The Order to "Stand Down"

[Makalakumu]

Check out the following article

Found: The 911 "Stand Down Order"?

Jerry Russell | March 31 2004

Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1
June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18,
1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to
save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving
"potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles,
vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the
Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in
any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.

While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate
responsibility from 911, nevertheless there is the possibility that this
discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo.

If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it
would be interesting if Fry could testify as to the reasoning behind making
it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a
timely fashion.

The relevant documents are on the Web at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf
Best regards,

Jerry Russell

 

[Tgace]

Yes...every aircraft that looses radio contact now must be immediately shot down...either by the squadrons of fully loaded interceptor aircraft sitting on tarmaks for instant response, or by the secret anti-aircraft batteries scattered throughout the USA. You really think those are "watertowers"??

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes...every aircraft that looses radio contact now must be immediately shot down...either by the squadrons of fully loaded interceptor aircraft sitting on tarmaks for instant response, or by the secret anti-aircraft batteries scattered throughout the USA. You really think those are "watertowers"??

Yep, especially after the first planes hit and we KNEW the planes were hijacked. "Stand down guys, no big deal..." Don't blow this off man. For Christ Sakes people were making telephone calls telling the AUTHORITIES that the planes were hijacked...this order was still issued.

 

[Tgace]

At the time, how many combat capable aircraft with pilots were fueled up and within range to have made a difference? When I was in the military, just getting live ammunition took longer than you would think. Pre 9/11 MP's at Army Post gates were about as much firepower as you could scrape up at a moments notice.

Up to 9/11...even with the Al Queda warnings about aircraft weapons...hijackings resulted in landings and demands...who wanted to shoot down the first plane and find out that they planned on landing? After the first planes struck they saw that they were wrong, but the system wasnt prepared.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I've heard from several sources that there is or has been an order for local law enforcement to secure an area, but not to engage. They are to wait for the 'pros' as it were. When this was issued, or if its still in effect I don't know.

Regarding the ability of a local police force to handle things... I don't know about the rest of the US, but WNY cops aren't (to my knowledge) well equiped to tackle such things. Maybe the swat teams, but thats not a lot of manpower against a commited hostile.

As to air prep.... I don't have the specifics, but is say 30 min enough time to load, scramble and engage during a peace-time footing? Rumors of course exist that the PA crash was shot down...that however hasn't been proven.

After the attacks, CAP was in place over NYC, Washington and other cities... (I heard them over Buffalo, the NF airbase being right next door.) But, before then....was there even a CAP of -1- plane over Washington?

 

[Tgace]

No...theres no such orders, theres no "pros" close enough to make a difference unless they are contained in a classic building/vehicle hostage scenario. If the @#$% hits the fan, we deal with terrorists like we would Hollywood Bank robbers. Theres no time. "Rapid deployment" tactics to respond to school shootings developed because Columbine showed that in some situations you cant wait for SWAT to arrive. Some agencies are better prepared (weapons/training) than others. Our dept. added M-4 carbines to "reach out and touch someone" to patrol and have incorporated SWAT-type training to patrol as well. We do the best we can with what we have.

As to the "scramble time"....you point out the exact point I was making.

 

[Makalakumu]

The scramble time for NYC and Washington is less then ten minutes according to the CAP. They had plenty of time. The fighters were in the jets...and told to stand down. Why would that have happened? I hope this comes up at the 911 commission.

 

[Tgace]

The scramble time for NYC and Washington is less then ten minutes according to the CAP. They had plenty of time. The fighters were in the jets...and told to stand down. Why would that have happened? I hope this comes up at the 911 commission.

Some arguement for and against this at ...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/sept11/whatwasthegovernmentdoingon911.html

but many military types disagree with that.
6 Official reasons why the Air Force jets were not promptly dispatched to intercept the troubled airliners.

a In General

i ‘The U.S. doesn’t have fighter jets on standby, ready to take off.’

(A) Warren B. Rudman, former New Hampshire Senator, veteran of the Korean war, and a national security expert

(1) "This country is not on a wartime footing. We don't have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the '70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and makes no sense at all." [Boston Globe 9/15/01]

(B) Air Force Col. Robert Marr Jr., Commander of the North East Defence Sector.

(1) According to Marr, the threat of such an attack had never been considered. Consequently, there were only four armed combat-ready fighter jets available in the Northeast Air Defense Sector, covering the area from Minnesota to Maine to Virginia and only 10 other armed jets available to protect the rest of the U.S. [BBC 8/29/01]



ii ‘Presidential approval was needed to shoot down the aircraft.’

(A) Statements that the president’s approval was needed to shoot down the planes.

(1) Dick Cheney.

(a) He stated the following, referring to the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania: “The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? ...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, ‘I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.’ He didn’t feel it was necessary to put the jets to flight earlier because ‘It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate’.” [NBC, 9/16/01]

(B) Statements that the president’s approval came too late.

(1) Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, then commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(a) During the May 23 hearings before the 9/11 Independent Commission, he said that the president’s approval to shoot down commercial aircraft had come too late, noting that the order wasn’t made until 10am [the record shows the decision was made shortly after 9:56]. He also claimed that he hadn’t been notified about the decision until after Flight 193 had already crashed in Pennsylvania [which occurred at 10:06]. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03; Knight Ridder, 5/23/03; Dallas Morning News, 5/24/03]

(C) Statements suggesting that the fighter jets could have reached Washington in time to intercept Flight 77 - had the shootdown order been given earlier.

(1) Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold then commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(a) During the May 23 hearings before the 9/11 Independent Commission, Gen. Larry Arnold admitted it was “certainly physically possible” that fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base could have made it to Washington to intercept Flight 77 had the shootdown order been made earlier. [Dallas Morning News, 5/24/03]

(D) Criticism.

(1) Presidential approval is not needed for a jet to monitor, track, and intercept a commercial airliner.



iii ‘We weren’t prepared for it.’

(A) NORAD was operated as a “Cold War Vestige”

(1) Statements.

(a) Major General Craig McKinley, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(i) Major General Craig McKinley told the 9/11 Independent Commission on May 23, 2003 that NORAD’s system operated like “a Cold War vestige,” insisting, “It was developed during the Cold War, to defend against long-range Soviet bombers.” He claimed that although U.S. intelligence had been aware that terrorists were considering using hijacked planes as missiles, this information was never shared with NORAD. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03]

(ii) McKinley told the commission that NORAD’s ground communications with its pilots were not designed to coordinate a defense operation against an attack from within the country. As a result, NORAD was unable to communicate directly with its pilots and had to go through the FAA, McKinley said. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03]

(iii) McKinley also told the commission that NORAD’s radar system had been designed only to defend the U.S from overseas attacks. Consequently, on 9/11 NORAD had to use radar information provided by the FAA. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03]

(B) NORAD was unaware of intelligence suggesting that terrorists were considering using hijacked planes as missiles to attack targets in the U.S.

(1) Statements.

(a) Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, in response to Richard Ben-Veniste’s question: “Given the awareness of the terrorist use of planes as weapons, how was it that NORAD was ... not better prepared to protect against the hijacking of commercial jets?”

(i) McKinley responded, “In retrospect, I would agree with your comment.” He later added, however, that his agency “had no intelligence information of a terrorist threat using commercial airlines.” [New York Newsday, 5/23/03] When members reminded him that there had been several indications that terrorists were considering to use airplanes in this manner, “NORAD and transportation officials continued to insist that they were never apprised by the nation's intelligence community of the potential for a U.S. jetliner to be used in such a way.” [New Jersey Star Ledger, 5/24/03]

(2) Evidence suggesting otherwise.

(a) Statement made by General Ed Eberhart of the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(i) General Ed Eberhart of the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense

01. Slate MSN reported on February 16, 2002, that General Ed Eberhart of the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) admitted that NORAD had been aware of the possibility that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles by suicidal terrorists. Slate reported: “NORAD had practiced responding to a hijacked plane trying to slam into a target in the United States, the exercises assumed that the flight had originated overseas, giving intercepting jet fighters more time. More important, he also said that even if his aircraft had practiced the domestic scenario, it wouldn't have mattered. Why? ‘I really think that, for sure in the first two instances, and probably in the third, the time and distance would not have allowed us to get an airplane to the right place at the right time’.” [Slate 2/16/02]

(ii) Statement made by NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Maj. Mike Snyder.

01. On June 4, 2002, Snyder said plans to conduct a training exercise for a commercial airliner-hijacking scenario had been made before the Sept. 11 attacks. The exercise did not happen, however, until June of 2002. [American Forces Press Service, 6/4/03]

(iii) In late October 2000, the Pentagon conducted a training exercise involving a plane crash at the Pentagon.

01. In late 0ctober 2000, the Pentagon, concerned about the ability of its emergency response teams to respond to a major accident at the Pentagon, conducted an exercise involving a mock plane crash at the Pentagon. [Military District of Washington News Service, 11/3/2000]



iv ‘I don’t know.’

(A) Air Force General Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs on 9/11.

Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing On Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C. , SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record... That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck. ... I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time. And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening.

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record.

SENATOR LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

SENATOR LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there has been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.

GENERAL MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

SENATOR CLELAND: General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

GERERAL MYERS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... General Myers, The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. That's approximately. You would know specifically what the timeline was.

The crash that occurred in Pennsylvania after the Newark westbound flight was turned around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington was approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second explosion. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why?

GENERAL MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact timelines.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question.

I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

GENERAL MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft...

In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

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

SENATOR LEVIN: Or the time that I asked you for, which was whether the FAA or FBI notified you that other planes had turned direction from their path, their scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards Washington, whether there was any notice from any of them, because that's such an obvious shortfall if there wasn't.

GENERAL MYERS: Right.

SENATOR LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that information.

GENERAL MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at that time, so that part of it is a little hazy. After that, we started getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other flights that we were worried about.

And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . . .

SENATOR LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don' t know them.

GENERAL MYERS: But we'll get them.




b Regarding specific flights

i Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

(A) "There were no jets available."

(1) Comments to this effect.

(a) "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed." [USA Today 9/16/01]

(2) Evidence to the contrary.

(a) "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." [USA Today 9/16/01]

(b) The San Diego Union Tribune observed on September 12, "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes. . . . But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon." [San Diego Tribune 9/16/01]

(B) ‘We had no idea there was a plane heading our way’

(1) Summary.

(a) According to NORAD’s official timeline, the agency was not formally notified of the Flight 77 hijacking until 9:24, 14 minutes before the Pentagon was hit.

(2) Statements indicating NORAD’s alleged ignorance regarding Flight 77.

(a) Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Vic Warzinski, a Pentagon spokesperson, told Newsday, "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday’s event anyone would have expected anything like that here." [Newsday 9/23/01]

(3) Statements that suggest NORAD was aware that Flight 77 was heading towards Washington.

(a) Former FAA administrator Jane Garvey told the 9/11 Independent Commission on May 23, 2003 that FAA officials made several “informal” notices to NORAD during the morning of Sept. 11 prior to the formal notice at 9:24. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03] In fact, the Washington Post reported that according to Garvey, “FAA officials were in a conference call with NORAD after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center” [Washington Post, 5/24/03]

(b) During the May 23, 2003 Sept. 11 hearings, an unnamed military person said that a regional NORAD office had spoken with the FAA well before 9:24. [Washington Post, 5/24/03]



ii Flight 11 and Flight 175 in New York

(A) "We didn’t have enough warning."

(1) Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, spokesman for the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD)

(a) "We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice. . . . This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly." [Boston Globe 9/15/01]



(B) NORAD claimed it had lost Flight 11 on radar.

(1) Official account.

(a) Aviation week and Space Technology.

(i) On June 3, 2002, the magazine reported, "Back at the NEADS Operations Center, identification technicians were sorting thousands of green dots on their radar scopes, looking for American Flight 11. Since terrorists had turned off the Boeing 767's transponder, FAA controllers could only tell NEADS technicians where the flight had last been seen. The NEADS radar screens showed ‘primary’ or ‘skin-paint’ returns, the raw radar pulses reflected from an aircraft's surface. … ‘We were trying to determine which [radar return] was him. But we couldn't get what we needed just from our scopes,’ said MSgt. Maureen Dooley, a noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) of NEADS' identification technicians. She and other troops were constantly on the phone with the FAA, airlines and others, looking for clues. ‘If we could get good last-known-positions and tail numbers, that would help the fighters pick out the right aircraft’." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02]

(2) Contradictory reports.

(a) Christian Science Monitor

(i) On September 13, the Christian Science Monitor interviewed some of the air traffic controllers who had been tracking Flight 11. The article explained, "Flight 11's transponder had stopped working. It was no longer sending a radar pulse. The plane's altitude also became a matter of guesswork for controllers, though the Boeing 767 was still visible on radar. Still, the controllers hoped that the plane simply had an electrical problem." The plane remained visible, according to the controller’s account, until it collided with the World Trade Center: "Two F-15 jets were reportedly dispatched from Otis Air Force Base [at about 8:46AM]. Just before or after the military planes got off the ground, however, the controllers report they lost site of Flight 11's radar signal over Manhattan. The controller who had handled the plane from the beginning of the ordeal was stunned."

(b) The Washington Post.

(i) On September 17, the Post reported, "Controllers scrambled to direct other planes out of the way of both United 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 -- which also originated in Boston -- as they headed toward the twin towers." [Washington Post, 9/17/01]

(c) The Wall Street Journal.

(i) On October 15, the Wall Street Journal reported, "The FAA had tagged the radar blip that Flight 11 had become, and it was now isolated on an Aircraft Situation Display, a big radar-tracking screen. All eyes watched as the plane headed south. On the screen, the plane showed a squiggly line after its turn near Albany, then it straightened." [Wall Street Journal, 10/15/01]

 

[Makalakumu]

So, how are we suppose to sort the disinformation from the real? It seems as if two versions of history are being presented. Which one goes down the memory hole, Winston?

 

[Tgace]

Im sorry..all those sources I posted must have spent a lot of time getting their stories straight, another government cover-up....I'm just saying that at the time we were unprepared.

"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice. . . . This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly."

Im personally testing the radio equipment of every plane I fly on from now on though.

 

[Makalakumu]

Im sorry..all those sources I posted must have spent a lot of time getting their stories straight, another government cover-up....I'm just saying that at the time we were unprepared.

"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice. . . . This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly."

Im personally testing the radio equipment of every plane I fly on from now on though.

Perhaps...

Or it is problem - action - solution...thesis + antithesis = synthesis

Again, I hope this ends up in front of the commision.

By the way, did anyone catch the press conference? I loved the presidents reaction to the question "So, why did you decide to appear in front of the commission with VP Cheney?"

 

[michaeledward]

Some arguement for and against this at ...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/sept11/whatwasthegovernmentdoingon911.html

but many military types disagree with that.

Some great quotes here. But as I looked at the links on this page (again), it seems there are many comments about how the military is supposed to respond, and has responded in the past when an aircraft deviates from it's flight path.

There is alot of information I was not aware of, that reading this site has given me knowledge of, and I can only assume that with all of the references on the site, somewhere in the middle is what should have happened.

Two things I have seen strike me as strange, and possible connected to the "Order":

1 - The Military was in the middle of a big exercise, which means the planes, if not in the air, should have been ready to go.
2 - The travel time from Otis Airforce Base to New York City for a fighter plane, should have closed that distance quicker than it reportedly did.

I think there are still some hidden truths.

 

[michaeledward]

And I just saw this on the MSNBC web site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4740329/

Pentagon crash rejected before attacks
Scenario called unrealistic, not in keeping with exercises
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military rejected a scenario in which a hijacked airliner flew into the Pentagon as it planned a training exercise five months before an airliner slammed into the building in September 2001, defense officials said Wednesday.

This doesn't exactly jibe with the repeated statements by Dr. Rice that 'no one could have conceived that terrorists would use hijacked planes as missles'.
Hmmmm,

 

[Tgace]

Some great quotes here. But as I looked at the links on this page (again), it seems there are many comments about how the military is supposed to respond, and has responded in the past when an aircraft deviates from it's flight path.

There is alot of information I was not aware of, that reading this site has given me knowledge of, and I can only assume that with all of the references on the site, somewhere in the middle is what should have happened.

Two things I have seen strike me as strange, and possible connected to the "Order":

1 - The Military was in the middle of a big exercise, which means the planes, if not in the air, should have been ready to go.
2 - The travel time from Otis Airforce Base to New York City for a fighter plane, should have closed that distance quicker than it reportedly did.

I think there are still some hidden truths.

Somewhere in the middle would still probably have resulted in 9/11.

"there were only four armed combat-ready fighter jets available in the Northeast Air Defense Sector, covering the area from Minnesota to Maine to Virginia and only 10 other armed jets available to protect the rest of the U.S."

Where those jets were, and if they could have reached any of these flights, I dont know.

And Ive been on my share of "military exercises". Live ammunition isnt just lying around everywhere. Getting ahold of aircract ordinance at a moments notice must be on a whole other order....remember the "tank on a rampage" footage from that nut that stole a tank from a NG Armory? Remember how there was nothing the military/guard/police could do till the guy hung the tank up on a median barrier?? Unless its standing by "a-purpose" it takes time to "lock-n-load".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think a key point here is the "Armed" part...lest someone think there were only 14 jets in the entire country...

 

[michaeledward]

I don't know ... as I read the following link, I take away something different.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=0:10am-11:50pm%2011%20Sept%202001

Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins and other NORAD employees at NEADS (NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector that covers the Washington and New York areas) are starting their work day. NORAD is unusually prepared on 9/11, because it is conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command is in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported. An article later says, “In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02]

[color=#0000]FAA Administrator Jane Garvey later testifies that NORAD is notified Flight 11 has been hijacked. [New York Times, 12/30/03] This contradicts both the account of one NORAD employee who says it happens three minutes earlier (see 8:31 a.m.), and NORAD's official account, which claims it happens six minutes later (see 8:40 a.m.).

[/color]

Boston flight control supposedly notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked (other accounts say it happens earlier (see

8:31 a.m. and 8:34 a.m.). [8:38, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:38, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:40, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:40, AP, 8/19/02, 8:40, Newsday, 9/10/02] This is about 20 minutes after traffic control noticed the plane had its transponder beacon and radio turned off. Such a delay in notification would be in strict violation of regulations.Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Powell, a member of the Air National Guard at NEADS, part of NORAD, takes the call from Boston Center. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02] He gives the phone to Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins, regional Mission Crew Chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise: “I picked up the line and I identified myself to the Boston Center controller, and he said, we have a hijacked aircraft and I need to get you some sort of fighters out here to help us out.” Deskins then tells Colonel Robert Marr, head of NEADS, “I have FAA on the phone, the shout line, Boston Center. They said they have a hijacked aircraft.” Marr then calls Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and says, “Boss, I need to scramble [fighters at] Otis [Air National Guard Base].” Arnold later says, “I said go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] Deskins later says that initially she and “everybody” else at NEADS thought the call was part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. After the phone call she had to clarify to everyone that it was not a drill. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he hears of the hijacking at this time, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?” [ABC News 9/11/02]

Major Daniel Nash (codenamed Nasty) and Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy (codenamed Duff) are the two F-15 pilots who would scramble after Flight 11 and then Flight 175 . Nash says that at this time, a colleague at the Otis Air National Guard Base tells him that a flight out of Boston has been hijacked, and to be on alert. [Cape Cod Times, 8.21.02] NEADS senior technician Jeremy Powell also later says that he telephones Otis Air Base and tells it to upgrade its “readiness posture.” [Newhouse News, 1.25.02] Duffy also says he is told in advance about the hijacking by the FAA in Boston. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6.3.02] Nash and Duffy put on their flight gear and get ready. [Cape Cod Times, 8.21.02] They are already halfway to their jets when “battle stations” are sounded. Duffy briefs Nash on what he knows, and, “About 4-5 minutes later, we [get] the scramble order and [take] off.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6.3.02]

All of this happened before the first plane strikes the World Trade Center. It is interesting how each of us reading the same thing, can come to different conclusioins.

Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

Golfer Paine Stewarts airplane was off course for ten minutes and was surrounded by f-16s in 15 minutes. 911 happened in some of the most monitored and controlled airspace in the world. What is happening?

 

[Tgace]

Still sounds like the typical "fog of war" situation when dealing with large military organizations rather than some governmental conspiricy designed to get us into the Iraq war...which is where I see this going....when taken as a whole, this report points more to a military structure unprepared for what happened rather than some huge cover-up.

What are you implying really happened here??

 

[Makalakumu]

What are you implying really happened here??

TMI - I don't know what happened. There are two sides of the story. One points to a screw up, one points to something intentional. I think we have a duty as citizens to debunk one of the sides.

 

[Tgace]

What would that "something intentional" be??