this forum, for the exception of a handful of honest OCTers. The rest of you are simple skeptoids, I really can't say no less

If you can't admit there was something weird going on, you simply don't care to give a damn to each absurdity, and merely discard every other bit of information you see on the way. By disregarding every bit of evidence that may point to a LIHOI/LIHOP/MIHOP, you paint yourselves more and more as biased thinkers that don't want to contemplate alternative possibilities.

By not admitting the need of a new 9/11 Commission, you admit not having any regards to the truth, or the victims, or this country as a whole....

There's no debate...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

If you can go through this website and deny ANY, at LEAST a 1% probability of 9/11 have been LIHOI, it just... meh, I'm not going to slander any more. Each to it's own.

[Pardalis]

If you can't admit there was something weird going on

Define "weird".

[Dr Adequate]

This "no unified document" thing is funny, I must tip off my creationist friends.

"If the theory of evolution was true, the evidence for it would all be in one book!"

Yeah, that sounds about crazy enough for them.

Tell you what, pal, if this is what worries you, then why don't you get copies of all the various reports and bind them together in one enormous volume?

[Dr Adequate]

Fact is, no one ever got punished for letting the planes crash in the FAA. Your point being?

Fact is, the leads were not followed, the 9/11 Commission did not investigate any further than the 19 hijackers' faction. This is not, in fact, a fact.

Fact is, there was a cover up, and there still is, of information regarding pre-9/11 information. You have not demonstrated this alleged "fact".

Those two put together should be enough to raise the eyebrows of the most naive critical thinkers. Yes indeed. And also the question: why should we believe your unsubstantiated assertions?

[Yurebiz]

This "no unified document" thing is funny, I must tip off my creationist friends.

"If the theory of evolution was true, the evidence for it would all be in one book!"

Yeah, that sounds about crazy enough for them.

Tell you what, pal, if this is what worries you, then why don't you get copies of all the various reports and bind them together in one enormous volume? Because this was the 9/11 Commission Report's mission. Thus failing, we need a new one. Disagree?
I'm not a creationist. I fully believe in evolution but that's another issue
Besides, Evolution is a scientific theory, no correlation at all with criminal investigations...
Your point being?

This is not, in fact, a fact.

You have not demonstrated this alleged "fact".

Yes indeed. And also the question: why should we believe your unsubstantiated assertions?
:(

Because I've seen these points been made here before, without any disagreement. LIHOI is barely even a theory, and you people don't admit it. Moreover, you deny the need of a new investigation...

9/11 Commission report did not follow the money trail.. dang it, you probably now that very well. -.-
They did not investigate into foreknowledge from warnings and etc... I'm not going to explain all what you're tired to hear.

[Slayhamlet]

Predictable responses...
Look, there can be no debate because there was no criminal investigation undisclosed to us.

We can only speculate on what the India press meant with the ISI connection allegation.
We can only speculate on what models are the most accurate on depicting the collapse of the buildings.

Fact is, no one ever got punished for letting the planes crash in the FAA.
Fact is, the leads were not followed, the 9/11 Commission did not investigate any further than the 19 hijackers' faction.
Fact is, there was a cover up, and there still is, of information regarding pre-9/11 information.
Those two put together should be enough to raise the eyebrows of the most naive critical thinkers. Yet there's no single suspicion, no minimal probability given to a... even a LIHOI scenario, which has ZERO craziness, in this forum, for the exception of a handful of honest OCTers. The rest of you are simple skeptoids, I really can't say no less

If you can't admit there was something weird going on, you simply don't care to give a damn to each absurdity, and merely discard every other bit of information you see on the way. By disregarding every bit of evidence that may point to a LIHOI/LIHOP/MIHOP, you paint yourselves more and more as biased thinkers that don't want to contemplate alternative possibilities.

By not admitting the need of a new 9/11 Commission, you admit not having any regards to the truth, or the victims, or this country as a whole....

There's no debate...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

If you can go through this website and deny ANY, at LEAST a 1% probability of 9/11 have been LIHOI, it just... meh, I'm not going to slander any more. Each to it's own.

Since there is no debate, as you are unwilling to debate on rational grounds (you know, like providing actual proof, not vague "it doesn't seem right to me" non-expert assertions), I suggest you leave this forum. Your appeals to emotion and personal incredulity simply fail to impress us.

[Dr Adequate]

Because this was the 9/11 Commission Report's mission. Bookbinding? Really?

Because I've seen these points been made here before, without any disagreement. Huh?

You have now seen them being made with disagreement. I don't see the point of your first fact or the validity of the other two.

9/11 Commission report did not follow the money trail.. dang it, you probably now that very well. -.-
They did not investigate into foreknowledge from warnings and etc... More assertions.

[Yurebiz]

Since there is no debate, as you are unwilling to debate on rational grounds (you know, like providing actual proof, not vague "it doesn't seem right to me" non-expert assertions), I suggest you leave this forum. Your appeals to emotion and personal incredulity simply fail to impress us.
For crying out loud. Do I have to? Seriously, I could come up here with a dozen links for you people to rehash and check it all out over again. Do we have to go over all that again?

People on this forum section have admitted the possibility of the ISI connection being true.
People on this forum section have admitted the 9/11 Commission is flawed in a couple ways

I'm pointing out that there's a need for a new investigation, and there's no debate about that. There's a need for a new investigation, to settle all these issues once and for all. The debatable and non-debatable aspects of 9/11.

Do I really have to quote-mine everyone and put up twenty separate links indicating the basic LIHOI?

In case you don't have a clue what LIHOI is, it's Let It Happen Out of Ignorance. Term coined by TAM, AFAIK.

Bookbinding? Really?

Huh?

You have now seen them being made with disagreement. I don't see the point of your first fact or the validity of the other two.

More assertions.

It's not an assertion... do your research on this very same sub forum... I know I did, for over 6 months now -.-

[CriticalMind]

I fail to see what was "explosive" about the way the twin towers collapsed. In fact, they looked just like what I'd expect to see if large structures were collapsing as a result of structural failure. Nothing "explosive" about it at all.
Agreed.
There's NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of explosives at the WTC.
Websites such as these are simply deluded in their analysis...

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp9.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html

[mortimer]

Agreed.
There's NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of explosives at the WTC.
Websites such as these are simply deluded in their analysis...

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp9.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html

Um, where's the analysis? Those three pages simply have photos of the collapse.

ETA: Or are you referring to the arrow pointing to a 'squib' in the first photo? Are you really claiming that the 'squib' is evidence of CD?

[kookbreaker]

Agreed.
There's NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of explosives at the WTC.
Websites such as these are simply deluded in their analysis...

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp9.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html

Yes, they are throughly and utterly deluded. The first link points to a burst of stuff coming out of the windows AFTER THE BUILDING HAS ALREADY STARTED FALLING. Such foolishness is common among the CT set.

[Corsair 115]

There's NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of explosives at the WTC.
Websites such as these are simply deluded in their analysis...

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp9.html
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.htmlI fail to see the explosion part of the assertion. I do see an enormous dust cloud rising up as the building collapses, which, again, is not unexpected in a complete collapse.

See, when I hear the word "explosive" I think explosives. You know, things like dynamite. Things which are quite distinctive in how they work and how they appear and sound. None of which is present on any of the many videos of the WTC collapses I've seen.

[slingblade]

Gads, I thought someone just did a load of socks.

[Yurebiz]

I agree that there is no evidence of CD, and that stuff should go somewhere else :|

[Corsair 115]

I agree that there is no evidence of CD, and that stuff should go somewhere else :|The above would seem to be at odds with your earlier statement regarding your problem of NIST not addressing "the explosive collapses of the twin towers."

[Yurebiz]

The above would seem to be at odds with your earlier statement regarding your problem of NIST not addressing "the explosive collapses of the twin towers."
Which isn't evidence of CD either. I'm just as critic to the investigation of the collapses as to the criminal leadings...
But yeah it did sound a little ambiguous. Sorry about that.
I just don't want this turning into yet another CD discussion, thats all. I really don't care if they were CD'd or not, I only judge the investigations and congress' motivation into them.

[T.A.M.]

Agreed, no real debate...

Let us know when the "truth" side of things gathers enough real evidence to engage in one...we'll be here waiting.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ummm...

The reality never changes.

But the JREF/debunker/OCT story does. It is constantly changing. Like this article (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists) points out. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

The last time I posted this article, the responses I got were "that's from 2003! How about something more recent!" Well, it makes a point. A good one. Read it, please.



Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

<snip>

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
Bolding mine for emphasis

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You want to say 19 hijackers did it. Why? Cause you heard somebody say it?

Where are the FACTS?
The information is laid out in the Commission report. If there are errors of fact or logic, please point them out.

[CriticalMind]

Um, where's the analysis? Those three pages simply have photos of the collapse.

ETA: Or are you referring to the arrow pointing to a 'squib' in the first photo? Are you really claiming that the 'squib' is evidence of CD?
FYI , looks like their "analysis" is linked at the bottom of this page:

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html#analysis


ps. I wasn't suggesting anything about "squibs," but rather that their arguments for CD seem superficial.... like these supposed "eyewitness" accounts:

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

[T.A.M.]

CriticalMind:

Welcome to the forum.

TAM:)

[VespaGuy]

I'm pointing out that there's a need for a new investigation, and there's no debate about that. There's a need for a new investigation, to settle all these issues once and for all. The debatable and non-debatable aspects of 9/11

If a new investigation returned no evidence for MIHOP/LIHOP scenerios, would you then consider the 9/11 conspiracies as complete bunk?

[Dr Adequate]

It's not an assertion... do your research on this very same sub forum... I know I did, for over 6 months now -.- Then you are, I presume, aware: that the criminal investigator of 9/11, codenamed PENTTBOM (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm), was the largest in U.S. history; that it involved 7000 agents (that's 64%, Yurebiz, of the all the agents the FBI have); that they continued to investage and make arrests for years after they identified the 19 hijackers; that they followed over half-a-million investigative leads; and that they did in fact follow the "money trail" to the hijackers' sponsors.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is also worth mentioning that pushing for further investigations into things, such as the ISI report, is perfectly, but to claim that the entire Commission report, et al should be thrown out and start from scratch because of this further investigation is not. It would only be valid to demand so if the investigation in to the ISI report invalidated what is presented in the Commission report; this would not be known until the ISI investigation is complete.

[Thunder]

Yurebiz and skepticalcriticalguy-

#1. why is it so important for you guys that people at JREF believe your side of the story? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? You're like door-to-door Evangelists who keep coming back to the home that doesn't accept the "truth". You just cant deal with the fact that some very intelligent people don't want your tupperware. I see a deep emotional need for validation here.

#2. Why dont you come up with an actual theory of what happened that day. Who did what...when they did it...how they did it. Names, places, dates, materials, etc etc. Thats a real theory. We have our theory...what is yours?

[beachnut]

I agree that there is no evidence of CD, and that stuff should go somewhere else :|
I agree, and there is no evidence of anything you are trying to say either. Unless you have uncovered some undiscovered facts to support any truth movement ideas on 9/11, you can say there is no evidence for all the stuff you are trying to imply about 9/11.

[Thunder]

What the 9-11 truthers do...and fail to admit (intentionally or unintentionally) is that when something doesn't add up 100%..or there seems to be a slight discrepency with a fact from the official story, they IMMEDIATELY jump to the conclusion that there is foul play involved, something is being covered up, some grand conspiracy has been uncovered.

take the passenger lists released by CNN for example. they failed to list the names of the hijackers. conspiracy theorists immediately grab onto that and say "see...there were no arabs on the planes!!". it never occurs to them (or they choose not to) consider the possibility that CNN removed the names of the suposed hijackers from the victims list. to them, everything must be a conspiracy, and not only evidence that suggests otherwise, but even logic and thought processes that suggest otherwise, must be rejected outright.

this is why 9-11 truthers are not real skeptics. true skeptics EXAMINE the evidence and dont disregard it because of the source, or because of politics. truth knows no color or political party. 9-11 truthers should try to understand that.

[John Blonn]

Yurebiz.

You seem to oscillate at will between weak LIHOP, strong LIHOP, and MIHOP.

LIHOP and MIHOP are two completely incommensurable positions.

You claim to see evidence for "weird" "fishy" etc. etc. occurrences on that day. However, you can only see evidence for either LIHOP or MIHOP. There is no way you can see evidence for both without massive contradictions.

So, sir (madam?), which is it? Do you see evidence for LIHOP or for MIHOP?

[T.A.M.]

What the 9-11 truthers do...and fail to admit (intentionally or unintentionally) is that when something doesn't add up 100%..or there seems to be a slight discrepency with a fact from the official story, they IMMEDIATELY jump to the conclusion that there is foul play involved, something is being covered up, some grand conspiracy has been uncovered.

A very succinct, and accurate description of the truther mindset on the "inconsistencies". They like to call what they are doing "Connecting the dots".

the trouble is, they think "Connecting the dots" ends up revealing a picture of the USG causing 9/11, when in fact, once the dots are connected, all you have is a ball full of knotted string.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Meh I stayed up "late" today thinking about some things...More sleep may help your thought process. Seriously.
There is no official story provided by the government:confused:

Can you admit that something smells fishy?Fish might also be helpful. Keep in mind that fresh fish doesn't smell fishy. And beware of bad clams.

There was something wrong. there was cover up. Justified or not, there was cover up. And there still is, today.:con2:

And, most of all, can you admit that there's a need for a new investigative commission?:notm

There's nothing to debate. Either you're skeptics or you're skeptoids.You feel sleepy...sleepy.

You guys have had much time to compile a new 9/11 Report by yourselves in this very forum. It's actually online (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm).

Hence, there's no paper you abide by. That's so covenient. guess what, we don't abide by any paper either.Also, your blood sugar may be low.

We abide by the premise that there IS no standing paper that explains what happened.Both the paperback and the hardcover versions will stand up. Your motor skills may be suffering due to low blood sugar and lack of sleep.

There's no official story... hence, there's nothing to debate.Thanks for stopping by though. It's always good to see you.

Now please tell me where did I get it wrong.Never get a degree in somnambulism from an internet university.

Look, there can be no debate because there was no criminal investigation undisclosed to us.:eek:

By not admitting the need of a new 9/11 Commission, you admit not having any regards to the truth, or the victims, or this country as a whole....By not admitting that your arguments are the logical equivalent of the train wreck scene in The Bridge on the River Kwai, you are not showing due respect to Sir Alec Guinness.

There's no debate...Did you finally nod off? I'll tuck you in. Aw, how cute is that cowlick?

[PhantomWolf]

Fact is, no one ever got punished for letting the planes crash in the FAA.

How did they let them crash? Were they supposed to run up the WTC stairs and put a big "Diversion" sign out the window?

[Pardalis]

Yurebiz.

You seem to oscillate at will between weak LIHOP, strong LIHOP, and MIHOP.

LIHOP and MIHOP are two completely incommensurable positions.

You claim to see evidence for "weird" "fishy" etc. etc. occurrences on that day. However, you can only see evidence for either LIHOP or MIHOP. There is no way you can see evidence for both without massive contradictions.

So, sir (madam?), which is it? Do you see evidence for LIHOP or for MIHOP?


QFE

Exactly. You can't have a LIHOP theory and a controlled demolition theory at the same time.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

LIHOP and MIHOP are two completely incommensurable positions.



Not at all, not if Al Qaeda is controlled by CIA/MI6. If you hold the viewpoint that Al Qaeda was part of, or used by, the rogue network, then LIHOP and MIHOP are the same thing.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

QFE

Exactly. You can't have a LIHOP theory and a controlled demolition theory at the same time.

Wait! About six months ago, Bush made sure to tell us that KSM had talked about putting bombs, high up in buildings. Remember???

[skepticalcriticalguy]

What the 9-11 truthers do...and fail to admit (intentionally or unintentionally) is that when something doesn't add up 100%..or there seems to be a slight discrepency with a fact from the official story, they IMMEDIATELY jump to the conclusion that there is foul play involved, something is being covered up, some grand conspiracy has been uncovered.

take the passenger lists released by CNN for example. they failed to list the names of the hijackers. conspiracy theorists immediately grab onto that and say "see...there were no arabs on the planes!!". it never occurs to them (or they choose not to) consider the possibility that CNN removed the names of the suposed hijackers from the victims list. to them, everything must be a conspiracy, and not only evidence that suggests otherwise, but even logic and thought processes that suggest otherwise, must be rejected outright.


Tricky wording. "100%", "slight discrepency", etc.

Then you list one example of a "slight discrepency". There are hundreds. No, I won't list any. Entire books have been written. You know that.

[Pardalis]

Wait! About six months ago, Bush made sure to tell us that KSM had talked about putting bombs, high up in buildings. Remember???

WTF does that have to do with controlled demolitions?

[John Blonn]

Not at all, not if Al Qaeda is controlled by CIA/MI6.

Evidence?

If you hold the viewpoint that Al Qaeda was part of, or used by, the rogue network,

What, pray tell, is the "rogue network?" And...evidence?

then LIHOP and MIHOP are the same thing.

No they are not. LIHOP generally implies that the events of the day went as has been described; the only difference here is that the USG "let" it happen. In this scenario, the towers fell due to structural failure, fire, etc. etc.

MIHOP implies CD, among other theories, which directly involves the USG.

LIHOP and MIHOP are not equivalent no matter how you slice it.

Unless of course you will posit that the CIA/M16 made "Al Qaeda" fly planes into buildings, and then had bombs preplanted to take the buildings down, etc. etc. Part of the USG then had to "let it happen on purpose" i.e. let the rogue part of the government do this while controlling Al Qaeda and knowing they were planting bombs in the towers and CDing WTC 7. So the USG knows about this rogue element CIA/M16 controlling Al Qaeda but does nothing about it and...

*THUD*

Wait, where am I? Blacked out there for a second.

[Pardalis]

Wait, where am I? Blacked out there for a second.

Me too, that last paragraph made me dizzy. :boggled:

[gumboot]

Technically any and all variations of MIHOP also constitute LIHOP.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

Yurebiz and skepticalcriticalguy-

#1. why is it so important for you guys that people at JREF believe your side of the story? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? You're like door-to-door Evangelists who keep coming back to the home that doesn't accept the "truth". You just cant deal with the fact that some very intelligent people don't want your tupperware. I see a deep emotional need for validation here.

#2. Why dont you come up with an actual theory of what happened that day. Who did what...when they did it...how they did it. Names, places, dates, materials, etc etc. Thats a real theory. We have our theory...what is yours?
You know what parky, you're right. It's pointless to provide my point of view here. Either you can see the cover up, or you can't. There is a stockpile amount of omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report that it's just amazing. And you guys know it, you have been through it before.

I'm not aiming to prove MIHOP or even LIHOP, I just wish you OCTists could at least admit LIHOI. But not even that. You hold your wits to the 9/11 Commission, knowing all it's mistakes and lack of investigation, yet you think there's no need for a new report.

You're telling me that you're fine with no officials from either the FAA nor NORAD being held accountable from their mistakes.

You're telling me that you're fine with a report that says the twin towers were hollow. And no mention of WTC7.

Those are all minor events, I reckon.

But I don't like it at all.

In defense against LIHOP I could hear every skeptic say "oh but the FAA/NORAD just covered up their asses". Well? And the Commission just LET them do that? Why no further investigation with them? What if Al-Qaeda had members infiltrated within these agencies, causing confusion to allow the hijackers to fly the planes wherever they wanted?

In my honest opinion, a true investigative inquiry would ahve gone deep into the Pakistani connections, deep into the Israeli art students infiltrated here and watching the muslim would-be hijackers, deep into the stock traders that placed put options on the airliner companies' stocks, deep investigation onto Mineta's testimony and the "young aid", deep into the multiple pre-911 warnings and it's sources, deep into what the FBI was doing at all...

But we didn't see any of that, did we?

Those are all minor leads, I reckon.

It's just so easy to cast away each one of the leads separately.

You can say, and you DO say, that it's all coincidence, no relevance at all.

I can only agree to disagree with you. I can't make you see something that hasn't been proven.

I can only point out that these issues have not been openly investigated by the agencies. They have only been investigated by independent media reporters and others. No wonder there's no connection: no authority has ever investigated it. How can a conspiracy be unveiled if no commission decides to investigate it?

How can people pay for their crimes if they were never asked about it...

We have a clear cover-up scenario. The argument of "there's no evidence" loses it's value because the evidence is withheld by the federal agencies...

SOMEONE IS CLEARLY COVERING UP THEIR ASSES. AGREE OR DISAGREE?

Hence the need of a new investigation. Agree or disagree?

Gosh, one would figure that CRITICAL THINKERS would be able to make such basic connections. -.-

[gumboot]

Yurebiz, you'll actually find that many people here believe incompetence in the government allowed 9/11 to happened. Personally, I disagree. But I suspect I'm in the minority.

MAy I ask what mistakes, specifically, the FAA and NORAD made? I'm pretty familiar with their standard procedures and their actions on 9/11 so I may be able to provide you some answers.

-Gumboot

[Dr Adequate]

You know what parky, you're right. It's pointless to provide my point of view here. Either you can see the cover up, or you can't. There is a stockpile amount of omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report that it's just amazing. And you guys know it, you have been through it before. Ah, we're back to the "all the relevant facts aren't in one enormous book" thing, are we?

I'm not aiming to prove MIHOP or even LIHOP, I just wish you OCTists could at least admit LIHOI. Are you insane?

Hey, I'm Just Asking Questions.

You're telling me that you're fine with a report that says the twin towers were hollow. Where did we tell you that? Please give referenced quotations.

Which report says that the twin towers were hollow? Provide quotations and context.

We have a clear cover-up scenario. The argument of "there's no evidence" loses it's value because the evidence is withheld by the federal agencies... What are you talking about here: 9/11, the Roswell Incident, or Elvis assassinating JFK?

'Cos this formula allows you to believe anything you damn well please without a shred of evidence.

[Yurebiz]

NORAD didn't quite do any mistakes. They just didn't do anything in a time that the country was being attacked...
As for the FAA, it's their job to report any hijacking or odd behavior, of commercial airplanes going off-track or not responding, to NEADS (NORAD) and see what's going on...
Something went very wrong, FAA went nuts, and things didn't happen they way it should. 4 Planes were hijacked and crashed in a period of about 1 1/2 hours and nothing was done to stop them...
Is that not right?

Ah, we're back to the "all the relevant facts aren't in one enormous book" thing, are we?

Are you insane?

Hey, I'm Just Asking Questions.

Where did we tell you that? Please give referenced quotations.

Which report says that the twin towers were hollow? Provide quotations and context.

What are you talking about here: 9/11, the Roswell Incident, or Elvis assassinating JFK?

'Cos this formula allows you to believe anything you damn well please without a shred of evidence.

As solicited by the victim's families, yes, we need a big 'reference guide' book about 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission Report says that. I'm not going to quote it because I'm the laziest CTer you'll ever find.

And yes that's 9/11.

[gumboot]

NORAD didn't quite do any mistakes. They just didn't do anything in a time that the country was being attacked...
As for the FAA, it's their job to report any hijacking or odd behavior, of commercial airplanes going off-track or not responding, to NEADS (NORAD) and see what's going on...
Something went very wrong, FAA went nuts, and things didn't happen they way it should. 4 Planes were hijacked and crashed in a period of about 1 1/2 hours and nothing was done to stop them...
Is that not right?



What are your grounds for asserting that the FAA should have notified NORAD? At what point should they have notified NORAD? What method and level of notification should have occurred?

Sorry if it sounds like I'm badgering you, I'm just trying to determine where your assertions are based.

Bear in mind each of these organisations is very large, with multiple levels of command structure, from local operations centre right up to a Federal headquarters.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

The Commission also OMMITTED Leprachauns, and visitng aliens from the possible causes of the attacks...clearly this warrants a new independent investigation.

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

NORAD didn't quite do any mistakes. They just didn't do anything in a time that the country was being attacked...
As for the FAA, it's their job to report any hijacking or odd behavior, of commercial airplanes going off-track or not responding, to NEADS (NORAD) and see what's going on...
Something went very wrong, FAA went nuts, and things didn't happen they way it should. 4 Planes were hijacked and crashed in a period of about 1 1/2 hours and nothing was done to stop them...
Is that not right?This is pretty simple, Yurebiz...

Why don't you tell us exactly what you think should have happened and back it up with evidence. If you think NORAD should have done something or something quicker, show evidence supporting your claim. Cite specific NORAD protocols or processes which support your claim. Same for the FAA. If you can, that will take us down one path. If you can't. then you need to drop your claim.

[Dr Adequate]

NORAD didn't quite do any mistakes. They just didn't do anything in a time that the country was being attacked...
As for the FAA, it's their job to report any hijacking or odd behavior, of commercial airplanes going off-track or not responding, to NEADS (NORAD) and see what's going on...

Something went very wrong, FAA went nuts, and things didn't happen they way it should. 4 Planes were hijacked and crashed in a period of about 1 1/2 hours and nothing was done to stop them...
Is that not right? Some facts for you (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB148/911%20Commission%20Four%20Flights%20Monograph.pdf) . From some people called the "9/11 Commission", I don't know if you've heard of them?

[Yurebiz]

What are your grounds for asserting that the FAA should have notified NORAD? At what point should they have notified NORAD? What method and level of notification should have occurred?

Sorry if it sounds like I'm badgering you, I'm just trying to determine where your assertions are based.

Bear in mind each of these organisations is very large, with multiple levels of command structure, from local operations centre right up to a Federal headquarters.

-Gumboot

This is pretty simple, Yurebiz...

Why don't you tell us exactly what you think should have happened and back it up with evidence. If you think NORAD should have done something or something quicker, show evidence supporting your claim. Cite specific NORAD protocols or processes which support your claim. Same for the FAA. If you can, that will take us down one path. If you can't. then you need to drop your claim.

Oh, but isn't that wonderful. Recently, that guy you might have heard about a few months ago, Robin Hordon, an ex-air controller (from a Boston.. airport I think?), was interviewed again in a radio show.. I haven't listened to this one yet, but I did hear his first one, which I believe was on AJ's show.

Well he says that in the first hour of 9/11 he was sure something was wrong.. that procedures were most likely not followed, that FAA has knowledge of everything that takes off and land in the country, blablabla... That they HAVe to report any unusual behavior to NEADS under 5 minutes and so...
this more recent interview is here,
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8424
I'll listen to it and give ya some quotes ¬¬

[Pardalis]

I'm not aiming to prove MIHOP or even LIHOP, I just wish you OCTists could at least admit LIHOI.

As I recall, TAM came up with the expression "LIHOI".

¥ou're telling me that you're fine with a report that says the twin towers were hollow.

Uh?

And no mention of WTC7.

WTC7 had nothing to do with the attacks.

[Dr Adequate]

As solicited by the victim's families, yes, we need a big 'reference guide' book about 9/11. Funny, I've never heard the victims' families express any preferences on how the data should be bound.

I'm not going to quote it because I'm the laziest CTer you'll ever find. You have a lot of competition in that field, but I have to admire the gall of a guy who wants someone else to compile the single largest book ever written, but won't produce one darn citation for one darn claim.

[beachnut]

Oh, but isn't that wonderful. Recently, that guy you might have heard about a few months ago, Robin Hordon, an ex-air controller (from a Boston.. airport I think?), was interviewed again in a radio show.. I haven't listened to this one yet, but I did hear his first one, which I believe was on AJ's show.

Well he says that in the first hour of 9/11 he was sure something was wrong.. that procedures were most likely not followed, that FAA has knowledge of everything that takes off and land in the country, blablabla... That they HAVe to report any unusual behavior to NEADS under 5 minutes and so...
this more recent interview is here,
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8424
I'll listen to it and give ya some quotes ¬¬Hordon was fired under Reagan. He is not even current. False flag by Alex Jones.

BTW, everything that Alex Jones says is junk. So if you use Alex Jones junk you can just forget facts. Alex Jones, wow. Now you have said it all. Sorry but Hordon does not know what he is talking about, but I know he is pissed at the USG.

[Yurebiz]

Hordon was fired under Reagan. He is not even current. False flag by Alex Jones.

BTW, everything that Alex Jones says is junk. So if you use Alex Jones junk you can just forget facts. Alex Jones, wow. Now you have said it all. Sorry but Hordon does not know what he is talking about, but I know he is pissed at the USG.
I know that.
Wait, I DIDNT know that.
But he's still an ex-controller...
I don't know of any other source from where we can find hijacking protocols for the FAA.. not an easy one that is.
You folks love getting your way out with arguments from incredulity and ad-hominem..
well guess what, I LIKE THAT TOO, HAHA.
Um, ok that was pointless.
Anyway, let me hear that thing then I'll give you something ¬¬

[DavidJames]

I'll listen to it and give ya some quotes ¬¬Please spare me the quotes from another CTist. Either show me links / quotes from NORAD or the FAA which support your claims or withdraw them. An honest person would do that, will you?

[beachnut]

I know that.
Wait, I DIDNT know that.
But he's still an ex-controller...
I don't know of any other source from where we can find hijacking protocols for the FAA.. not an easy one that is.
You folks love getting your way out with arguments from incredulity and ad-hominem..
well guess what, I LIKE THAT TOO, HAHA.
Um, ok that was pointless.
Anyway, let me hear that thing then I'll give you something ¬¬
Do you have any idea when Reagan was President?

This guy has not controlled an airplane since the days of hijacking an airplane usually ended up in CUBA and we have never shot down one airplane because it was hijacked. Do you want a jet to come up and piss off the guy with the gun. They had guns in the old days because we did not check for guns as good as we try now.

NORAD would not shoot down an airliner due to hijacking in the good old days when our now old out of work for decades (the s is intended) x controller.

His stuff is pure woo, and confirmed by all the other people coming forward from the FAA and NORAD.

You bring up a controller who has not been in the business for over 20 years, offer no facts and say I can not inform you of his being a woo too? Present so facts to prove this guy knows one thing to support the ideas of the 9/11 truth movement. I have found not one thing in pages and articles about your controller which you did not even know has not worked since he walked out in the 80s. You are the one who needs to research better.

Instead of looking for lies why not try to find some facts.

[Yurebiz]

Do you have any idea when Reagan was President?

This guy has not controlled an airplane since the days of hijacking an airplane usually ended up in CUBA and we have never shot down one airplane because it was hijacked. Do you want a jet to come up and piss off the guy with the gun. They had guns in the old days because we did not check for guns as good as we try now.

NORAD would not shoot down an airliner due to hijacking in the good old days when our now old out of work for decades (the s is intended) x controller.

His stuff is pure woo, and confirmed by all the other people coming forward from the FAA and NORAD.

You bring up a controller who has not been in the business for over 20 years, offer no facts and say I can not inform you of his being a woo too? Present so facts to prove this guy knows one thing to support the ideas of the 9/11 truth movement. I have found not one thing in pages and articles about your controller which you did not even know has not worked since he walked out in the 80s. You are the one who needs to research better.

Instead of looking for lies why not try to find some facts.
Fine I'll drop the crazy old man, geez.
I'll find a source for the protocols. I'm sure they don't go over 10 min's before notifying NEADS. That's undebatable right?

[Gravy]

And you guys know it, you have been through it before.You say things like this in almost every post. You may not have noticed it, but most of us don't agree with your opinions. Please learn to speak for yourself and to not project your thoughts on others.

You're telling me that you're fine with a report that says the twin towers were hollow. And no mention of WTC7.Straw man. Was the 9/11 Commission report an engineering report? No, it wasn't. You should refer to the NIST reports if you have problems with the official version of the collapses.

You can say, and you DO say, that it's all coincidence, no relevance at all.
Please review my first comment.

SOMEONE IS CLEARLY COVERING UP THEIR ASSES. AGREE OR DISAGREE?Agree. My ass is covered up.

Hence the need of a new investigation. Agree or disagree?
The Yurebiz method:

1) Jump to conclusions
2) Falsely claim that your critics agree with your conclusions
3) Convince no one with your seriously flawed logic

[beachnut]

Fine I'll drop the crazy old man, geez.
I'll find a source for the protocols. I'm sure they don't go over 10 min's before notifying NEADS. That's undebatable right?
Wrong, you present zero facts for some protocols.

A classic pre 9/11 unknown plane no longer under control by the pilots or taking to FAA/ATC is Payne Stewart's plane. It took 70 to 80 minutes to intercept. They also did not know what was wrong until the AF looked and saw a plane with the windows iced over from the inside after the pilots and passengers had fallen asleep due to hypoxia.

NORAD and the FAA job was not to shoot down civilians, they were not ready for terrorist cheating and what they did on 9/11. You need to have a goal for this, and you must research before you start making up conclusions and stuff about 9/11.

There is no funny stuff at NORAD or the FAA on 9/11. The best you can do is find errors in memory or timelines. There were no armed fighters at Andrews AFB. There are only lies and false information about NORAD and the FAA on the topic of 9/11 from the liars know as "9/11 truth".

[Cylinder]

You're telling me that you're fine with no officials from either the FAA nor NORAD being held accountable from their mistakes.

What mistakes did NORAD make? Can you be specific as possible?

ETA: My question has already been answered.

[Dr Adequate]

Fine I'll drop the crazy old man, geez.
I'll find a source for the protocols. I'm sure they don't go over 10 min's before notifying NEADS. That's undebatable right? Until you "find a source for the protocols", that's a bit debateable.

However, if you look at the link I gave you, you'll see that NEADS was informed ELEVEN minutes after FAA Comand and Control.

ELEVEN minutes!!! OMG SHILLS!!!

[Yurebiz]

I could not find any trustworthy paper that describes the hijacking protocols for the FAA on 9/11...
So I'll retract all I said about it as a fact. I'm sorry.

Though the claim is not false, it sure can't be proven. So, sorry.

I do however still believe (arg. from incredulity, yah) that the FAA controlers screwed up bigtime in keeping track of the hijacked planes, even though they had transponders turned off and got off-radar at some points. Blame me for listening to Hordon. But at this point in time I don't trust the 9/11 Commission anymore, so I don't believe their word either. My belief comes from the understanding that air controllers are usually very impeccable people, and whoever was responsible for keeping track of the planes, either had their tracking capabilities sabotaged, or simply failed to comply with their duty.

I don't trust the 9/11 Commission Report since they only blame errors in communication and on the "surprise" factor of the attacks. I personally don't believe such half-assed excuse should be accepted at face value when it could very well be a cover-up of ignorance...

I can't trust Hordon since you've pointed out he's a crazy nut. I do agree with him however that the FAA and NORAD have a much better control over the US airspace than they claimed to have in the commission hearings. It is of my opinion only, and you don't have to agree on this one necessarily, that there should have been more investigations and more interviews into specific air controller officers that were on track of the planes, get their own timelines, corroborate testimonies, etc. Not just take the first answer they get and stick with it.

I'm sorry for taking that as a fact though. On that particular issue. The rest still stands, but I couldn't care less anymore. Most of you won't ever agree with me on any issue anyway.

At least we agree that there's no debate.
You SHOULD support a new investigation, but meh, what can I say. Rewind, Repeat, Rewind, Repeat...

[beachnut]

I could not find any trustworthy paper that describes the hijacking protocols for the FAA on 9/11...
So I'll retract all I said about it as a fact. I'm sorry.

Though the claim is not false, it sure can't be proven. So, sorry.

I do however still believe (arg. from incredulity, yah) that the FAA controlers screwed up bigtime in keeping track of the hijacked planes, even though they had transponders turned off and got off-radar at some points. Blame me for listening to Hordon. But at this point in time I don't trust the 9/11 Commission anymore, so I don't believe their word either. My belief comes from the understanding that air controllers are usually very impeccable people, and whoever was responsible for keeping track of the planes, either had their tracking capabilities sabotaged, or simply failed to comply with their duty.

I don't trust the 9/11 Commission Report since they only blame errors in communication and on the "surprise" factor of the attacks. I personally don't believe such half-assed excuse should be accepted at face value when it could very well be a cover-up of ignorance...

I can't trust Hordon since you've pointed out he's a crazy nut. I do agree with him however that the FAA and NORAD have a much better control over the US airspace than they claimed to have in the commission hearings. It is of my opinion only, and you don't have to agree on this one necessarily, that there should have been more investigations and more interviews into specific air controller officers that were on track of the planes, get their own timelines, corroborate testimonies, etc. Not just take the first answer they get and stick with it.

I'm sorry for taking that as a fact though. On that particular issue. The rest still stands, but I couldn't care less anymore. Most of you won't ever agree with me on any issue anyway.

At least we agree that there's no debate.
You SHOULD support a new investigation, but meh, what can I say. Rewind, Repeat, Rewind, Repeat...
Horton has not worked since the 80s, get another controller. I was working in the Air Force on 9/11. No one stood down. The military was not stood down. In fact the military has people who would have done something if they only knew it was coming. The FAA did a good job on 9/11 deciding to ground all the planes and telling all pilots not to allow anyone to breach the cockpit.

You must also remember the FAA does control the airspace but it is just like road signs and police control the roads. Have you ever run a stop sign, or a light, or go over the speed limit. The FAA can see you break rules but they are hours away from doing something about it.

Now if a plane is Hijacked or threatened you may have a fighter escort in a few minutes. Gravy has done a lot of research, he can produce the real rules about the FAA, NORAD and things associated with 9/11 if you search his posts. He could correct my rants because he has the book. That being said, how many FAA, NORAD, and those involved on 9/11 knew the book answer. Sometimes what is buried in the books and what happens for real are two different animals.

As for your not believing the suprise factor, you could figure that one out yourself. Who is the first people who really knew what the terrorist were doing on 9/11? Flight 93 passengers. What did they do? The attacked the terrorists. How long does it take america to wake up under a surprise attack from terrorist? Look up the first impact at the WTC and when Flight 93 passengers attacked the terrorist.

Can you look up that time? was it just over an hour? That is not too bad considering the people on flight 93 only had a little time to plan and act. You must get realistic on your thinking about 9/11 and how things work.

Until you read all the items about 9/11, not truther junk, and understand them how can you ask for a new investigation? What is wrong with all the stuff about 9/11, non truther stuff? You did not even know the truther controller had not worked for over 20 years.

How can you debate 9/11 when the truthers do not even have the facts about their own information or the people who make up the lies about 9/11?

[gumboot]

Well he says that in the first hour of 9/11 he was sure something was wrong..


I'm sure he was. Most people were sure something was wrong by 09:03. Maybe he was just slow.





that procedures were most likely not followed

That's right, they weren't, thankfully.




that FAA has knowledge of everything that takes off and land in the country


Really? And how do they manage that? What do you mean by "knowledge"? What if I'm a farmer with a helicopter, and I just take off from my paddock one morning. Does the FAA know? How?



That they HAVe to report any unusual behavior to NEADS under 5 minutes and so...
this more recent interview is here,

Indeed, and what constitutes "unusual behavior"?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I know that.
Wait, I DIDNT know that.
But he's still an ex-controller...
I don't know of any other source from where we can find hijacking protocols for the FAA.. not an easy one that is.
You folks love getting your way out with arguments from incredulity and ad-hominem..
well guess what, I LIKE THAT TOO, HAHA.
Um, ok that was pointless.
Anyway, let me hear that thing then I'll give you something ¬¬



You may be interested to read FAA Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html) which was in effect on 9/11.

7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through the appropriate SOCC/ROCC.

It would actually be a violation of procedure for the ARTCC to communicate directly with NEADS, which is what happened on 9/11.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I could not find any trustworthy paper that describes the hijacking protocols for the FAA on 9/11...
So I'll retract all I said about it as a fact. I'm sorry.

Though the claim is not false, it sure can't be proven. So, sorry.


Fortunately for you, I do know what the FAA's protocol was on 9/11.

You can read the relevant chapter here (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/FAA7610_4.htm) or here (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html).

I also have a powerpoint presentation which summarises protocol and what happened on 9/11, which can be downloaded by this direct link (http://www.uio.no/studier/program/esst-master/undervisningsmateriale/Module%204/9%2011%20and%20organization%20theory.ppt) or can be view in html here (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MjfSi8yvx_UJ:www.uio.no/studier/program/esst-master/undervisningsmateriale/Module%25204/9%252011%2520and%2520organization%2520theory.ppt+F AA+hijacking+protocol&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=nz). Given the high graphic content, I advise downloaded it as the html misses all of this.

The pertinent facts to consider are as follows:

1) NORADs area of responsibility is a narrow band of airspace off the US coastline called the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) which acts as a sort of "buffer" between the US and the rest of the world.

2) Aircraft passing through the ADIZ have to follow strict protocol and file flight paths with the FAA, or face NORAD interception.

3) Due to defense cutbacks at the end of the cold war, on 9/11 NORAD CONUS Region had only 7 pairs of fighters on alert duty. Two of these pairs were allocated to the North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS).

4) Standing hijack protocol at the time was based on a number of assumptions:
a) Hijacked aircraft would originate overseas.
b) Hijack would be confirmed by aircraft squawking 7500 code
c) Hijacked aircraft would remain in transponder contact
d) Hijacked aircraft would be landed at an airport where negotiations would take place

By now the problems with this system should be self evident. However, let's go over the protocol.

The FAA has three levels of ATC.

1) Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCT)
2) Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON)
3) Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC)

The first two of these deal with landing and taking off, so we'll put those aside and focus on the ARTCCs.

The FAA has twenty-three ARTCCs spread across the country, which are coordinated by a National Air Traffic Control Center in Herndon, Virginia.

The FAA Headquarters is located in Washington DC.

On the military side of things, at the top we have the National Military Command Center (NMCC) which is located in The Pentagon.

Currently, NORAD is collected under one of the Unified Combatant Commands - NORTHCOM, which was created after 9/11.

However back in 2001 NORAD was under a different command structure (it's still under the same organisational structure, however NORTHCOM directs operations).

NORAD units are supplied by the 1st Air Force, an Air National Guard unit under the Air Combat Command, one of ten Major Commands that answers directly to HQ USAF.

NORAD itself - a joint US/Canadian operation - is divided into three regions - Alaska Region, Canada Region, and Continental US Region. CONUS is the region that's relevant to 9/11. CONUS is further divided into three Air Defense Sectors - North East (NEADS), South East (SEADS), and West (WADS).

Each ADS has a command center and control over a number of fighters. NEADS had two pairs of fighters under its authority - two F-16's at Langley AFB and two F-15s at Otis ANGB.

The key thing to note here is that nothing would be done about a hijacking until it was confirmed - the most common method being for the pilots to change their transponder to 7500 - an agreed hijack code.

Obviously in normal circumstances this is fine - hijackers need the pilots to fly the plane, and probably aren't going to pick up on a code quickly being coded in.

In the event of a confirmed hijacking, the controller in question would notify his supervisor at the ARTCC, who would pass it up to the National ATC at Herndon.

The decision to request military assistance would be made at Herndon, at which point the FAA Hijack Coordinator (located at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC) would be notified.

The Hijack Coordinator would communicate the request to the NMCC who would either approve it or deny it (although there's not really any reason to deny it).

From there an order would be issued to USAF HQ, through to Air Combat Command to HQ NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs, and from there to CONUS and finally Colonel Marr in the Battle Cab at NEADS. He'd inform Major Nasypany, the Mission Crew Commander, who would in turn direct the various elements involved in the mission (ID Techs, etc) including the Weapons Team, led by Major Fox. Major Fox's team handles the fighters, so they contact operations at the air base, who in turn pass these orders on to the pilots.

At the same time the NMCC authorises direct communication between the FAA and NEADS. This is important, because NEADS' technology isn't sufficient to find an aircraft on their own. From the National ATC they gather aircraft information to direct the fighters to the right place.

So that's the protocol.

Now that's not what happened on 9/11. Well, it was, but it's not the only thing that happened.

The chain of command was engaged prematurely for AA11 - before a hijack was confirmed. I suppose they figured it was best to be on the safe side.

Ironically, the processing of AA11 actually interfered with the processing of the other flights. the system wasn't designed to deal with multiple hijackings.

As a result ARTCC's didn't know what was happening. For example when UA175 was initially called in, the managers at Herndon couldn't be contacted because they were busy in a meeting about AA11. Likewise, Indianapolis Center, unaware that there was a possibility of continued hijackings, reported AA77 as crashed, and no one made the connection straight away.

On top of this, remember that suddenly any airliner that wasn't responding (and radio communication is not the flawless system it appears to be in movies, there are constant mis communications and drop outs) was a potential hijack. Well before Herndon was aware of UA175 they were already far overloaded with a number of suspected hijacks, and more added every minute.

As it turned out, the escort request never even got as far as the NMCC and no formal order was issued to NORAD. The entire thing happened backwards - with the ARTCC itself initially trying to contact the actual air base, before contacting NEADS.

Colonel Marr then passed it up the chain of command to General Arnold, who commanded CONUS Region. Arnold made a quick decision at that point to approve an unauthorised scramble order. As he said to Marr "I'll get permission later".

The problem of course with all of this is no one was coordinating the information. NEADS were talking directly to ARTCCs as well as Herndon and CONUS, and Herndon were talking to ARTCCs and NEADS and the airlines while trying to contact both the NMCC and FAA HQ.

And all of them were also watching things like CNN once the news started kicking in.

To make matters worse, the hijackers were doing a lot of things that the system assumed they wouldn't do - such as killing pilots, turning off transponders, changing direction without warning, and crashing their planes.

So it was a mess, but it was a fast-responding mess. If everyone had followed protocol everything would have been much more organised, but the attack would have ended before anyone acted at all.




I do however still believe (arg. from incredulity, yah) that the FAA controlers screwed up bigtime in keeping track of the hijacked planes, even though they had transponders turned off and got off-radar at some points.


How are the ARTCCs meant to keep track of flights if they go off radar or fly into buildings? All they have to go on are little icons on a screen. That's it.



But at this point in time I don't trust the 9/11 Commission anymore, so I don't believe their word either.


You don't have to trust the commission. The information is available elsewhere.




My belief comes from the understanding that air controllers are usually very impeccable people, and whoever was responsible for keeping track of the planes, either had their tracking capabilities sabotaged, or simply failed to comply with their duty.


Yes, their tracking capabilities were sabotaged, by the hijackers.




I don't trust the 9/11 Commission Report since they only blame errors in communication and on the "surprise" factor of the attacks. I personally don't believe such half-assed excuse should be accepted at face value when it could very well be a cover-up of ignorance...



I am sure if you review the facts of the day with an open mind, you can only come to the same conclusion I did - the FAA and NORAD did exceptionally well to deal with a completely unprecedented threat that their system were totally incapable of dealing with.



I do agree with him however that the FAA and NORAD have a much better control over the US airspace than they claimed to have in the commission hearings. It is of my opinion only, and you don't have to agree on this one necessarily, that there should have been more investigations and more interviews into specific air controller officers that were on track of the planes, get their own timelines, corroborate testimonies, etc. Not just take the first answer they get and stick with it.


But that's precisely what was done. In fact they didn't just interview people, they also reviewed audio and radar recordings. That's how they worked out NORAD's first timeline was wrong.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

Thank you very much for the summary gumboot. I'm sure you're tired of writing all that stuff up over and over but I appreciate it.
I already knew 80% of that story though... I wasn't that off. I already knew the excuses somewhat and I still don't buy them though. It's based off my personal incredulity so don't bother too much with it.

Having the transponders turned off should be no excuse. Once a plane turns it's transponder off, whoever ATC was keeping an eye on it, should have put all it's stoplights on him and warned everyone about it. I reckon it's hard to identify the plane once it's already turned off, but by the moment it was first turned off, someone definitely failed to keep track of it. Four times.

Having multiply unidentified planes is no excuse either since the real hijackings should have been tracked since responders were turned off, all other suspicions should have been given secondary priority.

Assuming the planes would land is irrelevant since the main job is to keep track of the plane at all times, be it an old style hijack or not. Yet they lost them.

Assume the planes would come overseas makes the protocol look so lame. I don't even know what to say about that. :( Who wrote that stuff anyway?

Anyway, some other things that I wonder about a LIHOI.

No pilot was able to turn the hijack signal on. Whats the exact source for that? I find it unusual that it could happen 4 times but meh. Is the evidence given only testimonies from the Chiefs and Commanders, etc.? Couldn't it be that the are hiding that some of the planes might have turned it on, or is it just impossible to withhold that information from multiple ATC towers?

I've seen them blaming the mutiple failure also on communication procedures not being effective enough for this type of attack. Isn't that a weak argument? Or do you think it's fair to blame it all on communication and lack of protocols for the specific attack, then let them go?

The protocols weren't all that horrid. I can't help it but think it's all an excuse. Is it that hard to keep an eye on the radar, and locate a plane having it's transponder being turned off?

I don't know, I just find it so convenient for the FAA and involved air controllers to go unsuspected.

That of course comes from my own inability to take the 9/11 Commission investigations seriously.

[DavidJames]

Thank you very much for the summary gumboot. I'm sure you're tired of writing all that stuff up over and over but I appreciate it.
I already knew 80% of that story though... I wasn't that off. I already knew the excuses somewhat and I still don't buy them though. It's based off my personal incredulity so don't bother too much with it.

Having the transponders turned off should be no excuse. Once a plane turns it's transponder off, whoever ATC was keeping an eye on it, should have put all it's stoplights on him and warned everyone about it. I reckon it's hard to identify the plane once it's already turned off, but by the moment it was first turned off, someone definitely failed to keep track of it. Four times.

Having multiply unidentified planes is no excuse either since the real hijackings should have been tracked since responders were turned off, all other suspicions should have been given secondary priority.

Assuming the planes would land is irrelevant since the main job is to keep track of the plane at all times, be it an old style hijack or not. Yet they lost them.

Assume the planes would come overseas makes the protocol look so lame. I don't even know what to say about that. :( Who wrote that stuff anyway?

Anyway, some other things that I wonder about a LIHOI.

No pilot was able to turn the hijack signal on. Whats the exact source for that? I find it unusual that it could happen 4 times but meh. Is the evidence given only testimonies from the Chiefs and Commanders, etc.? Couldn't it be that the are hiding that some of the planes might have turned it on, or is it just impossible to withhold that information from multiple ATC towers?

I've seen them blaming the mutiple failure also on communication procedures not being effective enough for this type of attack. Isn't that a weak argument? Or do you think it's fair to blame it all on communication and lack of protocols for the specific attack, then let them go?

The protocols weren't all that horrid. I can't help it but think it's all an excuse. Is it that hard to keep an eye on the radar, and locate a plane having it's transponder being turned off?

I don't know, I just find it so convenient for the FAA and involved air controllers to go unsuspected.

That of course comes from my own inability to take the 9/11 Commission investigations seriously.Just so summarize, let me know if this is correct.

To support your belief in a CT about 9/11, you made a claim about the FAA and NORAD not following protocol.
You were shown the protocol was followed, thereby removing one of the reasons you believe in the CT.
You basic response is "I still don't buy them though" and "meh" and your belief in the CT remains unshaken "based off my personal incredulity"

I find the above to be quite consistent with many CTists.

The basic steps of a CTist

1. Adopt a CT to believe in.
2. Make a claim to support the CT.
3. When Shown evidence the claim is incorrect ignore it or wave it away (on rare occasion, they will abandon it)
4. Return to step 2

So Yurebiz, what's your next claim?

[beachnut]

Having the transponders turned off should be no excuse. Once a plane turns it's transponder off, whoever ATC was keeping an eye on it, should have put all it's stoplights on him and warned everyone about it. I reckon it's hard to identify the plane once it's already turned off, but by the moment it was first turned off, someone definitely failed to keep track of it. Four times.

Having multiply unidentified planes is no excuse either since the real hijackings should have been tracked since responders were turned off, all other suspicions should have been given secondary priority.

Assuming the planes would land is irrelevant since the main job is to keep track of the plane at all times, be it an old style hijack or not. Yet they lost them.

Assume the planes would come overseas makes the protocol look so lame. I don't even know what to say about that. :( Who wrote that stuff anyway?

Anyway, some other things that I wonder about a LIHOI.

No pilot was able to turn the hijack signal on. Whats the exact source for that? I find it unusual that it could happen 4 times but meh. Is the evidence given only testimonies from the Chiefs and Commanders, etc.? Couldn't it be that the are hiding that some of the planes might have turned it on, or is it just impossible to withhold that information from multiple ATC towers?

I've seen them blaming the mutiple failure also on communication procedures not being effective enough for this type of attack. Isn't that a weak argument? Or do you think it's fair to blame it all on communication and lack of protocols for the specific attack, then let them go?

The protocols weren't all that horrid. I can't help it but think it's all an excuse. Is it that hard to keep an eye on the radar, and locate a plane having it's transponder being turned off?

I don't know, I just find it so convenient for the FAA and involved air controllers to go unsuspected.

That of course comes from my own inability to take the 9/11 Commission investigations seriously.
Turning of the transponder means what to a controller? It could mean power failure, failure of the transponder, and when the transponder is off you have to do something to see the target. Plus you can not stop controlling other planes people will die. So much for you being a controller. Plus you missed the hijacked plane who did not turn off his transponder. Please get some facts.

How do they know the planes were hijacked?

Old style hijacking? Yes they kept other planes from hitting the planes that were not responding to radio calls, no one told them they were hijacked right off the bat. You could do a time line and figure out when the controllers knew about the hijacking but you are forgetting why we have the FAA, to keep planes safe from traffic. The hijacked aircraft are traffic, the FAA kept other planes from hitting them. The FAA does not shoot down planes, the FAA can not stop a plane from deviating.

NORAD was to protect us from bomber coming for overseas. Who made this up? NORAD did not go around shooting down airliners before 9/11. Sorry, these are the facts. Next.

Hijackers come in and cut your throat, you may not be able to set the hijack signal. Darn, can dead people use equipment that the hijackers have under control? The equiptiment needed to indicate a hijacking was under the control of the hijackers. Darn, the pilots would also talk if they could as they were being attacked, it seems like the terrorist must of surprised the pilots at level off. The pilots must of been too busy being attacked and dying to talk or set codes. Did you know some stuff was heard but it was not clear, over the radios with ATC. You seem to be making up the ATC junk.

So when is the last time you were killed at in an airplane you were flying, do you think you would have problems communicating?

ATC controllers can not hide something, they work together handing planes off. Anyone in on it would be caught in a few minutes and fired. I can not even figure out what you are talking about. Where do you make up these ideas. ATC did as well as they could with an attack going with four planes doing what usually was just one plane at a time.

Yes transponders fail and the plane has to land and get it fixed.

Yes idiots have taken over planes and forced them to crash so the idiot could kill people. Did you miss the one where a guy went nuts and took over a plane and crashed it? Not a thing ATC can do.

Yes planes do stupid things everyday, but four planes hijacked the same day without ATC knowing directly, kind of like a surprise. What was ATC suppose to do? Did you see all the stuff Gravy has on protocol before 9/11 on this subject.

I am interested in what you really are trying to say. What is your CT on ATC? What is the total idea on you story behind 9/11 and how ATC/NORAD/and dead pilots play in it?

[Mobyseven]

Yurebiz:

If I am correct, your entire CT is based upon an argument from incredulity, and you admit this.

In other words, your entire CT is based upon a logical fallacy, and you admit this.

Ladies, Gents and Reptiles...we have reached a new low.

[gumboot]

I already knew the excuses somewhat and I still don't buy them though. It's based off my personal incredulity so don't bother too much with it.


Do you not think there's something wrong with holding a belief in complete defiance of the evidence that indicates this belief is wrong?

Most human beings - yes even religious ones - would find this incredibly illogical and foolish.




Having the transponders turned off should be no excuse. Once a plane turns it's transponder off, whoever ATC was keeping an eye on it, should have put all it's stoplights on him and warned everyone about it. I reckon it's hard to identify the plane once it's already turned off, but by the moment it was first turned off, someone definitely failed to keep track of it. Four times.


Okay you've mentioned this previously, and I thought you were meaning something else. Clearly you're not.

Why do you believe the ARTCC lost track of the aircraft? This simply is not true. With the exception of AA77, all aircraft were tracked through their entire flight, until they flew below radar coverage (radars cannot track targets below a very low altitude of perhaps 1,000ft). Where did this notion come from that ARTCC "lost" the flights?

AA77 was lost because of where it was. In the region where the hijacking occurred, there was no primary radar coverage.

Basically, there's two types of radar coverage. Primary Radar is a direct response from the radar station itself, and detects the actual physical radar return from a physical object in the air. Any object over a specific size will make a return.

You often here remarks about Stealth aircraft saying things such as "it has the radar cross section of a small bird". This is the primary reading of the object - it means the radar detects the stealth aircraft as being an object as small as a sparrow (which obviously means radars not designed to track objects that small will miss it entirely).

However the main type of radar used in ATC is secondary radar. Secondary radar "interrogates" an aircraft's transponder, and receives information from it. This information is the flight number, type of aircraft, heading, air speed, altitude, and so on.

Obviously, the primary radar cannot determine all of this, although with a number of radar towers cross-referencing they can determine position, altitude, and roughly determine speed.

In a normal situation the ATC uses the secondary radar, with only the transponder returns.

If the transponder is turned off, you still have the primary return, you just don't have all of the information you need, such as the flight number etc...

However, if you're in an area with no primary radar coverage (as happened with AA77) if the transponder is turned off, the aircraft simply vanishes.

The natural assumption in this instance is the aircraft has crashed. That's what the ARTCC assumed.

Obviously later, when AA77 comes back into primary radar coverage again - which it did - ARTCC will be able to track it again (again, which they did). However they (obviously) won't know the flight number or any such details.

In the case of AA11 and UA175, each dropped below radar coverage a matter of minutes before impact - until then they were both being tracked. UA93 was being tracked on radar right up until it crashed. AA77 was lost on radar for some 50 minutes for the reasons previously stated, and was detected again approximately 3 minutes before it crashed.

So I'm not entirely sure why you keep saying that ARTCC lost track of the flights. They didn't.




Having multiply unidentified planes is no excuse either since the real hijackings should have been tracked since responders were turned off, all other suspicions should have been given secondary priority.


Again with the "lost flights". The multiple aircraft did cause brief confusion, namely that, by coincidence, UA175 was being worked by the same controller at New York Center who was handling AA11. Because he was so fixated on AA11 (as you assert, he gave priority to the hijacked flight) he missed the fact that UA175 changed its transponder code several times in a short duration. As a result this possibly briefly delayed the realisation the UA175 was also hijacked.




Assuming the planes would land is irrelevant since the main job is to keep track of the plane at all times, be it an old style hijack or not. Yet they lost them.

No, they didn't lose them. The reason I mentioned the expectation that they would land is that the protocol put in place was based on the assumption that authorities would have plenty of time to respond, and that the aircraft itself didn't really pose a threat.




Assume the planes would come overseas makes the protocol look so lame. I don't even know what to say about that. :( Who wrote that stuff anyway?



You may feel it is lame, but that doesn't change the fact that this is how it was on 9/11. NORAD was only ever tasked with protecting against outward originating threats, so this protocol dates back to NORAD's formation in 1958.




No pilot was able to turn the hijack signal on. Whats the exact source for that?


You mean the exact source for the claim? The ATC centers.




I find it unusual that it could happen 4 times but meh. Is the evidence given only testimonies from the Chiefs and Commanders, etc.? Couldn't it be that the are hiding that some of the planes might have turned it on, or is it just impossible to withhold that information from multiple ATC towers?

Chiefs and Commanders?

No. The people who would receive a 7500 hijack code are the air traffic controllers. Each aircraft icon on their screen is accompanied by a set of data, including the aircraft's transponder code. If that code changes to 7500, the operator knows immediately it is a hijack.

As to why no code was punched... well that's simple enough. Have you ever been in the cockpit of a 757 or 767? I have. They are very cramped. A pilot in the cockpit is incredibly vulnerable to attack. Imagine you are sitting in your aircraft, flying along nice and peaceful. Suddenly you hear a scream and shouting behind you. You hear movement, and suddenly a metal blade is driven into your throat. You've now got about 30 seconds to do something before you bleed to death.

It is simply ridiculous to think that in such a scenario either the pilot or copilot would have even a remote chance of getting in a 7500 code.




I've seen them blaming the mutiple failure also on communication procedures not being effective enough for this type of attack. Isn't that a weak argument? Or do you think it's fair to blame it all on communication and lack of protocols for the specific attack, then let them go?


No, I don't think it's a "weak argument" at all. It's a fact. The procedures in place simply were not capable of responding to an attack of that nature. The obvious answer to this is to change protocol and ensure such an attack never succeeds again. And this is precisely what happened. Communication between NORAD and the FAA has been hugely improved, and more importantly data sharing has been greatly improved and they now share a network. NORAD also have had a huge upgrade of equipment, which they desperately needed (on 9/11 NORAD radars were grossly inferior to FAA ones), and they have been granted many more resources (NORAD now has many more alert bases, as well as randomly located Combat Air Patrols always in place supported by Air Refuelling aircraft and AWACS aircraft).

You may ask, "Why wasn't it like this on 9/11?" and the answer is simple. Money. Maintaining the sort of readiness they have now is enormously expensive. The Democrat Administration of the 90's that stripped NORAD of resources and reduced their readiness did so to save money, as they were not considered an asset that was going to be used in a peaceful climate.




The protocols weren't all that horrid. I can't help it but think it's all an excuse. Is it that hard to keep an eye on the radar, and locate a plane having it's transponder being turned off?

I don't know, I just find it so convenient for the FAA and involved air controllers to go unsuspected.

That of course comes from my own inability to take the 9/11 Commission investigations seriously.


As pointed out, the aircraft were not lost, except for AA77. AA77 was lost because it disappeared from radar. How, precisely, do you propose an ATC "keeps an eye on the radar" and locates an aircraft that does not appear on said radar?

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

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.

How fast was it for an ATC to switch from secondary to primary radar, on 9/11? Did one had to switch computers or look at separate screens, or could one switch the radar on the same equipment?

I find this a crucial question to the matter...

If the main blame is all pointed at the transponders, this was either a huge gapping hole on the whole system as you show me, or an excuse used to clear them of blame.

Do you think it's possible for an ATC tower to be slacking off in the time of the attacks, had the ability to track a hijacked plane on 9/11, and got cleared of blame due to this protocol opening?

[Gravy]

No pilot was able to turn the hijack signal on. Whats the exact source for that? I find it unusual that it could happen 4 times but meh.
Meh? Please provide a list of tasks that you feel you could accomplish while being murdered.



What the hell is wrong with these people?

[gumboot]

How fast was it for an ATC to switch from secondary to primary radar, on 9/11? Did one had to switch computers or look at separate screens, or could one switch the radar on the same equipment?


As far as I'm aware, there's no change over. The way I understand it, the secondary hit overlays the primary, so if the transponder drops off the primary is still there behind it. Thus no need to switch.

However, obviously if there is no primary coverage, you cannot switch.




If the main blame is all pointed at the transponders


It isn't. The only flight they caused a major problem for was AA77.





Do you think it's possible for an ATC tower to be slacking off in the time of the attacks, had the ability to track a hijacked plane on 9/11, and got cleared of blame due to this protocol opening?

It's possible they were slacking off. The evidence suggests they were not. I have to ask again, where do you get the idea that the flights were lost? They were not.

The fact is, even had NORAD had more fighters, and even had the aircraft maintained transponder contact, and even had the FAA told NORAD the instant the aircraft changed course, and even had the policy been to shoot down any airliner that altered course, I still think NORAD would have been hard-pressed to shoot down all four flights. If the fighters were in the air at the time of the attack, and had an AWACS airborne with them... now you're talking.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Meh? Please provide a list of tasks that you feel you could accomplish while being murdered.


For some reason I found that comment hilarious. I'm not sure why. It shouldn't be. I think it's because the way you worded it just completely underlined the utter absurdity of the CTers' proposals.

-Gumboot

[MikeW]

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.

[gumboot]

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.


Quite. I imagine the first real warning that most of them got that something was up was a knife being driven into their throat. At that point I imagine they were somewhat preoccupied with dying to worry about the 7500 code.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

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?
No biggie though, that's not the issue. Just JAQing off.

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

[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]

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? :boggled:

[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? :boggled:


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.

[gumboot]

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.


Except we can, because the events of the day clearly show this didn't happen. As I have told you over, and over, and over again.

The FAA did tell NORAD. They were informed in a way that resulted in them learning of the threats faster than they would have if protocol had been followed.

This is supported by ample evidence.

Your assertions of FAA failure are utterly groundless.




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...


Available evidence refutes these possibilities completely.




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?


Only three ATC's handled the flights. AA11 and UA175 were being handled by the same controller.



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.


Immediately after the event an FAA supervisor recorded hour long interviews with the controllers that handled the flights, so they could use their fresh accounts of what happened to later produce their written reports to the FBI. As agreed by the interviewees, after the reports were written the tapes were destroyed, which caused a bit of a stir.

Google "FAA ATC tape" and no doubt you will find ample articles (although they mainly focus on the tape being destroyed, ignoring the fact that this was the condition under which it was recorded).



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.


WE HAVE PRIMARY EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT SCREW UP. OK?

If you don't get it this time, I won't be continuing this conversation. I have told you countless times that we do know they didn't screw up. By completely ignoring this fact you are demonstrating a total disregard for truth, and an interest only in pushing your agenda.



It's not definitely LIHOI. But there's a chance, notwithstanding.

No there isn't.



And we can't corroborate any theory without having the first hand interviews.


Garbage. Had the controllers done anything to hinder proper proceedure, either through malice or incompetence, do you honestly think they would admit it in a recorded interview?

Their actions speak much louder than their testimonies, especially if you suspect them of being an Al Qaeda insider. Their actions clearly refute all and any allegations you have raised.

Protocol was followed for ALL FOUR FLIGHTS. Protocol failed to generate a response in time for a reaction from NORAD. Protocol was also simultaneously broken on all four flights. This line of action DID generate a response from NORAD.

It's really that simple.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

gumboot, their actions did not speak for themselves.
I do have a problem with the 10+ minutes before notifying NORAD. And so should you. The protocols do not specify time, I acknowledge that. But they do say that NORAD should be informed as soon as possible.
13~17 minutes for AA11.
11 minutes for UA175.
38 minutes? for AA77
28~39 minutes for UA93

Now, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, it could have been the transponder confusion. Sure, it could have been lack of experience with the situation, especially in this unique set of events. I know, hindsight is 20/20. But I strongly disagree there's no need for LIHOI assumption when investigating. That's my opinion, and you have your own. I think it's quite possible, by isolating this scenario on it's own, that they did screw up, especially on flights 93 and 77. I find it even more probable given other information in separate issues, but that's just my CT mind working on it's own.

I'd only make a 100% assumption like your own once I had hands on most first hand testimonies, and had the time to go through them on my own. Until them I give every possibile scenario, a possibility. 15 minutes is well enough time to suspect something's going on. But that is just me and some crazy, retired ATCs.

I'm sorry I can't digest second-hand evidence. It's a CT allergy I got from the 9/11 Commission Report. Thank you nonetheless, I've realized it doesn't look that much of a screw up in some points, at least.

[gumboot]

The protocols mention nothing about notifying NORAD.

The protocols dictate that FAA air traffic controllers should notify their centre supervisors as soon as a hijack is confirmed.

Protocols dictate that centre supervisors should immediately notify the FAA National Operations Centre.

Protocol dictates that the NOC should determine whether an intercept is required.

Protocol dictates that, upon determining an intercept is required, the NOC are to immediately notify the hijack coordinator at FAA HQ.

Protocol dictates that the hijack coordinator at FAA HQ must immediately request an intercept order from the National Military Command Centre at the Pentagon.

From this point, FAA protocol ceases, and the NMCC follows its own procedures for issuing intercept orders.

Please note, THIS IS NOT ABOUT NOTIFYING NORAD OF THE HIJACKING.

NORAD are not required to be aware of the hijacking. Nothing in the protocols suggest they are. NORAD are neiter responsible for, neither have any jurisdiction over domestic US airspace. This is about obtaining an intercept order from the military.

The Air Traffic Controllers, on their own initiative decided to notify NORAD as well. NEADS decided, on their own initiative to respond to this information.

Both parties, thus, responded exceptionally, outside their duties, to the attack.

To suggest otherwise is to totally disregard the facts as to their duties, and their actions that day.

-Gumboot

[Mobyseven]

Yurebiz:

You can't go around accusing people of things because you haven't seen any evidence proving their innocence. Unless you have evidence which suggests they are guilty of something in some way, you have got to consider them innocent.
You can't just go around calling the information provided by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission 'hearsay'. The FBI conducted a massive investigation, and presented their findings to the 9/11 Commission. Just because you personally didn't wade through every scrap of information that the FBI had to doesn't mean that their testemony was hearsay. Should all Supreme Court cases have the evidence and transcripts run by you after they are completed? Should the police force come to you for help on leads? Should the CIA share all its information with you?


The whole thing is getting a little bit tiring, Yurebiz...

[Yurebiz]

... quote from that 9/11 Commission panel:

MR. GORTON: Okay. Let me go on to you, Mr. Sliney, with a few questions. When you on your first day on the job made two decisions on 9/11, that at one level at least weren't yours to make, did you not? First, that no one should take off; and, second, we should take all civilian aircraft out of the air. Is that not correct?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct.
MR. GORTON: And would you describe how you came to that decision and why you felt it imperative enough to make that decision without going through the usual command structure?
MR. SLINEY: I believed I had the authority to do those things on that day. I was charged with the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system. The ground stop -- the national ground stop was, one, a matter of scope, not of unfamiliarity with the remedy, but a matter of scope. And had -- since we had already put in place ground stops that covered Boston, New York, and essentially the East Coast, and those -- we still had more reports of aircraft whose course or altitude or other aspects of their flight made them suspicious in light of the crashes. The national ground stop was just a natural extension of the smaller scope ground stops.
As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order.
MR. GORTON: Was your career in the FAA either enhanced or hurt in any way by making those decisions as promptly as you did?
MR. SLINEY: I would say in neither respect, sir.
MR. GORTON: On 9/11, the Command Center effectively was the nerve center for information on suspicious aircraft. Yet as I understand it the Command Center had no defined role with respect to obtaining military assistance, fighter assistance. Is that correct? And, if so, why weren't those authorities combined?
MR. SLINEY: Available to us at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.
The normal protocols for the events that were transpiring then -- that is to say hijacked aircraft, which requires a notification to NORAD -- those, at least I was given to understand, were made promptly -- the notifications on each hijack. The --
MR. GORTON: You understood that they were made promptly?
MR. SLINEY: That's correct.
MR. GORTON: It wasn't you -- it wasn't your responsibility to do so?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct. I believe I am correct in stating that that responsibility devolves upon the air route traffic control center in whose jurisdiction that hijack occurs. I was given to understand that all such notifications were made. I had no reason to believe they were not.
The -- I'm getting away from your question, though. You ask me if we had a procedure in place to deal with such an event -- is that what you're asking?
MR. GORTON: At the Command Center.
MR. SLINEY: With -- well, I just want to be clear on this aspect of it. Dealing with aircraft that would be hijacked and used as weapons?
MR. GORTON: No.
MR. SLINEY: No. Dealing with hijacked --
MR. GORTON: Dealing with direct notification to the military or request for assistance from the military.
MR. SLINEY: In direct response to your question was FAA headquarters primarily through the security organization to request assistance from the military. We had no process in place where a Command Center would make such a request for a military assistance. I believe the military was involved, and you know I suppose in hindsight it's too simplistic to say that they all look alike to me. If you tell the military you've told the military. They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.
MR. GORTON: By the Command Center?
MR. SLINEY: Correct.
MR. BELGER: Senator, can I just respond?
MR. GORTON: Yes, you certainly can.
MR. BELGER: Just in direct response to your question, the protocol on that day -- the official protocol on that day was for the FAA headquarters, primarily through the hijack coordinator, who is a senior person in the security organization, to request assistance from the NMCC if there was a need for DOD assistance. I mean, that was the formal protocol that day.
Mr. Sliney says it was protocol for the command center to contact NORAD.

If the command center is notified about anything they would immediately call NORAD, even with the crappy communication lines present on 9/11. Am I wrong? I gotta read through that more carefully and take notes, really.

Mobyseven yes, it is tiring. 9/11 was not your regular criminal case. The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

I admit there's a chance that the FAA might not have screw up like they claim, that it was all protocol incompatibility due to the nature of the attacks, but the thing is, there's a chance they could have done more than warning NORAD 30 minutes after planes are hijacked. I think there's ground to argue for incompetence, and ground to argue there's cover up. If such chances exist, and no lead was followed, nor officials prosecuted, then there's something fishy all about it.

I'll tell you what, had a couple FAA or NORAD guys been (at least) fired I wouldn't be as suspicious for the time gaps blamed on protocols...

[gumboot]

... quote from that 9/11 Commission panel:

Mr. Sliney says it was protocol for the command center to contact NORAD.

If the command center is notified about anything they would immediately call NORAD, even with the crappy communication lines present on 9/11. Am I wrong? I gotta read through that more carefully and take notes, really.



Mr Sliny doesn't appear to have a clue what the protocol is at all. He seems rather confused. I'l previously put a link in to the FAA Order that outlines protocol. There really should be no debate on this issue. You've had the opportunity to read the actual FAA Standing Orders on this matter.



The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

If you refuse to believe evidence provided by the FBI and other government agencies, there's really nothing worth discussing.




I admit there's a chance that the FAA might not have screw up like they claim, that it was all protocol incompatibility due to the nature of the attacks, but the thing is, there's a chance they could have done more than warning NORAD 30 minutes after planes are hijacked. I think there's ground to argue for incompetence, and ground to argue there's cover up. If such chances exist, and no lead was followed, nor officials prosecuted, then there's something fishy all about it.


No, there are no grounds at all. There's a chance they could have directly contacted NEADS the moment each aircraft ceased communicatiing, and declared each aircraft was going to be used as a weapon. To prove incompetence or something more severe, you have to prove not that they could have done this, but that the information available to them at the time dictated they should do this. This is simply not true.

Regarding the time delay for notification, AA77 was the only flight in which there was as long a delay as you present. Please provide reasons why Indianapolis Centre should have notified NEADS, and when they should have done so, or else withdraw your accusations.






I'll tell you what, had a couple FAA or NORAD guys been (at least) fired I wouldn't be as suspicious for the time gaps blamed on protocols...


I don't believe you. You've consistently demonstrated a total disregard for the facts of the day, and seem more content with baselessly accusing FAA and NORAD staff of very serious crimes than you do in determining the facts of the matter.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

13~17 minutes for AA11.
11 minutes for UA175.
38 minutes? for AA77
28~39 minutes for UA93

While these are roughly right, I thought I'd clarify from the Timeline.

0824 AA11 Hijack realised
0837 Boston Centre notifies NEADS of the hijacking of AA11

elapsed time: 13 minutes.

0852 Flight 175 known to be hijacked
0903 NEADS are notified of a second hijacking (Flight UA175)

elapsed time: 11 minutes

0856 AA77 hijacking realized.
0921 NEADS told of 3rd Hijack heading for Washington DC (Flight AA77?)
0934 NEADS definately learns of hijack of Flight AA77

elapsed time: 25-38 minutes

0939 Flight UA93 Hijacking realised
1007 NEADS told of UA93 hijacking

elasped time: 28 minutes

[Yurebiz]

What about flight 93?
Your own timeline says they suspected it was being hijacked at about 8:56. I don't know where you came up with the information that NEADS found it out by chance at 9:24, but then, I think that means the FAA never notified them about it? if that's it then.. it means there was a ~30 min delay
And on flight 93 there was another 30 min delay.
That I believe is enough ground for suspicion. And classified interviews from the FBI plus second hand accounts won't prove where was the error, it can be pointed at whatever they want it to be. They are the judges and the jury practically...

[gumboot]

What about flight 93?
Your own timeline says they suspected it was being hijacked at about 8:56. I don't know where you came up with the information that NEADS found it out by chance at 9:24, but then, I think that means the FAA never notified them about it? if that's it then.. it means there was a ~30 min delay
And on flight 93 there was another 30 min delay.
That I believe is enough ground for suspicion. And classified interviews from the FBI plus second hand accounts won't prove where was the error, it can be pointed at whatever they want it to be. They are the judges and the jury practically...



Please explain what your argument is that ATC should have notified NEADS directly about AA77 at 0856 and UA93 at 0939.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

Please explain what your argument is that ATC should have notified NEADS directly about AA77 at 0856 and UA93 at 0939.

-Gumboot
Because they were suspected hijackings at that time :eye-poppi
Deviated from their path, transponders turned off, no response, etc.
And if that's a tricky question, no it isn't directly to NEADS but to the NMCC, which then call the big guns.

[gumboot]

Because they were suspected hijackings at that time :eye-poppi
Deviated from their path, transponders turned off, no response, etc.
And if that's a tricky question, no it isn't directly to NEADS but to the NMCC, which then call the big guns.


Were they?

How do you know they were suspected hijackings?

Do you know that the ATCs knew they had deviated from their flight path?

On what grounds should the ATCs have contacted the NMCC?

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

Oh I see where you're going gumboot...
You mean that if I shouldn't trust supporting evidence, I shouldn't trust contradictable evidence either, if they both come from the same source...
Is that it? If not, I'm sorry, I'll just answer them anyway.

Yes they were because they said so.
I know because they said so.
I know because they said so.
They should have contacted them on the grounds that suspected hijackings should be reported to the command center immediately, in accord with the protocols that were in place.

[gumboot]

Oh I see where you're going gumboot...
You mean that if I shouldn't trust supporting evidence, I shouldn't trust contradictable evidence either, if they both come from the same source...
Is that it? If not, I'm sorry, I'll just answer them anyway.


No, not at all. It's just some of your basic assumptions are false.




Yes they were because they said so.

Yes that's right, at 0856 Indianapolis Centre suspected that AA77 was a hijack, and at 0939 Cleveland Centre suspected UA93 was a hijack.



I know because they said so.

Who said so. It's important that this is followed through, so bear with me. Did someone from Cleveland Centre say that it was a suspected Hijack at 0939? Did Indianapolis Centre say that it was a suspected Hijack at 0856? Did anyone else say they were suspected hijacks at this time?




I know because they said so.


Did they? Who is they? Yes, Cleveland Centre knew, at 0939, that UA93 was deviating from its intended flight path. What did they do with this information?

Are you sure Indianapolis Centre were aware that AA77 had deviated from its scheduled flight path at 0856? How did they know? Bear in mind AA77s transponder was turned off before it changed direction, and they had no primary radar coverage.

Explain how Indianapolis Centre can be aware that an aircraft has changed direction if said aircraft is not on their radar.



They should have contacted them on the grounds that suspected hijackings should be reported to the command center immediately, in accord with the protocols that were in place.

Protocols in place dictated it should be reported to the NMCC? By the ATC Controllers? You're sure about that? The ATCs should just pick up a phone and ring the Pentagon, whilst simultaneously managing numerous flights in their scope, one of which has changed its flight path? Do they have a phone at their desk? Or should they leave their station and just hope none of their flights collide, while they're chatting?

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

gumboot aren't the ATCs able to switch from secondary to primary radar on the spot if the feed is available? If whoever was supposed to keep track of the plane they're responsible for, then that's incompetence right there...
Maybe they didn't know where it was after it went off radar but still it's suspicious enough to inform the command center about it... To assume the plane crashed and keep it quiet is also incompetence in my view. The ATCs should be able to know where their radar coverage ends. And to swap between secondary to primary rapidly.

No it's not the ATCs directly but their supervisors that talk to the FAA headquarters... what's the point though, the delay between an operator and supervisor is almost null. ATC -> Supervisor -> Headquarters, hijacker coordinator -> command center -> NEADS or whatever other military department they wish to request help from
did I miss someone?

[PhantomWolf]

As I understand it, AA11 and UA175 were both being controlled by Boston Center. They took 11 and 13 minutes respectively to decide to ignore the protocols and contact NEADS directly rather then going through the appropriate chain of command.

AA77 was controlled by Indianapolis and UA93 by Cleveland Center, both who took about 25-30 minutes to decide to abandon protocol and contact NEADS directly.

This means that your whole argument, Yurebiz, is based on the fact that two of the three took twice as long to think of abandoning protocol and just shortcuting to the end of the chain than the other one did. Right?

[CapelDodger]

This means that your whole argument, Yurebiz, is based on the fact that two of the three took twice as long to think of abandoning protocol and just shortcuting to the end of the chain than the other one did. Right?

Which simply demonstrates that the protocols, dictated from on high, were unworkable when put to a practical test. A chain of command into which every conceivable gang of bureaucrats had wedged itself. Hats off to the people on the ground and their well-founded lack of respect for untested protocols.

[gumboot]

gumboot aren't the ATCs able to switch from secondary to primary radar on the spot if the feed is available? If whoever was supposed to keep track of the plane they're responsible for, then that's incompetence right there...


There is no switching. Both are displayed together. If secondary is lost, primary remains.

You're missing my point. Where AA77 was hijacked there was no primary radar. You cannot switch to primary radar if there isn't any primary radar to switch to.




Maybe they didn't know where it was after it went off radar but still it's suspicious enough to inform the command center about it...


It would be normal to assume, if you lost radar contact with an aircraft, that it had crashed. Which is precisely what Indianapolis Centre did. Within minutes of losing contact, they notified the FAA National Command Centre that they had lost contact with AA77 and it was feared crashed. A military search and rescue mission was initiated, with the intention of locating the crash site.

The response was correct, and rapid.


The ATCs should be able to know where their radar coverage ends. And to swap between secondary to primary rapidly.

As I've said, you can't switch between primary and secondary radar if there is no primary radar.




No it's not the ATCs directly but their supervisors that talk to the FAA headquarters... what's the point though, the delay between an operator and supervisor is almost null. ATC -> Supervisor -> Headquarters, hijacker coordinator -> command center -> NEADS or whatever other military department they wish to request help from
did I miss someone?


So your assertion is, then, that neither Indianapolis Centre nor Cleveland Centre notified the FAA National Operations Centre of events regarding AA77 and UA93, yes?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

As I understand it, AA11 and UA175 were both being controlled by Boston Center. They took 11 and 13 minutes respectively to decide to ignore the protocols and contact NEADS directly rather then going through the appropriate chain of command.

AA77 was controlled by Indianapolis and UA93 by Cleveland Center, both who took about 25-30 minutes to decide to abandon protocol and contact NEADS directly.


Pretty much, except that in regards to AA77, NEADS found out by accident while talking to Washington Centre. When Indianapolis Centre realised AA77 might be a hijack rather than a crash, they started looking west, along its projected flight path, for an unknown radar contact.

It was some time before it was suggested that AA77 might have turned east, like the other flights. At this point Indianapolis contacted Washington Centre and told them to be on the look out for an unidentified contact.

It's worth pointing out that the flight numbers were not always associated with events happening. United confirmed the fate of UA175 pretty quickly, so that was known, and American confirmed the fate of AA11 after several hours, however with the number of missing flights, and all airliners being routed to different airports at random, it would have taken a number of days for airlines to sort out what flights were accounted for, and to confirm the fact that it was AA77 and UA93 that had also crashed.

-Gumboot

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... quote from that 9/11 Commission panel:

Mr. Sliney says it was protocol for the command center to contact NORAD.

If the command center is notified about anything they would immediately call NORAD, even with the crappy communication lines present on 9/11. Am I wrong? I gotta read through that more carefully and take notes, really.

Mobyseven yes, it is tiring. 9/11 was not your regular criminal case. The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

I admit there's a chance that the FAA might not have screw up like they claim, that it was all protocol incompatibility due to the nature of the attacks, but the thing is, there's a chance they could have done more than warning NORAD 30 minutes after planes are hijacked. I think there's ground to argue for incompetence, and ground to argue there's cover up. If such chances exist, and no lead was followed, nor officials prosecuted, then there's something fishy all about it.

I'll tell you what, had a couple FAA or NORAD guys been (at least) fired I wouldn't be as suspicious for the time gaps blamed on protocols...

Did you even READ past what you bolded?!


. . .
MR. SLINEY: In direct response to your question was FAA headquarters primarily through the security organization to request assistance from the military. We had no process in place where a Command Center would make such a request for a military assistance. I believe the military was involved, and you know I suppose in hindsight it's too simplistic to say that they all look alike to me. If you tell the military you've told the military. They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.
. . .
MR. BELGER: Just in direct response to your question, the protocol on that day -- the official protocol on that day was for the FAA headquarters, primarily through the hijack coordinator, who is a senior person in the security organization, to request assistance from the NMCC if there was a need for DOD assistance. I mean, that was the formal protocol that day.

Jesus jumped up Christ on a pogo stick.

[Mobyseven]

Mobyseven yes, it is tiring. 9/11 was not your regular criminal case. The murderers we're dead and no one was left to blame. The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault? The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI. I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

So because it wasn't your 'regular criminal case', the FBI suddenly has to answer to you?

It was still a criminal investigation. A federal criminal investigation. Which means that you don't investigate it. The FBI does.

And something tells me that they probably wouldn't be happy about people accusing them of incompetence. But then again, there's the ever present chance they don't care what is said about them on internet forums.

It's a tricky one...

[Belz...]

I know, hindsight is 20/20. But I strongly disagree there's no need for LIHOI assumption when investigating.

Assuming ANY conclusion when investigating is foolish.

That's my opinion, and you have your own.

Not all opinions are equal.

I think it's quite possible, by isolating this scenario on it's own, that they did screw up, especially on flights 93 and 77.

Even were that true, that wouldn't point to a conspiracy.

I'm sorry I can't digest second-hand evidence. It's a CT allergy I got from the 9/11 Commission Report.

And how do you propose to get first-hand evidence ? Time travel ?

[Belz...]

The government pointed fingers at al-qaeda but how much would they let us know of what is their fault?

This is mere rhetoric. Do you have actual evidence, or is your case built on the lack of evidence ?

The evidence isn't laid out in court, most of it was either destroyed or it's being withheld by the FBI.

Well that's real convenient to you, isn't it ?

I do not trust the 9/11 Commission Report nor the FBI's judgment on it... I respect their work but even they can lie and ommit to save their own face.

Of course. Everyone can lie. Everything anyone says can be a lie. Reality can be an illusion. Enjoy your road to solipsism.

Because they were suspected hijackings at that time
Deviated from their path, transponders turned off, no response, etc.
And if that's a tricky question, no it isn't directly to NEADS but to the NMCC, which then call the big guns.

Why would they call "the big guns" for a suspected hijacking ?

[Yurebiz]

gumboot tell me what, I think it's great that they abandoned protocol and called NEADS directly, but why didn't the protocol in place work as it should? It shouldn't take 30 min to contact the hijacker coordinator.
From what I skimmed through that 9/11 commission board, it looks like there were come communication problems? The Command Center wasn't listening to the lines they had set-up for situations like this... and if that's true then that's something they were incompetent of - tell me if I got this right...

MS. GORELICK: Our Staff Statement reflects a very long, 39- minute gap in between when the FAA became aware of the United 93 as a hijacking and when the military was notified at 10:07, which was of course after they impact into the Pentagon. And I want to give you all an opportunity to explain why that occurred -- I'm sorry, not impacted the Pentagon --
MR. BELGER: Well --
MS. GORELICK: -- impact into the ground in Pennsylvania.
MR. BELGER: Right. The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC. That's still frustrating for me to understand how that -- I know how it's supposed to work, but I have to tell you it's still a little frustrating for me to understand how it actually did work on that day. It is clear I think in the record that at 9:20 the FAA operations center did call the National Military Command Center and add them into the hijacking net. The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time. That's the purpose of the hijack net. There are other nets off of that, which some are classified and some are real technical command type of discussions. But the fundamental primary source of information between the FAA, DOD, FBI, Secret Service, and which every other agencies -- the airlines would probably be on that net -- is the FAA hijack net. That was activated with the NMCC at 9:20. It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time.
MS. GORELICK: Did you do anything to ensure that your assumption, a costly one, was correct?
MR. BELGER: No. I did as I was -- I was real busy that morning. I did not ask specifically is the NMCC on. And I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else.
MS. GORELICK: At some point, however, in the course of that call you became aware that the military was not involved in any meaningful way. Is that correct? We heard some rather colorful language came from your mouth at that point.
MR. BELGER: I don't doubt that. Yeah, I mean later in the morning, as I had time to not just react to everything and think, I believe I did ask, you know, Are they on? -- and make sure.
MS. GORELICK: And when you found out that they weren't?
MR. BELGER: No, I wasn't very happy.
Hey gumboot, I've read somewhere that the Director of Civil Aviation Security from the FAA was in frigging Puerto Rico at 9/11. Is he the hijacker manager for what you know, or did he designate someone else? Is that true? Well I gotta read some more.



Arkan, the Sliney guy looks confused so we can't take his words as fact, because he says the command center is required to inform NORAD but then says they had "no process" to notify any military division. I dunno he just waves around, I posted the whole piece because I usually either quote a big part of the whole or I don't quote at all, it's just the way I like to quote.

Belz all investigations are based on assumptions. It shouldn't LEAD your investigation of course, but every question starts with an assumption...
I'm not concluding it was LIHOI I'm having a healthy assumption and seeing if it's possible it might have happened that way. You know, the scientific method thingy.

I'm not arguing for conspiracy necessarily, really. LIHOI ain't conspiracy.

I used the term "second-hand evidence" as the report from people that we're not at the spot, but hearsay witnesses, such as FAA managers, directors, and whatnot, in relation to what specific ATCs have or have not done. The only ones who have first hand evidence for the specific radar readings are those who had their eyes on it, or any record that they might have saved from that day (do they record radar info?)
Yes funny enough, my case is built on lack of primary evidence available to us. Hence the thread topic title...
I used the term "big guns" as to the military. Sorry if thats confusing but I meant NORAD, or the US air force, whatever is capable of intercepting planes. By default it's NORAD that does such a thing of course but the command center has the freedom to call whoever they want with the proper reasons and if protocols seems fit.

[beachnut]

No way someone could shoot down Flight 11. No one had a clue it was heading for a WTC impact. How did we let it hit the WTC? Why was it not shot down? This one is easy and is not even a factor. So at the time of impact who knew flight 11 had hit the WTC? When did people learn of flight 11 hitting the WTC? We saw the hole on TV, but when did we know flight 11 was it.

Flight 175, how did we let it hit the WTC? Why was it not shot down? You know, flight 175 was squalking a code, flight 11 was not. When did anyone know 175 was hijacked? When did someone suspect 175 was going to impact the WTC? I think this one is too easy to figure out too. I think it is amazing the fighters set up a cap as soon as they did around NYC. But then I am amazed when in great confusion something is done.

Flight 77, kind of lost somewhere, comes out of the sky into DC does a turn, and hits the Pentagon. The closest fighters were coming from Langley? Or was it some unarmed fighters from Andrews? The Pentagon was not a good target if you want to kill lots of people. Even with 24,000 people in the Pentagon, less than 1 percent were killed, more than ten times safer than being in the WTC on 9/11. I think LCFC will make a big deal of how the Pentagon should have been safer on 9/11, yet 10 to 20 times safer than the WTC offices is safer. Debunked before Dylan puts it out, just the same old hearsay junk endorsed by DRG and spoken by Charlie Sheen.

Flight 93 is confused for another flight nearby. Was there confusion with the other two planes hitting the WTC, there could be some concern on what the heck is going on, so now all 4,000 planes all over the country are suspect terrorist flights. Or what? The passenger stopped the terrorist. What did you do on 9/11? It took you 5 years to get 9/11 wrong, when in minutes the passengers of 93 did something. You got it wrong in 5 years, they got it right in minutes. What do you have to say for yourself?

As it became apparent we were under attack from terrorist, the Air Force units around the country began to fly patrols to help the FAA if any planes were not under control of pilots talking to them. Pilots were told not to let anyone in cockpits, things changed. What is the point of the truth movement? Five years late, still wrong.

[gumboot]

gumboot tell me what, I think it's great that they abandoned protocol and called NEADS directly, but why didn't the protocol in place work as it should? It shouldn't take 30 min to contact the hijacker coordinator.


It gets a little complex for AA77.

An important thing to remember is that Indianapolis Centre did not know about events in New York at the time. It was no until 0931 that Herndon told the ARTCCs that absolutely any unusual activity was to be reported to them immediately.

Anyway, back to AA77. As you know it disappeared off the radar in a primary radar black spot. The handler began searching along its projected flight path, as did two supervisors, but they didn't look back east. As such no one picked up when an unknown primary contact reappeared at 0905.

By now American Airlines had been told about the flight, and were beginning lock down procedures.

Now here's where a major SNAFU occurred, and one I didn't know about. At 0908 American Airlines came to the conclusion that AA77 had been the second aircraft to hit the WTC.

At about the same time Indianapolis Centre notified the USAF Search and Rescue at Langley AFB that AA77 was believed crashed.

An 0916 American Airlines talked with Herndon, and revealed they thought AA11 had hit the WTC, and then that the second one might have been AA77 (although the AA specialist didn't understand how that was possible). At this point Herndon had no information about the identity of the two aircraft that hit the WTC, but they said they had a different report for AA77 so it might not be the second one to hit the WTC.

By 0920 Indianapolis Centre knew that two airliners had hit the WTC, and other aircraft were hijacked. They began to question their assumption that AA77 had crashed. Note, this significantly changes the timeline for AA77, as it means it was only suspected as a hijack 17 minutes before it crashed.

From now until AA77 crashed, Herndon began notifying ARTCCs and TRACONs to be on the look out for a primary radar return.

FAA headquarters were notified that AA77 was missing at 0925.

At 0932, after being on the look out for a wayward airliner, Dulles TRACON picked up an unknown radar contact moving at high speed. They didn't know, but this was AA77.

0934 - AA77 begins its turn. At the same time, NEADS put a call through to Washington Centre to get an update on AA11, which they had been told was heading for Washington DC. During the call Washington Centre offhandedly notify NEADS that they are also looking for another possibly hijacked flight - AA77.

At this time American Airlines is still saying it was AA11 and AA77 that hit the WTC.

0937 - Regan airport controllers direct a C-130H to follow the unknown radar contact. At the same time Boston Centre overhears reports about the unknown contact via a conference call, and notifies NEADS. NEADS immediately direct the Langley fighters to intercept. Less than 60 seconds later AA77 hits the Pentagon.


Obviously this new information changes things. I had incorrectly identified the 0856 communication between Indianapolis Centre and Herndon as a hijack notification. It wasn't. In fact no one suspected that AA77 had been hijacked until 0920.




From what I skimmed through that 9/11 commission board, it looks like there were come communication problems? The Command Center wasn't listening to the lines they had set-up for situations like this... and if that's true then that's something they were incompetent of - tell me if I got this right...


You seem obsessed with finding someone anyone to label as incompetent. Why? Why is it you cannot just accept that the hijackers beat the system? Why not accuse the airport security staff who let the hijackers on the aircraft of incompetence? Heck, at least one of them committed suicide they felt so guilty. Why not lay baseless accusations against them? Maybe they were an Al Qaeda insider?

It is now clear that in the case of all flights that hit their targets, there simply was not enough time between knowledge of hijacking and their crash to do anything. The only flight where any grounds for failure due to slow communication is possible is UA93. This was the last flight hijacked, and it was hijacked in the middle of utter chaos - with dozens of suspected hijackings, a nationwide ground stop, and a huge information overload.

This easily explains the UA93 situation.

Also, there's a good argument that UA93 and Delta 1989 were initially mixed up as they were both in the same airspace and had the same profiles. The reason I say this might have been relevant is because Boston Centre notified NEADS that Delta 1989 was hijacked at 0940 - about the same time that reports started arriving at Herndon that UA93 was hijacked.

What's important here is once again it's Boston. They're listening to the conference call between FAA centres, and relaying this info to NEADS. No one else is talking directly to NEADS.

It may be that this Delta 1989 alert that Boston overheard was actually UA93, in which case this might explain the long delay before a military response to UA93.

At 0936 Cleveland Centre specifically asked Herndon if anyone had asked for military assistance, and offered to call a local airbase. Herndon told them (correctly) that others above them in the chain of command had to make that decision. Note that at this point Cleveland were not sure UA93 was hijacked.

It's worth noting the contrast between this and Boston. At Boston, once they had notified Herndon, they immediately made multiple attempts to contact military bases, eventually getting hold of NEADS. Ultimately, Boston became the primary source of information for NEADS.

At 0949, as UA93 closed on Washington DC, Herndon suggested to FAA HQ that someone should make a decision about military assistance. It is worth noting no one had made a decision at this point.

At 0953 FAA HQ told Herndon that the Deputy Director for ATC was talking to the FAA Deputy Administrator about scrambling aircraft.

Nine minutes later UA93 crashed, and no intercept request had been issued to the military.

At 1007 Cleveland Centre - who had originally managed UA93 - decided to go straight to the military, and notified NEADS about the flight. By this time they were no longer handling U93. and thus did not know it had crashed.

At 1010 the Langley fighters arrived over Washington DC and NEADS told them to look for UA93.

At 1017 they rang Washington Centre for an update on UA93, and found out it had crashed.

In the timeline for UA93 I see two critical delays. The first was Herndon's delay in telling FAA HQ they needed to make a decision on military intercept. Arguably, it is not Herndon's job to tell HQ to do anything - their job is to pass on information. Also consider they had a lot of things to deal with at once.

The second delay - and the only real legitimate concern, was how long it took FAA HQ to make a decision on requesting an intercept.

If we look at the timeline, by 0934 there was suspicion of a hijacking, at by 0939 it was almost certain. Thus it took 14 minutes for Head Quarters to begin making the decision about involving the military.

On its own, that's probably not a huge delay, but given that by this time 3 airliners had crashed into buildings, a decision probably could have been made sooner.

Of course that's not taking into account all of the other things the FAA were having to deal with - UA93 was not the only event in front of them. Understandably, the FAA gave priority to the other 4000+ airliners that had not been hijacked.

It is telling that records show it was two deputies making the decision about military involvement with UA93. This suggests their superiors were busy with other matters.




Hey gumboot, I've read somewhere that the Director of Civil Aviation Security from the FAA was in frigging Puerto Rico at 9/11. Is he the hijacker manager for what you know, or did he designate someone else? Is that true? Well I gotta read some more.


I don't know. The role of hijack coordinator is not a person, it's a position. There's no reason to think it was not filled that day.





Arkan, the Sliney guy looks confused so we can't take his words as fact, because he says the command center is required to inform NORAD but then says they had "no process" to notify any military division. I dunno he just waves around, I posted the whole piece because I usually either quote a big part of the whole or I don't quote at all, it's just the way I like to quote.


Can I make a suggestion? If you are going to post enormous chunks of writing, could you bold the pieces you consider most important? Otherwise it can be difficult to identify what you want us to pay attention to.




I used the term "second-hand evidence" as the report from people that we're not at the spot, but hearsay witnesses, such as FAA managers, directors, and whatnot, in relation to what specific ATCs have or have not done. The only ones who have first hand evidence for the specific radar readings are those who had their eyes on it, or any record that they might have saved from that day (do they record radar info?)


Yes, they do record radar info. It was used extensively by the NTSB in constructing their flight path summaries. ATC communications are also recorded, and transcripts of the moments when each flight got hijacked are available.

It's important to note that the actual ATC controller has no duties regarding hijacking, other than to tell their supervisor what is happening. Information regarding what was happening quickly travelled up the chain of command to FAA HQ in the case of all four flights.




Yes funny enough, my case is built on lack of primary evidence available to us. Hence the thread topic title...


Primary evidence is next to useless for us. Would you know what a radar data read out meant? Would you be able to interpret a FDR report? Would you understand ATC transcripts without an accompanying report?

These are highly specialist areas and the primary resources are highly technical. Unfortunately we have to rely on official reports of this information to understand what was going on.

As a skeptic, it is important to look for any inconsistencies or gaps in the official summaries. When we find these, we have to go looking for explanations.

However, skepticism does not mean refusing to believe the official summaries at all, simply because they are official. This is irrational behaviour.

I've looked through all of the official summaries. I've found many holes, and sought documents to fill those holes. I've found military standing orders, FAA directives, US laws, FAA Regulations, tape recordings, studied maps, and so forth. I've tried as best I can to follow the highly technical threads here about FDRs and CVRs. I've dug up news articles and interviews with fighter pilots who were involved on 9/11. And so forth. I've filled all of those gaps. I find one or two here and there, but nothing that directly affects the speed of the military response to 9/11.

As it happens, once all of these gaps have been filled, the timeline I have still reflects those official summaries. That's just how it is.

-Gumboot

[CapelDodger]

gumboot tell me what, I think it's great that they abandoned protocol and called NEADS directly, but why didn't the protocol in place work as it should?

Short answer, they were designed from top down by a multi-agency bureaucracy of a particularly ferocious nature. A longer answer would involve the US political system's tendency to spawn federal agencies to embody initiatives, which are spun to be equivalent to solutions.

[Belz...]

Belz all investigations are based on assumptions. It shouldn't LEAD your investigation of course, but every question starts with an assumption...
I'm not concluding it was LIHOI I'm having a healthy assumption and seeing if it's possible it might have happened that way. You know, the scientific method thingy.

You said there could be need to ASSUME LIHOI. Isn't "LIHOI" a conclusion ?

[boloboffin]

I would only add two more entries to gumboot's remarkable post above.

At 9:20, the FAA issued a ground stop for New York City airports.

At 9:25, around the time they were informed of Flight 77, the FAA initiated a nationwide ground stop on all aircraft in the United States. The ATC got to go through the rest of that timeline while getting every plane in American airspace down on the ground and while monitoring every one of them to make sure they too didn't shut off their transponders and fly into the next available building.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html

[gumboot]

I would only add two more entries to gumboot's remarkable post above.

At 9:20, the FAA issued a ground stop for New York City airports.

At 9:25, around the time they were informed of Flight 77, the FAA initiated a nationwide ground stop on all aircraft in the United States. The ATC got to go through the rest of that timeline while getting every plane in American airspace down on the ground and while monitoring every one of them to make sure they too didn't shut off their transponders and fly into the next available building.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html


Just to be pedantic, the "ground stop" only refers to preventing additional flights taking off. Aircraft weren't directed to land ASAP at the nearest airport until about 0945. :)

The point you make is a good one though, of course. These hijackings did not occur in isolation. ATC controllers still had to handle the other 4,200+ flights in the air at the time.

As an example, at one point after the hijacking UA175 very nearly collided with another flight.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

Cool, so there is ground for LIHOI.
Thank you very much, this session remains adjourned until the next commission report is released in 2009. Yeah, or so I wish. Dismissed. :(

Oh and by the way, who was the hijacker coordinator at the command center after all? I can't find him.

[beachnut]

Cool, so there is ground for LIHOI.
Thank you very much, this session remains adjourned until the next commission report is released in 2009. Yeah, or so I wish. Dismissed. :(

Oh and by the way, who was the hijacker coordinator at the command center after all? I can't find him.
If you only had some facts and evidence. The only thing you are missing, proof.

[Yurebiz]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

[gumboot]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?



They prove LIHOI how?

(By the way, just because you don't know the hijack coordinator's name doesn't mean they are missing).

-Gumboot

[Mobyseven]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

A pair of queens and a joker. Looks like I win.

[Yurebiz]

Bump because I still don't know who he is...
Nor do I know where he was...
Does the 9/11 Commission Report says who is it?

gumboot they don't PROVe LIHOI, thats the whole deal
I'm arguing we can't judge what it was 100% because we weren't given enough primary evidence to rule out incompetence. That's all. Hence theres no debate, blablabla.

[PhantomWolf]

Sorry, not up with all the FLA's (five letter abbreviations) yet. LIHOI?

[grmcdorman]

LIHOI - let it happen out of incompetence.

[Locknar]

From Slayhamlet: Since there is no debate, as you are unwilling to debate on rational grounds (you know, like providing actual proof, not vague "it doesn't seem right to me" non-expert assertions), I suggest you leave this forum. Your appeals to emotion and personal incredulity simply fail to impress us.

Nicely said!

Yurebiz - You are a total idiot

[gumboot]

Bump because I still don't know who he is...
Nor do I know where he was...
Does the 9/11 Commission Report says who is it?

gumboot they don't PROVe LIHOI, thats the whole deal
I'm arguing we can't judge what it was 100% because we weren't given enough primary evidence to rule out incompetence. That's all. Hence theres no debate, blablabla.



We have been provided enough evidence to rule out incompetence. You might not think so, but that says more about you than it does the evidence.

-Gumboot

[mortimer]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

How do you know the hijack coordinator was missing? Evidence?

[PhantomWolf]

LIHOI - let it happen out of incompetence.

Ahhh, well that is getting closer, but I'd go with "Let it happen out of ignorance and an overdeveloped sense of invulnerablity."

[Corsair 115]

Ahhh, well that is getting closer, but I'd go with "Let it happen out of ignorance and an overdeveloped sense of invulnerablity."That'd be LIHOOIAAOSOI. Bit of a mouthful, wouldn't you say? It needs a shorter and snappier acronym...

[PhantomWolf]

How about BBIAI? (Because Bush is an Idiot)

[gumboot]

Personally I go with IWI - "It Was Inevitable".

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Personally I go with IWI - "It Was Inevitable".

-Gumboot

I'm IWPBTHGTSOTWT - "It Was Probably Bound To Happen Given The State Of The World Today".

[PhantomWolf]

Actually I'd have to admit that I'm being a little hard on Bush (while I still think that a Chimp could have done a better job of running the US, but hey I'm biased in that I don't live there.)

9/11 was the result of years of blindness by administration after administration since at least the 1940's, if not longer. They have never bothered to understand what was really happening outside the US, and in particular the Middle East, because it's never been relevant to them. As long as the area was relatively stable so that oil prices weren't hideous, but it was unstable enough that the countries there wouldn't band together, no US Administration has really cared what was actually going on there, what the people were thinking, or what power struggles were going on. All they did was pick a few friends who would advance the US position in the area and then support them in the whole mess. They never looked beyond what was going on to see the results of their meddling, or the tried to understand the mindset of the people there, and because of that they paid a price.

Even when they become a target for the radicals, they still didn't act. They assumed that they were safe in their own country, they thought that the bureaucracy and procedures would protect them, that the worse that the loopy radicals could do was hit smaller targets overseas. Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, they are all as guilty as Bush W for that failure, and so are the heads of the CIA, FBI, and other law enforcement. They failed to get into the heads of the Jihadists and in many cases refused to even consider them a threat at all. It wasn't incompetence; it was ignorance and a lack of imagination. They were caught in the same folly that the 9/11 Truthers are snared in today, that the US was invincible and none one could possibly attack it successfully. That was the failure. They looked outside the country and saw no enemies because the Soviets had fallen, and figured that was enough. Perhaps they have woken up now, but I suspect that in truth, they are just as ignorant and ill equipped to deal with the same sort of situation today. As long as USA'er keep looking at the world with rosy coloured glasses and don't understand just how despised they are in the rest of the world, there is going to be another 9/11, it's inevitable.

[Pardalis]

How about ABONDI?

(A Bunch Of Nuts Did It)

[gumboot]

This notion that the USA caused this terrorism is utter garbage...

This culture of blind hatred and death existed long before the USA got involved in the Middle East. Their desire to control the entire world, and their desire to enslave or exterminate anyone that didn't follow their own twisted version of Islam pre dates any US involvement in the area.

The USA is just the convenient entity to blame, because it's the world's super power, and no one likes a super power, so they get sympathy from other western nations. They're taking us all for a ride, and we're stupid enough to fall for it. They're scum. They value nothing except suffering. They deserve nothing except death. Their position is utterly illegitimate.

Terrorist attacks occur because western nations refuse to relinquish the values we cherish and the lifestyle we enjoy, simply to keep these rabid cockroaches out of our way.

We could prevent any terrorist attacks ever occurring with ease. But it would involve sealing ourselves in a cage. Forget it.

Radical Islamic Terrorism will end the day the last follower of Radical Islam is wiped off the face of the earth, and not before. Nothing else will make it go away.

Whether we like it or not, this is a war, and it's a war of annihilation. Only one of three things can happen:
1) We are exterminated
2) They are exterminated
3) The war continues for eternity

-Gumboot

[LashL]

Personally I go with IWI - "It Was Inevitable".

-Gumboot

Even shorter, SH.

S*** Happens.

[AZCat]

This notion that the USA caused this terrorism is utter garbage...

This culture of blind hatred and death existed long before the USA got involved in the Middle East. Their desire to control the entire world, and their desire to enslave or exterminate anyone that didn't follow their own twisted version of Islam pre dates any US involvement in the area.

The USA is just the convenient entity to blame, because it's the world's super power, and no one likes a super power, so they get sympathy from other western nations. They're taking us all for a ride, and we're stupid enough to fall for it. They're scum. They value nothing except suffering. They deserve nothing except death. Their position is utterly illegitimate.

Terrorist attacks occur because western nations refuse to relinquish the values we cherish and the lifestyle we enjoy, simply to keep these rabid cockroaches out of our way.

We could prevent any terrorist attacks ever occurring with ease. But it would involve sealing ourselves in a cage. Forget it.

Radical Islamic Terrorism will end the day the last follower of Radical Islam is wiped off the face of the earth, and not before. Nothing else will make it go away.

Whether we like it or not, this is a war, and it's a war of annihilation. Only one of three things can happen:
1) We are exterminated
2) They are exterminated
3) The war continues for eternity

-Gumboot

I differ with you here. Indigenous terrorism is and always will be a significant problem here in the U.S.A. Closing off our borders will not prevent nuts like Ted Kazynski or Timothy McVeigh from trying to do the same sort of thing as the perpetrators of the horrific attacks of September 11th. Terrorism is not limited by creed or color, nor is it possible to wall off those who would do us harm, because there is no criteria available that will determine who is a dangerous nutjob and who is harmless. I've known a thousand McVeighs (they breed them in the part of the country where I grew up), but only one ever went through with his violent fantasies. There is no defense against these people, because (as Pogo famously said) they are us.

[Pardalis]

I don't think we can "exterminate" extremism, Gumboot, I'm afraid it's a sad part of our human experience, and will always be.

We can only prevent its spread and reach as much as we can (by teaching critical thinking for example).

[PhantomWolf]

This notion that the USA caused this terrorism is utter garbage...

This culture of blind hatred and death existed long before the USA got involved in the Middle East.

Yes and no. Did the US make it happen? No. Did they have a hand in the circumstances that lead to it, yes. When you associate with madmen and meddle in their affiars, don't be surprised when they turn around and bite you. Is the US alone in this? Nope, the UK and other western powers have a lot to answer for as well. All of them having been playing games in the Middle East for centuries (well the Europeans have.) The western nations created this monsters, perhaps not directly, but certainly indirectly through our inability to understand them and the creeping of our culture into theirs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse them or place blame on the US here, but if we don't acknowledge what is wrong, and fix it, then they are going to win because regardless of what we do, they'll keep getting stronger. We're talking fanatics here. You can't destroy them militarily, trying just creates more of them, isn't that obvious from Iraq and Afghanistan? The more damage you do the more that flock to their banner. The only way to destroy them is to remove their support, and that mean winning over the people of the Middle East so they don't want to support the fanatics anymore. That is what the west has to do, and to do it we have to out-think the Jihadists, and you can't do that until you understand them. Until them, we're doomed.

[gumboot]

I differ with you here. Indigenous terrorism is and always will be a significant problem here in the U.S.A. Closing off our borders will not prevent nuts like Ted Kazynski or Timothy McVeigh from trying to do the same sort of thing as the perpetrators of the horrific attacks of September 11th. Terrorism is not limited by creed or color, nor is it possible to wall off those who would do us harm, because there is no criteria available that will determine who is a dangerous nutjob and who is harmless. I've known a thousand McVeighs (they breed them in the part of the country where I grew up), but only one ever went through with his violent fantasies. There is no defense against these people, because (as Pogo famously said) they are us.



Absolutely. I agree. My comments were directed specifically at Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Actually there's a very solid argument that terrorism as a tactic is a direct result of liberal democracy, and as we become more liberal and more democratic it will only increase.

The reason being, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise the general population so that they put pressure on their government to give in to your demands.

In, say, an absolute monarchy, this isn't very effective. The government really doesn't care what the general population thinks until it gets to the point where they're outside with pitchforks.

However in a democracy, the government is very concerned about what the population thinks.

As we become more liberal, and more of our population becomes more removed from warfare and death, our ability to resist terrorist attacks will only decrease. Thus even minor attacks will result in pressure being applied to our governments to give in to the terrorists' demands. And of course every time this happens, it just encourages more attacks.

Look at Spain for a prime example. The new government immediately withdrew from Iraq, and that government were voted in directly as a result of things like the Madrid bombings and later kidnappings etc. in Iraq itself.

-Gumboot

[NeoRicen]

Well LIHOI sounds reasonable IF you're talking about long term efforts to stop Bin Landen and efforts by the Bush administration (or lack of). But I don't see any incompetence in terms of the actual efforts before and on the day in preventing this particular attack. (it wouldn't be that hard to keep secret).

[Belz...]

I have 30+ min on flight 93 and a missing hijacker coordinator
Wut you got?

What is this "coordinator" of whom you speak ? Or don't you know how to use a stopwatch ?

[Yurebiz]

He's the guy at the command center who was supposed to be the bridge between the FAA and NORAD.
And seems like no one knows who he is or where he was.
The only source (unreliable) I found was taht he was indeed Mike Canavan. It's funny that they don't mention who he (the coordinator) was, and where he was, on that one 9/11 commission board I read...

Lets make this fun. I'll say it is Mike Canavan, and he was in Puerto Rico on 9/11. Prove me wrong and I appreciate it. :(

[DavidJames]

He's the guy at the command center who was supposed to be the bridge between the FAA and NORAD.
And seems like no one knows who he is or where he was.
The only source (unreliable) I found was taht he was indeed Mike Canavan. It's funny that they don't mention who he (the coordinator) was, and where he was, on that one 9/11 commission board I read...

Lets make this fun. I'll say it is Mike Canavan, and he was in Puerto Rico on 9/11.so what?

Why don't you first:
1. Prove that such a position exists, then
2. Prove that no one held that position on 9/11, then
3. Prove that was planned as part of the 9/11 attack.

Good Luck.

[gumboot]

More importantly, did the alleged lack of hijack coordinator prevent any of the flights being intercepted?

The easy answer is no, it didn't. For the first three flights, awareness of a hijacking came too late for a response. For UA93, had it not been downed by passengers, the USAF would have shot it down. They had multiple fighters in position over Washington DC, aware of its approach, by 1010EDT. It is estimated UA93 would have reached Washington DC by about 1025-1030EDT.

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

He's the guy at the command center who was supposed to be the bridge between the FAA and NORAD.

My mistake. I thought "hijack coordinator" meant someone coordinating the hijacks i.e. a terrorist.

Lets make this fun. I'll say it is Mike Canavan, and he was in Puerto Rico on 9/11. Prove me wrong and I appreciate it. :(

I say it was Santa Claus. Prove me wrong and I appreciate it. :(

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

He's the guy at the command center who was supposed to be the bridge between the FAA and NORAD.
And seems like no one knows who he is or where he was.
The only source (unreliable) I found was taht he was indeed Mike Canavan. It's funny that they don't mention who he (the coordinator) was, and where he was, on that one 9/11 commission board I read...

Lets make this fun. I'll say it is Mike Canavan, and he was in Puerto Rico on 9/11. Prove me wrong and I appreciate it. :(
Quoted in full, as it is a Federal public record

Second public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Statement of Michael A. Canavan to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
May 23, 2003


Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the Commission. Thank you for inviting me to speak before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. I sincerely hope that my input will be useful in increasing the safety and security of our flying public.
My name is Mike Canavan. From December 2000 until October 2001, I served as the Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Upon joining FAA, my first order of business was to review our major mandates and policies and determine where immediate improvements to civil aviation security could be made, both short and long term. Since FAA was a regulatory agency and not an enforcement agency, I knew a challenge would lie ahead to work with the airline industry and those outside the federal government, making sure every effort was made to ensure the security of the flying public. The challenge would come in terms of developing and reconstructing this long-established partnership. Additionally, outside the FAA but within the federal government, I worked closely with my counterparts within the counterterrorism (CT) and intelligence communities. While FAA is considered part of the CT and intelligence communities, it participated only when issues arose that involved aviation-related matters.
It should be noted that FAA was a consumer of intelligence, not an intelligence collector. This is an important distinction as we relied completely on the Intelligence Community to provide the best quality of raw and analyzed intelligence so that, when appropriate, we were able to turn it into actionable intelligence from which we could then take corrective actions, through employing countermeasures, transmitting advisories, warnings, etc.
During my tenure at FAA, my staff and I interacted routinely with the intelligence and law enforcement communities. We were advised of current and possible future threats against civil aviation and worked actively to implement measures to protect the flying public against those threats. Throughout 2001, as the intelligence reporting volume increased, the overwhelming majority was focused on likely targets overseas, particularly in the Middle East. Throughout this period, my office issued at least 15 Information Circulars to authorized aviation industry security professionals- corporate security directors, senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, supervisory personnel at overseas locations and as appropriate, to local airline managers and law enforcement personnel on a need-to-know basis. Often times, these were issued in concert with Department of State public announcements and FBI National Law Enforcement Transmittals. Information Circulars contained data derived from law enforcement and intelligence information focusing on domestic and international terrorism threats directed against aviation. The Information Circulars updated U.S. carriers against continuing violence against American citizens and interests around the world, with a particular emphasis on the Middle East, and encouraged airlines to practice a high degree of awareness. For example, one Information Circular described the plot to target a public area in the Los Angeles Airport terminal by Ahmed Ressam- who was arrested in December 1999 while attempting to enter the United States from Canada. Another Information Circular issued in the summer 2001, updated airport security personnel of the development terrorists and criminals had made in disguising firearms.
Additionally, my organization within the FAA issued Security Directives which required the airlines and security organizations to implement modifications or upgrades to their current security posture based on a variety of factors, including changes in the threat environment.
THREAT ENVIRONMENT THROUGHOUT 2001
As I recall, the threat reporting during early to mid-2001 centered on U.S. targets abroad. In June and July 2001, the FAA was included in many interagency Counterterrorism Security Group meetings, held at the White House by the National Security Council (NSC) staff, regarding possible attacks in the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, and Europe. In early July, the NSC chaired a meeting at which the interagency was briefed about additional intelligence indicating that terrorist attacks seemed imminent; the Intelligence Community briefers emphasized attacks would likely take place overseas. While we all agreed that attacks within the U.S. would not be ruled out, there was no indication from the Intelligence Community that attacks focused specifically against airlines. Nonetheless, the entire CT community, including law enforcement and intelligence agencies, were placed on highest alert and we all sent out notifications for heightened security measures to be put in place immediately. The FAA sent out SD's and IC's to all interested parties.
During my 10 months at FAA, I was determined to instill a renewed sense of dedication and importance throughout the Civil Aviation Security organization, and the airline and airport industry that security of the flying public was our principal directive. A few examples include: traveling to every Category X airport - the largest volume domestic airports - and briefing all Civil Aviation Security, airline and airport staff regarding our renewed commitment to aviation security and traveling to several international airport locations to ensure that host nations understood the U.S. Government's commitment to civil aviation security. I also made it a priority to draft and obtain buy-in from all FAA Civil Aviation Security staff on a Strategic Plan that articulated our security mission from the present forward. Additionally, I directed my policy staff to develop a long-term strategy planning effort out to 2010 timeframe. In the short time I served at FAA, I firmly believe I began improving the state of FAA Civil Aviation Security.
SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR AVIATION SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS
Of course it is one's hope to deter, disrupt or prevent every criminal or terrorist attack on the ground or in the skies. While this is the ultimate goal to which we all aspire, realistically this cannot happen as long as we continue to live in a free and open society. We must therefore strike a balance that allows a free and open society with sound and common sense approaches to security. There are some aviation security programs that deserve attention and may provide improvements to the flying pubic. For example:
RED TEAMS: During my tenure at the FAA, I supported completely the concept of Red Teams, a program to test and evaluate the overall state of readiness of domestic and international airports. Although no airport security system can be flawless, in order to develop and implement improvements, it is necessary to work with, rather than to punish airport and airline personnel when defects are found, by developing an improvement plan together. Based on the Red Team findings, the airport authorities and airline industry should be made part of the improvement process rather than punished with fines and allowed to walk away without making the overall system better. This is another example why it is imperative that the airline industry never be allowed to transfer all of its security responsibilities to the federal government. This must always be a shared responsibility.
Federal Air Marshals (FAM's): The strength of this program's foundation is based on maintaining the anonymity of the FAM's. With the significant increase in FAM's deployed on domestic flights over the past 20 months, the FAM's are now as, or more likely, to be called upon to deal with unruly passengers as they are a threat to the cockpit crew and passengers. There is an important distinction between security of the aircraft, its crew and passengers versus a disorderly passenger; disclosing the FAM's identity undermines the very premise under which they are operating. This is another example where the airline industry should share responsibilities - by handling unruly passengers, the FAM's are allowed to execute their mission of providing security of the aircraft, its crew and passengers.
Airline Industry Responsibilities: Since September 11, the federal government has taken additional responsibilities which had previously been air carriers and operators responsibilities for more than three decades. It seems there is little burden- sharing; the concept of "shared responsibility for good security" is a memory. The airport and airline personnel are the "first responders"; by virtue of their being the "eyes and ears on the ground", they will be immediately directly aware of questionable behavior and potential threats. Now, however, the airline industry is no longer responsible for screening passengers and is currently trying to relieve themselves of CAPPS and baggage screening, and are opposed to using hardened containers or advanced equipment. The airlines must be responsible for some measure of security throughout this process; the government cannot and should not be held accountable for all things aviation; the concept of common and shared responsibilities for security has been degraded severely in the past 20 months; it should be seriously revisited and the airline industry must become responsible again for some aspect of overall security.
Aviation Security Abroad: At international airports, foreign government and airlines hire the personnel responsible for screening in overseas locations. While we have made significant improvement domestically, we may not have yet dealt with the airports abroad. I understand that a recommendation was made to employ more than 70 explosive trace detection devices in airports overseas to screen footwear, after Richard Reid's failed attempt last year to explode an aircraft, has yet to be acted upon. This equipment is used domestically and we should improve our aviation security overseas for flights using the United States and elsewhere.
CONCLUSION
When I joined FAA, I was impressed with many of the dedicated employees at Headquarters and in the field. However, I recognized I would be facing a formidable challenge, working within the FAA structure and at the same time in an environment where "partnership with the industry" took on a whole new meaning. I tried to begin breaking new ground during this time. Not a single day passes when I do not think about decisions, theories, and intelligence that might have possibly made some difference to the outcome of September 11, 2001. I hope that my testimony today and any information that I offer the National Commission will assist in making the traveling public and aviation in general more safe and secure. Thank you. http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing2/witness_canavan.htm

[Yurebiz]

Quoted in full, as it is a Federal public record
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing2/witness_canavan.htm

I think I've read that. The commission doesn't ask him where he was, nor who the hijacker coordinator was.

[Cylinder]

FAA HQ and NORAD HQ did not interact directly during the attacks. By the time both HQs were plugged in, that situation had fallen under control on the PEOC as the situation had progressed well beyond Mike Canavan's pay-grade.

[Dr Adequate]

I think I've read that. The commission doesn't ask him where he was, nor who the hijacker coordinator was. Nor whether there's any such thing as a "hijack coordinator".

What makes you think that such a job existed?