Who ordered Jets to be scrambled on 10-11-06?

I'm trying to find an answer to the following questions. . .

Who ordered jets from Otis AFB to be scrambled yesterday after a small plane hit an apartment building in NYC?

Was it NORAD?

Was the president called & he gave the order?

Why were they scrambled so fast when right out of the box the Office of Homeland Security knew it wasn't a terrorist act?

Why were they scrambled at all?

Why is it everytime a small plane has a problem we seem to expediciously get jets in the air, ( remember Payne Stewart? ), without a hitch, but when commercial airliners are being hijacked & shutting their transponders off we seem to have a long list of fumbling & excuses as to why it didn't happen?

Can someone please help me with this?

This wasn't rigged, 9/11 was. SOrry, I don't believe a bunch of third world Arabs could plan and execute the worst attack in American History by an outside force. They had help or are innocent, but I think it is just they had help, after all OBL is a CIA agent who was trained and put in power by the CIA/Bush41.

But as said, this wasn't rigged so they had no idea what was going on. If this was rigged like 9/11 we would of had reports like "We had no idea it was anything more then an accident". About ten minutes after six more planes crash into buildings.

The officer in charge at Norad saw the situation develop, and out of an abundance of caution decided to scramble. That was reported on all the major networks. as for the payne stewart situation, there was a lot of time to intercept and assess the situation.....the trouble was discovered somewhere in north florida and the plane was intercepted in the midwest (the second time...the first was a test pilot who was asked to investigate), later crashing in aberdeen, sd. comparing this to 9/11 is like comparing apples to oranges.

source

Scrambling the jets is standard practice especially when there is a situation like the one we had the other day witht he plane hitting a building here in NYC.

The reason the planes were not sent after the airliners on 9/11 is because NORAD was running a drill that dealt with the same exact scenario on the morning of 9/11. WHen the reports came in they had no idea if it was real or a training exercise until the planes hit the WTC. Planes were scrambled on 9/11 but ordered to hold over the ocean until it was too late.

The chance of the training exercise coinciding with the actual event is 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It's SOP under the new security guidelines. It was covered in every news story I saw in the later part of that day. Do a search and I'm sure you'll find it mentioned in many stories. Tragic accident and nothing more. Anyone trying to paint this as anything else looses all credibility.

same with the london bombings. they were running a drill that dealt with the same exact scenario at the exact same time.






[edit on 12-10-2006 by Funkydung]

I've seen many articles. Some say, authorities, NORAD, Pentagon, etc. That's why I was asking if anyone knew specifically who gave the order.

I totally agree that this was a tragic accident and nothing more. I'm not trying to claim that it was a conspiracy. My point is that why didn't swift action take place like this when the flights on 911 we dissappearing from radar screens, and they even heard from the flight 93 cockpit that it had been hijacked.

They wouldn't even say how many cities they provided air cover for, (yesterday). I just find it hard to believe they can be so swift & thorough for an incident they knew was not terror related, and so inept during a major terrorist plot.

Don't worry Blaine, I'm not saying yesterday was a conspiracy. Just puzzled by the total opposite reactions to the two situations. One required swift intervention and got none, and the other didn't require anything & got a robust response.

BTW- Has the SOP changed from what it was on 911? I'm sure it probably has via recommendations made in the 911 Commission report. . .

spelling

[edit on 12-10-2006 by 2PacSade]

added remark

[edit on 12-10-2006 by 2PacSade]

Really? Would you mind providing the math you used to arrive at that probibility?

It was Adm. Timothy Keating who ordered the jets to start flying patrols. The patrols were ordered about 10 minutes after the plane hit, and it was about 30 minutes after the plane hit that it was known it wasn't a terrorist attack. Even so, the planes continued to fly, probably to help folks feel safer, an opiate for the masses. It probably also served as a training drill after it was realized this wasn't a terrorist attack.

1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...I can't wait to see the math...

Ah yes thanx JJ. I found it here.



It's too bad we couldn't have been this ready on 911. . . Thanx again JJ. 2PacSade-

I asked myself the exact same thing.
How can jets be scrambled so quickly over majorcities NATION wide after a small cesna like craft hit an apartment..

yet.. boeings cna be hijacked, slammed into buildings.. and we fail to get anything going.

As far as I know it is actually a combination of many parties. Assessments are made and phone conferences happen betwixt NORAD and the Pentagon, jets scramble. I am not sure, but I think that the Secdef makes the decision, does this sound correct.

I think in 2001 it was as simple as, who has the authority to shoot down civilian aircraft. Sept 11, had to be a pretty confusing situation.

my 2cents

you're comparing pre-9/11 procedures with post-9/11 procedures...apples to oranges. before 9/11, we just plain werent prepared for that kind of attack. terrorists hijacked aircraft to make a statement or to be flown to cuba...not to fly the planes into buildings. now we are prepared, and have a tendency to over-react to an incident like this because of the lessons we learned that day.

I'm pretty sure that a hijacking/slamming into buildings attack had been considered DECADES before the attack of 9/11. Do a search on ATS or Google. I think you are giving the benefit of the doubt to a group of people who deserve nothing of the sort.

could we make the distinction between a NORAD drill on 9/11 and an in company training exercise run by a Private contractor - that co-incidentaly identified the Tube infrastructure in London as a potential terrorist target. The identification of the Tube as a target wasnt actually that much of a reach either - the IRA had created security alerts on the Tube during the 1980s and had detonated devices at mainline stations as well (Victoria being one - I was there coincidentaly returning from Northern Ireland that morning) In addition the Docklands Light Railway in Canary Wharf was also used as a direct target.

Norad.

The only ones I've seen have been NORAD. The pentagon ultimately runs NORAD, and the Pentagon and Norad are Authorities. So there might be confusion as to who ordered it, some reporters make take NORAD action to imply a Pentagon order.


Why not? They didn't know it wasn't a terrorist attack, they didn't even know if it was a plane or a helicopter.


In case it was an attack and there were more planes ready to crash out of the sky.
It has happened before, in case you've forgotten.


We have jets being scrambled quickly now because of 911. On 911, there was simply no recognition that this sort of thing would happen. After 911, we're jumpy, and figure, anytime there is a problem, send up the jets, we're not going to regret sending them up and having it be pointless, we will regret not sending them and having it be an attack.

This is different. They had a report of a plane hitting a NYC building. On 911, they got murky reports of planes that were off course.

Who heard that? Norad?
What difference would it make? Before 911, when a plane was hijacked, it was some nut wanting to protest his governments actions, or seeking to have it land in some other country. You didn't scramble jets and shoot down the hostages. They'd've thought it was a hostage situation, not that these morons were going to crash the jets into buildings.

They why think that its significant that there is a difference in the response?
Also, why assume any changes were made because of the 911 Commission? After 911, the Pentagon would've ordered them to scramble jets and be ready to shoot down anything that was a potential problem flying around in US airspace.


And you can bet that IF a muslim terror group hijacked a jetliner today and said 'we are hijacking this plane and want it to land at such and such airport', and we shot it down, people'd be screaming for the pentagon's head.

sure, it was considered. but then again, a war with every country on the earth has been considered, and even had contingency plans drawn up for it. what i am saying is that it wasnt standard operating procedure for terrorists (in fact it had never been done), and US policy has a tendency to be a knee jerk reaction kind of thing....once something like 9/11 happens, then we actually put a real world plan in place to keep it from happening again. we werent prepared for a 9/11 type incident before it happened, but now we are....and that is why you saw the extreme over-reaction in the scrambling of fighters for this incident. hope that makes a little more sense to you.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by snafu7700]