Failure in Standard Operating Procedures
On 9-11, there were several mysterious and egregious failures in standard operating procedures that, up until that day, had worked fine.
Summary:
1. Aviation Intercepts
a. Typical Procedures
b. Payne Stewart Lear Jet Crash
c. Mineta Testimony on Cheney “Still Stands” Order
d. Conclusion
2. Langley Jet Scramble
a. Official Explanation
b. Contradictions
c. Pilot Orders
d. Generic Flight Plan
3. Pentagon Anti-Aircraft Missile Batteries
Aviation Intercepts
Typical Procedures
It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire "national defense-first responder" intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem [1]. So, why was this particular day any different? Why weren’t the standard operating procedures for aviation intercept followed?
A prime example of how these procedures work is the Payne Stewart Lear jet crash. On October 25, 1999, the flight crew was scheduled to begin a 2-day trip sequence consisting of five flights. The flights on the first day were to be from Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB), Sanford, Florida, to Orlando International Airport (MCO), Orlando, Florida; from MCO to Dallas-Love Field Airport (DAL), Dallas, Texas; and from DAL to William P. Hobby Airport, Houston, Texas. However, the jet strayed off course over northern Florida and continued flying to the northwest until the fuel apparently ran out, resulting in a crash that killed all aboard [2].
An interception was arranged by the Jacksonville ARTCC mission coordinator through the USAF. The airplane was intercepted by several U.S. Air Force (USAF) and Air National Guard (ANG) aircraft as it proceeded north-west. It took less than 15 minutes, and the intercept involved airplanes from Eglin AFB (Florida), Tulsa AFB (Oklahoma), and North Dakota.
Mineta Testimony on Cheney “Still Stands” Order
“It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that “the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand” when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been not to shoot down the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they “still” stood, despite the plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can be inferred from Mineta’s testimony: As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 am, and as Mineta estimated the “still stand?” interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferred based on the officially given speed of the plane represented by the blip of 540 mph that whatever that fast-approaching blip represented, it arrived in the vicinity of the Pentagon at approximately 9:32—nowhere close to the original official cover story time of 9:43, or even the six-minute-earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for an alleged impact time of 9:37.” [3]
What was this mysterious order? Was it to disregard the standard aviation intercept to shot down the plane? It’s probable, and extremely damning when you consider that on June 1st, 2001, the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense - and then the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11 [4].
Up until 9-11, this type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years [5]. So, why wasn’t it done right on this one particular day, and for four flights? Capt. Daniel Davis, Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD TAC Director, and Founder/Former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp, puts it best-
“In my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!”
Langley Jet Scramble
Official Explanation. According the 9-11 Commission report, the sequence of events for the Langley jet scramble was:
“After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued an order at 0923: ‘Okay… scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area…’… That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 0924. Radar data shows the Langley fighters airborne at 0930… The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area… At 0936…He [mission crew commander] then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean.
The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target’s location. Second, a “generic” flight plan- prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly- incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to “090 for 60” superseded the original scramble order.” [9-11 Commission Report, pg 27]
First, it should be noted that due to the SIX wargames in progress, Langley was the only base with fighters assigned and available to protect the Pentagon [6]. The situation, as it stood, was that Langley was a single point of failure. Why? Was it simply an "oversight" that no secondary fighters were available on just THAT one day? Further, why does this page-long official account of events contradict itself? For example, the official version states that the order did not include the “target’s location”; however, it also states that in the generation of the original scramble order, the NEAD commander specifically directed pilots to head to the Baltimore area.
Why would pilots disobey a direct NEADS Commander order, not once, but TWICE? Who authorized this? Were the pilots interviewed, and what was their rationale? In this case, the scramble order included an initial order to head to the Washington D.C. area; since the pilots knew where to go before they even stepped in the plane, there was absolutely no reason to follow the generic flight plan. Even supposing they didn't receive the information on heading (extremely unlikely) and started to use the generic flight plan, they received in-flight instructions (which they would have been waiting for) to change their heading from Washington to Baltimore. Yet this second order was also ignored, and they continued to fly east over the ocean. (Thus why the NEADS Commander was so "surprised" [per the official report] when he went to change them back to Washington and discovered they were still heading out to sea.) The bottom line is that the pilots simply weren’t where they were ordered to go, and that as a result, they were just a little over a minute too late to intercept the crashed flight.
Why would the lead pilot and FAA controller believe that the generic flight plan overrode the original scramble order? Were these individuals interviewed, and what was their rationale? It simply doesn’t make sense. Speed is of the essence when scrambling. The whole focus is to get the pilots in the air as fast as possible; often they might not know what's going on or where they're supposed to go. Rather than having pilots flying around aimlessly while waiting for further directions, it is standard to create a generic flight plan to follow while waiting for further in-flight instructions. Believing a generic flight plan overrides the stated “real” destination is ridiculous, and continuing to do so after you have received further changes/instructions is unfathomable. At the very least, they should have asked for clarification, yet there is no record they did.
Pentagon Anti-Aircraft Missile Batteries
It is suspected, though not officially acknowledged (for obvious security reasons), that the Pentagon has anti-aircraft missile batteries. While no official record exists to indicate their presence, Mrs. Barbara Honegger [former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to President Ronald Reagan] confirmed their existence in a written memo, perhaps inadvertently [7]. In addition to this mention, there is a declassified memo from hostile/friendly war games in 1961, stating there were seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles near New York. That was 1961- there are probably a great deal more now in various locations around the U.S.
If they exist as it appears they do, how was the flight that hit the Pentagon able to transmit the friendly signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries? (Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.) Did hijacker's miraculously retrofit the plane mid-air and acquired the signal?
This is particularly suspicious when considered in conjunction with the reported question mentioned previously, verified by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, of a young man in the White House who asked Vice President Cheney if the orders “still stood”. Perhaps it wasn’t just to disregard aviation protocols for an intercept to shoot down the aircraft, but also to not shoot down using the ant-aircraft missiles. Given how classified their presence would be, perhaps that’s why Secretary Mineta’s testimony is being ignored- for security reasons.
References:
[1] http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf
[2] http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
[3] http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf
[4] http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf
[5] Robin Gordon
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001
[7] http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf