Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??

reply to post by ULTIMA1

1. Why do we have the transcripts of the hijackers trying to use the intercoom to keep the passengers quite and at bay?

Like I said, it was a high pressure situation, plus they may not have been very familiar with those controls.

4. I already stated that they were supposed to follow the hijackers , BUT not turn over control of the plane.

Yes, you did state that but you didn't say that was the pre-9/11 policy by all airlines as outlined by protocol for hijackings. Can you please show me the exact wording for hijacking protocols pre-9/11? Thanks.

5. And your making it sound like the hijackers were superhuman and could do anything. They could break into a cockpit and attack the pilots so fast the pilots could not call or signal for help.

No, I'm just saying that there were more hijackers then pilots. Have you ever needed to kick in a door? It takes 1 second.

Do you actually think the pilots would just give up the plane with a fight or trying to get off a call or signal.

I don't know, did they?

Originally posted by jfj123
Like I said, it was a high pressure situation, plus they may not have been very familiar with those controls.

Yes, you did state that but you didn't say that was the pre-9/11 policy by all airlines as outlined by protocol for hijackings. Can you please show me the exact wording for hijacking protocols pre-9/11? Thanks.

No, I'm just saying that there were more hijackers then pilots. Have you ever needed to kick in a door? It takes 1 second.

I don't know, did they?

1. If the pilots were supposedily so weell trained (according to the official story) that they knew how to use the transponder and the autopilot but not the radio or intercoom, seems a little strange.

2. Please check out the follwoing FAA reguelations.
irvingshapiro.tripod.com...

3. How were their more hijackers then pilots in the cockpit? According the official stories i have seen only 2 hijackjers went into the cockpits (only 1 hadany training as a pilot in each group). The other hijackers took the passnegers to the back of the plane and kept them out of the front with mace or pepper spray.


More abot FAA and NORAD.

www.9-11commission.gov...

The FAA and NORAD

On 9/11 the defense of U.S. air space depended on close interaction between two federal
agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
The last hijacking that involved U.S. air traffic controllers, FAA management, and
military coordination, had occurred in 1993. In order to understand how the two agencies
interacted eight years later, we will review their missions, command-and-control
structures, and working relationship on the morning of 9/11.

FAA Mission and Structure

As of September 11, 2001, the FAA was mandated by law to regulate the safety and
security of civil aviation. From an air traffic controller’s perspective, that meant


maintaining a safe distance between airborne aircraft.

Many controllers work at the FAA’s 22 Air Route Traffic Control Centers. These
Centers are grouped under regional offices and coordinate closely with the national Air
Traffic Control System Command Center, commonly referred to as the “Command
Center,” which oversees daily traffic flow within the entire airspace system. That
Command Center is located in Herndon, Virginia. Regional offices report to FAA
headquarters in Washington, DC. FAA headquarters is ultimately responsible for the
management of the National Airspace System. An Operations Center located at FAA
headquarters receives notifications of incidents, including accidents and hijackings.

FAA Centers often receive information and make operational decisions independent of
one another. On 9/11, the four hijacked aircraft were monitored mainly by four of these
FAA Air Route Traffic Control Centers, based in Boston, New York, Cleveland, and
Indianapolis. Each Center thus had part of the knowledge of what was going on across
the system. But it is important to remember that what Boston Center knew was not
necessarily known by the Centers in New York, Cleveland, or Indianapolis.

Controllers track airliners like the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 primarily by watching
the data from a signal emitted by the aircraft’s transponder equipment. The four aircraft
hijacked on 9/11, like all aircraft traveling above 10,000 feet, were required to emit a
unique transponder signal while in flight.

On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft.
With the transponder turned off, it may be possible, although more difficult, to track an
aircraft by its primary radar returns. A primary radar return occurs when the signal sent
from a radar site bounces off an object in the sky and indicates the presence of that
object. But primary radar returns do not include the transponder data, which show the
aircraft’s identity and altitude. Controllers at Centers rely on transponder signals and
usually do not display primary radar returns on their scopes. But they can change the
configuration of their radar scopes so they can see primary radar returns. In fact, the
controllers did just that on 9/11 when the transponders were turned off in three of the four
hijacked aircraft. Tower or terminal approach controllers handle a wider variety of
lower-flying aircraft; they often use primary radar returns as well as transponder signals.

NORAD Mission and Structure

NORAD was, and is, responsible for the air defense of the continental United States. The
threat of Soviet bombers diminished significantly after the end of the Cold War, and the
number of NORAD alert sites was reduced. On 9/11 there were only seven left in the
United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert.

All the hijacked aircraft were in one of NORAD’s Continental U.S. sectors, the Northeast
Air Defense Sector (also known as NEADS). NEADS is based in Rome, New York. On
9/11, it could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters. These were the


Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in
Langley, Virginia.

NEADS reported to the Continental Region headquarters in Florida, which reported to
NORAD headquarters, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Most FAA centers had a civilian employee to coordinate with NORAD, for situations like
training exercises. The agencies had also developed protocols for working together in the
event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain
military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at
the highest levels of government.

FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would
notify the controller of the hijack via radio communication or by “squawking” a
transponder code of “7500”—the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers
would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to
FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters had a “hijack coordinator” who was the
Director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security.

If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact
the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military
“escort aircraft” to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in
the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If there was approval, the orders
would be transmitted down NORAD’s chain of command and direct the sector to launch
a fighter escort.

The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would
be discreet, “vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,”
where it could perform its mission to monitor the flight path of the aircraft.

In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking
presumed that:

(1) the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to
disappear;
(2) there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and
NORAD chains of command; and
(3) the hijacking would take the traditional form, not a suicide hijacking designed to
convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was
about to happen. What ensued was the hurried attempt to create an improvised defense


by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced.

Staff Statement No. 4 offered an initial summary of what took place on the four flights.
What we will do now is review how people on the ground comprehended what was
happening to each flight. So, for each flight, we will first describe what the FAA
understood, and then how the military was notified and responded.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


It's true that turning off the transponder won't make a plane invisible to radar, but, when looking at a screen full of blips, and not knowing which one is the right blip, it can cause some confusion. It can be especially confusing if you don't know the intentions of the planes till you see smoke from the WTC towers. The takeaway message from 9/11 was that we hadn't adequately prepared for this sort of contingency, as it wasn't a tactic that had been used before. When you add a lack of SOPs for this sort of situation, confusion/lack of situational awareness, ROE issues, lack of available alert birds, short reaction times, it all compounds the problem of prevention.

As for how hijackers got into the cockpit- prior to the post 9/11 security upgrades to the cockpit doors, they weren't exactly designed to stop a determined group of individuals from breaking through. Suffice it to say, they did get through whether by trickery or brute force.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The takeaway message from 9/11 was that we hadn't adequately prepared for this sort of contingency, as it wasn't a tactic that had been used before.

Well the problem is we should have been prepared. Beside the fact that we had lots of warnings, the FAA and NORAD do have plenty of SOPs for hijacked aircraft. The aircraft should not have been flying around that long without escort.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The takeaway message from 9/11 was that we hadn't adequately prepared for this sort of contingency, as it wasn't a tactic that had been used before.

Well the problem is we should have been prepared. Beside the fact that we had lots of warnings, the FAA and NORAD do have plenty of SOPs for hijacked aircraft. The aircraft should not have been flying around that long without escort.

Yes, you're right! We should have been prepared and should have listened but unfortunately when it comes right down to it, I don't think people really believed it could happen so they didn't act.

This has never happened anywhere in the world, to my knowledge, so I can realistically see how bunches of balls could have been dropped and bounced about. It's easy to say just follow SOP but when the situation is thrown in your face, SOP sometimes means SNAFU, FUBAR or SOL

Originally posted by jfj123 Yes, you're right! We should have been prepared and should have listened but unfortunately when it comes right down to it, I don't think people really believed it could happen so they didn't act.

Yes but normal SOPs cover hijackings and this was the main part of what happend on 9/11.

And if the agencies involved dropped the ball that much someone should have been fired and they were not.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And if the agencies involved dropped the ball that much someone should have been fired and they were not.

I'll agree with this. If we got caught with our pants down, where are the firings? If my blunder killed 3,000 + people, I know I'd get fired. Instead almost every single person who blundered that day has been promoted. Doesn't that in itself seem a little strange?

But, we are the ones who get laughed at for questioning. Go figure.

[edit on 10/15/2007 by Griff]

For those who have questions about the WTC's steel support beams, I just wanted to pass along some information.



Now some people say that steel would not have been damaged from the fires in the WTC's. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. That temperature falls within the 1400 degrees mentioned above.

Just thought I would throw another perspective in the ring.

reply to post by jfj123



That report is erroneous at best and disinfo at worst. The steel in the underpass never melted. In fact, they are re-using the steel to repair the damage. If the steel melted or even lost it's strength (once past the elastic strain, it doesn't come back to full strength), there'd be no way in hell they could re-use it.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now some people say that steel would not have been damaged from the fires in the WTC's. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. That temperature falls within the 1400 degrees mentioned above.

Just thought I would throw another perspective in the ring.

Well its hard to compare the 2. A lot of things different, like most of the jet fuel being burned off in the intial explosion and the rest burning off quickly.

Jet fuel burns hot but it burns off fast.

The fuel was spread around in isolated areas not all of the fuel was in 1 spot.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 Yes, you're right! We should have been prepared and should have listened but unfortunately when it comes right down to it, I don't think people really believed it could happen so they didn't act.

Yes but normal SOPs cover hijackings and this was the main part of what happend on 9/11.

And if the agencies involved dropped the ball that much someone should have been fired and they were not.

People drop the ball all the time. Incompetence in DC is at an all time high.
Why weren't people fired? Well why wasn't Rumsfeld fired? Why wasn't Alberto R. Gonzales fired? Why wasn't Micheal Brown fired from FEMA, ETC, ETC, ETC,
Because there's an old boys network.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Now some people say that steel would not have been damaged from the fires in the WTC's. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. That temperature falls within the 1400 degrees mentioned above.

Just thought I would throw another perspective in the ring.

Well its hard to compare the 2. A lot of things different, like most of the jet fuel being burned off in the intial explosion and the rest burning off quickly.

Jet fuel burns hot but it burns off fast.

The fuel was spread around in isolated areas not all of the fuel was in 1 spot.

I know it's not a perfect comparison but it does show the temperature ranges to be reasonable for heat damage to supports in the WTC.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123

 

That report is erroneous at best and disinfo at worst. The steel in the underpass never melted. In fact, they are re-using the steel to repair the damage. If the steel melted or even lost it's strength (once past the elastic strain, it doesn't come back to full strength), there'd be no way in hell they could re-use it.

Sorry, not sure what you're talking about. Which report do you believe to be erroneous? Which steel are they using to repair what?

Originally posted by jfj123
People drop the ball all the time. Incompetence in DC is at an all time high.
Why weren't people fired? Well why wasn't Rumsfeld fired? Why wasn't Alberto R. Gonzales fired? Why wasn't Micheal Brown fired from FEMA, ETC, ETC, ETC,
Because there's an old boys network.

Yes, but an agency like NORAD does not just drop the ball. They protect lives and they study and have exercises all the time to keep sharp.

Well Micheal Brown was fired, but that was a no brainer.





[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry, not sure what you're talking about. Which report do you believe to be erroneous?

The reporter who wrote that article has no idea what they are talking about.

Which steel are they using to repair what?

I believe they are re-using the steel girders. I could be wrong, I can't find anything at the moment but someone posted where they were re-using it with a source. That's why the contractor is making a killing because it's not going to take as long as thought (back when they thought the steel melted).

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
People drop the ball all the time. Incompetence in DC is at an all time high.
Why weren't people fired? Well why wasn't Rumsfeld fired? Why wasn't Alberto R. Gonzales fired? Why wasn't Micheal Brown fired from FEMA, ETC, ETC, ETC,
Because there's an old boys network.

Yes, but an agency like NORAD does not just drop the ball. They protect lives and they study and have exercises all the time to keep sharp.

Well Micheal Brown was fired, but that was a no brainer.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Micheal Brown was appointed in January, 2003 by President George W. Bush and resigned in September, 2005. Not fired.

NORAD isn't all knowing and all seeing. They F'ed up. It happens to everyone. You can have training exercises all day every day but it's just not the same as the real thing. Just ask any soldier who goes into combat for the first time.

Originally posted by jfj123
NORAD isn't all knowing and all seeing. They F'ed up. It happens to everyone. You can have training exercises all day every day but it's just not the same as the real thing. Just ask any soldier who goes into combat for the first time.

So, if a parking garage that I have inspected fails when I say it's ok, can I claim I F'ed up? I doubt it. Why can they? Because it's a good ole boys club?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry, not sure what you're talking about. Which report do you believe to be erroneous?

The reporter who wrote that article has no idea what they are talking about.

Which steel are they using to repair what?

I believe they are re-using the steel girders. I could be wrong, I can't find anything at the moment but someone posted where they were re-using it with a source. That's why the contractor is making a killing because it's not going to take as long as thought (back when they thought the steel melted).

Well I checked with 5 different online sources, heard it on the radio today and saw it on FOX news this morning. All described exploded concrete and melted steel from the heat. In addition, a few sources mentioned the highway's asphalt shoulders resembled a solidified lava flow.. They did not specify what type of steel had melted though.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
NORAD isn't all knowing and all seeing. They F'ed up. It happens to everyone. You can have training exercises all day every day but it's just not the same as the real thing. Just ask any soldier who goes into combat for the first time.

So, if a parking garage that I have inspected fails when I say it's ok, can I claim I F'ed up? I doubt it. Why can they? Because it's a good ole boys club?

Should it happen? NO of course not.
Does it happen? YES all the time UNFORTUNATELY.

Regarding your parking garage analogy, I have seen large building contractors F up and charge the clients to do the repairs.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

It's true that turning off the transponder won't make a plane invisible to radar, but, when looking at a screen full of blips, and not knowing which one is the right blip, it can cause some confusion. It can be especially confusing if you don't know the intentions of the planes till you see smoke from the WTC towers. The takeaway message from 9/11 was that we hadn't adequately prepared for this sort of contingency, as it wasn't a tactic that had been used before.

Does someone know, when a plane's transponder is turned off, would that plane be the only plane without an ID code on the radar screen??

Seems like all the photos of radar screens I have seen in the past had flight id numbers along with the location of the jet? So in other words if the transponder is off wouldn't the hijacked planes stand out on the radar screen?? Maybe there are some ATC's that could answer my question.