# Sept. 11th 4th plane **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039 "2004-12-10T00:23:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/81 "2004-12-15T08:59:38Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Contingency planning is anticipating likely events. On experience prior to 9/11, the likely course of a hijacking would involved slowly and calmly talking the hijackers into a safe landing. Contingency planning does _not_ involved tackling every scenario that could possibly exist, even the ones that stretch credibility and even imagination (which the idea of 4 suicide hijacks would have done for the average ATC manager prior to that day). It shouldn’t have stretched credibility at all. The intelligence was available to the White House; they just chose to ignore it. > [@](#): > > Why can’t you accept that Al Qaeda found a vulnerability, exploiting the precedent set by countless previous unrelated hijacks - a vulnerability which could only be exploited purely by their willingness to do something which had never been done before (a co-ordinated suicide attack on US soil)? Who said I don’t accept that? That’s the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. You’re contending that I must either believe that _everything_ was handled perfectly on 9/11, OR I must believe that 9/11 was no surprise AT ALL. It’s possible to believe that al Qaeda exploited a vulnerability AND believe that there were some aspects to the U.S. contingency planning and response that could be improved. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/82 "2004-12-15T09:11:00Z")
Wow, you’ve been a busy boy, Broomstick. > [@Broomstick](#): > > It will slow down the transfer of information between them, that’s what. Then that needs to be rectified. > [@](#): > > I think it’s pretty clear you expect contingency planners to see the future with 100% accuracy. Nope. Total strawman. > [@](#): > > The system in place that day wasn’t perfect. Guess what - no matter what we do, no matter how much money and effort we spend, it will NEVER be perfect. The best we can do is learn from the past and go forward, making as many improvements as we can. Didn’t say it had to be perfect. YOU’RE the one contending that everything was done perfectly on 9/11. I disagree. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Because protocols at the time didn’t demand anything faster, because they had been written for an entirely different sort of hijacker, one that wanted to survive the experience, and thus would be unlikely to immediately endager the entire aircraft. > > And those protocols should have been changed. > > When? Between 8 am and 9 am on September 11, 2001? Nope. Before that. > [@](#): > > The FAA was NOT part of the “national defense” system - even today that is still not its prime mission. Right - so why do you keep insisting that it was their responsibility to debate whether to shoot down planes? That’s just wrong. > [@](#): > > You know, we COULD be invaded by extra-terrestrials. Yes, we _really could_ because we haven’t ruled out the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. But does it _make sense_ to put in place a vast infrastructure to defend against something so _unlikely_ as alien invasion? If the White House had received reliable intelligence that such was the case, then yes. But they didn’t. However, they DID receive intelligence that terrorists might crash planes into buildings. See how that works? > [@](#): > > How much money are you willing to spend to chase the goal of absolute foresight and safety? What are you willing to give up for security? The question is irrelevant. The cost of the measures we’re talking about would not be cost-prohibitive. In fact, it’s my understanding that they have already been put in place. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/83 "2004-12-15T09:33:06Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Until we invent a forward-traveling time machine, though, it’s generally our best option. Ridiculous. To contend that it’s impossible to ever anticipate possible future scenarios is absurd. That’s why we have intelligence agencies. > [@](#): > > Here’s an analogy - through the study of the past and extensive research, automobiles are MUCH safer to ride in than in, say, 1950. But they aren’t _perfectly_ safe, and never will be. All we can do is make them safER. Yet another strawman. I never contended that we could be _perfectly_ safe. > [@](#): > > [quoe] > [Princess Bride]“I don’t think that word means what you think it does.”[/Princess Bride] I have no idea what that garbage is all about. > [@](#): > > Go back and re-read it yourself. At 9:35 some person at _United Airlines_ in San Francisco was the only person on the ground who KNEW, FOR SURE Flight 93 was hijacked. The FAA did not - yet. I already answered this specious argument when you made it in your other post. > [@](#): > > No - they had to rule out _other possibilities_ for what was happening with Flight 93, such as accident, bomb-discovered-on-board (as opposed to bomb-carrying-terrorists-on-board), and so forth. That’s not what you said. You referred to _other_ flights. > [@](#): > > [Princess Bride]“I don’t think that word means what you think it does.”[/Princess > Bride] Oh, geez. That wasn’t clever the _first_ time. > [@](#): > > Um… why would they notify the executive branch? Shouldn’t they be notifying the _military?_ The military _is_ in the executive branch. If I understand the government correctly, the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and would be ultimately responsible for defending the country against attack. So you’d contact _someone_ somewhere in that chain of command, would you not? That’s what I meant by exective branch. If you don’t want to call it that, that’s fine - I don’t care. It wasn’t the point. You’re just nitpicking irrelevancies again. I wouldn’t presume to make pronouncements as to exactly which people should be contacted. I’m just saying there should be _some_ kind of procedure to enable it to happen. > [@](#): > > The military would need authorization from very high to fire upon a civilian airliner, so yeah, at that point the _military_ might notify the executive branch, but that’s up to the military, not the FAA. But they didn’t contact ANYONE. Not until _after_ the plane already crashed, and over 1/2 hour after they knew of the hijacking. > [@](#): > > I mean, geez, you call the cops you don’t micromanage how they do their job, right? You call the military in to deal with a hijacking you let them do the job, you don’t meddle with them while they’re doing it. O.K., you’re really missing the point. Please get off it. > [@](#): > > And, perhaps you should go back over that timeline and reconsider who knew what and when. Nope, you’re the one who’s got it all fouled up. > [@](#): > > Uh, yeah - the military, not the executive. You’re making a career out of missing the point. > [@](#): > > And, for all you know, the appropirate person(s) at the FAA _did_ notify the proper military authorities in a timely manner Hmmm…I already addressed this. Either you’re repeating yourself, or I’m responding to the same post twice, so I’ll stop here. ---
**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:** [December 15, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/84 "2004-12-15T12:14:55Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You’re still looking backwards. > > Don’t know what you mean by that. You’re using the knowledge we have today to judge the actions of people over three years ago, people who did not have all the knowledge then that we do now. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you keep bringing up this irrelevancy. IF we were discussing what happened earlier in the morning on 9/11, it would be relevant. But we’re not. At least I’m not. Beause **I** don’t think it’s irrelevant. I am certainly open to possibility we aren’t quite discussing the same thing (which, by the way, is the point of Princess Bride quote) > [@](#): > > I know you’re aware of this already, but Flight 93 was the LAST plane to crash, not the first. The FAA was MOST CERTAINLY aware that multiple hijacking occurred. I mean, my God, are you serious? You’re actually contending that they didn’t know by 9:30? I’m sorry, but that’s just plain incorrect. By 9:30 there was also a report of a bomb detonated at the State Department in DC, broadcast multiple times on several networks - but _that_ report turned out to be false. Now, before you get all worked up again, anyone who had a TV set and saw the second plane hit the WTC had _no doubt_ there were multiple hijackings that day – BUT, _there were more reported hijackings than actual hijackings that morning_ At 9:30 did they know _for certain_ that Flight 93 was hijacked… or were they still trying to confirm that fact? I know it’s hard for you to conceive the amount of information that must have been pouring into that command center that morning - but try, just for a moment, to imagine. They have dozens, if not hundreds, of reports of hijacked or possibly hijacked airplanes. _How many_ actual hijackings are there? _Which_ planes are hijacks, and which false reports? There are not enough military aircraft to chase a hundred hijacked airplanes - you can’t just send out after every _possible_ hijacking, you have to focus on which are most likely to be hijacked. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > (9:34 a.m. )According to the 9/11 Commission, word of Flight 93’s hijacking reaches FAA’s Washington headquarters. By this time, the headquarters has established an open line of communication with the FAA Command Center at Herndon, Virginia. It had instructed the center to poll all flight control centers about suspect aircraft. So, at this time, the Command Center passes on Cleveland’s message: “United 93 may have a bomb on board.” The Command Center continually updates FAA headquarters on Flight 93 until it crashes. [9/11 Commission Report 6/17/04] > > No, they didn’t have a “hive mind”, as you so sarcastically quip. They had a Command Center, and the people at the Command Center were aware of the status of Flight 93. And again, they ALREADY knew that multiple planes had been hijacked. The whole country knew by that time, for crying out loud. “Bomb on board” != “hijack” It’s an _indcation_ there might be a hijacking, in this context a very strong one, but it is in no way _proof_ of hijacking. If you have a bomb but no hijackings you don’t need a military intercept, you need a bomb expert on the radio talking to the people on board the airplane. The wrong response to an emergency will not help anyone. Also, _again_, the word “may” indicates that they aren’t _certain._ I’m sure they have a very strong feeling something bad was going on, but they didn’t know _for sure_. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a lack of certainty may well have slowed the process down? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Your timeline is using hindsight as well. That last sentence “A hijacker says…” On that day at that time there was no way for the controller to know for certain that was a hijacker. There ARE foreign airline captains - I hear foreign accents over the aviation radio every time I fly. Under stress his English may well deteriorate. If the controller had been speaking to the real captain and now this is a different voice - well, OK, maybe it’s the first officer. YES, it is obvious something is very wrong here, but are there hijackers aboard? Did someone call the flight crew with a bomb threat? Did one of the cabin crew find a bomb or bomb-like object in the lav? Or is that voice a hijacker? Did a bomb go off, but not cause enough damage to down the airplane, which would more than account for the screams and course deviations? NOW we know - at that moment in time it was impossible to know, for sure, if you weren’t on that airplane. > > So what? It was obvious that something was seriously wrong about that flight. So? So you have to fit the response to the crisis. How you handle a damaged aircraft _without_ terrorists aboard is different than how you handle an undamaged airplane _with_ terrorists aboard. In the first case you foam a runway, assemble a crash team, and attempt to land the airplane. In the latter you send a military intercept which may potentially end in shooting the airplane down. Slightly _different_, don’t you think? As I have said - some of the evidence of Something Wrong you present is ambiguous - sudden changes in altitude and screams can result from severe damage to an airplane - heck, it’s been known to happen to UNdamaged airplanes going through certain air currents, although Ohio on a clear day would be a very strange place to find such. A new voice on the radio could be a hijacker… or it could be a pilot deadheading in the back taking over for an injured flight crew. And while you can jump up and down and say “but they _knew_ it was a hijacker!” you can do that only because you know _for sure_ that it was, because of things we learned subsequent to that day. On that morning, there wasn’t any reason to automatically excluded “bombs on board” without a terrorist on board as well - especially since there had been a number of instances with “bombs on board”/no terrorists on board in the past. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > This is called “gathering information”. Why would the controller “waste” valuable time doing this? Because he doesn’t know for sure what’s going on. > > > > Nicely non-specific - what did the controller actually say? “Supes, something strange is going on here, but I’m not sure what”? “Supes, we may have a hijacking?” “Supes, maybe this is an airplane in distress, maybe it’s an airplane with a bomb on board, maybe it’s a hijacking - I’m not sure but we should be prepared for anything”? What did the controller actually say? Surely the supervisor took a look at the situation, too - what did he/she think? > > What’s your point? My point is that things were not so cut-and-dried and certain as you are convinced they are. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Now, it’s may have a bomb on board. Not “may have been hijacked”. Gosh, sounds like maybe they aren’t absolutely sure what’s going on, doesn’t it? > > Yeah, maybe it was the good kind of bomb. Don’t twist my words, please. No one said anything about a “good bomb”. To repeat: How you handle a damaged aircraft _without_ terrorists aboard is different than how you handle an undamaged airplane _with_ terrorists aboard. In the first case you foam a runway, assemble a crash team, and attempt to land the airplane. In the latter you send a military intercept which may potentially end in shooting the airplane down. Slightly _different_, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > OK, again - we know something is wrong - but what? Is this plane damaged from a bomb, and not fully controllable? Is there a struggle going on? Whose flying the plane? Gosh, maybe they’re trying to contact someone on board to get more information, huh? > > But while they were doing all that soul-searching, they meanwhile could have at least contacted the military and apprised them of the situation. The military could even have sent fighters on their way to intercept. That would be fine - if this was the only airplane in crisis or if we had unlimited machinery and personnel for intercepts. On that morning, neither of those scenarios was reality. We had a LOT of airplanes that might or might not have been hijacks (fortunately, most were false reports), and only so many fighters. As I said - there’s no proof the FAA _didn’t_ notify the military, and the _military_ took its time deciding whether or not to send their limited supply of interceptors after Flight 93. Just because the FAA _asks_ for an intercept doesn’t mean they automatically get one. > [@](#): > > See, fighter planes have radios in them, so you aren’t necessarily committed to shooting anyone down just because you sent them out. No, but the possibility is always there - and even more so on that day. [quote] [quote] Um… are you aware that the “San Francisco United Airlines maintenance center” is NOT an FAA facility? It is part of a privately owned business called “United Airlines”. It is not a room full of controllers, nor would it have radar screens depicting current flight information anywhere in its facilities. It probably would have FAA inspectors on premesis part of the time, but those would be maintenance inspectors who have nothing to do with ATC. > [@](#): > > What’s your point? The point is that the fact that _confirmed_ the hijacking - the phone call stating “Flight 93 is hijacked and they’ve killed people” - did NOT go directly to the FAA, it had to be relayed. THIS is the definitive proof that you _do_ have hijacking terrorists on board and need to send a military intercept. And at 9:35 it hadn’t reached either the FAA or the military, though certainly it was relayed quickly. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The FAA was NOT notified of a phone call confirming a hijacking at 9:35 am - United Airlines had that information and needed to relay it to the FAA. > > I don’t see where you’re going with this. How does this disprove: > > “[9/11 Commission Report 6/17/04] (9:34 a.m. ) According to the 9/11 Commission, word of Flight 93’s hijacking reaches FAA’s Washington headquarters.” Because what reached the FAA headquarters was information regarding a _possible_ hijacking, that _might_ have been an airplane in distress after an attack rather than one with active Bad Guys aboard. Just as other reports of other possible/probable hijacks were coming in. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Does anyone have transcripts of these conversations? Everything that goes out through ATC is recorded - there should be a record. > > Do you think you’re disproving that the FAA knew about the Flight 93 hijacking by 9:35? Because I really don’t think you’ve done so. You’ve just nitpicked a bunch of irrelevant stuff. No, I am neither proving nor disproving in that statement - but the “evidence” you present is second hand at best. Transcripts of the ATC conversations would be primary evidence, not something paraphrased by the news media. > [@](#): > > Now, if you’re contending that the FAA is such a disjointed organization that “reaching Washington headquarters” doesn’t mean anything, then I submit that that is yet another FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM. “Reaching Washington headquarters” != automatic call to military to intercept. Even if they DID call the military immediately, a call for an intercept != an automatic dispatching of aircraft. _Nothing_ happens instantly in this world. ---
**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:** [December 15, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/85 "2004-12-15T12:19:41Z")
> [@](#): > > They didn’t HAVE to shoot it down. I’m just saying they should have told someone who is responsible for national defense. How many times do I have to say that? It wasn’t the FAAs call to make, so they shouldn’t have sat on the information. You seem to think that if the FAA even told anyone about the suspected hijacking, that would be tantamount to shooting down the plane. That’s utter nonsense. No, it’s not. What other alternative would they have had to shooting down that plane on that morning? Seriously? Why do you think the miltiary asked the White House for the authority to shoot down a civilian airliner? (And maybe _that_ took a little time?) Shooting civilians is normally construed as an illegal order and our troops are forbidden to delibrately target _enemy_ civilians, much less our own - it takes an extraordinary circumstance to justify _delibrately_ destroying a civilian airliner full of civilians. Yes, soldiers and airmen are supposed to follow orders, but it’s within the bounds of reason the some of them might balk at such an order. Even on that morning, they knew IF they sent and intercept and IF there really were more of these homicidal maniacs on board the only likely way to stop them would be to kill them - and every innocent on board. Subsequent events and information only confirm this. On an _ordinary_ day an intercept doesn’t mean an automatic shoot-down - but that was no ordinary day. An intercept was _likely_ to end in a shoot-down. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Um… are you aware that the “San Francisco United Airlines maintenance center” is NOT an FAA facility? It is part of a privately owned business called “United Airlines”. It is not a room full of controllers, nor would it have radar screens depicting current flight information anywhere in its facilities. It probably would have FAA inspectors on premesis part of the time, but those would be maintenance inspectors who have nothing to do with ATC. > > Um… are you aware that you’re really annoying? When I’m right and you’re wrong - yeah, I’m sure that’s pretty annoying. 😃 > [@](#): > > I had a feeling that you would nitpick every irrelevant detail of the timeline that you could, and act as though that means something. Because it does mean something and it’s not irrelevant. You can’t discard things just because they disagree with your theory of reality. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I mean, bully for that flight attendant, she got through to SOMEONE and that’s exactly what she needed to do. She did not, however, contact the FAA directly. She contacted her employer. Yes, the information is passed on - the poor mope answering the phone probably called his supervisor, or had to find a phone book. Then someone had to call the FAA, ask for the appropriate person to report a hijacking to, and report the flight number. This, in turn, had to be relayed to whoever in the FAA hierarchy would need to hear it in order to connect this phone call to San Francisco with events happening over Cleveland. Just how fast do you expect that to happen? > > There are other entries in the timeline that SPECIFICALLY say that the FAA HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON was aware of the hijacking. No, they were aware there MIGHT be a hijacking, there MAY be a bomb on the airplane - that is not the same sort of confirmation as “I’m calling from on board an airplane where a bunch of goons have killed some of the flight crew and taken over” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > According to the 9/11 Commission, at about this time Cleveland flight control asks the FAA Command Center specifically whether someone has requested the military to launch fighters toward Flight 93. Cleveland offers to contact a nearby military base. The Command Center replies that FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command have to make that decision and are working on the issue. [Independent Commission Report 6/17/04] > > Huh - sounds like the higher ups still aren’t sure exactly what’s going on, but the folks in Cleveland are doing everything they can to help. Huh - I have no idea how you can read it that way. It sounds like the ATCs knew what should have been done, and it got lost in the upper levels of beauracracy. Sounds like another failure of the system. [/quote] Oh? Is that your assumptions talking again, or do you have _evidence_ that someone “sat on” the informaiton and did nothing? And what if that “nearby military base” doesn’t have any aircraft suitable for interceptors? What if the military prefers to put fighters over a major target like DC so the Bad Guys have to fly _towards_ the fighters to reach their goal, rather than being _chased_ by the fighters? (Which, by the way, _was_ the choice of the military - to put the fighters over the potential targets and head the Bad Guys off, rather than attempt to chase them). “Let’s scramble our limited number of fighters to protect DC” might make much more sense than “Let’s chase 20 potentially hijacked airplanes across North America” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “Files a flight plan”. How very interesting. In what sense? “I am Abdul, we are going to Washington, get everyone else out of our way”? Or did they file a flight plane like a pilot would? - given that at least some of them were licensed pilots this is not beyond the realm of possibility. Did Cleveland know these guys weren’t the real pilots? Suspect they weren’t? Not sure? > > You DO understand that I’ve given you a plethora of evidence that was available to the ATCs at the time, and was passed on to their supervisors? I understand that you have given me considerable stuff paraphrased by the news media, most likely by reporters who are neither pilots nor ATC nor military personnel. In a court of law it would be called “hearsay”. > [@](#): > > How disingenuous of you. A changed flight plan might not mean a lot. But taken together with sudden extreme maneuvers, a bomb threat, screaming passengers, etc., it does mean something Yes, it means something is Very Wrong - but what? Since when do hijackers _file flight plans?_ The point is - they might have been _delibrately_ keeping doubt as to what was going on in that airplane, to cause a delay in reaction on ATC and any other authorities who might try to stop them. > [@](#): > > Besides which, the 9/11 Commission Report says the FAA was aware of the hijacking. You’re gonna tell them what they were or weren’t aware of? What you quote has qualifiers like MAY in it - implying less than certain. _They weren’t SURE what was going on._ Yes, that’s going to affect response time! > [@](#): > > Wow, great Strawman. So now the simple act of telling the military about the hijacking, so they can at least prepare to intercept it, is tantamount to mass murder. Geez, did you even buy that one when you were writing it? The FAA wasn’t charged with making the decision to shoot down a plane. Why do you keep insisting that the decision was theirs? I never said the decision to make a shoot-down was the FAA’s - but you’re a fool if you think calling for an intercept on that day wasn’t like holding a loaded gun to someone’s head. What kind of alternative do you think they would have had? Seriously? What? They’re going to intercept it then meekly chase Flight 93 until it impacts something? Do you have an _alternative_ means of stopping Flight 93 that doesn’t result in everyone aboard being dead at the end of the day? If so, please speak up - I’d love to hear it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > A contingency plan that doesn’t take that into account is far weaker than one that does. > > I’m sorry, did I suggest that the plan should include mass murder? I don’t think so. And how, pray tell, do you think you can stop an airliner with “suicide operatives” aboard short of destroying it? AND killing everyone aboard? “Murder” implies malice towards the victims… I’m not sure how you’d refer to it - regrettably necessary homicide? The fact remains, if you shoot down the airplane you kill everyone aboard, and most of those aboard are innocent bystanders. If you can do that without a moral qualm then I’m just as happy not to know such a cold-blooded human being in real life. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I see them offering to make some phone calls. Somehow you’re equating “should we/can we call this air force base” with desparation. > > I’m equating it with a strong desire for that to occur. Or maybe you think they asked about it even though they didn’t care? I’d think they were desparate if they _called the base themselves_ instead of waiting for the higher ups to act. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > WHO at the FAA? At what level? > > Washington. That’s a place, not a person. Who at the FAA was contacted? The receptionist answering phones? Or does that mean the information was in the hands of the FAA Administrator? You don’t have a _name?_ A _title?_ WHO, not WHERE. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > On what do you base that? > > On the timeline I posted. OK - do you have any OTHER sources? Like, something that’s NOT a paraphrase? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Or were there high level people discussing whether this situation justified shooting down Flight 93? > > The people who should have been discussing it COULDN’T have been, because they weren’t even informed of the hijacking until 10:07. But – but you said EVERYBODY in the WHOLE NATION _knew_ what was going on by 9:30 am!!! Could you try to be a little more consistent? Or perhaps a little less broad in your statements? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Or do you prefer a world where the government has no qualms about firing upon civilians? > > That’s about the lamest strawman ever. No, it’s not - I prefer to live in a nation where the military hesistates to shoot civilians. While that occassionally might result in a delay in action we can ill afford - such as, _perhaps_, on September 11, 2001 - overall I feel much safer with a military that does not want to open fire on common citizens. Or maybe I just don’t want to be flying over the Midwest and one day to the side and see a daring young airman in a flying machine opening fire on me – I’d prefer shooting to be a _last_ resort and not the first one. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > For all you know the FAA folks were down on their knees begging for a military intercept. Or maybe not. You’ve provided no proof of your assertion that anyone was “sitting on the information” > > wrong. Then _prove it_ > [@](#): > > What? Proof that the nation knew about multiple hijackings by 9:30 AM? It was on every news network in the country. Ah, but YOU said: > [@](#): > > The people who should have been discussing it COULDN’T have been, because they weren’t even informed of the hijacking until 10:07. So, which is it? [Quote] [quote] That timeline seems to indicate that, until 9:35 when the flight attendant called San Francisco no one on the ground knew for sure this was a hijacked airplane, and at the point the information confirming the hijack was yet to be in the hands of the FAA. I’m sure United didn’t dawdle in relaying it, but I’m expecting it took at least a few minutes to hand it over. > [@](#): > > Again, you’ve selected the wrong part of the timeline. That call doesn’t prove the point on its own. There is other evidence, which you seem to be ignoring. Yes, the phone call DOES prove the hijacking _on its own_. The _other_ “evidence” you present does _not_. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At no point did I say the FAA had no means to contact the authorities. Perhaps I have a more realistic idea of the speed at which this works given that I’ve been dealing with the FAA and ATC at least occassionally over the past 10 years. > > Maybe you are incapable of taking a step back and seeing the big picture, then. Or maybe I know more about how these things actually work than you do. > [@](#): > > Didn’t say it had to be perfect. YOU’RE the one contending that everything was done perfectly on 9/11. I disagree. Nope, never said nothing of the sort - I think the system functioned well in dealing with a situation that was not foreseen by anyone involved in the “front lines” that day. That does NOT mean I think the system was - or is - perfect. Far from it. But it was NOT the sort of systemic failure that you seem to think it was. Or is it that you’re just looking for a scapegoat? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Because protocols at the time didn’t demand anything faster, because they had been written for an entirely different sort of hijacker, one that wanted to survive the experience, and thus would be unlikely to immediately endager the entire aircraft. > > And those protocols should have been changed. > > > [@](#): > > > > When? Between 8 am and 9 am on September 11, 2001? > > Nope. Before that. Why? They had worked well for 40 years. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The FAA was NOT part of the “national defense” system - even today that is still not its prime mission. > > Right - so why do you keep insisting that it was their responsibility to debate whether to shoot down planes? That’s just wrong. Never said they had the shoot-down decision - you still haven’t proved that they “sat on” the information. Maybe it was the military that hesistated. I don’t know. I don’t think you do either. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You know, we COULD be invaded by extra-terrestrials. Yes, we really could because we haven’t ruled out the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. But does it make sense to put in place a vast infrastructure to defend against something so unlikely as alien invasion? > > If the White House had received reliable intelligence that such was the case, then yes. But they didn’t. However, they DID receive intelligence that terrorists might crash planes into buildings. See how that works? In _hindsight_ we know that the intelligence about suicide hijackers was credible - apparently in the summer of 2001 there wasn’t enough evidence of credibility for those in charge to take it seriously. What do you offer as proof of credibility? A Tom Clancy novel? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > How much money are you willing to spend to chase the goal of absolute foresight and safety? What are you willing to give up for security? > > The question is irrelevant. The cost of the measures we’re talking about would not be cost-prohibitive. In fact, it’s my understanding that they have already been put in place. And what measures are those? Do you have PROOF they’ve been put in place and are effective? If not - why do you trust they are there? > [@](#): > > Ridiculous. To contend that it’s impossible to ever anticipate possible future scenarios is absurd. That’s why we have intelligence agencies. Funny - I thought we had intelligence agencies to _spy on people_ > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Um… why would they notify the executive branch? Shouldn’t they be notifying the military? > > The military is in the executive branch. No it’s not! > [@](#): > > If I understand the government correctly Clearly you don’t! > [@](#): > > the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and would be ultimately responsible for defending the country against attack. That and the Secretary of Defense are the only points were the executive and the military touch. > [@](#): > > So you’d contact someone somewhere in that chain of command, would you not? That’s what I meant by exective branch. If you don’t want to call it that, that’s fine - I don’t care. It wasn’t the point. The point is you debate in a sloppy manner when you do that. The chain of command you contact is _military_ not _executive branch_. Only the very highest military officers would ever call the Commander in Chief, and only for the most critical items. And it would take some time to work it’s way up to the White House. > [@](#): > > You’re just nitpicking irrelevancies again. I wouldn’t presume to make pronouncements as to exactly which people should be contacted. I’m just saying there should be some kind of procedure to enable it to happen. And there was, and it was used. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The military would need authorization from very high to fire upon a civilian airliner, so yeah, at that point the military might notify the executive branch, but that’s up to the military, not the FAA. > > But they didn’t contact ANYONE. Not until after the plane already crashed, and over 1/2 hour after they knew of the hijacking. _How do you know that?_ Where is the PROOF the FAA “sat on” the information? How do you know they didn’t send the information on and the _military_ sat on it? How do you the system didn’t work as fast as possible? I see a lot of assumption on your part - but no proof. Your cite is second hand information, and paraphrased. I want to see something better. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/86 "2004-12-15T21:14:48Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > You’re using the knowledge we have today to judge the actions of people over three years ago, people who did not have all the knowledge then that we do now. No, I’m not suggesting they should have known what was _impossible_ to know, only that we need to adopt procedures so that 1/2 hour delays like that don’t occur in the future. > [@](#): > > Beause **I** don’t think it’s irrelevant. I am certainly open to possibility we aren’t quite discussing the same thing (which, by the way, is the point of Princess Bride quote) It’s not a matter of opinion. If I post evidence that proves a certain thing, and you ignore _that_ evidence in favor of focusing on _another_ extraneous detail, then you are being disingenuous. For example, if I post a timeline that clearly shows what division of the FAA was aware of what information, and at what time, but you instead focus on a _different_ entry in the timeline about a phone call, and pretend that that first entry isn’t there, then you’re not debating in earnest. That’s NOT just a matter of us differing on what’s important. So keep your cryptic movie quotes to yourself. > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## Quote: I know you’re aware of this already, but Flight 93 was the LAST plane to crash, not the first. The FAA was MOST CERTAINLY aware that multiple hijacking occurred. I mean, my God, are you serious? You’re actually contending that they didn’t know by 9:30? I’m sorry, but that’s just plain incorrect. > > By 9:30 there was also a report of a bomb detonated at the State Department in DC, broadcast multiple times on several networks - but _that_ report turned out to be false. Now, before you get all worked up again, anyone who had a TV set and saw the second plane hit the WTC had _no doubt_ there were multiple hijackings that day – BUT, _there were more reported hijackings than actual hijackings that morning_ At 9:30 did they know _for certain_ that Flight 93 was hijacked… or were they still trying to confirm that fact? That doesn’t address the question at all, your snotty insinuation that I’m “worked up” aside. The issue was, “Did they know that there had been multiple hijackings by 9:30?” The answer in an unequivocable “yes”. Your reply is obfuscatory. Again, you are blathering on about things that aren’t relevant to the point under consideration. You do this little “bait & switch” maneuver. First, you question if they knew that multiple hijackings had occured. When I point out that they obviously DID, you change the question to “Did they know for certain that Flight 93 was hijacked?” Arguing with you is like trying to nail a turd to the wall. > [@](#): > > I know it’s hard for you to conceive the amount of information that must have been pouring into that command center that morning Yet another strawman. I never suggested that the amount of information was small. None of my arguments hinge on the amount of information being small. > [@](#): > > “Bomb on board” != “hijack” It’s an _indcation_ there might be a hijacking, in this context a very strong one, but it is in no way _proof_ of hijacking. Exactly the problem. The FAA sat around waiting for “proof”, instead of acting. You would have them do nothing until they got a signed, notarized, affidavit from the hijackers that yes, they were members of al Qaeda and have hijacked the plane and planned to crash it into a building. And once again, you fail to realize that it’s possible to _send_ planes out to intercept without necessarily being committed to shooting down the plane. If you wait for ironclad proof before you even _think_ about telling the military, it’s already too late. If the nation is under attack, we don’t have that luxury. That wasn’t the FAAs call to make, it was the military’s. And they can’t make the call if nobody even _tells_ them what’s going on. How exactly would it have _hurt_ to scramble fighters? If they decide not to shoot down the plane, they simply radio the pilots and say, “Hey Joe, don’t shoot down that plane, O.K.?” (Yes, I know they don’t actually say it that way - I was being facetious.) > [@](#): > > So? So you have to fit the response to the crisis. How you handle a damaged aircraft _without_ terrorists aboard is different than how you handle an undamaged airplane _with_ terrorists aboard. In the first case you foam a runway, assemble a crash team, and attempt to land the airplane. In the latter you send a military intercept which may potentially end in shooting the airplane down. Slightly _different_, don’t you think? I suppose you could think that way if you suddenly woke up from a coma at 9:30 on 9/11, and had no idea what had happened earlier that morning. And again, you can _intercept_ the plane without shooting it down. But you can’t even do _that_ if you just sit on your ass for 1/2 hour. > [@](#): > > As I have said - some of the evidence of Something Wrong you present is ambiguous - sudden changes in altitude and screams can result from severe damage to an airplane - heck, it’s been known to happen to UNdamaged airplanes going through certain air currents, although Ohio on a clear day would be a very strange place to find such. Wow, you are quite the apologist for the federal government. I have a feeling that in your eyes, it would be literally impossible for them to do anything short of perfection. You’re now going out of your way to construct implausable scenarios as to why something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, isn’t a duck. That’s just not a good system if you want to be able to react quickly to an emergency. You can’t have government beauracracies sitting on crucial information while they sit around and construct scenarios as to why they _shouldn’t_ take action. > [@](#): > > My point is that things were not so cut-and-dried and certain as you are convinced they are. I didn’t say it was “cut and dried”. I said there was _more_ than enough suspicion that they should have contacted the proper authorities immediately. Waiting until it’s “cut and dried” is too late. > [@](#): > > Don’t twist my words, please. No one said anything about a “good bomb”. I never said those were your words. > [@](#): > > To repeat: How you handle a damaged aircraft _without_ terrorists aboard is different than how you handle an undamaged airplane _with_ terrorists aboard. In the first case you foam a runway, assemble a crash team, and attempt to land the airplane. In the latter you send a military intercept which may potentially end in shooting the airplane down. Slightly _different_, don’t you think? Your posts wouldn’t be so damn long if you’d quit repeating yourself verbatim. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > That would be fine - if this was the only airplane in crisis or if we had unlimited machinery and personnel for intercepts. On that morning, neither of those scenarios was reality. We had a LOT of airplanes that might or might not have been hijacks (fortunately, most were false reports), and only so many fighters. Really? Which _other_ flights were all the fighters being used to intercept, such that they couldn’t spare even one to intercept Flight 93? > [@](#): > > As I said - there’s no proof the FAA _didn’t_ notify the military, and the _military_ took its time deciding whether or not to send their limited supply of interceptors after Flight 93. Just because the FAA _asks_ for an intercept doesn’t mean they automatically get one. You aren’t following the thread. We covered that early on. The military wasn’t notified until 10:07, AFTER 93 already crashed on its own. Wasn’t even _notified_, until then. My God, how many times do I have to repeat that until you stop ignoring it? The proof was posted early on in the thread, directly from the 9/11 Commission Report. > [@](#): > > No, but the possibility is always there - and even more so on that day. Nonsense. It’s quite routine to intercept flights. If the Air Force _never_ launched fighters due to fear that someone might get hurt, then they wouldn’t have had fighters circling D.C. - by your logic they shouldn’t have done that because someone _might_ get hurt. Unless you’re contending that they should have just left all the fighters in their hangers _just in case_ anyone got hurt, I don’t get your point. I’m snipping a big chunk of nonsense you posted, because you’re just rehashing the same arguments that I already shot down (no pun intended). In general, what you’re failing to understand is that it’s a mistake to wait for _ironclad proof_ before even _thinking_ about telling anybody about the hijacking. They were responding to an emergency, not trying a case in court. > [@](#): > > “Reaching Washington headquarters” != automatic call to military to intercept. Even if they DID call the military immediately, a call for an intercept != an automatic dispatching of aircraft. I don’t know what you’re talking about here. When did I say it was “automatic”? In fact, my exact point is that they waited TOO LONG. That’s the polar opposite of “automatic”. I don’t know what else to say; it’s like you’re not even talking about the same thing. > [@](#): > > _Nothing_ happens instantly in this world. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread. You don’t seem to acknowledge that any increment _between_ “instantly” and “1/2 hour” exists. Let me ask you this: Is there _any_ amount of time that you _would_ concede is too long a delay when the nation is under attack? An hour? 5 hours? A day? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/87 "2004-12-15T21:16:29Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > _How do you know that?_ Where is the PROOF the FAA “sat on” the information? How do you know they didn’t send the information on and the _military_ sat on it? How do you the system didn’t work as fast as possible? I see a lot of assumption on your part - but no proof. Your cite is second hand information, and paraphrased. I want to see something better. What the hell!!! I must have answered that question at least 5 times! Do you have a memory problem? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/88 "2004-12-15T21:33:41Z")
Oh, and in fact, _I_ had originally thought that the military _was_ informed earlier, and I was corrected, at which time I accepted the evidence that was shown. Why can’t you do the same? ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/89 "2004-12-15T23:18:03Z")
Just thought I’d mention that \*\*broomstick \*\*and **blowero** ’s posts are the longest I have ever seen in a forum. ---
**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:** [December 15, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/90 "2004-12-15T23:52:01Z")
OK, let’s deal with your “proof”. That website you linked to is NOT the 9/11 report - it is something called [cooperativeresearch.org](http://cooperativeresearch.org). Who are these people? Why should I believe them? Yes, they _quote_ the 9/11 report, but not in great detail, and they quote a lot of other people without any apparent attempt to distinguish good sources from bad. > [@blowero](#): > > No, I’m not suggesting they should have known what was _impossible_ to know, only that we need to adopt procedures so that 1/2 hour delays like that don’t occur in the future. And what if 30 minutes is the best we can do? There are _limits_ to how fast people can communicate and react. Sure, I’d prefer quicker than a 1/2 an hour - but I don’t automatically assume that someone screwed up because it took that long. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of opinion. If I post evidence that proves a certain thing, and you ignore _that_ evidence I’m not ignoring your evidence - I’m questioning the _quality_ of your evidence. Why should I trust [cooperativeresearch.org](http://cooperativeresearch.org)? > [@](#): > > Arguing with you is like trying to nail a turd to the wall. If you want to get insulting we can adjorn to the Pit, I have no problems with that. While we’re here, though, let’s not get personal, m’okay? > [@](#): > > How exactly would it have _hurt_ to scramble fighters? Limited resources - we only have so many fighters and couldn’t afford to have them chasing false alarms that morning. If they’re off chasing a false report they may not be available to deal with a real threat. > [@](#): > > Your posts wouldn’t be so damn long if you’d quit repeating yourself verbatim. :rolleyes: I’m trimming this one down, that make you happy? Well, it’ll get longer later but it will be relativley new stuff. > [@](#): > > Really? Which _other_ flights were all the fighters being used to intercept, such that they couldn’t spare even one to intercept Flight 93? _From the website you linked to_, emphasis added: > [@](#): > > (9:30 am) **Flight controllers mistakenly suspect that Delta Flight 1989, flying west over Pennsylvania, has been hijacked.** The controllers briefly suspect the sound of hijackers’ voices in Flight 93 is coming from this plane, only a few miles away. **USA Today reports the flight “joins a growing list of suspicious jets**. Some of their flight numbers will be scrawled on a white dry-erase board throughout the morning” at FAA headquarters. Miscommunications lead to further suspicion of Flight 1989 even after the source of the hijacker’s message is confirmed to come from Flight 93. Flight 1989 lands in Cleveland at 10:10. **Eventually, about 11 flights will be suspected, with four of them actually hijacked.** [USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)] The 9/11 Commission later has another explanation. They claim that at 9:41, Boston flight control identifies Flight 1989 as a possible hijacking strictly because it is a transcontinental 767 that had departed from Logan Airport. Although NEADS never loses track of the flight, it launches fighters from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it (see 10:01 a.m. and (After 10:06 a.m.)). [9/11 Commission Report 6/17/04] Did you even read the website you quoted? Did you read this one? (Again, emphasis added) > [@](#): > > (After 9:30) **After the Pentagon is hit, fighters at nearby Andrews Air Force Base are still preparing to launch (see (After 9:03 a.m.))**. At some unknown point, flight squad commander Lt. Col. Marc Sasseville grabs three F-16 pilots and gives them a curt briefing. He recalls saying, “I have no idea what’s going on, but we’re flying. Here’s our frequency. We’ll split up the area as we have to. Just defend as required. We’ll talk about the rest in the air.” All four dress up and get ready. One officer at Andrews recalls, “\*\*After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners] coming. Not ‘might be’ \*\* ; they were coming.” **Meanwhile, a “flood” of calls from the Secret Service and local FAA flight control centers pour in to Andrews** , as the fighter response is coordinated. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02] However, the loading of missiles onto the fighters is very time-consuming, and when these fighters finally take off nearly an hour later, they launch without the missiles installed (see (10:42 a.m.)). Gosh _darn_, but it sounds like _somebody_ at the FAA was talking to _somebody_ at the military! But, darn it, guess it _takes some time_ to get fighters into the air. Gee, _maybe_ it wasn’t the FAA’s problem, maybe the _military_ should get a move on? Or maybe it was peacetime and thus fighters weren’t as on alert as they should have been - which is NOT the responsibility of the FAA. > [@](#): > > You aren’t following the thread. We covered that early on. The military wasn’t notified until 10:07, AFTER 93 already crashed on its own. Wasn’t even _notified_, until then. My God, how many times do I have to repeat that until you stop ignoring it? The proof was posted early on in the thread, directly from the 9/11 Commission Report. Go back and re-read your website. Read the _whole_ thing. With a critical mindset. _Obviously_ people were being scrambled at Andrews, which is the closest air base to Washington, even _before_ the FAA headquarters knew about Flight 93. Maybe there was less urgency about Flight 93 becuase the FAA knew fighters were _already_ being dispatched to guard DC? Don’t blindly believe everything you read. If you had linked to an on-line version of the 9/11 report, so these excerpts could be read _in context_ I might concede you have a leg to stand on but you _didn’t_ do that. You don’t quote from a paper copy of the report. No, you relay on information excerpted by a website - does this side have a bias? An agenda? Are they doing a creative cut-and-paste? Do _they_ questions the quality and reliability of _their_ sources? Even if you DO quote directly from the 9/11 report I’d still ask where they got _their_ information from - they are no more immune to questioning than anyone else as far as I’m concerned. > [@](#): > > That has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread. You don’t seem to acknowledge that any increment _between_ “instantly” and “1/2 hour” exists. Let me ask you this: Is there _any_ amount of time that you _would_ concede is too long a delay when the nation is under attack? An hour? 5 hours? A day? I don’t know how long it takes to launch a fully armed and loaded fighter-interceptor. Such airplanes are not normally stored with full armament, and if you don’t arm them then the only option your giving the pilots under these circumstances is ramming. Without that information no, I can’t determine how long is too long. The question isn’t “Is 30 minutes too long?” it’s “were fighters launched in the shortest possible time on that day?” Of course, the next question is can we _shorten_ the time it takes to launch? Again, I don’t know enough about the airplanes in question to answer that. How about - two to three hours would have been too long for sure, and five minutes would have been impossible. Here’s some more: > [@](#): > > (After 9:38 am) A few minutes after Flight 77 crashes, the Secret Service commands fighters from Andrews Air Force Base, 10 miles from Washington, to “Get in the air now!” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02 Ohmigosh! It looks like _another_ instance of the military being informed _before_ 10:07! > [@](#): > > Lt. Col. Marc H. (Sass) Sasseville and a pilot only known by the codename Lucky sprint to their waiting F-16s armed only with “hot” guns and 511 rounds of “TP” —nonexplosive training rounds. The pilots later say that, had all else failed, they would have rammed into Flight 93. Wow - looks like they’re diverting UNARMED fighters from training missions to protect the capital - is that the action of an _uninformed_ military? > [@](#): > > (9:41 am ) Newark, New Jersey flight controller Greg Callahan is talking to an FBI agent on the phone. The agent says about Flight 93: “We suspect that this aircraft has now been taken over by hostile forces.” Look at that - someone DID call the FBI! Is that the action of a government/FAA employee “sitting on information”? > [@](#): > > (9:44 am) NORAD briefs the NMCC teleconference on the possible hijacking of Delta Flight 1989. Remember that Delta 1989 was, in fact, NOT hijacked - and this is at 9:44. Yeah, some bad information was flowing with the good. This is from YOUR source and cite by the way. > [@](#): > > (9:49 am) The FAA orders the Pittsburgh control tower evacuated. Shortly before, Cleveland flight controllers called Pittsburgh flight control and said a plane was heading toward Pittsburgh and refusing to communicate. Looks like they weren’t sure it was going to Washington, DC after all. Sure, why NOT Pittburgh? It’s a big city, it has skyscrapers… > [@](#): > > (9:49 am) In the words of the 9/11 Commission, the commander of NORAD (General Ralph Eberhart) directs “all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations fully armed.” [Independent Commission Report, 6/17/04] Apparently this means all fighters with air defense missions are to get armed and be ready to scramble. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke claims that after the Pentagon is hit, he ordered to an aide, “Find out where the fighter planes are. I want Combat Air Patrol over every major city in this country. Now” (see (Between 9:38-9:45 a.m.)). It has not been explained why this order wasn’t given much earlier. Calls from air force bases across the country asking to help had started “pouring into NORAD” shortly after 9:03, when televised reports made an emergency situation clear (see (After 9:03 a.m.)). Two point here: 1. Looks like EVERYBODY was put on alert by 9:49 am at the latest 2. Why _didn’t_ the military act sooner? Like at 9:03 when the calls came rolling in from around the country and clearly _someone_ at the bases was watching the TV? And you claim the _FAA_ sat on information and dragged their feet? > [@](#): > > (9:49 am) According to the 9/11 Commission, the FAA Command Center has just twice warned FAA headquarters that United 93 is now “29 minutes out of Washington, DC.” Someone at headquarters says to someone at the Command Center, “They’re pulling Jeff [last name unknown] away to go talk about United 93.” Command Center replies, “Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?” FAA headquarters replies, “Uh, God, I don’t know.” Command Center says, “Uh, that’s a decision somebody’s gonna have to make probably in the next ten minutes.” FAA headquarters answers, “Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.” [Independent Commission Report, 6/17/04] This is 13 minutes since Cleveland flight control had asked the Command Center in vain about a military response to Flight 93 (see (9:36 a.m.)). OK, either we’ve got criminal negligence here OR everybody important has already left to room to do important things and it’s an ignorant flunky answering the phone. Given that the guy on the phone says “everybody just left the room” I’m opting for number 2. Especially given this next bit, from 9:53 am: > [@](#): > > According to the 9/11 Commission, FAA headquarters informs the FAA Command Center that the Deputy Director for Air Traffic Services is talking to Deputy Administrator Monte Belger about scrambling aircraft after Flight 93. Headquarters is informed that the flight is 20 miles northwest of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. [9/11 Commission Report 6/17/04] Sounds like the big guys are doing their job. Maybe that’s why they left the room? > [@](#): > > (After 9:56 - 10:06) Inside his White House bunker, a military aide asks Vice President Cheney, “There is a plane 80 miles out. There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?” Cheney immediately answers “Yes.” [Washington Post, 1/27/02] An F-16 fighter near Washington heads in pursuit of Flight 93. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01 (B)] However, a different explanation says, “The closest fighters are two F-16 pilots on a training mission from Selfridge Air National Guard Base near Detroit.” These are ordered after Flight 93, even though but they supposedly aren’t armed with any weapons. It is claimed they are supposed to crash into Flight 93 if they cannot persuade it to land. [ABC News, 8/30/02, ABC News, 9/11/02] In either case, as the fighter (or fighters) gets nearer to Flight 93, Cheney is asked twice more to confirm if the fighter should engage, and he responds yes both times. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] _Your own source_ discredits your claim that no one was informed until _after_ 10:07! C’mon, man - Dick Cheney essentially asked a bunch of fighters to go a on a suicide mission to down Flight 93 - TWICE! _Before 10:07 am!_ Is that acting quickly enough for you? Is that _enough_ for you, in the way of response? “Stop that plane even if you have to kill yourself to do it” - how much more would it take to make you _happy?_ > [@](#): > > The FAA orders F-16 fighters to scramble from Toledo, Ohio. Although the base has no fighters on standby alert status, it manages to put fighters in the air 16 minutes later, a “phenomenal” response time OK, guess now we know - it takes 16 minutes to scramble F-16’s. And note - _the FAA is calling for an intercept BEFORE 10:07 am!_ There is also a long passage about what eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 93 saw, which I will not quote in detail. I will say, however, that problems with that testimony was discussed in detail here in Great Debates in an earlier thread, one of many we’ve had about Flight 93 > [@](#): > > (10:07 am) According to the 9/11 Commission, NEADS receives a call from Cleveland flight control about Flight 93. Cleveland passes on the plane’s last known latitude and longitude. NEADS is unable to locate it on radar because it has already crashed. [Independent Commission Report 6/17/04] They _made a call_ - nowhere does it state that this is the FIRST call. Indeed, _your own source_ makes it very apparent the FAA _was_ talking to the military. If you read the _whole_ [timeline](http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline_flight_ua_93#a928hijack) (which I encourage followers of this thread to do) you’ll find a whole lot of confusion and contradiction about what, exactly, happening that morning. Well, I believe it - it was a strange and terrible time. But enough of this nonsense that the FAA somehow “sat on” vital information. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/91 "2004-12-16T19:52:34Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > That website you linked to is NOT the 9/11 report - it is something called [cooperativeresearch.org](http://cooperativeresearch.org). Who are these people? Why should I believe them? It’s meticulously cited. If you disagree with any of the assertions, by all means tell us why. > [@](#): > > Yes, they _quote_ the 9/11 report, but not in great detail, and they quote a lot of other people without any apparent attempt to distinguish good sources from bad. Again, if you have issue with anything I’ve posted, by all means tell us why it’s invalid. But don’t try to impugn everything with general hand-waving. That doesn’t cut it. > [@](#): > > And what if 30 minutes is the best we can do? I don’t see any reason why we can’t do better. It’s just a matter of having lines of communication open. > [@](#): > > There are _limits_ to how fast people can communicate and react. But in this case, they could have communicated faster. > [@](#): > > Sure, I’d prefer quicker than a 1/2 an hour - but I don’t automatically assume that someone screwed up because it took that long. I didn’t _automatically_ assume it; I concluded it based on the evidence. > [@](#): > > I’m not ignoring your evidence - I’m questioning the _quality_ of your evidence. Why should I trust [cooperativeresearch.org](http://cooperativeresearch.org)? No, that’s not what you did. You deliberately picked ancillary items on the timeline, and pretended as if the ancillary items were the only ones, even though there were _other_ items that made a more direct and compelling case. You were not, as you now claim, questioning the _veracity_ of the individual items. This is just another surreptitious switch in tactics on your part. > [@](#): > > If you want to get insulting we can adjorn to the Pit, I have no problems with that. While we’re here, though, let’s not get personal, m’okay? I said “Arguing with you is like trying to nail a turd to the wall.” That is not a personal insult. It’s an expression that indicates that your _arguments_ are slippery, and can’t be nailed down because you keep switching them. No offense was intended. If you want to pit me, by all means - knock yourself out. > [@](#): > > Limited resources - we only have so many fighters and couldn’t afford to have them chasing false alarms that morning. If they’re off chasing a false report they may not be available to deal with a real threat. Again, which _real threat_ was missed? The fighters never even _got_ to any real threats. > [@](#): > > Did you even read the website you quoted? Did YOU? None of that negates what was known about Flight 93 at 9:34 am. If you have _proof_ that they were prevented from notifying the military about Flight 93, by all means post it. Don’t just keep saying “Gee willikers, there were lots and lots of other flights.” > [@](#): > > Gosh _darn_, but it sounds like _somebody_ at the FAA was talking to _somebody_ at the military! Yet another strawman. I did not say the FAA didn’t talk to the military _at all_; I said they waited too long to tell them about Flight 93. Are you really this obtuse? Besides which, it’s hilarious how earlier your tack was to argue that the FAA is a civilian organization and they’re not _supposed_ to be able to contact the military right away and blah, blah blah. But now you’re arguing the exact opposite. > [@](#): > > But, darn it, guess it _takes some time_ to get fighters into the air. Gee, _maybe_ it wasn’t the FAA’s problem, maybe the _military_ should get a move on? Or maybe it was peacetime and thus fighters weren’t as on alert as they should have been - which is NOT the responsibility of the FAA. How many times is this that you’ve offered the same specious argument after I shot it down. Five? Six? > [@](#): > > Go back and re-read your website. Read the _whole_ thing. With a critical mindset. _Obviously_ people were being scrambled at Andrews, which is the closest air base to Washington, even _before_ the FAA headquarters knew about Flight 93. Maybe there was less urgency about Flight 93 becuase the FAA knew fighters were _already_ being dispatched to guard DC? Don’t blindly believe everything you read. Now you’re just making stuff up. The military didn’t _decide_ to guard DC rather than intercept 93, they didn’t even _know_ about 93 until after it crashed - according to their own testimony. And if they lied about when they knew, well that’s not good either. Besides which, that would have been a stupid strategy - put all your eggs in one basket, guarding D.C., and not even send _one_ fighter to intercept the hijacked plane? That’s not what they did, and even if they did, it would have been stupid. > [@](#): > > If you had linked to an on-line version of the 9/11 report, so these excerpts could be read _in context_ I might concede you have a leg to stand on but you _didn’t_ do that. You don’t quote from a paper copy of the report. No, you relay on information excerpted by a website - does this side have a bias? An agenda? Are they doing a creative cut-and-paste? Do _they_ questions the quality and reliability of _their_ sources? Everything has cites. You can follow the links and make your own determination. It’s actually a pretty good website. If it’s so awful, why can’t you tell us precisely _which_ sources are invalid? > [@](#): > > I don’t know how long it takes to launch a fully armed and loaded fighter-interceptor. Such airplanes are not normally stored with full armament, and if you don’t arm them then the only option your giving the pilots under these circumstances is ramming. I can’t believe this. More obfuscation from you. You know perfectly well we’re talking about the time from when the FAA knew about the hijacking to the time they told the military. The military didn’t even _know_ about it yet; what does that have to do with the amount of time it takes to launch a fighter? If anything, it just shows that it was even MORE critical to react to the situation quickly. > [@](#): > > Without that information no, I can’t determine how long is too long. The question isn’t “Is 30 minutes too long?” it’s “were fighters launched in the shortest possible time on that day?” Really? There is NO time that you would consider too long? So if they waited a week, that wouldn’t be too long in your mind? > [@](#): > > Of course, the next question is can we _shorten_ the time it takes to launch? Again, I don’t know enough about the airplanes in question to answer that. Wow! You switched arguments again. We weren’t talking about launch times at all. That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. > [@](#): > > Here’s some more: > Ohmigosh! It looks like _another_ instance of the military being informed _before_ 10:07! > > Wow - looks like they’re diverting UNARMED fighters from training missions to protect the capital - is that the action of an _uninformed_ military? > > Look at that - someone DID call the FBI! Is that the action of a government/FAA employee “sitting on information”? You’re only proving my point. Earlier, I argued that there _must_ be channels through which the FAA could contact the military, and you argued that no, it takes a long time, official channels, blah blah blah. So now, you have PROVEN yourself wrong, and shown that the channels of communication existed, so there’s no excuse for the FAA not telling the military about Flight 93 right away. Well done. > [@](#): > > Remember that Delta 1989 was, in fact, NOT hijacked - and this is at 9:44. Yeah, some bad information was flowing with the good. This is from YOUR source and cite by the way. The evidence for 1989 was considerably weaker, but I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with them notifying NORAD about _both_ flights, and letting them decide what to do. If they wanted to send a fighter to intercept _both_ flights, that would have been perfectly reasonable. When they found out that 1989 _wasn’t_ hijacked, they could have simply recalled the fighter. > [@](#): > > Looks like they weren’t sure it was going to Washington, DC after all. Sure, why NOT Pittburgh? It’s a big city, it has skyscrapers… Which is why it’s a better strategy to _intercept_ the flight rather than try to guess where it’s heading (as you suggested was the military’s strategy in patrolling D.C.). > [@](#): > > OK, either we’ve got criminal negligence here OR everybody important has already left to room to do important things and it’s an ignorant flunky answering the phone. Given that the guy on the phone says “everybody just left the room” I’m opting for number 2. And you’re perfectly satisfied with that state of affairs, huh? > [@](#): > > Sounds like the big guys are doing their job. Maybe that’s why they left the room? Earlier, you blustered about how scrambling fighter is not the FAA’s job. Now you brag about how it IS their job. Total contradiction. > [@](#): > > _Your own source_ discredits your claim that no one was informed until _after_ 10:07! As I told you, it wasn’t MY claim; I was corrected about that on the first page of this thread. Please read the beginning of the thread. Your quote says **(After 9:56 - 10:06)**. Wouldn’t 10:07 be considered “after 10:06”? It’s not necessarily a contradiction. And besides that, if you succeed in proving that _the military_ were the ones who dragged their feet, how does that prove that nobody screwed up? It just means somebody _else_ screwed up. > [@](#): > > C’mon, man - Dick Cheney essentially asked a bunch of fighters to go a on a suicide mission to down Flight 93 - TWICE! _Before 10:07 am!_ I don’t see where it say “before 10:07 am”. Did you forget to quote that part? > [@](#): > > Is that acting quickly enough for you? No, it’s not. I would accept a 5 minute delay, or 10 minutes even, but not a half hour. Or even a half hour until the fighter _had already been launched and were waiting for the order whether to engage the airplane_. But not a half hour before they even _think about launching fighters_. > [@](#): > > Is that _enough_ for you, in the way of response? “Stop that plane even if you have to kill yourself to do it” - how much more would it take to make you _happy?_ Yet another strawman. My bone of contention is not about what orders were given to the pilots. In fact, it wouldn’t have helped anyway if the fighter pilots had died trying to bring the plane down. But in the future, there could conceivably be a situation where reacting quickly could mean the difference between a major tragedy and a minor one. The rest of your post is irrelevant. The problem in general, Broomstick, is that you aren’t really arguing a coherent idea. You’re just randomly selecting tidbits and nitpicking them to death. You don’t care at all if your arguments contradict each other, or are irrelevant to the point at hand. In short, you just argue for the sake of argument. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/92 "2004-12-16T21:22:58Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > Just thought I’d mention that \*\*broomstick \*\*and **blowero** ’s posts are the longest I have ever seen in a forum. Well, I’m open to suggestions. What should I do? His first post to me was this: > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## Quote: Originally Posted by blowero Surely the FAA could have found some way to share the information it had with the military. The whole nation knew that planes were being used as weapons that day, and many knew or should have known that Flight93 was hijacked by 9:35 at the latest. > > Do you think air traffic controllers watch CNN while on the job? Seriously? I made a perfectly cogent and reasonable point, and Broomstick responded with flippancy, and has proceeded to post extremely long-winded and specious attacks on everything I post. (BTW, he’s now come full-circle and said that the FAA _did_ share the information, even though he initial post was to lambaste _me_ for suggesting that they ought to have done so). Should I just ignore him, and not bother to defend what I said? ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/93 "2004-12-16T23:16:53Z")
I think you should continue the argument and see how long it takes to descend into a flame war. ---
**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:** [December 17, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/94 "2004-12-17T02:40:34Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > It’s meticulously cited. If you disagree with any of the assertions, by all means tell us why. A citatation alone does not prove something is truthful or valid - I could quote something off page 43 of the _Necromonicon_, that in no way makes the statement anything other than a fragment of a forgery or fiction. So yes, everything on that website has a cite - but again, I question just how accurate some of those sources are. Take eye-witness reports - they can be wildly unreliable. Yet all eye-witness reports on that website are given equal weight, even though some contradict others. Obviously, someone was mistaken! But who? > [@](#): > > Again, if you have issue with anything I’ve posted, by all means tell us why it’s invalid. I don’t trust your source - i.e. “[cooperativeresearch.org](http://cooperativeresearch.org)” I don’t trust them because they cite _everyone_ with no attempt to sort out the quality of the evidence and separate actual facts and occurances from the confusion evident on that day. I don’t trust them because many of their quotes are out of context. > [@](#): > > I didn’t _automatically_ assume it; I concluded it based on the evidence. Right - “evidence” from a website with questionable veracity and apparently no standards. They just dump everything on the table with no regards as to who might know more or less about events than someone else. > [@](#): > > No, that’s not what you did. You deliberately picked ancillary items on the timeline, and pretended as if the ancillary items were the only ones, even though there were _other_ items that made a more direct and compelling case. And how, pray tell, do you separate “ancillary” items from “non-ancillary” items on that timeline? How do they indicate that? The webpage does not have instructions or an interpretive legend - just dumping of quotes for the most part. Or is it what YOU decide is important which, as near as I can tell, is dependent mostly on whether or not those items support your personal stance or not? > [@](#): > > I said “Arguing with you is like trying to nail a turd to the wall.” That is not a personal insult. It’s an expression that indicates that your _arguments_ are slippery, and can’t be nailed down because you keep switching them. If you meant that you could have said something like “nailing _jello_ to the wall”, the use of the word “turd” makes it insulting, and you know it. I’m telling you now, I found it offensive. Is that plain enough for you? > [@](#): > > Did YOU? None of that negates what was known about Flight 93 at 9:34 am. If you have _proof_ that they were prevented from notifying the military about Flight 93, by all means post it. Excuse me? YOU’RE the one claiming “the military” didn’t know anything about that flight because the FAA “sat on the information”. The website you linked to shows that various levels of the military DID know about multiple hijackings and even Flight 93 before the 10:07 am time that you gave as their “notification”. _Your own source proves you wrong_. Accusing me of “hand waving” and “bait and switch” will not change that fact. > [@](#): > > I did not say the FAA didn’t talk to the military _at all_; I said they waited too long to tell them about Flight 93. Are you really this obtuse? Do you really have that much trouble reading the website _that you give as your source?_ > [@](#): > > Besides which, it’s hilarious how earlier your tack was to argue that the FAA is a civilian organization and they’re not _supposed_ to be able to contact the military right away and blah, blah blah. But now you’re arguing the exact opposite. Oh, please - more reading comprehension trouble. _I never said that the FAA COULDN’T contact the military_ Or that they’re “not supposed” to. They are not _required_ to contact the military every time a transponder fails or an airplane deviates from course. It is an OPTION, not a MANDATE. Note that that statement does NOT cover a _known hijacking_. And yes, you can have a transponder failure without a hijacking being responsible. > [@](#): > > How many times is this that you’ve offered the same specious argument after I shot it down. Five? Six? And your own source contradicts your argument! My argument is “specious” only because that fact - your source proves you wrong - won’t go away. > [@](#): > > Besides which, that would have been a stupid strategy - put all your eggs in one basket, guarding D.C., and not even send _one_ fighter to intercept the hijacked plane? That’s not what they did, and even if they did, it would have been stupid. Oh? You’re some sort of hot-shot military strategist? OK - you’re on. What would YOU have done that day? How would YOU have allocated limited resources? > [@](#): > > Everything has cites. You can follow the links and make your own determination. It’s actually a pretty good website. If it’s so awful, why can’t you tell us precisely _which_ sources are invalid? Why? Because you’re too lazy to make judgements on your own? You just absorb everything uncritically? But since you ask: _USAToday_ is _infamous_ in aviation circles for getting anything to do with aviation wrong. USAToday quotes are offered frequently. The _Guardian_, from what I have read of it on-line and from feedback offered by fellow Dopers, is more than somewhat a ragsheet more interested in headlines than actual factual news - sort of the FoxTV of British newspapers. That’s two sources right there I don’t trust. Some of the eye-witness testimony quoted I flat out don’t believe, which argument appears in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247324&highlight=Flight+crash+airplane+witness) which contains the input of professional airline pilots as well as myself, and more specifically in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4689412&postcount=29) which I did not feel like re-typing in its entirety. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4690085&postcount=35) is the response to that post by **Pilot141** , who flies big jets for a living. Note, too, that the arguments presented rely upon _multiple_ sources and not just a single website. > [@](#): > > Really? There is NO time that you would consider too long? So if they waited a week, that wouldn’t be too long in your mind? In the very next paragraph I told you what I thought was acceptable/not acceptable _for that day_. NOW I’d want something a little tighter, but I’d still be quite impressed if we could launch and intercept in under a half an hour. > [@](#): > > Wow! You switched arguments again. We weren’t talking about launch times at all. That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. No it’s not! If someone in a military plane was launched to chase Flight 93 before your 10:07 am claim then _somebody_ in the ATC network _must have_ talked to _somebody_ in the military! > [@](#): > > The evidence for 1989 was considerably weaker, but I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with them notifying NORAD about _both_ flights, and letting them decide what to do. If they wanted to send a fighter to intercept _both_ flights, that would have been perfectly reasonable. When they found out that 1989 _wasn’t_ hijacked, they could have simply recalled the fighter. Well, see, that’s one of my points - they DID send a fighter to intercept a flight they thought was hijacked, but that actually wasn’t. The military DID know about both flights. For whatever reason, they DID make a choice. Whether it was a good choice or a bad choice is another, separate question. Maybe it isn’t the decision YOU would make, but it is the one they did make. > [@](#): > > Which is why it’s a better strategy to _intercept_ the flight rather than try to guess where it’s heading (as you suggested was the military’s strategy in patrolling D.C.). Only if you can CATCH the airplane with the fighter craft - and that is NOT a sure thing! Airliners such as the 757 are _fast_ - hundreds of miles per hour. The chase plane has to be _even faster_. Which the planes they sent were. BUT - to go very fast you burn hellacious amounts of fuel, which severely limits the amount of time you can remain airborne, and aerial refueling during a crisis is of questionable sense. They have to go fast enough to catch the airliners, but still arive with enough fuel left to have time to actually DO something. > [@](#): > > And you’re perfectly satisfied with that state of affairs, huh? I am satisfied that, _given the situation on that morning,_ that was the best we could have done. I expect us to learn from what occurred - and didn’t occur - to improve our resopnse in the future. > [@](#): > > Earlier, you blustered about how scrambling fighter is not the FAA’s job. Now you brag about how it IS their job. Total contradiction. First of all, I didn’t _brag_ about anything. Second - it is true, it is NOT the FAA’s job to scramble/launch a fighter - they can _request_ it, but they do not, in fact, have the _authority_ to do it. I’m sorry if you can’t comprehend the difference between “request” and “order”. > [@](#): > > And besides that, if you succeed in proving that _the military_ were the ones who dragged their feet, how does that prove that nobody screwed up? It just means somebody _else_ screwed up. YOU claimed the FAA screwed up. I said that was by no means certain. Apparently, you are conceding that I am right - there is not certainty about who, or even IF, anyone “screwed up”. > [@](#): > > In fact, it wouldn’t have helped anyway if the fighter pilots had died trying to bring the plane down. It wouldn’t? You mean brave young men heroically sacrificing themselves to defend the country “wouldn’t have helped”? > [@](#): > > The rest of your post is irrelevant. Or you’re just getting tired. 😃 > [@](#): > > In short, you just argue for the sake of argument. Only when there’s nothing good on TV for entertainment 😃 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/95 "2004-12-17T21:53:36Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > A citatation alone does not prove something is truthful or valid - I could quote something off page 43 of the _Necromonicon_, that in no way makes the statement anything other than a fragment of a forgery or fiction. > > So yes, everything on that website has a cite - but again, I question just how accurate some of those sources are. Take eye-witness reports - they can be wildly unreliable. Yet all eye-witness reports on that website are given equal weight, even though some contradict others. Obviously, someone was mistaken! But who? You’re dismissing _all_ evidence out of hand because it’s _possible_ for some evidence to be unreliable. Sorry, you lose. That’s not how it works. If you are questioning a particular cite, you have to tell us specifically which ones. You can’t just say, “I reject everything posted by Blowero because sometimes evidence can be faulty.” You didn’t really think you were gonna get away with that one, did you? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Right - “evidence” from a website with questionable veracity and apparently no standards. They just dump everything on the table with no regards as to who might know more or less about events than someone else. I’m not citing “everything on the website”. I’m citing specific items that are taken directly from reliable media or government sources. > [@](#): > > And how, pray tell, do you separate “ancillary” items from “non-ancillary” items on that timeline? How do they indicate that? I’m not surprised that you don’t know the difference. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > If you meant that you could have said something like “nailing _jello_ to the wall”, the use of the word “turd” makes it insulting, and you know it. Personal insults are not allowed here. But as far as I know, vulgarity is not expressly forbidden. I am not aware of a rule against using the word “turd”. If the word itself offends you, too bad for you. Don’t read my posts. > [@](#): > > Excuse me? YOU’RE the one claiming “the military” didn’t know anything about that flight because the FAA “sat on the information”. The website you linked to shows that various levels of the military DID know about multiple hijackings and even Flight 93 before the 10:07 am time that you gave as their “notification”. _Your own source proves you wrong_. Accusing me of “hand waving” and “bait and switch” will not change that fact. Not only is this false, it has nothing to do with your incorrect assertion that “other flights” prevented the FAA from acting on Flight 93. Just more misdirection on your part. > [@](#): > > Do you really have that much trouble reading the website _that you give as your source?_ Non-sequitur; ad hominem. > [@](#): > > Oh, please - more reading comprehension trouble. _I never said that the FAA COULDN’T contact the military_ Or that they’re “not supposed” to. They are not _required_ to contact the military every time a transponder fails or an airplane deviates from course. It is an OPTION, not a MANDATE. Note that that statement does NOT cover a _known hijacking_. And yes, you can have a transponder failure without a hijacking being responsible. Of course you did. You can’t even remember what your previous line of reasoning was. And failed transponders have absolutely nothing to do with it. Ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Oh? You’re some sort of hot-shot military strategist? ad hominem. > [@](#): > > OK - you’re on. What would YOU have done that day? How would YOU have allocated limited resources? Asked and answered. > [@](#): > > Why? Because you’re too lazy to make judgements on your own? ad hominem. > [@](#): > > Some of the eye-witness testimony quoted I flat out don’t believe, which argument appears in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247324&highlight=Flight+crash+airplane+witness) which contains the input of professional airline pilots as well as myself, and more specifically in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4689412&postcount=29) which I did not feel like re-typing in its entirety. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4690085&postcount=35) is the response to that post by **Pilot141** , who flies big jets for a living. Note, too, that the arguments presented rely upon _multiple_ sources and not just a single website. My arguments in this thread do not hinge on any eyewitness testimony. So now you’re going to attack arguments from completely different threads? How utterly lame. > [@](#): > > No it’s not! If someone in a military plane was launched to chase Flight 93 before your 10:07 am claim then _somebody_ in the ATC network _must have_ talked to _somebody_ in the military! You haven’t demonstrated that that happened. > [@](#): > > Well, see, that’s one of my points - they DID send a fighter to intercept a flight they thought was hijacked, but that actually wasn’t. No cite for that, huh? > [@](#): > > The military DID know about both flights. For whatever reason, they DID make a choice. Whether it was a good choice or a bad choice is another, separate question. Maybe it isn’t the decision YOU would make, but it is the one they did make. This doesn’t follow the line of discussion at all. I’m not questioning the _choices made by the military_. Are you misdirecting on purpose, or are you just unable to follow a train of thought? > [@](#): > > Only if you can CATCH the airplane with the fighter craft - and that is NOT a sure thing! _Nothing_ is a sure thing. What’s your point? That nothing should be done? > [@](#): > > First of all, I didn’t _brag_ about anything. Second - it is true, it is NOT the FAA’s job to scramble/launch a fighter - they can _request_ it, but they do not, in fact, have the _authority_ to do it. I’m sorry if you can’t comprehend the difference between “request” and “order”. This is just blatant backpedalling. > [@](#): > > It wouldn’t? You mean brave young men heroically sacrificing themselves to defend the country “wouldn’t have helped”? _Appeal to emotion_. What a pathetic argument. > [@](#): > > Or you’re just getting tired. 😃 Yeah, tired of _you_. Goodbye. ---
**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:** [December 18, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/96 "2004-12-18T02:08:26Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You’re dismissing _all_ evidence out of hand because it’s _possible_ for some evidence to be unreliable. Sorry, you lose. That’s not how it works. If you are questioning a particular cite, you have to tell us specifically which ones. You can’t just say, “I reject everything posted by Blowero because sometimes evidence can be faulty.” No, I am not dismissing “all” evidence. I do state that I _do not trust_ anything \*USAToday \* publishes about anything to do with flying. You asked me which sources I found unreliable. I gave you two. So - _specifically_ I question all items with origins of either \*USAToday \* or the _Guardian_ unless confirmed by at least one other source with more credibility. > [@](#): > > I’m not citing “everything on the website”. I’m citing specific items that are taken directly from reliable media or government sources. _USAToday_ is NOT a reliable media source in regards to aviation. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Oh? You’re some sort of hot-shot military strategist? > > ad hominem. No, seriously - on what basis are you making these judgements? Do you have any experience with the military? With aviation? Anti-terrorism activities? Do you have credentials or do you consider yourself a self-educated layman on this topic? > [@](#): > > Yeah, tired of _you_. Goodbye. You are free to leave this thread at any time. You are so intent in your hunt for a scapegoat, and you are so convinced that scapegoat is the FAA, that you won’t even consider alternative possibilities. Yet you won’t even hazard a guess at the NAME or the POSITION of the party(s) at the FAA who slacked off - when I did ask you for that you gave me a PLACE. So I ask again - if you think someone at the FAA screwed up, slacked off, or what have you WHO do you think did that? ---
**Author:** ![Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aeb1de/32.png) [@Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kel_Varnsen_Latex_Division)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/97 "2004-12-18T02:35:12Z")
Did we at least answer the OP and conclude the plane was not shot down by the government? ---
**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:** [December 18, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/98 "2004-12-18T22:14:01Z")
I would say the consensus would seem to be the US government did NOT shoot down Flight 93. ---
**Author:** ![jsleek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8dc957/32.png) [@jsleek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsleek)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/99 "2004-12-21T03:20:08Z")
This has been pretty well hammered, but I have a question for Broomstick for which I pre-aplogize if it looks like a hijack. Why did 4 out of 4 pilots give up their planes? Was there an FAA rule that when a passenger gets grumpy enough, the pilot should open the door? Did 100% of the pilots think they could handle an unknown number of thugs? ---
**Author:** ![Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aeb1de/32.png) [@Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kel_Varnsen_Latex_Division)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039/100 "2004-12-22T00:30:26Z")
> [@jsleek](#): > > This has been pretty well hammered, but I have a question for Broomstick for which I pre-aplogize if it looks like a hijack. > > Why did 4 out of 4 pilots give up their planes? Was there an FAA rule that when a passenger gets grumpy enough, the pilot should open the door? Did 100% of the pilots think they could handle an unknown number of thugs? From the report: > [@](#): > > We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit; FAA rules required that the doors remain closed and locked during flight. Ong speculated that they had “jammed their way” in. Perhaps the terrorists stabbed the flight attendants to get a cockpit key, to force one of them to open the cockpit door, or to lure the captain or first officer out of the cockpit. Or the flight attendants may just have been in their way.26 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sept-11th-4th-plane/279039.md?page=6)