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

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 7, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818 "2004-04-07T20:46:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/1 "2004-04-07T20:46:31Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/2 "2004-04-07T20:55:35Z")

</div>

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](http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:rhGz9WV9h3IJ:www.japantoday.com/gidx/news216023.html+Rice+%22no+one+thought%22+planes+buildings+2002&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/3 "2004-04-07T21:05:46Z")

</div>

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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/4 "2004-04-07T21:14:46Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/5 "2004-04-07T21:26:47Z")

</div>

> **[As Rice Testimony Nears, Tone Remains a Question (Published 2004)](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/us/as-rice-testimony-nears-tone-remains-a-question.html)**
>
> White House reportedly is still deciding what tone national security adviser Condoleezza Rice should take as she explains intelligence lapses leading up to Sept 11 terrorist attacks to panel probing attacks; she and colleagues have prepared opening...

> [@](#):
>
> SANGER: She told the commission that she regretted those comments, because at the time she was not aware of intelligence, developed in the late 1990’s, that some terrorists were thinking of using airplanes as guided missiles. She told the commission in the private session that she should have said, “I could not have imagined,” according to one official familiar with the testimony, making it clear that some in the intelligence community knew about those threats but that she did not.
> 
> “Information about possible use of airplanes as missiles to destroy buildings was not briefed to her prior to that statement in May 2002,” [Rice spokesman Sean] McCormack said.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/6 "2004-04-07T21:36:36Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/7 "2004-04-08T03:42:16Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/8 "2004-04-08T10:09:38Z")

</div>

> [@alaricthegoth](#):
>
> 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.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Erasticity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3e96dc/32.png) [@Erasticity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erasticity)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/9 "2004-04-08T10:34:51Z")

</div>

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!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/10 "2004-04-08T17:58:16Z")

</div>

“No one thought they would fly the planes into buildings” [has been shown](http://www.unansweredquestions.org/background_56.php) to be false.

> [@](#):
>
> July 2001 - The G8 summit at Genoa, Italy is surrounded by anti-aircraft guns, and local airspace is closed off after Italian and Egyptian officials (including President Hosni Mubarak) warn American intelligence that airliners stuffed with explosives might be used to attack President Bush.  
> (Ref: [www.copvcia.com/](http://www.copvcia.com/) Source: Los Angeles Times, Sept. 27, 2001)

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/11 "2004-04-08T21:10:18Z")

</div>

> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> 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.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/12 "2004-04-08T23:46:30Z")

</div>

> [@rjung](#):
>
> “No one thought they would fly the planes into buildings” [has been shown](http://www.unansweredquestions.org/background_56.php) 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.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/13 "2004-04-09T00:24:17Z")

</div>

> [@alaricthegoth](#):
>
> no, it’s routine when communication goes out and/or the transponder fails. Think Payne Stewart.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/14 "2004-04-09T00:46:48Z")

</div>

> [@alaricthegoth](#):
>
> > [@Broomstick](#):
> >
> > 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.
> 
> no, it’s routine when communication goes out and/or the transponder fails.

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.

> [@](#):
>
> Think Payne Stewart.

There was a thread dealing in some detail with that unfortunate accident: [Why No Jets Launched Against Hijacked Planes 9/11](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=215996&page=2&pp=50)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/15 "2004-04-09T03:03:22Z")

</div>

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](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/](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/](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/](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/](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/](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/](http://www.dtic.mil/) doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610\_01a.pdf Backup at: http://emperors- [clothes.com/9-11backups/3610\_01a.pdf](http://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](http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/16 "2004-04-09T10:46:12Z")

</div>

> [@alaricthegoth](#):
>
> 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](http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2FAA)

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

> [@](#):
>
> \<\<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/](http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/) AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

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.

> [@](#):
>
> \<\<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/](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/](http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/) atc1001.html#10-1-1

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?

> [@](#):
>
> \<\<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/](http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/) Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

I really have to wonder if you even bothered to read these. The relevant link here is actually [this link](http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#Section%201). Specifically:

> [@](#):
>
> Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT
> 
> Section 1. GENERAL
> 
> 7-1-1. PURPOSE
> 
> The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft to:
> 
> a. Assure positive flight following.
> 
> b. Report unusual observances.
> 
> c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.
> 
> 7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE
> 
> The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term “escort aircraft” applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through the appropriate SOCC/ROCC.

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.

> [@](#):
>
> \<\<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/](http://faa.gov/ATpubs/) MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

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

> [@](#):
>
> \<\<‘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/](http://www.dtic.mil/) doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610\_01a.pdf Backup at: http://emperors- [Clothing: Shop Clothes, Shipped Free | Zappos.com](http://clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf)

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

> [@](#):
>
> The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC®) is the central facility for the collection and dissemination of scientific and technical information for the Department of Defense (DoD). As an element of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), DTIC serves as a vital link in the transfer of information among DoD personnel, DoD contractors and potential contractors and other U.S. Government agency personnel and their contractors.

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.

> [@](#):
>
> \<\<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: [Home | Software Design Group](http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm)

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/17 "2004-04-09T14:22:05Z")

</div>

**Broomstick** : The document you need is this one:

> [@](#):
>
> [CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF  
> INSTRUCTION J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A  
> 1 June 2001  
> AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS](http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf)
> 
> a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, **forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.** DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

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](http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/text/d302515p.txt)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/18 "2004-04-09T20:13:04Z")

</div>

> [@clairobscur](#):
>
> 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.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/19 "2004-04-09T20:27:40Z")

</div>

> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Hardly a remote possibility, in fact so common that they were many hijack jokes back then - but very few people got hurt from them.

Umm, the hijackings, not the jokes.

The jokes weren’t all that funny.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818/20 "2004-04-10T02:27:20Z")

</div>

> [@Desmostylus](#):
>
> **Broomstick** : The document you need is this one:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> So it’s not automatic. It requires Rumsfeld’s say-so.

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.

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

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.

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-one-thought-they-would-fly/238818.md?page=2)