"...no one thought THEY would fly..."

Great Debates
1

As we try to contain the excitement that Condi Rice’s appearance generates, consider the following.

When she made her by now famous statement:

“No one thought they would fly the planes into buildings”, was she, in fact, speaking of some hypothetical hijackers (the “they”), some unidentified planes,
some generalized buildings?

That interpretation has drawn her some opprobrium, since the response is

"What are you saying? that it’s ok you didn’t prevent the hijacking, because you weren’t looking for the guided missile thing? Are not the same measures needed to prevent the conventional as the unconventional hijacking?

Consider, however, if she is describing the state of mind of the security apparachiks between 8:30 and 10:30 AM.

Then, her use of a definitive “they” (rather than “anyone” or “people” or “terrorists”) makes sense.

I heard her say it in real time, by the way, and there was an intonation to the word “they” that to me signaled a particular set of individuals in mind AT THE TIME THE STATEMENT REFERENCES.

Likewise, dub’s snivel “had I known I would have done everything” only makes sense in reference to those two hours when he failed to minimize the damage from the initial hijacking by vetoing the scrambling of fighters. (I have no positive evidence that he gave such an order, but the default is fighters go up–ie, someone had to say “don’t”)
Please note-I am not saying that there was ADVANCE notice prior to 8am 9/11

But I believe there may be indicia that the hijacking was deliberately permitted to unfold.

2

compare the way she put it when specifically speaking about the months prior to september 11, to congress:
“they” has become “these people”;
“the planes” have become “an airplane”;
“buildings” have become “the world trade center”

“buildings” is what you would have in mind between 8:30 am and 8:45…after that, it’s wtc.

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon,” Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said
.http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:rhGz9WV9h3IJ:www.japantoday.com/gidx/news216023.html+Rice+“no+one+thought”+planes+buildings+2002&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

3

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Your assertion seems to be that the Administration knew the hijackings were underway before the crashes. But they did not scramble fighters and bring the jets down because they did not expect the hijackers to crash them into buildings. Perhaps they were waiting for the planes to land and negotiate (as was usually done in the past).

With this premise the “No one thought they would fly the planes into buildings” comment applies only to the 9/11 hijackings and not a general unawareness about that possibility.

Is that right?

4

something like that.

i’m a little fuzzy about the middle part-ie, they are waiting for demands, what…

also, whether you expect “mere” hijacking, why not get fighters up? But, yes, I believe the protestations only make sense vis-a-vis this specific event, while in progress.

5

In other words, she not only didn’t know about all the fears of using planes as missles before 9/11 (which, while it certainly leaves her looking uninformed about the debates going on in her own supposed profession, isn’t beyond the pale of reasonability) but even almost a year AFTER the bombings, she evidently had done so little research into the topic that she was STILL unaware of he intelligence communities fears and predictions about planes as bombs. The first could be written off as well, she can’t know everything about everything (though the assumption that she knew about Al Qaeda and Clarke is lying rests on the questionable premise that she knew EVERYTHING there was to know), but the second is pretty bad.

6

I think she DID know about the civilian airliner/plane possibility.

Ithink that they dropped the ball that morning because they not only overlooked the scenario on sept 10, they were still overlooking it.

Then, once she’d blurted out no one thought, she was “stuck” with it.

Plus, if she admitted scienter of the plane/missle thing, her paralysis that morning is even more reprehensible.

Unless there were some other interest being vindicated by the failure to respond vigorously in the early minutes.

Here, there is a real elephant in the room, because he response you would want in the plane/missile scenario is exactly the routine response in the ordinary hijack–a fighter plane goes up to have a look see.

And it will happen by itself, unless some intervention short circuits it.

7

This isn’t exactly on topic but I’ll post it anyway.

I heard one of GW’s funniest utterances on The News Hour tonight (7 April).

The segment dealt with National Security Advisor Rice’s appearance tomorrow before the 9/11 commission.

There was a clip of GW saying, as if he were an innocent bystander to the whole affair, that he also was really interested in what she was going to say because he really didn’t know.

The was a sort of “She never tells me anything.” feeling to his whole demeanor.

8

Except that, prior to 9/11/01, that was not the routine response!

Pre-9/11, when the experience of hijacking involved people who either wanted to go somewhere (like Cuba) or had demands like lots of money, as opposed to suicidal nutjobs, the standard operating procedure was for the crew to cooperate with the hijackers, and the authorities attempted to negotiate terms that got the maximum number of people out of the situation alive. (With rare exceptions, like Isreal, which does not negotiate with terrorists of any sort). This would not *automatically * involve fighter-intercepts.

9

I’ve noticed that noone has drawn a correllary in how life imitates Film :
Theres a Sam Jackson film (with Geena Davis) called “The Long Kiss Goodnight” about a CIA “Fundraiser” in which they plan to blow up a Chemical bomb (in a truck) in order to kill 3000 people in a faked terrorist attack (they want to frame some poor dead arabic guy that they have frozen for the occasion)

…things that make you go hmmmm!

10

“No one thought they would fly the planes into buildings” has been shown to be false.

Well, somebody in American intelligence was informed that terrorists could try to use airplanes as missiles, so the idea isn’t as radical as Condi Rice makes it to be. And given her close afiliation with George W. Bush, I find it hard to believe she didn’t hear something about these precautions, and the reason for them.

11

no, it’s routine when communication goes out and/or the transponder fails. Think Payne Stewart.

Google 9/11 timeline, and you’ll get back a shitload of sites that cross reference the whole FAA/norad interaction (which, by the way, has never been documented in the logs which should have been, but do not seem to be, turned over–subpoena was threatened.

when fighters finally were sent, they flew at subsonic speeds, roughly one quarter of their combat capacity.

12

There are two other examples before the 9/11. The plane hijacked in 1994 in Algeria with the intend to crash it on Paris, and IIRC, similar plans seized during the arrest of islamist extremist in the Philippines.
So, it was definitely known that hijacked planes could be used in the way they were the 9/11. It doesn’t mean that it could have been thought as a likely possibility. And by the way, it seems to me that there never was any plane hijack in the US before. Am I wrong or right? If so, then, it could certainly have been perceived as only a very remote possibility.

13

Interesting point considering it took about an 1hr 25min from the last radio contact with Stewart’s aircraft to get a visual sighting from a test pilot flying an F-16 that was already in the air when it was asked to intercept the Stewart flight.

14

No, it’s not - I’ve had transponder failure multiple times and never have I had a military anything show up off my wing.

I’ve had radio failure - and again, I’ve never had a military anything show up to investigate.

In fact, the closest I’ve come to a military fighter was when ATC put me in line behind one on final approach to Fort Wayne in early 2000. No big deal.

There was a thread dealing in some detail with that unfortunate accident: Why No Jets Launched Against Hijacked Planes 9/11

15

see below for intercept protocols

<< Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E ‘Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,’ Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2FAA

<<Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,’ (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 “Interception Signals” Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

<<FAA Order 7110.65M ‘Air Traffic Control’ (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 “Emergency Situations” Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/ atc1002.html#10-2-5

<<FAA Order 7110.65M ‘Air Traffic Control’ (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 “Emergency Determinations” Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/ atc1001.html#10-1-1

<<FAA Order 7610.4J ‘Special Military Operations’ (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, “Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO’s)” Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/ Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

<<FAA Order 7610.4J ‘Special Military Operations’ (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, “Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service” Full text posted at: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/ MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

<<‘Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,’ 1 June 2001, “Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects,” 4. Policy (page 1) PDF available at: http://www.dtic.mil/ doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf Backup at: http://emperors- clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf

<<For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic Control, see: ‘Direct-To Requirements’ by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at: http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm

16

This has exactly ZERO to do with intercepts. ZERO. It’s aispace definitions.

You know, I’ve read the freakin’ Aeronautical Information Manual already - and I frankly do not have time to sit here a wade through it again for your benefit. Either link to the specific items you are claiming discuss aircraft interception or don’t bother. If I, who have a certain vested interest in these matters, find it annoying for you to heap up links ranging from barely relevant to to totally unrelated I can’t imagine the casual reader of this thread would be bothered to read any of it.

Apparently the general public doesn’t have access to either of those pages. Which makes it totally unhelpful. Tell me, did you just take these off Google, or did you even bother to look at them?

I really have to wonder if you even bothered to read these. The relevant link here is actually this link. Specifically:

Clearly, from reading this, it’s up to the FAA’s representative to determine if there is a hijacking, at which point a request is made to NMCC. It says nothing about how this determination is made, and nothing about the request being triggered by either a transponder OR a radio failure.

I will also note that this publication was updated as of February, 2004 and thus is not an ideal cite for the procedures in effect in 2001.

This takes me back to the AIM reference above. Are you sure this is the link you hand in mind? Having coding problems, perhaps?

Your link took me to a very general webpage, opening with this:

I am not spending gobs of my time wading through this link. Find the relevant page and post it, OK? I’m not here to do your homework for you.

This link gives me a 404 Object Not Found Error.

I am not impressed with any of your cites. If I had not had to spend 40 minutes wading through irrelevant dross this morning I’d have time to find a link to relevant information regarding pilot procedures for both transponder and radio failures, none of which mention “expect an F-16 on your backside”. A military escort is NOT “standard procedure” for radio or transponder failure, and I base that statement not only my knowledge of FAA regulations but also on 10 years experience flying in some of the busiest airspace in the world, that from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, over Chicago, down around Lake Michigan, over to South Bend, Indiana.

17

Broomstick: The document you need is this one:

So it’s not automatic. It requires Rumsfeld’s say-so.

Anyone wanting to quibble with the exceptions in “reference d” can find reference d here:

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE NUMBER 3025.15
February 18, 1997
SUBJECT: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

18

I’m surprised that no one has responded to this. The reason for airport security before 9/11 was a very large number of hijacks to Cuba in the late -60’s early '70s. There have been relatively few hijacks since then. The Cuban hijacks were done by one person usually. Then there was the hijack for ransom by DB Cooper, who parachuted out of the back of a 727, I think, and vanished.

Hardly a remote possibility, in fact so common that they were many hijack jokes back then - but very few people got hurt from them.

19

Umm, the hijackings, not the jokes.

The jokes weren’t all that funny.

20

Thank you, Desmostylus. I feel that further supports my position that intercepts are not automatic in the event of either transponder or radio failures. The FAA can, of course, request military assistance but is not obligated to do so. Use of lethal force requires approval.

The Cuban hijackings were also responsible for the long-standing policy of cooperating with the hijackers - doing so usually resulted in no one getting hurt. Basically, give the man with the gun/other weapon what he wants, no one gets hurt, and we’ll retrieve the passengers and plane when he’s gone. It actually worked well - for a few decades.

Then the Bad Guys changed the rules - they didn’t want money, or to go someplace. They want to break things, kill people, and die. How can you negotiate with that?

You can’t.

So there’s been a policy change.

But - nearly all the time you have an equipment failure (because I’m getting tired of typing “transponder and radio” - darn, I just did it again!) there isn’t a crime going on. It’s just an equipment failure. It’s not an emergency (although it can be a really big annoyance). There are procedures to allow communications of a limited sort when radios fail - it’s quite possible for a jumbo jet to have a complete radio failure, still fly into its designated airport, and the passengers may never know it happened.