Failures of Air Defense Protocols on 9/11

[BeFree]

On 9/11 it has been established that the failure to intercept the hijacked airplanes was due in part to the failure of Air Defense agencies to follow protocol.

When an Air Traffic Controller has lost radio communications with an aircraft and also lost the transponder signal, the controller has a few minutes to make attempts to re-establish communications and failing that an alert should go out to contact the military.

A few questions needing answers:

Did Boston Center follow protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command?

Did FAA headquarters begin to follow the hijack protocol and contact the military to request fighter escorts?

Was the defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols?

When American 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:46, did anyone in the White House or defense department know that it had been hijacked?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. "it has been established" - BULLSHIT.

Again I ask you, what do you base this statement on? Produce this protocol immediately.

ETA: This thread is a continuation of a discussion from another thread. The support of an assertion of "protocol" caused the OP to wage a hysterical war against the notion of ever establishing this assertion in fact and evidence. The OP has now started this thread assuming the establishment of the assertion, although he said he would do so in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=246605

Follow along from that point. From the moment I ask the OP to provide evidence for this assertion, the OP conducts a silly High Noon squid-ink defense.

I call on the OP to produce the relevant protocol so that we can all determine whether or not the OP's opening sentence is indeed true.

[BeFree]

2. Hi, Bolo, good to see you here, already

There are several questions in the OP that you may want to try to answer.

Then we can have us a nice little discussion later today.

[BeFree]

3. later n/t

[BeFree]

19. Answers to questions in the OP

Question: Did Boston Center follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command?

""Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command.""



Question: Did FAA headquarters begin to follow the hijack protocol and contact the military to request a fighter escorts?

""FAA headquarters began to follow the hijack protocol but did not contact the NMCC to request a fighter escort.""




Question: Was the defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols?

""The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols.""




Question: When American 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:46, did anyone in the White House or defense department know that it had been hijacked?

"" While that information circulated within the FAA, we found no evidence that the hijacking was reported to any other agency in Washington before 8:46.""

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. some questions you have so far failed to ask

What was the protocol for seeking military assistance, and how did Boston Center deviate from it?

What, specifically, did the protocol (that FAA HQ apparently "began to follow") say about contacting NMCC? (And, by the way, is FAA one of the "Air Defense agencies" mentioned in your OP?)

Did the protocol in place on 9/11 contemplate an intercept of a hijacked plane?

Was the protocol designed for hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, or for suicide hijackings? Would one say that it was possible to effectively defend U.S. airspace on 9/11 in accord with preexisting protocols?

What, if anything, did protocol say about the case where an ATC has lost radio contact and a transponder signal?

There are lots more. Maybe you need more time.

[BeFree]

30. All my answers

Are to be found in the OCT bible, chapter 1. And some of your other questions are answered, too, might I suggest you read it and get back to us.

Take all the time you need. No hurry. It will be at least a year before there is a new investigation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. crickets, eh?

OK. I agree that you've presented so little evidence for your premise that handwaving is your best play.

[BeFree]

94. The OCT bible

...is the 9/11 commission report. Funny how the FOCTers argue against their bible. I guess they have only read the parts that make them feel all warm and fuzzy and ignore the hard truths that Bushco was a bunch of incompetent lying bastards.

[William Seger]

31. Your answers are out of context

It's hard to give you credit for backing up a claim (for once), when it appears to be in support of a disingenuous argument. From the Commission Report:

The FAA and NORAD had developed protocols for working together in the event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government.¹⁰¹

FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by "squawking" a transponder code of "7500"-the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate.¹⁰²

If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command.¹⁰³

So, the protocol was that the ATCs were supposed to notify supervisors, who would pass it up their management chain to the FAA hijacking coordinator, who would notify the NMCC, who would pass it up their chain of command for approval, eventually to the Secretary of Defense, and finally an order to launch would come back down through the chain of command.

What actually happened?

Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility.
...
NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.¹¹⁷

In other words, it appears that by taking the initiative to bypass an inefficient protocol, Boston Center got a faster military response than the protocol allowed. How does that support your OP contention: "On 9/11 it has been established that the failure to intercept the hijacked airplanes was due in part to the failure of Air Defense agencies to follow protocol."

[BeFree]

32. Very well done

Except... the stance I am taking is one that is right out of the OCT bible:


""The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols.""

And yes, the report is quite contradictory. If you have problems with all that, don't bug me, I didn't write the damn thing and don't support it. In other words, it is your bible you are arguing against. Deal with it.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Now, BeFree is trying to take one of the witness' testimony...

and claim it was a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. With all due respect to Mindy Kleinberg and her loss, she is not an expert on air defense and it's really intellctually dishonest of you BeFree to try to pass her testimony off as some sort of conclusion of the "OCT Bible".

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. naw, someone else cited Mindy Kleinberg

Here BeFree is citing the 9/11 Commission report -- out of context, to be sure.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Ooops....my apologies to BeFree....

sorry little buddy.

[BeFree]

47. Sad to see you guys....

...read the words from your own bible and then argue against it. But then I guess you are so far down a hole that anything looks like up. Watching yall clawing and scratching your way out of the hole yall find yourselves in, is a pitiful sight.

But, we didn't dig your hole and didn't push you in. And if you want a hand out, first you have to recognize where you are and the smell that surrounds you, then we can help. Until then....

[Bolo Boffin]

49. You have yet to support and prove the first statement in your OP

The rest is just you cherrypicking.

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. wrong again, but hey, keep flailing n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. the quotation doesn't support the claim

Under other circumstances, I might be surprised that you don't recognize (or don't admit) this point.

ETA: By the way, I don't claim to know which protocols, if any, actually weren't adhered to. Perhaps eventually you might have something useful to say about that.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. There will be no discussion until you correct the factual inaccuracy I mention in post #1.

It would be rather shocking to most people to find that you are here claiming to have established the very first sentence in your OP after the discussion I linked to.

Produce the protocol. We stand at exactly the same place we did before. Support your assertion. Produce the evidence that supports your assertion.

DEFEND WHAT YOU SAY WITH EVIDENCE. STOP PLAYING GAMES. PRODUCE THE PROTOCOL ON WHICH YOU BASE THAT STATEMENT.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Oh pipe down, would ya?

FAA and NORAD
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."

Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th.

Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

Here's one for you, since you like to act so demanding: why don't YOU prove that protocol *was* followed on 9-11. It shouldn't be hard to do, should it? Produce the proper protocol and prove that it was followed. Now would be a good time...

[William Seger]

7. Which part of the protocol are you claiming wasn't followed?

Seems to me you just refuted what BeFrer claimed, and proved what you're now asking Bolo to prove: The protocol was followed, but with "unimaginable" delays. Seems to me, if you want a useful answer, you should ask the right question.

(And the question in the last paragraph was answered in the previous thread: Andrews didn't have fighters on alert; Langley did.)

[Subdivisions]

11. What about you?

Produce the proper protocol and prove that it was followed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. how is it his responsibility to prove anything?

Are you seriously proposing that if someone simply says that protocols weren't followed on 9/11, that assertion becomes presumptive truth unless someone proves otherwise? Is that the hidden meaning of "Truth Movement," or what?

If Seger claims that protocols were followed on 9/11, then he has to provide supporting evidence. But he was merely trying to parse the content of Ghost's post. Right now, several of us are reacting to the wide and wild gap between the confidence of claims that protocols were not followed (high) and the quality of supporting evidence (low).

It shouldn't be nearly this hard to have a rational discussion of FAA's response on the morning of 9/11.

[BeFree]

14. Hello, hand

Here is a quote I found on the internet:

"The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols."

Can you guess where it may have come from? It's real easy. Here's a hint: it is from an authoritative source. In fact, the page it comes from is linked in this thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. dude, what is with the game-playing?

If your objective is to piss off people who are trying to figure out what really happened, you're right on target. Otherwise, I'm mystified. Why not post your evidence like you said you would?

ETA: I'm not convinced that this proof text means what you think it does.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. so you concede that this is all flame bait?

OK. Good to know. From time to time you startle me with your candor.

Now, do you have any information about what "preexisting training and protocols" actually, y'know, preexisted?

[achtung_circus]

21. Your authoritative source also says

In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that

* the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
* there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
* hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.

On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.

doesn't this part count in your mental gymnastics?

[BeFree]

27. I know

The report is actually quite contradictory, eh? Talk about mental gymnastics, the report tries to have it all without really saying anything but that it was one big screwup. What I find interesting is that now we have some folks actually defending the incompetence. You aren't defending the incompetence are you?

[achtung_circus]

64. No, I'm calling it

protocols failing to include this scenario. This might be interpreted as incompetence in the formulation and writing of the protocols. This is combined with an off-the-cuff improvisation by an ATC and NORAD system not configured for CONUS interception (read primary radar coverage, for example) plus (mostly Bush's) incompetence.

I am not calling it anything spooky.

[BeFree]

68. Spooky?

I called it supporting incompetence. Nothing to do with spooky.

Covering their ass is what the Omission did. Covered their ass by double-speak and covered Bushco's ass by, well by covering for them and not getting on their ass for incompetence.

Funny how yall just let them totally off the hook. And not one mother fucking person who got paid to protect America ever got shit-canned for dereliction. Not one. I would think that yall, instead of getting on citizen's asses, would get on Bushco's ass about that.

Not one mother fucker got shit-canned. (To use honest military terminology!!)

[Subdivisions]

24. Yup.

That's what I thought.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. where's the beef?

BeFree said in another thread that he would produce evidence. What he produced instead was the unsupported claim that his previous claim has "been established."

You're one step ahead of him, but what you've produced is testimony from a CPA. These mere assertions aren't very helpful. No reasonable person could say, "I know that FAA is supposed to notify NORAD the moment a plane goes off transponder because Mindy Kleinberg said so" -- or whatever is being claimed about what part of protocol wasn't followed.

If you, BeFree, or anyone else has any relevant evidence, by all means post it. That would be useful. I don't know why I need to explain this.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

36. This coming from someone who is constantly asked for actual proof...

and never provides any. Talk about irony.

[Subdivisions]

10. There will be no discussion? Who the hell do you think you are

telling people what to do and what not to do when you won't allow it yourself?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=243963&mesg_id=246646

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Who the hell is BeFree to state assumptions without the evidence to back them up?

Seems you have your priorities backwards.

[Subdivisions]

25. I wasn't talking about BeFree's post. I was talking about yours.

Try to pay attention.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Hey, while you're at it...

you might ask why Ghost was not penalized for this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246787&mesg_id=246812

[SDuderstadt]

6. I thought you were a "no-planer"...

so, now you are admitting that 4 airliners were hijacked and crashed on 9/11, yes?

P.S. Did you ever figure out the difference between "combat-ready" and "on alert", or are you still fumbling and bumbling around?

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. Oh please, please, PLEASE tell us the difference between 'on alert' and 'combat ready'...

:popcorn:

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. Huge Difference

Alert status is a 24-hour readiness cycle that places aircraft ready to lauch to intercept a threat within minutes of a notification.

"Combat ready" is simply a general discription of meeting the criteria for operational deployment.

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. Oh my fucking gawd, are you *really* this fucking dumb?

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sun May-10-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #218
222. Jesus Christ, BeFree....
you still can't seem to get this straight. NO ONE is saying that merely "combat-ready" fighter jets were taking up space reserved for fighter jets "on alert". "Combat-ready" and "on alert" are NOT THE SAME THING and I don't know how long this is going to take to sink in with someone who has such trouble with nuance.

There were fighter jets "on alert" at Langley. There were no fighter jets "on alert" at Andrews, there were only "combat-ready" fighter jets. A major distinction between "on alert" and "combat-ready" is that "on alert" fighter jets can launch within 15 minutes. Since fighter jets that are merely "combat-ready" are not fucking ARMED and it takes several hours to arm them, by repeatedly asking why we didn't send "combat-ready" fighter jets to intercept AA77, you are essentially asking why we didn't send unarmed fighter jets. I hope you will agree that is an absurd question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=246730

Please don't ever question anyone else's comprehension, critical thinking skills or logical thinking skills. You've just proven yourself to be void of any of these skills...

"Notwithstanding the identification of these emerging threats, by 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States.99

In the United States, NORAD is divided into three sectors. On 9/11, all the hijacked aircraft were in NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (also known as NEADS), which is based in Rome, New York. That morning NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Would you like a towel to wipe all that egg of your face, SDud? Jesus Christ you're comical, dude... :rofl: thanks for the laugh!

[BeFree]

16. Thanks, Ghost

I was as patient as could be with the Sdude, thinking he had some semblance of thinking skills, but it looks like I was wrong. Maybe now he will put on his thinking cap?

There is something going on here with their arguments. I can't quite put my finger on it, but maybe it is that they really have no argument so they are forced to just make shit up? Kinda reminds one of the whole Bushco thing, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

46. You might want to read Ghost's post carefully for comprehension...

this time. He just destroyed your claim. Ever heard that old expression, "With friends like this, who needs enemies."?

[hack89]

20. You just poked a big hole in the OP that started the conversation

Now we know that there were no armed fighters at Andrews or Oceana able to be launched in extremely short notice to intercept any of the flight on 911

That morning NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews."

Can we all agree now that the issue of why planes from Andrew's were not launched has been settled? And that BeFree semantic interlude, unless a plane was on strip alert, it was irrelevant as to what it's readiness was 0n 911.

[BeFree]

26. Well

There were 4 fighters on alert in the Northeast sector and none of those 4 ever made it to any of the planes while in flight.

Those 4 fighters were armed and combat ready 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Combat ready and on alert status, all day everyday.

[William Seger]

33. Duh

I think you've lost the plot, Ghost. Again.

[SDuderstadt]

34. The joke is on you, dude!

Do you see it? Probably not. Let me give you the gist of it. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you just destroyed BeFree's argument and proved my claim. The funniest part of it all is you don't even realize it.

I've had you on ignore for I don't know how long now so I don't have to endure your silliness, but someone tipped me off that you were off on one of your usual poorly-reasoned rants and doing a victory dance when you actually proved my point.

I think I'll start by reproducing most, if not all, of your post, primarily to preserve it for prosperity, given that you're calling me "fucking dumb" and offering me a towel for the "egg on my face" while you've busy creating an omelette on your own.

Here are my words, produced with no edits other than to emphasize certain parts by bolding:

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sun May-10-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #218
222. Jesus Christ, BeFree....
you still can't seem to get this straight. NO ONE is saying that merely "combat-ready" fighter jets were taking up space reserved for fighter jets "on alert". "Combat-ready" and "on alert" are NOT THE SAME THING and I don't know how long this is going to take to sink in with someone who has such trouble with nuance.

There were fighter jets "on alert" at Langley. There were no fighter jets "on alert" at Andrews, there were only "combat-ready" fighter jets. A major distinction between "on alert" and "combat-ready" is that "on alert" fighter jets can launch within 15 minutes. Since fighter jets that are merely "combat-ready" are not fucking ARMED and it takes several hours to arm them, by repeatedly asking why we didn't send "combat-ready" fighter jets to intercept AA77, you are essentially asking why we didn't send unarmed fighter jets. I hope you will agree that is an absurd question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now, here you are creating one of the most unintentionally ironic posts ever at DU:

Please don't ever question anyone else's comprehension, critical thinking skills or logical thinking skills. You've just proven yourself to be void of any of these skills...

Then you inadvertently deliver the coup de grace...to yourself and BeFree. I've presented it pretty much as you delivered it, except cutting and pasting it didn't preserve the formatting, so I want to make it clear the bolding is my emphasis, not yours:

"Notwithstanding the identification of these emerging threats, by 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States.99

In the United States, NORAD is divided into three sectors. On 9/11, all the hijacked aircraft were in NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (also known as NEADS), which is based in Rome, New York. That morning NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1...

Then, as if you haven't destroyed your credibility enough, you shatter what little of it you have left:

Would you like a towel to wipe all that egg of your face, SDud? Jesus Christ you're comical, dude... thanks for the laugh!

Now, since you were so busy doing your little victory dance that you apparently didn't bother to read what either you or I actually wrote, I'll contrast them side by side and, hopefully, you'll see how silly you've made yourself look:

My words:

There were fighter jets "on alert" at Langley

You supposedly "debunking" me:

That morning NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia

Man, I gotta tell you that you really have me on the ropes. Oh, wait...you just proved my claim.

I went on to say:

There were no fighter jets "on alert" at Andrews

Now, if you'll look at your statement above, unless you want to claim Andrews isn't within NEADS, (which would be pretty dumb but you've never let that stop you before), you've just proven my claim once more.

I went on to say:

Since fighter jets that are merely "combat-ready" are not fucking ARMED and it takes several hours to arm them, by repeatedly asking why we didn't send "combat-ready" fighter jets to intercept AA77, you are essentially asking why we didn't send unarmed fighter jets

Just like clockwork, you chimed in once more and proved my point again:

Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews

Now, admittedly, this one is a little trickier, as it calls for deductive reasoning, something you've shown yourself not to be very good at. I'll break it down point-by-point and hope you can follow. Now, since we know that Langley is within NEADS and we also know that Andrews was not an "alert site" since only Langley and Otis were, that tells us that Andrews was not "on alert". Are you with me so far?

Next, since we've established my claim that Andrews was not "on alert" (actually, YOU did...thanks for that) and we know that facilities not on alert (like Andrews) "would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews", we can infer that the fighter jets at Andrews were not armed (again, thanks for that) and, as you so aptly proved, Andrews would "need time to arm the fighters and organize crews" (sorry to be repetitive, but I segued pretty fast there and I wanted to make sure you were still with me).

So, to recap: I claimed that Langley was "on alert" and Andrews wasn't. I also claimed that, since Andrews was not on alert, that meant the fighter jets were not armed and it would take time to arm them. Therefore, anyone insisting that fighter jets should have been scrambled out of Andrews, rather than Langley, is effectively (actually, ineffectively) demanding that the ANG should have sent unarmed fighter jets to pursue AA77, which was my point to BeFree.

I'd like to request a special favor, Ghost. I'd be willing to take you off ignore permanently if you would promise to continually "debunk" me and actually prove my claims. Of course, that wouldn't work too well for the people you're actually trying to help, like BeFree (sorry, BeFree). I would prefer that you leave out the accusation/implication that I am "fucking dumb" unless, of course, your response is satire and you were actually applying that to yourself.

In the meantime, I have maintained for some time that most of the missteps and misfires of the "truth movement" arise because of cognitive gaps and I was going to start an OP about that very thing. Would you mind if I used your post as the springboard for that? Or, would you be too embarrassed?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NowHearThis]

44. What part of it didn't you understand?

nt

[SDuderstadt]

45. All of it...n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. No, SDud... "combat ready" and "on alert" are the same fucking thing

For you to claim otherwise, which you did, is simply ridiculous... and dumb. Fighter jets don't go into combat without being armed, no matter how many times you deny it or try to spin it.

Andrews AFB wasn't "on alert", therefore they were not "combat ready". Otis & Langley *were* on alert, therefore their jets were armed and "combat ready", which means they were ready to intercept a perceived threat and take it out if necessary.

Just admit you are wrong and save all the other blathering nonsense for someone else.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude....you know that "combat-ready" and "on-alert" are specific...

AF/ANG operational terms, right? "Combat-ready" is the readiness state right below "on-alert". This is where both you and BeFree keep going off-track. You keep trying to apply what you think it should mean versus what the AF/ANG says it means operationally. "On-alert" means the fighter jet is fully fueled. fully armed and staffed and is reasdy for launch in 15 minutes or less. "Combat-ready" is the next readiness level down and one of the important distinctions is that it has not been armed at that point, which is why it cannot be deployed as quickly as an "on alert" fighter jet. A "combat ready" fighter jet means it can be deployed within 24 hours. Using your personal definition of what you think "combat ready" should mean doesn't mean jack...what matters is what the AF/ANG says it means operationally.

The gaps in your cognitive skills are showing once more. BTW, you lost the debate when you called me "fucking dumb". I seem to recall it's for reasons like that I had you on ignore, dude.

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. I think you're confusing the term "combat ready" for troops (people) and equipment (jets)

A fighter jet cannot go into combat without being armed, unless the pilot plans on ramming another jet.

Please provide a link to your assertion re: "what the AF/ANG says it means operationally".


Thanks,

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

54. Simple question....

Do you agree that the fighter jets at Andrews were not "on alert"? If you do, please tell me what that readiness state is called.

The mission of the 112th Fighter Squadron is to provide combat ready aircrews capable of deploying anywhere in the world within 24 hours of notification.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/112fs.htm

If "combat-ready" means what you claim it does, why would the 112th Fighter Squadron need 24 hours to deploy?

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. Simple answer...

Yes, I've already stated that Andrews wasn't "on alert".

"If you do, please tell me what that readiness state is called."

That state of readiness would be "inactive" or "unready". The jets were more than likely in their hangars and definitley unarmed (not combat ready). A fighter jet has to be weaponized (armed) to be "combat ready".

Have you found that link yet?

[SDuderstadt]

56. Read the post again....

I just edited it to include information about the 112th Fighter Squadron. Do you really expect us to believe that the AF/ANG has a readiness stste called "inactive" or "unready"? Please provide some proof of that.

"A fighter jet has to be weaponized (armed) to be 'combat ready'."

Not according to the AF. Eventually jets were scrambled from Andrews on 9/11 but they had to be armed. It's a check and balance system. Your mistake is claiming that "combat ready" means the fighter jet can be deployed immediately.

[BeFree]

66. Ok, you're right

The military says they are combat ready. But not all of them are on alert.

But when you look at the definition of ready it says:" Prepared for action or use at once. Quick. Prompt. Immediately available".

So when the military says it is combat-ready, it doesn't mean they really are ready in the definite terms, they really are only ready if they are are on alert status.

Sure, the military says it is combat ready, they'd all be fired if they told the truth: "We're not ready, but we can be in a little while; it depends, if we are not on alert we are not really ready to do combat". So they have to say they are ready, but they're not, unless they are on alert status.

Being combat-ready in general military terms is not really 'ready' as the dictionary says: "to act without delay or hesitation". Instead, truth is they will be combat ready as soon as they load up and get ready to do combat.

So, once again the military has lead you astray. Not your fault, I could see how that could happen.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Bewailing "military intelligence" isn't going to help your quest to prove intent. n/t

[BeFree]

69. Words have meanings

There are dictionaries. Just because the military says they are ready, does not make them ready. Yes, they intend to be ready, but the only truly combat ready force available that day was on alert status. Only those four fighters were truly ready to do combat, meaning immediately.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. VERY GOOD.

And some might be tempted to say that you can't learn anything!

Now, where did those four planes go?

[SDuderstadt]

76. How many do you think were necessary when we have sophisticated...

monitoring capabilities? Do you think fighter jets would be sent out to intercept nuclear missiles? No? Oh, so they would be sent to intercept enemy bombers sent to penetrate our coast? Don't you think we'd have ample warning of that and could muster the combat-ready resources in time?

Simple question: are you a no-planer?

[BeFree]

80. It woulda been nice if...

...if at least the Air Forces meant to protect our skies had at least gotten one fighter up and engaged that day. As it was they didn't do what they were 'on alert' and 'combat-ready' to do. They sent the poor pilots out over the Atlantic!!

Something happened that day and it looks like incompetence. Was it designed incompetence, or just a flat out failure?

I choose a designed by Bushco incompetence. I just can't let myself think for one minute that our forces could have failed that day. I believe certain elements made it happen they way it happened.



As for planes. I believe in planes, I've even flown in a few, I see them flying all the time. Planes exist.

[SDuderstadt]

83. You need to research an ADIZ...

as for the rest of your silly post, it's time to invoke the Lared rule...I lose brain cells just trying to reason with you. Bye.

[SDuderstadt]

75. "So, once again the military has lead (sic...you mean led) you astray"

Maybe you should call President Obama and tell him the military is leading all of us astray by adopting operational definitions without consulting your dictionary.

[BeFree]

81. Nah

The military has to make up stuff all the time, it's the nature of the military to coin terms to impress itself upon the taxpayers so that the generals can keep playing 'King of the Hill'.

The problem we had is that in real world terms only a small fraction of military forces are really combat ready. Take the soldier walking the streets of Baghdad, he is combat ready. The guys back in the US? Not quite so ready.

So, it wasn't so much a disagreement on what the military is capable of, it was that you and them were using a term that in real life would not be used to describe actually being ready - in an instant - to fulfill the combat roll they signed up for.

Having learned a long time ago to not accept what the military claims as gospel, I was not led astray by the use of that term.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Dude, this just gets sillier and sillier...

based on your obstinance and inability to admit when you are simply wrong about something.

Since you've already agreed that Andrews was not (and is not) "on-alert" and since you also insist that "on-alert" and "combat-ready" are the "same fucking thing", explain this:

12/12/2007 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- F-22 Raptors here reached Full Operational Capability Dec. 12, according to Gen. John D.W. Corley, Air Combat Command commander.
The announcement officially makes Langley's F-22 squadrons combat ready.

"After years of collaborative effort, a key milestone for the F-22A has been reached," said General Corley. "The integrated 1st Fighter Wing and 192nd Fighter Wing team at Langley possess sufficient Raptors, equipment and trained Airmen to provide Air Dominance for the Joint Force for many years to come."

FOC for the F-22 means the aircraft are now ready for global engagement, said Lt. Col. Mark Hansen, Air Combat Command F-22 Integration Officer.

"Crews are now organized, trained, equipped and ready for the joint fight."

Since the F-22s reached Initial Operational Capability two years ago, the 1st Fighter Wing and the Air National Guard's 192nd Fighter Wing have dedicated time and resources into finding how to best use and maintain the world's most advanced fighter. The fighter has deployed and trained across the world to define and refine its capabilities and tactics.

The 1st FW has been training for the wartime mission since the F-22 went IOC, said Brig. Gen. Mark A. Barrett, 1st FW commander. Langley's Raptors were declared IOC in December 2005, making them capable of some combat operations such as homeland defense.

"We are available to be tasked at any time, to do whatever our nation requires," General Barrett said. The 1st and 192nd Fighter Wings will continue to baseline the F-22 so the rest of the Raptor fleet can learn from their experience, he added.

Even though Team Langley has reached the Raptor's FOC, they will continue training to get better every day, said Col. Jay Pearsall, 192nd FW commander.

"There's no change in training," he said. "Everybody is working hard, and we're ready to go to war, (on) deployments or on exercises."

The F-22 Raptor's unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, gives the Raptor numerous advantages over any potential adversary.
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123079128

Maybe you should call General Corley and explain the difference between "on-alert" and "combat-ready". He obviously didn't get your memo. To the reast of my fellow DU members, let's take a straw poll. Should we trust General Corley to know the difference between "combat-ready" and "on-alert" or should we trust Ghost? I'm voting for General Corley.

[Ghost in the Machine]

77. You're still confusing troops with equipment....

When troops are combat ready it means they are trained and qualified for their job/mission. They have their gear, they have their weapons, they're ready to go. All they need is a deployment order.

A fighter jet that isn't armed is just a jet... ready for training missions and/or routine flights. It is NOT combat ready. A combat ready jet is armed. A jet cannot engage in, or be ready for, combat without being armed unless it plans on running a suicide mission of ramming another plane. When the crews are placed "on-alert", the planes are rolled out to the tarmac and they are waiting on orders to launch.

If "combat-ready" means what you claim it does, why would the 112th Fighter Squadron need 24 hours to deploy?

You're missing the key words in the statement from your link. Those key words are "aircrews", "anywhere in the world and "within 24 hours..."

The mission of the 112th Fighter Squadron is to provide combat ready aircrews capable of deploying anywhere in the world within 24 hours of notification.

You see, dude... they could launch a single jet within 15 minutes to intercept a hijacked plane... or it might take them up to 24 hours to get a whole squadron, or battallion, ready to deploy to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

Once again, an unarmed jet is not combat ready... it's only flight ready. Pilots go through a lot of intense training to become combat ready. A jet is combat ready as soon as you arm it...

[SDuderstadt]

78. Take it up with the AF/ANG, dude....

you will never admit you are wrong in a million years...

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. No Ghost you are confusing your opinion with fact (n/t)

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. When you think "combat ready", think "mission capable".

Both terms are meant to imply that the aircraft has NO maintenance issues that would prevent it from being placed in an "alert" status. It's sitting there on the flight line, and all maintenance issues have been resolved. Flight controls are rigged properly from the stick back, engines are trimmed, electronics and avionics are working properly.

Oh, and in reference to another comment I saw you make: Aircraft ARE NEVER ALLOWED IN THE HANGER WHEN THEY ARE ARMED. In fact, bases have a "hot pad" where planes are taken to arm them. Someplace far away from hangars and other buildings. They don't just hang live bombs on an airplane that might be only fifty yards from the hangar, parked next to planes that are not "mission capable". It'd be a huge fuck-up if someone dropped a fused bomb or live missile and it not only destroyed the aircraft, but those around it while seriously damaging the hanger, wouldn't it?

"Combat ready" and "on alert" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Take that from someone with a background in Naval Aviation.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. "background in Naval Avation" = "too close to the government to be objective"

Hey, I don't make the rules. ;)

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. Yeah, I should have left that part out. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

95. No, that was fine, and thanks for your input...

The only thing I'll disagree about is the armed jets in hangars. I've seen them myself at Homestead AFB, back in the early 80's. They were guarded 24/7. The way it was explained to me was that they were armed and combat ready to intercept threats to Turkey Point Nuclear Plant which is just a few miles down shore from Homestead AFB. If they were put on alert, all they had to do was roll the planes out and have them on the tarmac, with pilots on standby, in case they were ordered to scramble and intercept. If they were placed on "High Alert" the pilots were in the planes, with the engines running, waiting on orders to take off...


Peace,

Ghost

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing

Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland
The men and women of the 316th Wing deliver contingency response capabilities critical for the protection of our National Security. We ensure emergency reaction rotary-wing airpower for the National Capital Region, combat-ready Airmen to Air and Space Expeditionary Forces, a secure and robust infrastructure for base organizations, and resources essential for the well-being of our Team and their families.

http://www.andrews.af.mil/

The don't have any aircraft on ALERT status. On 9-11-01 The aircraft at Langly and Otis were Air National Guard.

[defendandprotect]

58. PLUS, these flights all flew over dozens of military bases . . ..

not to mention the White House and a NY nuclear reactor -- !!!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. Ahhh

SDuderstadt's post and the quote from the 9-11 comish equate.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept." n/t

[defendandprotect]

57. Keep in mind, CHENEY was in control of NORAD on 9/11 . . .

[Old and In the Way]

61. Obviously, protocols are meant to be broken.

From http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=121st_fighter_squadron_1

(9:04 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Andrews Air Force Base Pilots ‘Launched into Action,’ Yet No Fighters Take Off
Edit event

At Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, many of the pilots with the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) are in the headquarters of the 121st Fighter Squadron. They had immediately been suspicious after learning of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center. One pilot, Heather Penney, later recalls having wondered, “How do you make a mistake like that?” After the second plane hits at 9:03, someone yells, “We’re under a terrorist attack!” A routine meeting of pilots quickly breaks up. According to Lt. Col. Steve Chase, who is at the operations desk: “People just launched into action. There was a buzz in the unit. People got on the radio and telephones to higher headquarters.” Andrews Air Force Base, which is home to the presidential jet Air Force One, is located ten miles southeast of Washington, DC. According to Knight Ridder,
“Air defense around Washington, DC, is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews.” Yet, according to the 9/11 Commission, the first fighters to take off from Andrews are not airborne until 95 minutes later, at 10:38 a.m. (see (Between 9:55 a.m. and 10:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001). <9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 44> The DC Air National Guard’s 113th Wing includes the 121st Fighter Squadron and the 201st Airlift Squadron. It flies the F16-C and F16-D Fighting Falcon jet fighters. Unlike other Guard units, the DCANG reports to the president, instead of a state governor. The 113th Wing works closely with Secret Service agents who are across the runway in the Air Force One hangar.


Looks like Bush/Cheney forgot to call Andrews that morning...

[Bolo Boffin]

62. So against protocol, these pilots get ready and launch.

Why do you think it took 95 minutes to get someone off the ground after they decided to launch, Old?

[Old and In the Way]

63. Because no one gave the orders Bolo.

No intercepts. Forget shootdowns...why didn't any military aircraft make a visual contact with any of the 4 flights that day?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. No, these guys were running at 9:05, orders or not. That's not the answer.

Try again.

[Old and In the Way]

71. They may have been running,

they just weren't flying. Try again.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Why do you think that was, Old? n/t

[Old and In the Way]

73. See #61 - Bush forgot to call them.

Or maybe Cheney in the bunker, because Bush was busy running around the country that day and staying scarce. Remember how they were tracking that plane into Washington and Cheney was asked if the order still stood? Maybe that was the intercept order.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. My, how hard you are working to miss the point. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

84. Miss what point Bolo? Your failure to explain why the military failed us on 9/11?

None of your responses to my post offer anything resembling a rebuttal.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Please read post #20 and then think about the question I asked you. n/t

[defendandprotect]

79. Amazing story -- thank you -- !!!

This should certainly be part of the DU 9/11 record -- !!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. the response was lame

[snooper2]

88. Dude, there are some good shows on late Sunday night...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

96. The first failure of protocol was that there was no protocol for this situation. n/t

[BeFree]

97. Bingo!

Yeah, there were plenty of warnings and lots of people wanted to get a set of protocols in place for such a situation. But no, somebody put the kaboosh on doing any of that.

And not one damned person has been reprimanded or lost their job, but 3,000 people lost their lives here while hundreds of thousands more have suffered mightily at the hands of the military's shock and awe as a result.

Bolo, don't you agree something stinks real bad about all this? How could you not? I ask because I really don't see many showing even the slightest bit of being upset about all these failures.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. "lots of people wanted to get a set of protocols in place for such a situation"

Please provide any documentation of this claim that you might possess.

[BeFree]

99. Read your damn bible

They briefly tell the story. Real patriotic soldiers, not the kind interested in the New Pearl Harbor, were aware of the possibilities. Are you saying no one ever thought it could happen? Gawd man, get a grip on reality!!

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Support your fucking assertion. n/t

[BeFree]

101. Read your bible

Officers years ago wanted to make a plan, but it was brushed off as improbable.
And none of those brush-off assholes ever got shit canned. They are still raking in the dough.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. You're typing and typing but haven't supported your assertion yet. n/t

[BeFree]

103. Well

It is obvious I have more faith in the military than you do. Because I think there were several military that imagined it. You say that some Al Quaida are smarter than our high priced military? That they thought of doing it but none of our guys ever did? I know they did and I read it in your bible. Go. Read. It.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. You keep typing and typing and typing, but you keep failing to support your assertion. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. don't you WANT the truth to get out?

Fun as it must be to yank Bolo's chain, over and over and over again, wouldn't it be more effective just to post your evidence?