What Happened With Air Defense on 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission has come forth with some answers to what I've always considered one of the most important questions re: 9/11: what the hell happened to our vaunted, very expensive air defense?

The answer, as detailed in this thorough account (as printed in the L.A. Times, reg. req.) of reactions to each of the four hijacked flights, is apparently: air traffic control and the Federal Aviation Administration weren't very scupulous about informing the military that anything was going wrong.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

The inability for some people to remember their own mindset prior to 9/11 continues to amaze. We were horribly surprised, and it is more amazing to me the number of people talking about how this should have been obvious.

Jets were scrambled, if late, but the commission heard testimony that they were terrified of shooting down the wrong plane, or one that would have gone somewhere else safely. The air traffic controllers were simultaneously trying to land hundreds of planes and track the hijacked ones.

I have no problem analyzing what we need to do differently to prevent the same thing from happening again, but I chafe when people who would scream about the cost and question the necessity of a truly comprehensive air defence network prior to 9/11 suddenly decide that prior measures should have been sufficient.

I hate to tell you guys, but you are only buying general deterrence and defence against obvious threats with the purchase of an interal security and military network. No matter how much the military costs, it will not be 100% effective against all conceivable attacks. Static defence will always yield to dynamic offence. BY FAR the best defensive capability you can develop is the capacity to project sufficient force to go anywhere on Earth your attackers may be, destroy THEIR passive defences, and bury them. This is why Harry Browne's concept of national defence vs. national offence is so absurd.

[Sandy]

Plus our military was built around the threat of bombers coming from outside the country, not airliners inside of it--even though some high officials should have wargamed this scenario, I really can't blame the civilian air traffic controllers for not making the mental leap from the standard hijacking to hijacking-with-intent-to-crash. I find it impressive they were able to start saying "get some fighters here" as soon as 20 minutes or so after the first hijacking.

I think the real story is the lack of coordination between the FAA and the military--they didn't have very well-established decision-making, and they couldn't respond well to simultaneous threats.

Again, this is probably more due to a failure of imagination than anything else. Even Tom Clancy imagined an empty plane being flown by a rogue pilot, not a hijacking of an entire planeful of people.

You have to give it to Al Qaeda, they were very creative.

On the other hand, it was a one-shot deal: now governments will be VERY alert to this sort of thing and passengers, at least in the US, will never willingly allow another hijacking to succeed.

So to some extent this exercise is pointless except for the historical value.

[meep]

"Federal Aviation Administration weren't very scupulous about informing the military that anything was going wrong"

Personally, I don't think this is a big issue. You can call it an "air defense" issue, but I consider it a good thing that whenever something very confusing happens within private industry, the military isn't immediately advised. It's not like there was a tested procedure for this sort of thing back then.

And the fact that it's the "Federal" Aviation Administration doesn't change the private nature of the crisis for the most part. Does Alan Greenspan know how to quickly get in touch with the Pentagon if a bank in California is robbed? Should he?

Much of the vague talk about military preparedness comes down to unpleasant facts people don't want to talk about: The only thing the military could have done would have been to kill US civilians without enough evidence that would have ever satisfied history. Until something like 9/11 had happened, it just wasn't an option to shoot down our own civilian airliners, regardless of what generals had tested in their wargames. Now times have changed, and only in hindsight can we see it as a horrible, but ever-so-slightly less horrible, contingency.

[andy]

And who would pull the trigger on an airliner over crowded cities? Suppose it crashed after it was shot down?

Yeah, shooting down an airliner makes sense. It was a lose-lose situation.

[Swamp Justice]

If the Air Force had proactively shot down the hijacked planes, then the World Trade Center would never have fallen. That is, we would NEVER have known the horrific plans of the hijackers. If the Air Force shot down four civilian planes, the Left would have a field day complaining that GWB is an evil dictator, ruthlessly murdering his own people. The reaction of shooting the planes would have seemed prematurely severe (without future knowledge of the World Trade Center events).

[Matthew Cromer]

Well there is a lot of rumor that the Pennsylvania airliner was shot down by a fighter plane.

I'd give some chance that that rumor is true.

[meep]

There will always be conspiracy theories, but this one seems pretty easy to address: If the plane had been shot down, parts of it would be strewn over miles as it descended. If not, all the pieces would more or less be in one place. I don't really know the details, but a chunk of 767 wing in a backyard 20 miles away seems like it would be difficult to hide.

[Paul Z]

What Jason Ligon and Sandy said.

[Brendan Perez]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org has pretty detailed timeline for the date of 9/11, as well as before and after.

[Phil]

For an interesting pre-9/11 perspective concerning potential civilian aircraft disasters and military response, here's an article concerning the Learjet crash that killed Payne Stewart. The lede:

The unusual circumstances surrounding the doomed flight of a private Learjet that crashed and killed professional golfer Payne Stewart and five others has prompted questions about whether the U.S. military is prepared to shoot down a runaway plane if it were headed for a highly-populated area.

That scenario, while possible, it highly unlikely, according to the Pentagon.

[Phil]

That last sentence should be block-quoted with the previous graf as part of the article, BTW.

[Larry A]

Did the report make any comment on the foot-dragging process of arming pilots, or is that not part of the government's school solution?

[Tenet]

Hell, can we blame some more on the FBI? Weren't they the first to discover some terrorist suspects were learning to fly?

[Sparky]

True, shooting down commercial airlines was not a viable option at the time. But, we should all be FURIOUS at the amount of red tape this information had to go through, and the fact that it never REALLY got to anyone who could have done anything about it. Perhaps the military never would have been able to prevent the Pentagon crash or a potential Whitehouse crash, but they should have at least been in the know enough to address the problem at that point.

The point is not that "they couldn't do anything about it." The point is that they never had the chance to try.

Someone else made the point that it's good that the FAA doesn't go running right to the military on this stuff. That may be, but that's a distorted way of looking at this, I think. It's not like the FAA had some principled internal postition that it was sticking to. It was just too inept and tied up with bureaucratic red tape to get that information to the military, even when events made it clear that the military needed to be in the know.

I'm not comfortable with that level of streamlinedness within the Administration (or lack thereof). And, I think someone should have been fired, or a little red tape cut, after this display. Instead, we just threw more red tape at the problem. We've learned nothing.

[joe]

Matt,

The first news reporter on the scene in Pennsylvania reported that there were two crash sites. He went off air, and when he came back, there was only one crash site.

Most likely, the confusion and rumors that were everywhere that day, but there is the possibility of something else.

[crimethink]

Yep. No one ever thought of something like this before...

[Marty Heyman]

Bluntly, the incompetence and lack of a plan is apalling. Forget how hard it might have been to decide what to do. It should be an easy story to tell but the story is that there was no story to tell. They blundered without a clue. That's the story. The best story. The worst story the conspiracy theorists tell is they blundered with a clue! Either way, they didn't defend, track, or control and that's a devastating indictment of our internal defenses. These were lumbering, slow, and indefensible aircraft moving at a fraction of military speeds. They were never challenged. The system didn't react until it was all well over (unless you believe the missle theory about the flight over Pennsylvania ...). The SICK part is that nobody has yet said anything that tells We The People what they're doing to fix this!?

[Ken]

???No one ever thought of something like this before...???????

I thought Tom Clancy (DEBT OF HONOR) was more widely read.

[Sikandere]

Marty Heyman
I do agree with your views on the Air Defense Show on Sept eleven. Specially when the CIA had threats of such nature prior to 9/11. The fact that several planes were highjacked at the same instant and none showed ofcourse on the high profile monitoring equipments.
It seems as aircrafts were actually allowed to choose their own route that day. SAD BUT TRUE ... it could have been dealt in a better way starting from a better security knowhow at the airports, after the threats.
At one time commercial aircrafts were a mode of transport not a mode of terror.
The latest on Paul Johnson's abduction and beheading has given Americans nothing but further isolation from the rest of the world.

Sikandere.....

[garym]

The blame game has really gotten out of hand. Air traffic controllers aren't military personnel, much less strategic analysts. The Air Force was not on combat alert. I'm not surprised when headline writers take advantage of the 9/11 Commission reports to imply that the controllers were incompetent. I expect something better from Reason.

[Sikandere]

qarym
Quite right you are in your argument Sir.
But here the blame is not on the Air Traffic Controllers ... Instead its the ignorance or say even the over confidence of the defense systems that did not alert concerned authorities such as Airport Forces, Immigration Personnel, Passport Teams, Cabin Crews, Inflight Securities, Cargo Transfers, Air Traffic Controllers etc. etc. of such possiblities ...
Its hard to say that 9/11 could have been avoided by all the above but the fact that a replica of Pearl Harbour could have been forseen for sure ... Sudden and not called for attacks are the most devastating ...
Compare it to today where the nation is put on alert everyday...

Sikandere.....

[Greg]

You really think the F-16s would have had clearance to shoot the planes down? I don't think so.

[b-psycho]

Anyone glanced at some of the conspiracy theory stuff floating around on the one that crashed in Pennsylvania?

Not that they aren't otherwise nuts, but I've pondered the question for awhile: considering the possible outrage at shooting down the planes, if it were done with one would we even be told? It's not too far-fetched to consider maybe the political fallout would be just enough worth lying about it -- I am NOT saying that I believe it was shot down though.

As for Browne's comment on offense vs defense, it's actually not far off, just not in the way he'd personally like. Ideally, the war on terror should be having us reform much of our military & intelligence agencies into a more flexible, almost literal counter-terrorist strike squad, going for accuracy & swiftness in exchange for a policy not of pure isolation or pure interventionism, but a simple, calculated, open defense of the US, period. Not acting as the world's policeman doesn't mean sticking our heads in the sand waiting to get a foot where the sun don't shine, by all means if someone plans on attacking us go right ahead and bury the f^$#ers, pre-emption itself is not a bad thing. The idea of the isolationists having us just park our troops on the borders is no more realistic than the "neo-con" idea that spreading democracy by the sword is going to work, what is relevant is our own safety.

[Sikandere]

So what do you do?
Next time you see a plane off course and heading for a Building or Tower... You DO NOT shoot it down??? Let it crash!! into a building rather mid air over residential area!!!
Who will make that choice???
Which eventually means we are helpless!!

[Total INformation]

It never ceases to amaze me how gullible Reason's writers and readers are. NORAD was "only looking outwards"? Please. The Payne Stewart case shoots that lame explanation all to hell.

What hapopened was, there were four or five different hijack drills conveniently being run that day. This confused the decent people in the military enough that Cheney could take control of the situation and tell everyone to stand down while the aircraft made their impact.

See Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 'Warren' Commission, where even he describes Cheeny giving the orders not to shoot anything down.

Govt-sponsored fake terror is Higgs' "Crisis and Leviathan" writ large. The new Pearl Harbor (cf Stinnett, Cheney's PNAC) indeed...

[Buck Smith]

There are people who think an important part of homeland security and the war on terror is to have trained group of government employees who will be able to quickly gather up thousands of bodies after the next big attack. To me, elaborate plans to stop hijackings by shooting down hijacked airplanes with fighter jets are just about as futile, stupid and inappropriate.

[thoreau]

I completely agree with Joe L. here, ESPECIALLY when he says:

Now, 9-11 changed that. Haven't been a whole lot of hijackings since then, have there? Why? Because Mohammed Atta et. al. blew it for us. NOW, the is a very real possibility that the passengers and crew are going to die in a fiery crash, so they OUGHT to fight back.

I don't know if passengers fighting back is the only reason why we haven't had hijackings, but I think we should give passengers some credit here, and give a little less credit to the people who dutifully confiscate every tweezer and toenail clipper while letting undercover inspectors get guns and bombs through security.

In my opinion, the most important victory in America's War on Terror happened on the morning of 9/11, when the passengers fought back on Flight 93 and prevented the plane from hitting its target. It was a very costly victory, in that it claimed the lives of a lot of innocent passengers and crew, but it saved God only knows how many other lives that morning. It also sent a clear message to hijackers: Your shenanigans won't work anymore.

We've had other important victories since then, obviously, but I still think the most important one came when ordinary Americans proved that they can and will foil attacks on US soil.

[Joe L.]

Careful Thoreau,
Don't agree with me too much or Rick will think you've been kidnapped and replaced with a "pod person."

I'd have to say that 9-11 changed the calculus for hijackers of all stripes. I was trying to say, that hijacking changed FOR THE HIJACKERS. Prior to this the passengers and crew were a herd. You only needed to cull out the hot heads and subdue or kill them and the rest went along.

9-11 showed the herd that passive compliance STILL LEADS to death. Now the herd has an incentive to become a pack, in Glenn Reynolds terms. And I think hijackers realize that.

Before 9-11 a few guys with knives could secure the 'plane, and hold the fort until the reinforcements arrived with the AK's (at some convenient airport in Outbackland). Now hijackers realize that it's a few guys with knives versus a fear-inspired mob of several hundred passengers, AND the pilots aren't opening the door to the cockpit, even if you do kill the pretty pregnant stewardess....OOOPS Flight Attendant. And even if you do secure the 'plane, in the US the Air Force may just shoot you down, without any money being exchanged, without a single comrade being released, or before you can put out your first communique.

So unless you're Arnulhd or Bruce Lee the odds are now against YOU. So, I'd argue that hijacking has become a business without a future, in the short run.

[crimethink]

Sorry, the link in the last one didn't work.

This was all foretold in the Lone Gunmen pilot originally aired on 3/4/2001. Wow.

[thoreau]

You might recall that the Lone Gunmen pilot was about government agents orchestrating an attack on the WTC to increase public support for more military and intelligence funding, various domestic privacy policies, and various foreign policy initiatives.

Fortunately the show was fiction.

Or was it? 😀

[Joe L.]

I am no expert, BUT, save for one instance in the 1970s over Eretz Ysrael, there have been no attacks like this.

When the plane is hijacked, it's taken to CUBAH, or Algeria, or Two Sticks Outbackland in Africa, where the terrorists/freedom fighters make their demands for the release of "comrades/POW's/Political Prisoners" held in the jails of various Western/Imperialist states.

Much hemming and hawing takes place, CNN and the rest of the media have a field day, we interview every passenger's family/friends/acquaintences (to include his/her 2nd grade teacher) and everyone says, "We don't negotiate with hostages." But of course EVERYONE DOES NEGOTIATE, that's why airliners keep/kept getting hijacked, SOME prisoners WERE freed and we all got lotsa of free advertising for our cause! Eventually, we escape or the government(s) involved storm the 'plane and free the surviving hostages, or mayhap a deal IS struck and the hostages are released. Bottom-line: almost no one dies and 95% of the hostages and crew walk away, after an unpleasant "holiday" usually lasting less than a week. So, it made no sense to arm pilots or for the passengers to fight back

Now, 9-11 changed that. Haven't been a whole lot of hijackings since then, have there? Why? Because Mohammed Atta et. al. blew it for us. NOW, the is a very real possibility that the passengers and crew are going to die in a fiery crash, so they OUGHT to fight back. Before it made no sense to fight back, because we all "Knew" the rules of the game. 9-11 changed that.

And any talk of "Air Defense" that does not take into account what everyone "knew" about airplane hijackings is silly. The question was not, "What are their targets?", but rather the twin questions of "What will be their demands and where will the 'planes end up?". Once the WTC had been hit, things changed, but until then the FAA and the passengers and crew were operating on the old mindset.

To the extent that the military would have been involved at all was not the Air Force and fighters but SOCOM and Delta Force, to storm the 'plane and liberate the passengers.

We can read "Debt of Honor" and talk about "Operation Bojoika (sp.?) but the operational EXPERIENCE was more what I have outlined. I think people have hit it on the head, when they point out that IF the Air Force had downed the airliners PRIOR to impact on the WTC this board, the Media, and Congress would have been demanding Dubya and Cheney's heads for their "Irresponsible" behavior in downing the airliners, in light of what everyone "Knew" was going to happen (given the pre-9-11 mindset).

Oh and "Mr. Conspiracy Theory" you and Justin Raimondo and Rick Barton can continue to live in that twisted and delusional world as long as you want, but please, please, just stay away from me, the smell of tinfoil nauseates me.

[db]

As a formerly fairly frequent business traveler, I am actually quite pleased that there is a large amount of red tape to be encountered when seeking permission to shoot down an airliner, especially one in which I am a passenger.

Anyway, by the time they could have done anything about it, who's to say that if the intent of the 9/11 hijackers was known, the choice wouldn't have been to shoot the airliner down over a suburban area rather than the higher value WTC? Justifiable? Probably, but ask the suburbanites.

[Sikandere]

To REASON,
'Islamic Oil and Islam - Labelled Religion of Militancy'
I wish to know what other have to say on the topic above...

[C L]

(A pilots perspective)

It seems as if the only way we knew that American 11 was hijacked at all was that the hijacker pilot confused the cabin intercom with the radio transmitter. It appears that the UA 175 hijacker pilot made the same mistake. If that hadn't happened, we might not have known it was a hijacking situation until the 2nd plane crashed into the south tower. (The controllers might have assumed that a damaged plane was attempting to make an approach into La Guardia)

Interestingly, I wonder how much the weather played a factor in the decision to attack on September 11th. As I remember, it was clear all up and down the east coast. These pilots weren't instrument trained, and would have had a hard time even controlling the plane in instrument conditions, and never mind breaking out of a low overcast to hit a skinny building at high speed. If the date was decided back in August, like the commission implied, how did they know the weather would cooperate?

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

joe is correct that an attempt on Paris was made (I dunno if it was the Eiffel Tower - but that seems like the sort of symbolic targets that terrorists go after - plus they would probably murder a crap load of people, not only on the tower but around it). However, it wasn't AQ - it was an Algerian terrorist group of some sort - this was back when terrorist incidents were happening daily in Algeria - the good old days when they would splatter acid over women not wearing apprporiate dress, etc. (I was living with a Tunisian at the time and he regaled me with stories about the methods of these scum).

The plane landed in Marseille as I recall (or somewhere in southern France) and the terrorists ordered that it be loaded with an excessive amount of fuel (even though they stated they were flying to Paris) - this probably gave the French the first clue that something more than a hi-jacking was going on - in the meantime whatever anti-terrorist squad the French have stormed the plane and killed the terrorists I think to a man (I can't recall if any civilians were killed, but the death toll was low if there were any that died).

[GG is JB]

"heck of a lot"
"I dunno"
"the good old days"
"whatever anti-terrorist squad the French have"

You're a little heavy handed with these. You need a little more practice with the GG persona.

[Gary Gunnels]

Like I wroter earlier, I ain't this other fellow. As I also stated, there's probably nothing I can do to dissuade you from thinking otherwise, so do as you please.

[thoreau]

In regard to whether GG is really JB:

I'm Brian of Nazareth!
No! I'm Brian of Nazareth!
Im Brian of Nazareth and so is my wife!

[Stephen Fetchet]

I'm sure President Cheney would be happy to defend (impeached) President Bush's decision to splash four (probably more - there were a number of planes unaccounted for between 8:40 and 9:40 AM that morning) civilian airliners with a total of 500 to 1000 innocent passengers on board, and Majority Leader Daschle, along with House Speaker Pelosi, would also appreciate Bush's willingness to act pre-emptively to prevent terrorism.

The same people who piss and moan loudest about the Bush pre-emption doctrine (I'm talking to you, Rick & Justin) piss and moan that Bush wasn't capable of switching from a late-90's "end of history" mentality to a PATRIOT Act II total lockdown mode in the space of 20 minutes. Getting knocked out with a sucker punch, doesn't mean that you paid some guy to sucker punch you. And just because Tom Clancy has thought of something, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Moreover, if we organized our defense infrastructure around narratives written by clever novelists and screenwriters, we'd be readying plans to: (1) give each citizen a pocket knife, to help them avoid being tied down by tiny people in short pants; (2) deploy the Air Force to stop the perilous threat from Mars; and (3) evacuate Los Angeles, in anticipation of the "big one" hitting, and Snake Plisskin becoming a noteworthy anti-hero.

Personally, I think it's far more profitable to spend my time speculating about PNAC, the grassy knoll, the great big zionist conspiracy that kept all the Jews at home on 9/11, black UN helicopters at Waco, and how Michael Moore and Kos are just Republican stalking horses to discredit the left.

[Joe L.]

"...and how Michael Moore and Kos are just Republican stalking horses to discredit the left. "-You've thought that too!? So have I, the TRUTH IS OUT THERE! Oh and don't forget Justin Raimondo and Ted Kennedy.....

[Gary Gunnels]

The notion of using civilian aircraft as weapons or as weapons carriers is quite old; indeed, its been the subject numerous books and films (Harris' "Black Sunday" (1977) is the first example I can think of - in that case a blimp was used). It doesn't take a heck of a lot of imagination to think up numerous scenarios where civilian aircraft can be used as weapons - indeed, part of the thwarted Millenium attacks included such a scenario.

[matthew hogan]

I want to know what happened to the Emergency Broadcasting System on 9-11.

[joe]

Gary, among the Al Qaeda plots disrupted during the 1990s was a plan to crash an airliner into the Eiffel Tower.

[thoreau]

Whoa, joe, are you saying the French disrupted an Al Qaeda plot? I thought the French were among AQ's main sponsors?

And yes, I get all my news from Hit and Run 🙂