Why no jets launched against hijacked planes on 9/11?

Here is an article I stumbled across the other day, that raises some very though provoking points about the events surrounding that terrible day:


The article makes some pretty provacative points, with the overall aim of proving that the war against terrorism is a big sham, and that the real reasons for the reactions on 9/11, and since have had much more sinister and cynical motives. If even half of the stuff suggested in this article is true, then the world really is turining into a far too scary place. However, that’s not really what I want to discuss here. Dismiss the rest of the article as leftie lies, lies and damned lies if you will, but I find the writer’s claim that NO fighter planes were launched to intercept the hijacked planes AT ANY TIME, despite that being standard procedure, truly mind boggling:

If this is true (that being my first question- anyone know anything that contradicts this report?) I find the implications very sinister and scary indeed.

Check out the following links:


  • check out ‘section 1: Airforce Standdown’

and check out:


  • Page down to the ‘Response to the 9/11 Hijackings’ section. This site is wonderfully referenced with major media sources. Their main page has tons of information about 9/11 as a whole, specifically the most thorough and referenced timeline I’ve ever seen.

I personally believe 100% that the bush administration allowed the attacks to occur as a means of getting public support for their aims of conquering the world and reshaping it in america’s image (see PNAC).

For what its worth though … I have found one article refuting the Meacher story presented in the OP link.


The times don’t seem to match up to the cooperativeresearch.org report, and no sources are given for the numbers this writer throws around, so I am inclined to side with cooperative research.

O.K, it’s official, I’m never sleeping again, ever. But, let’s be really clear what we’re saying here- that senior members of the Bush administration, including GWB himself, knew about the planned attacks in advance???

Just because it fitted in with their policy of global domination for the U.S, a reliable source of oil and a nice payday for all their big business buddies- they knowingly sacrificed thousands of their own countrymen? This would rate as one of the most evil acts ever, right? ( not that it deosn’t anyway of course)

So, my sanity remains intact, at least for the time being, because surely if there was any truth to these stories, Bush would be standing trial right now, wouldn’t he? Well, wouldn’t he?. Somebody managed to get Clinton to stand trial for telling a few white lies about a few sexual indiscretions, so surely somebody could make this stick, if there’s as much evidence as some people suggest.

And, assuming that they really are so absolutely evil as to do this, how did they possible manage to get so many people to collude with them? And how did they possibly think that they could get away with it? Didn’t they think that people would notice that no jets were sent to intercept the planes, or that Bush stayed in the school even after it was clear that it was a terrorist attack? This just CANNOT be true, can it?

No, it can’t, for all the reasons you mentioned.

That and the fact that there’s absolutely no evidence, just innuendo and random ramblings. No one knew what was going on, they hadn’t contemplated actions that would require ordering jets into the air to fire on commercial airliners on US soil. It was an unprecedented event, and the reactions were understandably slow.


There were jets in the air, but they did nothing for the reasons Telemark mentions. ~20 min. is not a lot of time to make the decision to have military jets shoot down unarmed civilian aircraft.

Make sure the foil is wraped tightly. :smiley:

Did you guys take your thorazine today? Are you donning your tinfoil hats?

If you’re going to say that President Bush allowed this to happen, you’d better have some real proof. REAL proof. Because that would be accusing the sitting President of the United States of treason, and believe me, you REALLY don’t want to do that.

Airman…You being in the military…you tell us then why they weren’t intercepted.

Don’t just spout off about treason.

As much as I dislike the Bush administration, I honestly can’t believe that the man would be *evil, * enough to do something like that. I don’t necessarily attribute the discrepancies and inaction to any sinister motives.

In my opinion, Spetember 11th was just a major series of screw-ups, made by many different people. We simply weren’t prepared for something like this. Utter confusion reigned. People were afraid to act without orders, and the superiors were afraid to give any.

Indicitive of this, I think, is the fact that the Secret Service didn’t immediately move to protect the President. As soon as the words, “Mr. President, the country is under attack,” were whispered in his ear, the President should have been moved to a secure location.

It wouldn’t have been all that difficult for a terrorist to find out where the President was due to be on that morning, and there’s an airport very near the school in which Bush was reading to children. For a long while, the FAA didn’t know which planes were missing, and it could have been that one of them was sent to kill the President.

The Secret Service should not take any chances. As dissapointed as the children would have been, the Servicemen should have moved the President at the first inkling of danger.

But, they didn’t. A conspiracy theorist might think that he was not moved because the Secret Service already knew there was no danger. I don’t agree. I see this as a terrible breach of security-- inexcusably careless on their part, but I don’t think that the Service was in on any plot. They just screwed up.

I don’t think there was a conspiracy. I think it was something we weren’t prepared for, and some people didn’t respond as retrospect tells us they should. I don’t judge them too harshly. It was a tough situation.

I hadn’t even gone to BMT yet.

Nonetheless, even I can see that accusing the President of not only allowing the deaths of 3,000+ citizens but welcoming it is an accusation of treason.

But, if you must have my opinion, do you have any idea how long it takes an airplane to take off? Even expediting the checklists and cutting everything but the absolutely essential for safety items, it takes at least ten minutes for airplanes that aren’t on alert, and only slightly less for those that are. Then it takes time to get to the intercept area, because while our fighters are fast, they don’t have Ludicrous Speed. And then what? You put your thumb up your butt while your superiors decide whether to kill another couple hundred people on the chance that they’re going to fly into a skyscraper? Get real. And, of course, everyone was expecting it to happen, so the Air Force was flying patrols all around New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. :rolleyes: And even if they DID shoot those planes down, you have to remember that they were fully fueled, and wouls have caused widespread damage when they blew up and rained down upon what would almost certainly have been heavily populated areas. Dude, they had a better chance of stopping Tim McVeigh than they did on 9/11.

The whole situation defied rational understanding. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if everyone still alive in the Pentagon in addition to everyone on Air Force One just stared at each other slack-jawed in disbelief. I know that’s what I did at work that day.

I think treason isnt as bad as letting people get killed to get your buddies rich…

Bush could have let them hit only one tower thou... I doubt they did let them thou. 

(As for Roosvelt and pearl harbour… it wasnt that far fetched his letting it happen… actually a good decision at the time.)

Jeeze, This is pretty far out there, even by tinfoil hat standards.

Life is not a Schwarzenegger movie. You just don’t shoot down an airliner full of people. That is something that has to come from the top and that person needs some REAL information to work with. Prior to 9/11, it was inceivable that the millitary would be put in such a position.

When the order to land all aircraft went out I can tell you first hand it was dealt with swiflty by the military. 4 aircraft were launched from my area and they all broke the sound barrier while accelerating to intercept. You had to have DOD authorization to be airborn and controllers were quick to challenge you.

The plan was brilliant because it took no real training, cost nothing, and hinged on previous expectations that hijacked aircraft were simply taken to another location.

Airman Dorksky, Bush is the sitting Resident, not a sitting President, and he is guilty of treason and a whole bunch of other crimes. If you had any brains, it would be obvious to you.

Not sure but wasn’t Rumsfeld present in his pentagon office when the plane struck?

If so that would be the biggest argument against the administration being in the know, I would think.

I have a friend whose cousin (US Navy; I’m afraid I don’t know unit or rank) was in the Pentagon on September 11. His account of the situation was basically what you suggest: they were pretty much standing around watching the news out of New York in disbelief, just starting to wonder if they might be a target too, when the building was hit.

Yes, he was.

Darned tootin’.

Moderator’s Note: Direct personal insults are not allowed in Great Debates.

And the rest of y’all watch it with the “tinfoil hats” and “thorazine” cracks, too.

Why not? As long as he does it here in the SDMB… We talk about possibilites here, I guess hanza will not file a law suit tomorrow.

Or does it disturb you because it is unpatriotic to accuse the president in a message board?

I think there’s a bit of hysteria on both sides of this argument.

Alas, Meacher’s accusation isn’t quite in the realms of tinfoil hattery. There is precedent, in the 1960s (or '50s?), for a conspiracy of senior military figures to plan various acts of terrorism, against US citizens, on the contiguous 48 states, l to foment the necessity for a land invasion of Cuba. Can’t find the link at the mo, but it’s been verified and discussed on these boards. The plans were turned down by the political administration (Kennedy, as I recall).

I don’t think Meacher is mental, but I do think he’s been badly misinformed. It is an outrageous accusation that Bush “allowed” 9-11 to happen, especially with Rummy at the Pentagon.

However, there is something he said that I’d like clarified:

What is the truth behind this? I gather there were actually planes in the air about 20 minutes after the first WTC strike, contrary to Meacher’s assertions. But were there 67 prior occasions? How did they differ from 9-11?

Airman, it’s occurred to me that you probably know a lot more people who were in the Pentagon on September 11 than I do, and from your post it looks like you may have been there that day yourself, so I hope my post wasn’t just a statement of the obvious. Actually, I really hope my post didn’t come off as condescending or anything like that, because I really didn’t mean it to be. Sorry about that.

This is what I get for posting at three in the morning. I’m going to bed now, I swear.