# NORAD had drills of jets as weapons **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2004, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009 "2004-04-20T11:56:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/61 "2004-04-22T20:48:44Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > **First of all, as far as I can recall there hadn’t been a hijacking of a major airliner in the US for 25, maybe even 30 years.** **Second, the FAA rules assumed hijackers wanted to live.** Seriously, the rules were to cooperate with hijackers. That’s because for 40 or 50 years hijackers wanted to live - they wanted to go somewhere, or get some sort of ransom, or free a prisoner. The hijackings had some motive other than death and destruction. Except in 1994, someone attempted to hijack a FedEx jet with the intention of flying it into a building. So it’s not like we don’t have a precedent. > [@](#): > > \*\*You have to find the hijacked plane. \*\* Normally, when ATC needs to track a paticular plane they tell their computer to tag it and follow it - but that depends on a transponder signal. And on 9/11 the hijackers _turned off the transponders._ So, instead of the computer tracking, it had to be done by eyeball. I don’t know where you got all this, but most of it is wrong. Turning off a transponder is not going to affect tracking using a primary radar return. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/62 "2004-04-22T21:24:30Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > So which excuse are we going with here? Silenus’s excuse that it took the civilan government 36 minutes to decide, or your excuse that it took 36 minutes to get the pilots out of their jammies and into their flight suits? Or are you guys just gonna make up new excuses each time the previous excuse gets debunked? In that fevered thing you call a mind, exactly what do you suppose has been debunked? According to Desmostylus, seems planes WERE in the air (I’m assuming they were armed), but that nothing was decided as far as shooting anything down went. And nothing COULD be decided as things simply happened too fast. I think I’ll expend some energy on this ridiculous thread and actually break this thing down. Its a waste of course…when partisanship raises its ugly head rational discourse is tossed out the window. > [@](#): > > Nash states,“Neither the civilian controller or the military controller knew what they wanted us to do.” But then a few minutes later, they receive orders to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they do that for the next four hours. At no point are these pilots given permission to shoot down any airliners. So, they sent up the aircraft while they decided what to do. They didn’t have a clue yet what was going on, nor what steps they could or should take. All was confusion. You, sitting back here with loads of time and all the information, can smuggly say what they SHOULD have done, but you weren’t there, on the spot, trying to make heads or tails of what the hell was happening. > [@blowero](#): > > Well, Ace Face pretty much covered it, but - Poppycock. They didn’t decide not to shoot down the planes, they failed to. BIG, BIG difference. And of course they knew which planes were hijacked. The ones that made big fucking U-Turns and went the wrong way. Duh. If they made a judgment call not to shoot down a plane over a densely populated area, that would be fine. You know perfectly well that’s NOT how it happened. I’ll get to Ace Face in a sec. First, you got a cite that anyone knew exactly which planes had been hijacked and that it was that easy to detect them? Because I remember at the time that there were all kinds of conflicting reports that there were unidentified or non responding planes in California, over Boston, Chicago, etc etc. In other words they didn’t know what the hell was going on. Or did they? Please feel free to bring out a cite showing that someone during that small window of time knew exactly what was going on, which exact planes had been hijacked (besides flight 11 at either 8:14 or 8:37am EST…and later flight 175 at 8:42am EST), what their intentions were…oh, and you can list out anyone who had a clear idea of what they should do as far as shooting down civilian airliners goes. I disagree with the last part. They WERE making decisions and weighing whether or not to shoot down civilian planes over populated areas…the FAA was handling it as its THEIR job. They just didn’t rush into anything, and they spent their time trying to figure out what the hell was happening. You can wave your hand about and get all red in the faced as you rant yet again at the evil and incompetence of Bush, but there is no way that Clinton, Bush I, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc would have done anything differently in 36 minutes…they might as well have cut their political throats by ordering US military personnel to shoot down civilian jet liners on the chance that the jet they were shooting down actually had hijackers, and that said hijackers were indeed going to fly their planes into buildings. Thats of course discounting the fact that the planes themselves couldn’t have gotten there anyway. I’ll go through it in a bit. For all the president knew, the first plane flown into the WTC might have been hijacked and the hijacker might have simply fucked up, or maybe shot the pilot on accident, or any number of other things…and that the other planes weren’t going to be used that way…that it was a large scale hijacking that had just gone wrong. Even if he was being informed min. by min. by either NORAD or the FAA (which wouldn’t have happened) he only had 16 min. from when flight 11 struck (and they didn’t KNOW it was going to crash into a building) until flight 175 struck. I’m going to double post the second half of this which has the time table in it…I’m going over the word limit atm. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/63 "2004-04-22T21:30:34Z")
Lets take Desmostylus time table cite as fact for arguments sake and walk through it all. Its probably a waste of my time to try and convince rabid partisans of anything, but what the hell. > [@](#): > > (Before 7:59 a.m.) Hijacker Mohamed Atta on Flight 11 calls hijacker Marwan Alshehhi in Flight 175 as both planes sit on the runway. They confirm the plot is on. [“Just before 8:00,” Time, 8/4/02] Ok, so, nothing intersting has happened yet. Its 8:00am EST and no one has any inkling whats going on. > [@](#): > > 8:14 a.m. > Flight 175 takes off from Boston’s Logan Airport, 16 minutes after the scheduled departure time. [CNN 9/17/01; Washington Post 9/12/01; Guardian 10/17/01; AP 8/19/02; Newsday 9/10/02] Its now 8:14am EST, and the second flight, 175 takes off. Still no one knows anything about whats going on. > [@](#): > > 8:37 a.m. > Flight controllers ask the Flight 175 pilots to look for a lost American Airlines plane 10 miles to the south— a reference to Flight 11 . They respond that they can see it. They are told to keep away from it. [Guardian 10/17/01; Boston Globe 11/23/01; New York Times 10/16/01] Its now 8:37am EST, and flight controllers are aware now that flight 11 has gone off course. But they still don’t know for sure whats happening. At this point certainly the FAA is investigating things, and maybe NORAD is aware there might be a problem, but certainly the president hasn’t been informed except maybe in someones fevered fantasy world. I seriously doubt ANY high ranking official is aware at all that there might be a situation. They are focused on flight 11 right now. > [@](#): > > (8:40 a.m.) > Major Daniel Nash (codenamed Nasty) and Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy (codenamed Duff) are the two F-15 pilots who would scramble after Flight 11 and then Flight 175 . Nash says that at this time, a colleague at the Otis Air National Guard Base tells him that a flight out of Boston has been hijacked, and to be on alert. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] NEADS senior technician Jeremy Powell also later says that he telephones Otis Air Base and tells it to upgrade its “readiness posture.” [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] Duffy also says he is told in advance about the hijacking by the FAA in Boston. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Nash and Duffy put on their flight gear and get ready. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] They are already halfway to their jets when “battle stations” are sounded. Duffy briefs Nash on what he knows, and, “About 4-5 minutes later, we [get] the scramble order and [take] off.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Ok, its now 8:40am EST and things are starting to happen. Appearently on someones authority (I’m guessing its NOT an Administration official but some base commander, or maybe someone at NORAD) fighter jets are scrambled to take a look at what the hell is happening to flight 11. I’m reading this as they still don’t know whats going on, but that they think it is a hijack. So, planes were dispatched 13 min after they became aware there might be a problem…26 min. at most (either 8:37-8:40 or 8:14-8:40 depending on how you look at it). Possibly at this point senior Administration personnel MIGHT have become aware that something was afoot. Certainly I doubt the President is aware anything is happening by this time. Its only 26 min. so far. > [@](#): > > 8:42 a.m. > Flight 175 veers from its official course. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01] (An early CNN reports says the deviation happens at 8:50, but that’s probably when the plane, already off-course, makes a complete U-turn north.) [CNN 9/17/01] > > A flight controller says of Flight 175, “… looks like he’s heading southbound but there’s no transponder no nothing and no one’s talking to him.” [New York Times 10/16/01] > > Its now 8:42am EST and while they are focused on flight 11 and what the hell IT might be doing suddenly flight 175 does something strange. But what? Is it a malfunction? Its transponder is dead. Is it ANOTHER hijacking? Who ever heard of TWO hijackings at the same time?? What the hell is going on? No one knows. By THIS time I’m sure calls are being made to senior Administration officials, but again, I doubt that the President or even his inner circle are more than vaguely aware that something is going on. Its been either 15 or 28 min. at this point…and 2 min since they discovered flight 175 might also have been hijacked. \ NORAD is notified that Flight 175 has been hijacked. [8:43, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:43, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:43, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:43, AP, 8/19/02, 8:43, Newsday, 9/10/02] Apparently NORAD doesn’t need to be notified, because by this time NEADS technicians have their headsets linked to the FAA in Boston to hear about Flight 11, and so NORAD learns instantly about Flight 175. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] [/QUOTE] Ok, so its now 8:43am EST and appearently everyone is aware that flight 11 has been hijacked, and that flight 175 has also probably (possibly) been hijacked. NORAD has been following whats going on by listening in to chatter by the FAA on all this. They don’t have any indications though that the two are related, though I’m sure they have their suspicions. They don’t know whats going on. > [@](#): > > (8:46 a.m.) > Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal, according to some reports. It is 50 miles north of New York City, headed toward Baltimore. [8:46:18, Guardian, 10/17/01, “about the same time” as Flight 11 crash, Newsday, 9/10/02] Note that at 8:42, a flight controller said, “There’s no transponder no nothing.” [New York Times, 10/16/01] However, the transponder is turned off for only about 30 seconds, then changed to a signal that is not designated for any plane on that day. [Newsday, 9/10/02] This “allow[s] controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn’t identify it.” [Washington Post 9/17/01] Its now 8:46am EST and flight 11 has now crashed. However, its been flying without a transponder appearently so they haven’t been able to track the plane for quite a while. Appearently flight 175 has also turned off its transponder, but then in a fit of stupidity turned it back on but with a different (and unknown) code. However, focus at this time has to be on flight 11 thats now crashed…people going nuts but still not knowing what the hell is going on. > [@](#): > > (Between 8:46-9:03 a.m.) > As soon as Boston flight controllers hear news that a plane might have hit the WTC, they know it was Flight 11. They have been tracking it continually since it began behaving erratically. It takes “several minutes” for Boston to report to NORAD that Flight 11 is responsible. [New York Times 9/13/01 (F); Newhouse News 1/25/02] However, flight controllers in New York City complain that they aren’t given a conclusive report of what happened to Flight 11 until just before Flight 175 crashes at 9:03. “We had 90 to 120 seconds; it wasn’t any 18 minutes,” says one controller, referring to the actual elapsed time between the two crashes. Another controller says: “They dove into the airspace. By the time anybody saw anything, it was over.” [New York Times 9/13/01 (F)] 8:46-9:03am EST…17 min. period. Ok, mass confusion. No one knows what the hell is happening. By now the President is most likely informed that bad things are afoot…but what exactly? No one knows whats happening. The flight controllers in NY aren’t even given a conclusive report yet as to the fate of flight 11. This is reasonable…look how fast things are progressing. These folks are fucking humans after all. They are confused, maybe even in a bit of a panic, and don’t know what the hell is going on. They are TRYING to sort things out and figure out whats happening. > [@](#): > > (8:50 a.m.) > Rich “Doc” Miles, manager of United’s Chicago system operations center, receives a call from a mechanic at an airline maintenance center in San Francisco that takes in-flight calls from flight attendants about broken items. The mechanic says a female flight attendant from Flight 175 just called and said, “Oh my God. The crew has been killed, a flight attendant has been stabbed. We’ve been hijacked.” Then the line went dead. A dispatcher monitoring the flight then sends messages to the plane’s cockpit computer but gets no response. [Boston Globe 11/23/01] Intersting but irrelevant. I’m sure that it would take some time for this fact to percolate up the chain of the FAA to get to someone who could evaluate it and fit it into the puzzle of whats happening. Things are mass confusion with the focus most likely STILL on flight 11 and what the hell happened. And what the hell flight 175 is doing is probably starting to become a bit more urgent. > [@](#): > > 8:52 a.m. > Two F-15s take off from Otis ANG Base, six minutes after being ordered to go after Flight 11, which has already crashed. [8:52, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:52, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:53, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:52, Washington Post, 9/15/01, 8:52, ABC News, 9/11/02] This is 38 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with the plane. They go after Flight 175 instead. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before takeoff, a fellow officer had told him “This looks like the real thing.” He says, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later says, “As we’re climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” He says his target destination is over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02] According to Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, “The pilots [fly] ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but [are] unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] ABC News later says, “The fighters are hurtling toward New York at mach 1.2, nearly 900 miles per hour.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold says they head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] “An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman.” [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] At an average speed of 1125 mph, they would reach the city in 10 minutes—9:02. So if NORAD commander Arnold’s speed is correct, these fighters should reach Flight 175 just before it crashes. 8:52 am EST and the fighters are finally prepped, manned and dispatched. Its now a whole 15 or 40 min depending on how you are counting (8:14-8:52 or 8:37-8:52) since they became aware of a problem with flight 11 and 10 min after losing track of flight 175 (8:42-8:52). They go out hell bent for leather…but its 8:52am EST now. Exactly how fast the planes were in fact going is a matter of debate appeantly…the range seems to be from 500-1125 mph. Reguardless the BEST they could have done at this point was reach flight 175 just before it crashes (according to the cite). Going to skip the next two time lines as they aren’t relevant at all (you can read em yourself by going to Desmostylus time table cite. > [@](#): > > (Between 9:01-9:03 a.m.) > Flight 175 is an unmarked blip to flight controllers in New York City. One controller stands up in horror. “No, he’s not going to land. He’s going in!” “Oh, my God! He’s headed for the city,” another controller shouts. “Oh, my God! He’s headed for Manhattan!” [Washington Post 9/21/01] Ok, its now between 9:01 and 9:03am EST. Flight 175, with its transponder squacking an unknown code is over New York. The total focus is now here as the FAA and the various controllers try and figure out what the hell is going on NOW. They still don’t know at this point, but probably have a sneaking suspicion that flight 175 is going to go the way of flight 11. > [@](#): > > 9:02:54 a.m. > Flight 175 hits the south tower, 2 World Trade Center. [CNN 9/17/01; NORAD 9/18/01; Washington Post 9/12/01; New York Times 9/12/01; New York Times 9/12/01; Guardian 10/17/01; CNN 9/12/01; AP 8/19/02; Newsday 9/10/02; USA Today 9/3/02; USA Today 8/13/02; MSNBC 9/22/01; Washington Post 1/27/02; New York Times 9/11/02; USA Today 12/20/01] Millions watch the crash live on television. The plane strikes the 78th through 84th floors in the 110 story building. Approximately 100 people are killed or injured in the initial impact; 600 people in the tower eventually die. All but four work above the crash point. The death toll is far lower than in the north tower because about two-thirds of the tower’s occupants get out in the 17 minutes after the first tower is struck (see also (8:55 a.m.)). [USA Today 12/20/01] F-15 fighter jets from Otis Air National Guard Base are still 71 miles or eight minutes away when the tower is hit. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Its now 9:02:54 am EST. Wham! Flight 175 hits the south tower of the WTC. Many of us watched this happen live on TV…including myself, roused out of sleep by a frantic brother in law to see what happened to the first building of the WTC. The fighter jets dispatched to investigate first flight 11 and then flight 175 are 71 miles away still…8 minutes flight time. Its now been 48 min. (or 25 depending on if you start at 8:14 or 8:37) since the FAA became aware of a problem with flight 11, and 20 min since they became aware of a problem with flight 175. 48 whole minutes, during most of which the FAA was trying to get a handle on what the hell was going on…and didn’t have a clue for the most part. Only 20 min. since they could have even had an inkling that there might have been MULTIPLE planes in the air. Only 16 min. since flight 11 itself crashed for still unknown reasons (at that time) and when they could have reasonably started to seriously worry that an ATTACK might have been going on. > [@](#): > > (9:03-9:08 a.m.) > In a series of stages, flight control managers ban aircraft from flying near the cities used by the hijackers. First, takeoffs and landings in New York City are stopped within a minute of the Flight 175 crash, without asking for permission from Washington. Boston and Newark follow suit in the next few minutes. Around 9:08, departures nationwide heading to or through New York and Boston airspace are canceled. [AP, 8/12/02, Newsday, 9/10/02, AP, 8/19/02, USA Today, 8/13/02] The actual order to stop all planes from taking off at New York’s La Guardia airport is given to the airplanes on the ground at 9:07. [New York Times 12/30/03] Also “a few minutes” after the Flight 175 crash into the WTC at 9:03, all takeoffs from Washington are stopped. [USA Today 8/12/02; USA Today 8/13/02] Its now just after the crash of flight 175…9:03-9:08 am EST, and they are scrambling to put the pieces together. They ban planes flying near cities and start thinking about bringing all the planes down. By 9:07 they stop takeoffs. > [@](#): > > (9:06-9:16 a.m.) > Bush, having just been told of the second WTC crash (see (9:06 a.m.)), does not leave the Sarasota, Florida, classroom he entered around 9:03. Rather, he stays and listens as 16 Booker Elementary School second-graders take turns reading a story called Pet Goat, about a girl’s pet goat. [AFP, 9/7/02] They are just about to begin reading when Bush is warned of the attack. One account says that the classroom is then silent for about 30 seconds, maybe more. Bush then picks up the book and reads with the children “for eight or nine minutes.” [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02] In unison, the children read out loud, “The—Pet—Goat. A—girl—got—a—pet—goat. But—the—goat—did—some— things—that—made—the—girl’s— dad—mad.” And so on. Bush mostly listens, but does ask the children a few questions to encourage them. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] At one point he says, “Really good readers, whew! … These must be sixth-graders!” [Time, 9/12/01] In the back of the room, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer catches Bush’s eye and holds up a pad of paper for him to read, with “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET” written on it in big block letters. [Washington Times 10/7/02] CNN reported in 1999, “Only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down.” [CNN, 10/26/99] The pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight 175 notes that it wouldn’t have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush could order a shootdown, and Bush is at a public event at the time. [Cape Cod Times 8/21/02] Its now 9:06am EST and Bush has just been told of the second crash (4 min. after). He elects to spend 8 or 9 min. in the classroom, which is controversial. I won’t get into if this was right or wrong. He’s told by Ari Fleischer to not say anything yet…I assume they are trying to project a measure of calm…and also they still don’t know exactly what the hell is going on nor what to do about it. The pilot notes that only the president could authorize him to shoot down a civilian plane…but its a moot point as he as 8 min. out anyway when flight 175 crashed. Even if he had of gotten there on time though, it would have taken phenominal timing to GIVE him the order to shoot. It was also a pretty thin time table for Bush to have made such a decision. Only 16 or so min. since flight 11 crashed after all. I don’t have time right now, but it would be intesting to have the exact timing of the flight that hit the Pentagon to fit it into all this. However, I think its totally unreasonable knowing human nature, how the government works, and how politicians work, to expect ANYONE to have put things together and come up with an effective plan of action in such a short time frame. You can wave your hands all you like, hem and haw, second guess to your little flinty hearts content…but it was just not going to happen. NO ONE could have worked under those conditions and done anything effective. 16 min from the first crash to the second? Who knew exactly what was going on? Again, maybe the first crash was unrelated to the second hijacking. It all happened too fast. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/64 "2004-04-22T21:37:21Z")
> [@censored](#): > > I think I’ll go with my excuse - it is mine, after all. 🙂 O.K., fair enough. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it was political delay. I think the fighters were not launched fast enough in the fog of war and just couldn’t get there fast enough. Flight 93, I’ve read, probably would have been shot down had it not gone down by itself - there were even conspiracy theories that 93 was shot down and then covered up. But every analysis I’ve seen where someone has actually done the math shows that they had much more than enough time to get fighters there in time. We had F-15s in the air by 8:52 am, NORAD would have been aware that 93 was hijacked at about 9:20 am, and the plane went down at 10:06 a.m., 124 miles from Washington D.C. It just shouldn’t take that long for a supersonic jet to get there; they should have been there already. > [@](#): > > I just don’t think you can blame the administration for not making it work faster with the system that was in place. Yeah, but you’re saying it takes awhile to get the planes off the ground, when it actually took only minutes. > [@](#): > > “Hey, General, get those planes there faster!” “Yes, Mr. President! We’ll enable the hyperafterburners on those F-15s and get there instantly!” But the analyses I’ve looked at show that they would have only been flying at 1/3 of their top speed for it to take as long as it did. It sounds like they weren’t flying fast _at all_. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/65 "2004-04-22T23:00:44Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > then your howls would be long and loud about how stupid Bush was, that he should have thought with his brain instead of his dick, that he should have taken the time to assess the situation, etc etc. Man am I ever f\*\*\*ing sick of the “well, if X had happened, we all know that (insert group of people) would have responded like Y” argument. Sure, there are a very small number of leftists who are nutjobs who do nothin but make up lies about Bush being evil in all circumstances. A very very small number. But most of us, even if we criticize Bush a lot, even if we truly believe him to be an evil and terrible president, don’t just automatically blame everything on him always. For example: The US has invaded and conquered two sovereign nations recently, Afghanistan and Iraq. When invading Afghanistan, we were told “Afghanistan has harborded Al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11. Also, the Taliban is evil”. When invading Iraq, we were told a whole lot of BS. One of those two invasions is being protested a zillion times more than the other. Why? Aren’t we stupid leftists just going to automatically protest everything Bush does? Anyhow, back to the issue at hand, the important question for me is why, given the raised terror alert level, and given the NORAD drills, was there not a policy or set of rules in place? Something like “the moment there’s even a _suspicion_ of a hijacking you start launching fighter planes and get them into the area”? Also, you can go on all you like about conflicting reports, but (as far as I know) those were conflicting reports IN THE PULIC MEDIA. I have no doubt that the information available to whoever was in charge (if anyone was in charge) was a lot more clear, although certainly still far from perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/66 "2004-04-22T23:07:21Z")
The poor response time of the military showed up in Florida too: > [@](#): > > 10:32 a.m.: Cheney called Bush on Air Force One, on its way from Florida to Washington, to say the White House had just received a threat against the plane. The caller had used its code word, “Angel,” suggesting terrorists had inside information. **Card was told it would take between 40 minutes and 90 minutes to get a protective fighter escort up to Air Force One**. [http://www.911timeline.net/](http://www.911timeline.net/) AF-1 ultimately got its escort from a base in Texas. (I’ve not checked the link for political bias. The delay in getting AF1 covered is reported in any number of 9-11 timelines.) ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/67 "2004-04-22T23:35:56Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > The poor response time of the military showed up in Florida too: That “threat against Air Force One” story was bullshit fed to William Safire by a friend in the White House. I wouldn’t trust anything else on that website if they haven’t got that story clearly debunked as such. By the time Bush left the ground in Florida, emergency procedures (designed for the event of a nuclear attack) were already in effect that said Bush should be sent to an emergency bunker to keep him geographically separated from Cheney for the time being. Later, Cheney (and some other governemnt bigwigs) got sent to the “undisclosed location” as Bush returned to Washington. 60 Minutes covered the emergency procedures in a story some weeks ago… ---
**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 22, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/68 "2004-04-22T23:46:42Z")
Yeah, I’m going to make a bunch o’ replies in a row, because if I try to cut and paste I just know I’ll botch it up > [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > At one point during the Clinton Administration, a guy tried to ram the White House with a small private plane. Actually, he DID hit the White House. As usual when a small, single-engine airplane hits a solid object, the airplane crumpled and the solid object had far less damage. ---
**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 22, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/69 "2004-04-22T23:53:31Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I’m just once again disappointed by the dishonesty. Haven’t they said all along that no one had ever considered the use of a jet as a missile? I mean, it’s one thing to say they considered it and decided it was unlikely, which I’d buy. But hasn’t Rice said that hijacking was considered, but not hijacking to use the plane as a missile? If so, then the lying continues. I don’t know if it’s lying or self-delusion or big time cover-your-ass stuff. Remember, Bush is our first MBA president. The Bush administration’s conduct in regards to 9/11 and the commission investigating it is not unlike the conduct seen by many corporate officers in recent years - cover your butt, find a fall guy, practice plausible deniability. He’s a Big Business president, why should we expect anything different? ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/70 "2004-04-23T00:05:15Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > However, I _am_ disappointed and disturbed that national readiness had been allowed to sink to such low levels. Disappointing and disturbing, perhaps, but understandable given how long it had been since the continental US had been attacked, and the general level of prosperity and security in the country at that time. Countries that have gone several generations without direct attack and developed a lot of material wealth tend to get complacent and let their guard down. It’s human nature. And before someone jumps on me about making “excuses” - I’m not making excuses, I’m making observations. Could things have been done better? Of course! But unless you take into account all the factors that go into something like 9/11 it’s no more than an excercise in finger-pointing. Granted, there’s a primative side of me that would like to see some heads on pikles, but what I _really_ want is to prevent such a thing from occuring again. That means taking a real look at the situation, even when it’s uncomfortable. ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/71 "2004-04-23T00:13:03Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If the pilot gets a kill order from his CO and fails to follow through, something is _seriously_ wrong with his training. 99.99% of the time I’d agree with you, BUT– If the CO ordered a pilot/solidier to gun down a schoolyard full of toddlers should he obey that order? The Nuremburg trials established that “I was just following orders” is not a justification for certain types of acts. I think if a pilot was ordered to shoot down an airliner _of civilians_ and refused to do so he _might_ have an argument in his favor. Sure, the circumstances where a military man can justifiably refuse to follow an order are very few and very far between, but in the confusion of 9/11, when Joe Pilot is ordered to scramble and, instead of the enemy he expects, he is told to gun down a United or AA airliner … you know, I would NOT find it reassuring if he didn’t run it through the morality computer first. Yes, the correct conclusion is _in this particular case_ shooting down civilians is justified, but that sort of thing should never become automatic. IMO. ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/72 "2004-04-23T00:16:56Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > The WTC attack was not unthinkable, the military was not prepared for the eventuality despite all the drills. Someone, even at this late stage, now that we know it wasn’t unthinkable, just that the Administration chose not to think about it seriously enough and/or was inexcusably ignorant of threats some agency as central as NORAD was thinking about, someone should do the decent thing. **tagos** , on this statement you and I are in agreement Yes, someone should do the decent thing, but decency seems in short supply these days. ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/73 "2004-04-23T00:22:16Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > It’s no use repeating reasons why it was excusable given the military posture of the time. The question is why, given the known threat at high levels of the DoD, was the posture inadequate and why has no-one accepted any responsibility? Well, let’s see - after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall and sundry related events, the government decided it didn’t need quite so large a military and thus proceeded to reduce personnel, close bases, cancel weapons programs, etc. Neo-cons - many of whom make up parts of the current administration - did not see stateless terrorism as a threat. They focused on nation-states like Iraq and North Korean, pretty much ignoring the likes of bin Laden and AQ as bit players at best and incapable of attacking the heartland of the US And no one has accepted responsibility because this adminsitration is riddled with people of small intellect who would rather change the facts to fit their preconceived world view than change their world view to fit the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/74 "2004-04-23T00:38:52Z")
> [@fiddlesticks](#): > > That “threat against Air Force One” story was bullshit fed to William Safire by a friend in the White House. I wouldn’t trust anything else on that website if they haven’t got that story clearly debunked as such. Fine, the threat to air force one was bullshit. We all know that now. **That doesn’t alter in any way the long delay before the president’s plane was covered**. If you don’t like the cite I pulled up, look it up at another location by googling (9-11 timeline). ---
**Author:** ![bughunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/75 "2004-04-23T00:51:00Z")
Not to hijack the thread (har!) or anything, but I wanted to add an observation or two. First, from the USA Today article in the OP: > [@](#): > > President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, “Nobody in _our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government_, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” [emphasis added] Gee, last I heard, it was the same government. Just a different chief executive and executive staff. Puts a pretty sharp point on the indicator of George W.'s perception of himself. And secondly, and more on topic, _someone_ in the White House knew there was enough of a threat to commercial air traffic to advise A.G. John Ashcroft to stay off of commercial flights and start using charters. ([Cite: CBS News, 26 July 2001](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/printable303601.shtml)) So, the obvious question is: if someone in the Exec Branch of our current government thought there was enough of a threat to keep their own exec staff off of airliners, _then why wasn’t NORAD put on higher alert to respond to threats to air traffic?_ The claim that our government was blindsided by these hijackings is beginning to sound pretty damn thin… ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/76 "2004-04-23T00:55:55Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > And as for their cunning ploy of switching off transponders - go for the one’s on radar with no transponders or deviating from their flight path. Surely not a feat beyond the US military or do any incoming Muslim hordes just have to turn off transponders to become invisible? Why do we need stealth technology if all it takes is turning off a transponder to just blend in with civilian aircraft and be indistuinguishable from them? I don’t buy that at any price. > [@rjung](#): > > So what? They were still on radar. Besides, enemy aircraft in a war zone don’t have transponders for us to track, either, but the Air Force can still find 'em with ease. Something as big and (relatively) slow as an airliner would be a cakewalk by comparison. > [@](#): > > I don’t know where you got all this, but most of it is wrong. Turning off a transponder is not going to affect tracking using a primary radar return. First of all, I didn’t intend any of that post to “excuse” anything - I stated it was to point out factors that didn’t seem to be considered in the arguments flying around here. Now, about that radar thing - radar is NOT an omnicisent, all-seeing eye in the sky. It has limitations. Granted, I am not an air traffic controller but I do talk to them and I have been on the inside of a working control tower. **Berkut** , you are correct, a transponderless plane does appear on “primary radar”. But that’s only helpful IF the controller is already on the primary radar. ATC has a number of views available to them on their scopes, each delivering slightly different information. Particularly when handling large numbers of planes, or in a high traffic area, ATC employs filters of various sorts, tagged targets, and other devices to help them. But, as I pointed out, a transponderless airplanes does NOT help the radar system, and will not appear tagged, and may not appear _at all_ in some of the views used by ATC. Which is why a plane without a transponder MUST arrange in advance to enter such airspace - so the controllers know _in adavance_ that it will be there and will know to use a view that will enable them to see it, or to switch to such a view when the pilot advises them he is entering the airspace. In fact, there have been times when flying over the city of Chicago in a small airplane I have WANTED to be on radar but _failed to appear_ on ATC’s 'scopes despite a working transponder. Depending on traffic they sometimes let me enter the area anyway, but with the condition I make frequent radio updates of my position and heading, or have even refused me permission to enter the airspace. Granted, it is much less likely for a jumbo jet to fail to appear on radar, but it is an illustration that radar is not all-seeing and all-knowing. So… Flight 11 (as an example) is put-putting through the skies and suddenly - BLIP! - the transponder signal disappears. There’s a very good chance the controller will have to 1. realize the plane dropped off the 'scope 2. switch views to primary radar 3. hunt through all the primary radar returns looking for Mr. I-Have-No-Working-Transponder. Is this impossible? No. But _it takes time_ and could account for part of the delay in scrambling jets. Because the controller isn’t going to think “hijack” immediately, he’s going to thing “equipment failure” or possibley “airplane in distress” because those are much more common occurances. As I have pointed out in other threads, the lack of transponder and scanty radio contact would have initially appeared as a possible equipment failure. Sure, ATC will figure out it’s a hijacking - _in a few minutes_ Tick-tick-tick. It’s a tactic not to delay the inevitable but to buy some time. If it takes 5-10 minutes to figure out it’s a hijacking rather than an airliner in distress that’s 5-10 minutes LESS for the fighters to scramble and pursue. I also think that \*\*tagos \*\* and \*\*rjung \*\* are confusing military and civilian radar and traffic control. Civilian radar is NOT set up to deal with uncooperative “targets”. Civilian ATC depends on everyone having a stake in the system working properly, on cooperation, on the idea that people tend to follow the rules. It doesn’t seek out delibrate deception. Military radar, however, deals entirely with unco-operative targets. Their systems and their controller training is very different than civilian - which is why a military controller requires re-training before assuming a civilian post in ATC. Now, on 9/11 the military was still looking outward for attack - not inward. Sure, once the civilians realized what was happening they called NORAD - but how much time had elapsed? How easily could NORAD swing from external watch to internal watch? As I’ve said - ordering all planes to land helped a great deal in reducing the number of possible targets, which make detection and pursuit MUCH easier all around. But that order probably came too late to save the day. As for planes diverting from “flight plans”, making “u-turns” and so forth - flight plans DO change (yes, **Berkut** , I know they’re really clearances). Airplanes with equipment problems DO make “u-turns” back to base for an emergency landing. My point is NOT that the hijackers practiced perfect deception - they didn’t - but rather that ATC had to sort out just what was happening with these airplanes. It _delayed_ the proper response to the crisis at hand. Excuse? No - rather a partial explanation of why fighters didn’t launch 2 minutes after the first impact on the WTC. Nor have I seen any indication that any controller was seeing more than one plane acting funny when this whole thing unfolded. Why would a controller in Ohio, confronted with an airplane that suddenly went radio and transponder silent and made a 90 degree turn to the south even be aware, at that time (remember, he’s at work) that anything unusual is going on in New York City? He’s concentrating on his chunk of sky, not listening to CNN. In _New York_ they know something’s VERY wrong - but are they talking to NORAD or the guy in Ohio? ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/77 "2004-04-23T00:59:36Z")
> [@bughunter](#): > > And secondly, and more on topic, _someone_ in the White House knew there was enough of a threat to commercial air traffic to advise A.G. John Ashcroft to stay off of commercial flights and start using charters. ([Cite: CBS News, 26 July 2001](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/printable303601.shtml)) > > So, the obvious question is: if someone in the Exec Branch of our current government thought there was enough of a threat to keep their own exec staff off of airliners, _then why wasn’t NORAD put on higher alert to respond to threats to air traffic?_ Because the crowd running the show doesn’t give a damn as long as they think they’re insulated from the threat. I mean, really - they seem quite eager to send other peoples’ children into harms way, but how many of the Bush inner circle have THEIR children in the front lines? Not to mention, Bush’s line of “Bring it on!” is… is… contemptitable. How easy it is for HIM, with his retinue of bodyguards, secret service, his anti-missile equipped jet, the layers of security around him, to say “bring it on!”? HE is not expecting to be among the bleeding and dying, is he? ---
**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 23, 2004, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/78 "2004-04-23T01:21:36Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > First of all, as far as I can recall there hadn’t been a hijacking of a major airliner in the US for 25, maybe even 30 years. That’s a long time. After all that time, there’s a very human tendency to think “Well, it hasn’t happened… so it won’t happen.” BOMBS on airplanes yes - Pan Am 103 is still relatively fresh in everyone’s mind. But hijacking’s? > > The average citizen might not think of this, but that’s exactly what the contingency planners are supposed to do. Some folks in government do nothing but think of worst-case “unthinkable” scenarios and make plans in respose to them. Yes, but in this case the contingency planners weren’t listened to and the message didn’t get out. The controllers aren’t contingency planners, either - they’re paid to keep the tin moving without colliding, not to come up with worst-case scenarios. > [@rjung](#): > > Again, the folks in NORAD already knew something was very wrong when they were tracking four airliners making U-turns in the sky Except they WEREN’T making “U-turns”, or at least not obvious ones. I recently found with flight 93 that it didn’t make a clean reverse at all - it turned south for awhile, turned east, turned again … it made a meandering path back to the east coast and Pennsylvania. Odd? Yes. Obvious where it was going? No. > [@rjung](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > Even among those who knew the plane was hijacked, I’d suspect the first thought was that the hijackers had screwed up and accidently hit the tower, not that they had delibrately hit the tower. > > Considering the lack of radio communication between the hijacked airplanes and anyone else, not bloody likely. Even a terrorist planning to hijack an airplane, land it on a runway, and start making demands would need to talk to the air traffic control tower to get a runway cleared. No, actually he doesn’t. If an airplane is radio-silent and flying screwy ATC will get traffic out of the way. I know, because I’ve seen it. I was flying into Palwaukee when some guy stopped talking to the tower and flew crazy - cutting across traffic patterns, all sorts of stuff. When he turned and headed off to O’Hare ATC warned off the big jets since the guy in the Bonanza sure wasn’t listening or talking to anyone. > [@rjung](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > It was not until the second tower was hit that it became obvious that this was a planned catastrophe. So start your countdown from that point, not the first impact. > > …and George W. Bush continued reading stories to second graders. Yes, he’s either an idiot or part of a vast conspiracy. Take your pick. > [@](#): > > It’s been a while since I worked on an air defense system, but if a base is running “hot” and alerted ahead of time, launching a fighter under a minute is not unheard of. And again, suspicious were already raised when the airplanes began making their turns… Yes, - IF the base was _alerted ahead of time_ - which, apparently, none were. And while the turns were suspicious, as I have pointed out numerous times, there were potential alternative explanations outside of hijackings that needed to be eliminated prior to calling in the calvary. > [@](#): > > So what? They were still on radar. Besides, enemy aircraft in a war zone don’t have transponders for us to track, either, but the Air Force can still find 'em with ease. Something as big and (relatively) slow as an airliner would be a cakewalk by comparison. Again, there are differences between civilian and military radar and air traffic responsibilities. Initially, this was being dealt with by _civilians_, not military. When it was clear there were multiple hijackings the miltiary was called in - but that was, at soonest, AFTER the first two impacts. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I still don’t buy the excuses. Again, not excuses. I’m not “excusing” anyone. I’m merely pointing out that it was not so cut and dried as some people seem to think. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/79 "2004-04-23T06:22:31Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > For example: The US has invaded and conquered two sovereign nations recently, Afghanistan and Iraq. When invading Afghanistan, we were told “Afghanistan has harborded Al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11. Also, the Taliban is evil”. When invading Iraq, we were told a whole lot of BS. One of those two invasions is being protested a zillion times more than the other. Why? Aren’t we stupid leftists just going to automatically protest everything Bush does? Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009/80 "2004-04-23T06:41:51Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Except they WEREN’T making “U-turns”, or at least not obvious ones. I recently found with flight 93 that it didn’t make a clean reverse at all - it turned south for awhile, turned east, turned again … it made a meandering path back to the east coast and Pennsylvania. Odd? Yes. Obvious where it was going? No. So what? Did they have to know where it was going to _intercept_ it? Besides which, if you look at a map of the route Flight 93 took, it pretty much exactly doubles back on its course. The fact that they didn’t fly in precisely a straight line should have been _more_ suspicious, not less. > [@](#): > > And while the turns were suspicious, as I have pointed out numerous times, there were potential alternative explanations outside of hijackings that needed to be eliminated prior to calling in the calvary. Yeah, maybe they were taking the scenic route. 😉 > [@](#): > > Initially, this was being dealt with by _civilians_, not military. When it was clear there were multiple hijackings the miltiary was called in - but that was, at soonest, AFTER the first two impacts. After the SECOND WTC hit, they still had over an hour before Flight 93 went down. The determining factor should have been when they discovered it was hijacked; they already should have known that acts of terrorism had been committed. Again, not excuses. I’m not “excusing” anyone. I’m merely pointing out that it was not so cut and dried as some people seem to think. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/norad-had-drills-of-jets-as-weapons/241009.md?page=5)