Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yaktldg · 02-21-2003, 08:49 PM

happy wonderer: "I don't think that the incident shows anything about a global procedure for intercepting jets that go off screen or otherwise weird."

You didn't read the full quotation:

abc link posted earlier: "First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota. Those fighters trailed the Learjet until it went down in South Dakota."

A total of 7 military jets follow this plane every inch of the way until it crashed in South Dakota. I think that's pretty convincing evidence of a standard procedure.

Quote:

JARED ISRAEL: Well, here's for example. At 9:06 the FAA, according to their account, closed the air corridor between Cleveland and Washington, DC. If they closed this air corridor, which is one of the most extreme actions the FAA has ever taken, why wouldn't they put planes in the air over Washington? [1]

MARK HAIM: This is after the -

JARED ISRAEL: After the first two hits. The second World Trade Center hit was at 9:03, approximately. So this was at 9:06, within three minutes.
The U.S. has a very sophisticated air force. On Emperor's Clothes we posted some of the documents which lay out what NORAD, the FAA - the Federal Aviation Administration - and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are supposed to do when there's a hijacking. [2]
The FAA says they knew or strongly suspected there was a hijacking by 8:20. [3]
We believe they knew sooner but let's take their word. Vice President Cheney said on 'Meet the Press' on September 16th, that the Secret Service went on emergency open lines with the FAA as soon as the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Which was at 8:45 Eastern Time, right? So, if the Secret Service was on open lines to the FAA at 8:45; if at 9:06 the corridor between Washington and Cleveland was closed, then how could it be that no planes were put in the air over Washington?

MARK HAIM: What time was the Pentagon hit?

JARED ISRAEL: The Pentagon was hit at approximately 9:45 Eastern Time, so we're talking about an hour and 40 minutes between the time they knew there was a hijacking and the time the Pentagon was hit. That hijacked plane was flying west from Boston. So they knew it could have been flying to Washington, right? Why didn't they put planes in the air?

At 9:06 the FAA knows for sure something is terribly wrong and has by now (not sure exactly when) alerted appropriate military contacts. Yet there are no jets until after the Pentagon is hit 40 minutes later.

Amen-Moses · 02-22-2003, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cjack
I'm assuming you mean that these could be carried out IF the pilots were given authorization to bring down the planes?

Certainly, but if an F16 had been with the planes the pilot could have seen what was about to occur and maybe diverted the plane without bringing it down.

The orders of military pilots are sufficiently flexible that they can make some decisions of their own you know.

I was just pointing out that an F16 is not completely helpless wihout it's weaponry when up against an unarmed civilian aircraft.

Amen-Moses

Skeptictank · 02-22-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
The U.S. has radar over the white house which is a No Fly Zone in which planes have to get permission every time they fly over it. So the plane was on radar before it even passed over the White House heading toward that Pentagon.

Do you know the distance from Reagan National Airport to the White House? Do you know the average airspeed of a commerical jet? Do you know the time it takes to get armed fighter jets to get fueled, scrambled and intercept? Are you getting my point yet?

Quote:

And The U.S. Air Force trains for a situation like this in drills all the time. Their always is tight security around the white house.

The USAF never drilled for a situation like this because nobody even thought of it. I would also like to remind you of the little propeller driven plane that managed to smack into the White House a few years back. The security isn't (or wasn't) as tight as you imagine it to be bucko.

Quote:

Al-Quaida had been penetrated and followed and been spied upon for some years now also. All the surrounding intellegince services know this, especiallly the Pakistan Intelligent services.

Please show any evidence that there are agents within the Al Queda network.

yaktldg · 02-22-2003, 10:43 AM

skeptictank: "Do you know the distance from Reagan National Airport to the White House? Do you know the average airspeed of a commerical jet? Do you know the time it takes to get armed fighter jets to get fueled, scrambled and intercept? Are you getting my point yet? The USAF never drilled for a situation like this because nobody even thought of it."

I think you're missing the point. Regardless of what the hijackers had in mind, there were procedures in place to handle an emergency aircraft to prevent the unthinkable (whatever that may be).

I quote from link provided earlier: 9-11 Timeline: Sept. 11, minute-by-minute:

Quote:

The scrambling of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. Between 9/11 and June 2002, jets were scrambled after aircraft 462 times. Obviously there was great nervousness after 9/11, but in the same time period the year before, fighters were still scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/13/02]

"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft." [FAA regulations]

"If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." [FAA regulations]

"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They�ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you�re deviating from course." It�s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart�s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." [MSNBC, 9/12/01]

"A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile." [Boston Globe, 9/15/01]

Intended and actual routes of the 9-11 flights:

slept2long · 02-22-2003, 10:56 AM

Hijacked airliners flying into U.S. landmarks should not be a surprise since it was part of a plan Ramsey Yousef was working on when he was captured in the Phillipines.

from
A chemical fire in his apartment alerted authorities to his hideout and helped uncover three terrorist plots:

-- an attempt to assassinate the Pope during his 1995 visit to Manila;

-- a conspiracy to bomb US airliners in Asia called Operation Bojinka ("loud explosion");

-- and a plan to recruit pilots to hijack US jetliners in the continental United States and slam the planes into government and commercial buildings.

Philippine authorities turned their evidence over to the U.S. government, providing evidence which led to the NY conviction of Yousef and his cohorts for "Operation Bojinka."

elwoodblues · 02-22-2003, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Hijacked airliners flying into U.S. landmarks should not be a surprise since it was part of a plan Ramsey Yousef was working on when he was captured in the Phillipines.

It was also the major plot point of a Clancy novel something like seven or eight years ago. That doesn't mean the people in charge seriously considered it in time. The scenario just didn't seem very likely or serious until it actually happened. Other avenues of terrorism seemed var more likely, and more worthy of guarding against.

Hindsight fallacy has achieved epidemic levels regarding 9/11. It seems obvious in retrospect. It was NOT two years ago.

yaktldg · 02-22-2003, 12:49 PM

elwoodblues: " It was also the major plot point of a Clancy novel something like seven or eight years ago. That doesn't mean the people in charge seriously considered it in time. The scenario just didn't seem very likely or serious until it actually happened. Other avenues of terrorism seemed var more likely, and more worthy of guarding against."

This is all irrelevant to the initial post. The concern is whether standard procedure in dealing with emergency aircrafts was followed. If not, why and who is to blame?

Whether the hijackers were planning on the traditional landing of the plane and making their demands (or whatever they do), or flying the planes into into a building is unknowable and has nothing to do with procedure and the failure to follow such procedure.

seanie · 02-22-2003, 12:54 PM

I agree with elwood.

It comes down to the difference between the unforseen and the unforseeable.

In retrospect the dangers can be regarded as forseeable, but they weren't forseen. People weren't expecting it and so didn't react in what looks like an appropriate way from our perspective.

If someone on 9/10 had come out and said that terrorists might fly commercial airliners into the World Trade Centre the reaction would've been;

"Yeah right. Taxi for the crazy fuck in the corner!"

Cut some slack.

yaktldg · 02-22-2003, 01:00 PM

seanie: "In retrospect the dangers can be regarded as forseeable, but they weren't forseen. People weren't expecting it and so didn't react in what looks like an appropriate way from our perspective."

FAA regulations: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft."

The dangers of an "emergency aircraft" were known and there were and continue to be procedures in place for handling them. These were not followed.

What the aircraft ends up doing (whether landing safely or the unthinkable) is irrelevant.

seanie · 02-22-2003, 01:09 PM

But "aircraft emergency" does not automatically equate to "Oh my god! Terrorist fucks have hijacked an aicraft and are gonna kill 3000 people! Let's scramble an F-16 and blow it out the sky!"

The particular urgency of a particular course of action only becomes obvious in retrospect.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2003, 10:56 AM	#45
slept2long Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 1,066	Hijacked airliners flying into U.S. landmarks should not be a surprise since it was part of a plan Ramsey Yousef was working on when he was captured in the Phillipines. from A chemical fire in his apartment alerted authorities to his hideout and helped uncover three terrorist plots: -- an attempt to assassinate the Pope during his 1995 visit to Manila; -- a conspiracy to bomb US airliners in Asia called Operation Bojinka ("loud explosion"); -- and a plan to recruit pilots to hijack US jetliners in the continental United States and slam the planes into government and commercial buildings. Philippine authorities turned their evidence over to the U.S. government, providing evidence which led to the NY conviction of Yousef and his cohorts for "Operation Bojinka."

02-22-2003, 12:49 PM	#47
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	elwoodblues: " It was also the major plot point of a Clancy novel something like seven or eight years ago. That doesn't mean the people in charge seriously considered it in time. The scenario just didn't seem very likely or serious until it actually happened. Other avenues of terrorism seemed var more likely, and more worthy of guarding against." This is all irrelevant to the initial post. The concern is whether standard procedure in dealing with emergency aircrafts was followed. If not, why and who is to blame? Whether the hijackers were planning on the traditional landing of the plane and making their demands (or whatever they do), or flying the planes into into a building is unknowable and has nothing to do with procedure and the failure to follow such procedure.

02-22-2003, 12:54 PM	#48
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	I agree with elwood. It comes down to the difference between the unforseen and the unforseeable. In retrospect the dangers can be regarded as forseeable, but they weren't forseen. People weren't expecting it and so didn't react in what looks like an appropriate way from our perspective. If someone on 9/10 had come out and said that terrorists might fly commercial airliners into the World Trade Centre the reaction would've been; "Yeah right. Taxi for the crazy fuck in the corner!" Cut some slack.

02-22-2003, 01:00 PM	#49
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	seanie: "In retrospect the dangers can be regarded as forseeable, but they weren't forseen. People weren't expecting it and so didn't react in what looks like an appropriate way from our perspective." FAA regulations: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft." The dangers of an "emergency aircraft" were known and there were and continue to be procedures in place for handling them. These were not followed. What the aircraft ends up doing (whether landing safely or the unthinkable) is irrelevant.

02-22-2003, 01:09 PM	#50
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	But "aircraft emergency" does not automatically equate to "Oh my god! Terrorist fucks have hijacked an aicraft and are gonna kill 3000 people! Let's scramble an F-16 and blow it out the sky!" The particular urgency of a particular course of action only becomes obvious in retrospect.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.