Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Catseye · 02-21-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

We got caught with our pants down by the most audacious and well-executed terrorist attack in history. Why is that so hard to accept?

Maybe because it might be easier to believe it's not true? I think there are quite a number of people who would rather believe their government could allow, or even plan, something like this than believe the proper authorities didn't know what was going on and couldn't stop it.

I don't doubt that there are several pieces of information about September 11th that haven't been revealed yet, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the US government might be holding a thing or two back. To believe that there's something along the lines of a major cover-up here, on the other hand, seems a little ridiculous. There are a good number of people who apparently don't think a plane even hit the Pentagon (Snopes had a page on that, if I recall correctly). With theories like that, I think it could well be a case of preferring to believe the authorities who are supposed to protect you are evil, rather than helpless.

yaktldg · 02-21-2003, 11:58 AM

abc link: "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."

It looks to me like it was SOP before 9-11.

"ABCNEWS aviation analyst John Nance told ABCNEWS.com chat participants this afternoon, �There is no set procedure for the Air Force or Navy to scramble an armed fighter for [that purpose] & simply because it�s an unprecedented occurrence.� "

Does this mean that there is, on the other hand, a "set procedure for the Air Force or Navy" to scramble an unarmed fighter? It looks that way to me so far.

"The president could have ordered fighters to shoot down the Learjet to avoid that potential tragedy, but Lockhart said no such recommendation had been made. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon confirmed that the military never considered shooting down Stewart�s plane."

So, even though there is no SET procedure, it could've been ordered.

"White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said the National Security Council also monitored the doomed flight, fearing the jet might crash in a populated area."

cjack · 02-21-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie

So, even though there is no SET procedure, it could've been ordered.

My point exactly.

The questions that everyone seems to be asking are:

1. Why wasn't every available fighter jet scrambled the moment that those planes turned off their transponders?

2. Why (the moment the first plane hit the WTC) didn't the president immediately order fighter jets to shoot down the remaining planes?

As the Stewart story seems to indicate, the procedure (prior to 9/11)when you lose contact with an aircraft is not exactly "call the Air Force and ask them to shoot the sucker down." Again, look at the situation with pre-9/11 eyes, if you can.

Even if the FAA had been "on the ball" and requested help from NORAD right away, there is little that would have changed, IMHO. Assuming the fighters could have located and intercepted the planes in question before they found their targets, what then?

The President apparently didn't know that anything was going on until after the second plane hit the WTC, right? We also don't know how much information he was given at the school that day, or even how much information his staff knew at that point, so it is difficult to blame him for not acting "fast enough." Fast enough to do what? I don't know.

The implication with these "unanswered questions" seems to be that if there is an unanswered question, the likely answer is that there was a sinister conspiracy to either allow or even orchestrate the 9/11 attacks on the part of the Bush administration.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that Bush Jr. is that clever or that evil.

Plus I'm very skeptical of sinister government conspiracy theories, anyway.

yaktldg · 02-21-2003, 12:40 PM

From NTSB: Aircraft Accident Brief of Payne's plane:

Quote:

At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.4 The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning5 was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.6

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

So, at 9:38 it was known that something was wrong. By 9:54 (within 16 minutes) the unarmed jet had reached Payne's plane.

cjack: "My point exactly."

You misconstrued what I said. There is no set procedure for armed jets to be deployed. On the other hand, it seems there is a set procedure for unarmed jets. This the president does not have to order; it is SET procedure.

" As the Stewart story seems to indicate, the procedure (prior to 9/11)when you lose contact with an aircraft is not exactly "call the Air Force and ask them to shoot the sucker down." Again, look at the situation with pre-9/11 eyes, if you can."

You're right. It looks like they send an unarmed jet, and if the plane presents a danger, the president orders armed jets if necessary. That's pre-9/11.

"The President apparently didn't know that anything was going on until after the second plane hit the WTC, right? We also don't know how much information he was given at the school that day, or even how much information his staff knew at that point, so it is difficult to blame him for not acting "fast enough." Fast enough to do what? I don't know."

Bush is an idiot. I doubt, if in fact there was something going on, that he was involved in any way.

"I'm sorry, but I just don't think that Bush Jr. is that clever or that evil. Plus I'm very skeptical of sinister government conspiracy theories, anyway."

Agreed.

Loren Pechtel · 02-21-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seanie
I don't know your rules but just because you could order up a military plane doesn't necessarily mean you would. Not right away.

Pre 9/11 your first reaction to a plane dissapearing off radar or losing radio contact is that there's been a malfunction or that it's crashed. In which case you're probably gonna get confirmation pretty soon one way or another. A military jet isn't of much use in that situation.

And when you're not getting reports of a plane down or it's still on your radar but not in contact you're confused. What the fuck's going on? You'll get around to asking for a jet but I wouldn't of thought you'd do it immediately. I'm not suprised they're might have been a bit of a delay.

And during peacetime we don't have planes at wartime alert levels. Missiles need to be put on the rails, the plane checked (wanna go up and find the safety pins still on your missiles when you pull the trigger?) perhaps even fueled up. The pilot needs to put on his suit (try hard maneuvering without the suit and you might black out and crash) Then once you are in the air you have to head to where the problem is. Going supersonic over inhabited terrian is something you do only in an emergency and besides it gobbles fuel at a tremendous rate)

Loren Pechtel · 02-21-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me

Has the President or anyone instructed the Air Force to scramble to the sky to check things out? NO

25 minutes later he decides to tell the public what they already know, that twin towers have been hit by Hijacked planes. The president nor anyone else gives ANY orders for ANY millitary aircraft to scramble to the skies.

Huh?! Interceptors were launched against the Pentagon plane. It's just they were too far away to make the intercept. I strongly suspect flight 93 would have been brought down if it hadn't crashed.

Loren Pechtel · 02-21-2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dibble Helix
In the UK there is a widely held (conspiracy) theory that the 4th aeroplane was actally shot down by the USAF. Does anyone in the US believe this? Or is it just us untrusting Brits!

It makes no sense. They would have no reason to deny shooting it down--that would have been the correct thing to do. Furthermore, there are the cell phone conversations that indicate the passengers were trying to retake it just before it went in. Either the struggle caused a crash or the hijackers crashed it when they saw they weren't going to be able to carry out the mission.

Loren Pechtel · 02-21-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
Craig,

I think the argument of skeptics is that scrambling the jets was supposed to be automatic, established procedure, not something someone makes up on the spot to do if they're on their toes that morning. These things are long-established procedures that are regularly drilled. It should have been a reflex action.

If I'm not mistaken, they have scrambled jets before for much lesser things, so this is nothing new at all.

A *FOREIGN* plane entering our airspace improperly will draw a scramble. However, these were domestic jets, known to be civilian airliners rather than unidentified blips on the radar screen. As such they would not normally be a matter for military concern.

I remember reading an event from some years back, an air traffic controller? in Florida trying to get a plane shot down. It was a light plane from which the pilot had jumped (drug smuggler who was intercepted) and heading for a city. He never got a fighter to go knock it down even though the threat was obvious (it would run out of fuel at some point and crash, nobody knew where it would be at that point) and the fighter could have looked inside and seen it was uninhabited.

Loren Pechtel · 02-21-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
Craig,

Well, of course you are correct that they eventually scrambled jets, but I don't think anyone is arguing that fact. They are saying it took far too long.

If slow scrambled jets were the only worrying piece of evidence, I might be inclined to put this whole thing out of my mind. But suffice it to say this is not, by far, all that troubles me. We may never really know.

JM said none were scrambled.

Loren Pechtel · 02-21-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues
That sounds like a damned fool thing. The street outside isn't a secure area by any means, and could easily have a large bomb somewhere nearby, or a van loaded down with fertilizer parked there.

Besides, it's target was probably the White House, not the Pentagon.

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

02-21-2003, 11:58 AM	#22
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	abc link: "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." It looks to me like it was SOP before 9-11. "ABCNEWS aviation analyst John Nance told ABCNEWS.com chat participants this afternoon, �There is no set procedure for the Air Force or Navy to scramble an armed fighter for [that purpose] & simply because it�s an unprecedented occurrence.� " Does this mean that there is, on the other hand, a "set procedure for the Air Force or Navy" to scramble an unarmed fighter? It looks that way to me so far. "The president could have ordered fighters to shoot down the Learjet to avoid that potential tragedy, but Lockhart said no such recommendation had been made. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon confirmed that the military never considered shooting down Stewart�s plane." So, even though there is no SET procedure, it could've been ordered. "White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said the National Security Council also monitored the doomed flight, fearing the jet might crash in a populated area."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.