Simple Question: How often does the story of the Air defense change?

[John Doe II]

Let’s ask the basic questions:
When was NORAD informed by the FAA?
When did NORAD launch airfighters?
When did the airfighters take off?

Well, get your pen and your paper out cause the answers change all the time.

Right after 911 the answer was very clear and simple.
Two days after 911 General Richard Myers was nominated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said:
“When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.”
Senator Carl Levin asks him:
“Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?”
Just as a reminder: The Pentagon was attacked almost one hour after the first WTC.
So which answer do you expect?
The answer was:
“That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.”
Of course Levin didn’t feel the need to ask why the Pentagon was sitting for one hour on their hands.




So, the very first official account is that there was no reaction by the air defense when AA 11 was declared hijacking, nor when the WTC was hit, nor when UA 175 was declared hijacking, nor when the second WTC was hit, nor when AA 77 was hijacked.
This statement is supported by NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder. He declared a few days after 911 that said the fighters remained on the ground until
after the Pentagon was hit. Then the military authorities realized the scope of the attack and finally ordered the jets aloft.
Well, when did you realize the scope of the attack?
After the first WTC was attacked?
After the second WTC was hit?
Or only one hour after the first attack when the Pentagon was hit?

This was the first explanation but when people staring asking question it quickly changed.
On September 18 NORAD came up with a completely different account of when fighters were launched.
Of course fighters had been launched before the Pentagon was attacked.
Of course fighters were launched when NORAD was told that AA 11 was hijacked.
Of course.
No doubt about that.
Unfortunately.
Unfortunately all fighters came to late.

8:46 Fighters are scrambled
8:52 Fighters airborne, en route to New York
9:03 UA 175 hit the second WTC tower. The fighters are still 71 miles away.

9:24 F-16 scrambled
9:30 F-16 airborne to protect Washington
9:37 AA 77 hit the Pentagon. The F-16 are still 105 miles away

Only for UA 93 no fighters were scrambled.
NORAD simply states that when UA 93 crashed the fighters were still 100 miles away.

So, all answers given. Everything fine?
Not really.
Let’s do the math:
The F-15 that flew towards New York managed 82 miles in eleven minutes.
That is an average speed of 447 mph.
Not really fast.
The F-16 that flew towards Washington managed zero miles in 7 minutes.
Not really fast neither.

And here comes the third story!
On May 23, 2003 officials spoke under oath about the air defense.
No question is asked why the story already changed twice.
And the explanation for the fighters always arriving too late on 911 is quite surprising:
The fighters were sent not to protect New York City, nor Washington D.C.
but to protect the borders of the US.
Did you believe on 911 that the borders of the US are threatened?
Do you believe the commissioners asked why the military thought it was necessary to protect the borders on 911?
Do you believe the commissioners asked why the story changed again?
No, they didn’t ask anything.

But at least the Independent Commission put pressure on NORAD and FAA and DoD.
15th October 2003
“On May, 7, the Commission requested from the FAA all documents
related to the FAA's tracking of hijacked airliners on 9-11,
including without limitation all communications with NORAD. <...>
Over the course of these interviews the Commission learned that various tapes, statements, interview reports, and agency self-assessments highly material to our inquiry
inexplicably had not been included in the FAA's production. <...>
This disturbing development at one agency has led the Commission to re-examine its general policy of relying on document requests rather than subpoena.
We have voted
to issue a subpoena to the FAA for the documents we have already requested.”



7th November 2003
“The Commission has encountered some serious delays in obtaining needed documents from the Department of Defense (DoD).
We are especially dismayed by problems in the production of the records of activities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and certain Air Force commands on September 11, 2001. <...>
The Commission has therefore voted
to issue a subpoena requiring the production of these records.”



New documents arrived.
Are you ready for the fourth story?
More than a year later, the 9/11 Commission hearings introduced an entirely new timeline in "Staff Statement No. 17" which radically contradicts the accounts issued until then by both NORAD and FAA. The timeline was incorporated almost unchanged into Chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report.
For AA 11 no big changes:
FAA notified NEADS not 8:40 but 8:38
Fighters are scrambled at 8:46
Fighters are airborne not at 8:52 but at 8:53.
So far ok.
But let’s have a look for UA 175.
NORAD wasn’t told of the hijack at 8:43 but only after the plane had already crashed at 9:03.
So no time for any military action.
AA 77.
FAA didn’t notify NEADS at 9:24 but at 9:34, three minutes before the Pentagon was hit. And the plane is not a declared hijack but it is missing.
So no time for any military action
And here our favourite UA 93:
In May 2003 is was still stated under oath that FAA told NORAD at 9:16 that UA 93 might be hijacked.
In the Final Report this notification is given at 10:07.
After the plane crashed already.

Do you wonder how a timeline can change four times?
Do you wonder if the Commission pointed out that General Arnold and General Scott lied to them under oath?
Do you wonder if the Commission thought theses changes might require further investigation or only a footnote?
The answer to all is:
No!
And ….
Case closed.
Nothing to investigate.
Nothing to worry about.
No mystery to uncover.
Don’t you understand?

[JackRiddler]

1. Yeah, the best-documented smoking gun

"Because the NORAD and FAA timelines were still in conflict as of May, 2003, officials of either NORAD or FAA (or both) were still upholding false accounts to the public more than 1½ years after September 11. Because the 9/11 Commission staff statement of June 2004 radically conflicts with both, either it is false, or both the NORAD and the FAA accounts were false. In whatever permutation, some combination of government officials must have been disseminating serious falsehoods over an extended period of months and years."

http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

Myers story of Sept. 13
NORAD story of Sept. 17
USAF story in "Air War Over America"
FAA story of May 2003
NORAD affirmations and corrections of 2003

And then the 9/11 Commission comes up with a completely different timeline, making liars of all the above. Is any public official to be held accountable for upholding false stories, sometimes for years at a time?

Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607

In hearings last Friday, Sen. Dayton (D-MN) raised an obvious point: if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the Kean Commission's best-selling book is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the last two years was completely wrong. Yet now no one at NORAD is willing to comment on their own timeline!

When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government...

Timeline problem summarized in legal brief, first 15 points here:
http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

10. Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 a.m., according to "Staff Statement No. 17," or else at 10:06:05 ±5sec, when a tremor consistent with a plane crash was detected as having originated in the area of the crash, according to an authoritative study of seismic observations on September 11 (Kim and Baum, Maryland Geological Survey, Columbia University). Uncertainty as to the Flight 93 crash time highlights the unprecedented absence of an NTSB investigation, and the confusion of the multiple official timelines.

Follow links to original accounts by the various agencies at
"THE EMPEROR'S NEW TIMELINES"
http://summeroftruth.org/#timelines

[stickdog]

14. Notice that Dayton has dropped off the face of the planet since making

this remark and having his office threatened with bioterrorism.

Just saying ...

[spooked911]

2. Good post. David Ray Griffin's new book on the 9/11 commission

also does a good job of unpacking all the changing stories on the air defense.

This is easily the clearest smoking gun for 9/11 lies by the commission, but unfortunately it is not as simple to understand as some other issues and also sharply criticizes the military, which most people are loath to do-- except for hard-core America haters like us. ;)

[philb]

3. Different version of time line that documents official complicity

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

as does Paul Thompson's

[John Doe II]

4. I'd be happy

if any OCTler could explain me why the time table and the explanations always changes and why it is accepted that people in charge lie and why people under oath lie? And why the Commission presents a new timetable without any explanation that is in sharp contrast to the hearing of MAy 22 and 23, 2003?

[Make7]

5. I'd just like to add:

From the Senate Confirmation Hearing of General Myers on 9/13/01:
BILL NELSON: Mr. Chairman, may I, just for the record? Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. And it is an hour and seven minutes until the crash occurred in Pennsylvania.

LEVIN: The time that we don't have is when the Pentagon was notified, if they were, by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency, relative to any potential threat or any planes having changed direction or anything like that. And that's the same which you will give us because that's...

MYERS: I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately.

So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/myers_confirmation_091301.html

I don't have time to get embroiled in a debate on this right now, but I thought General Myers comments about not knowing the times related to the fighter aircraft might be useful information.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

7. And so??

What's important is the chronology of claims.
At first he claimed it was after the Pentagon was hit and he's not the only one who claimed this right after 911.
That two years later he backpaddles on this and now has no clue is nothing but expectable. And btw isn't it the worst (or in no way believable) that the Chairman of the Joint Chieff of Stuffs has no clue of how and when the air defense worked on 911??? You would imagine he gets fired and not promoted!

And just to add another question:
the hijack time of UA 93 was 9:16 (till the Final Report of the Commission). This was also stated under oath at the hearing on May 23, 2003. Never was any reason given why already then the plane was a considered hijack. And in the Final Report the time is completely changed. And again no explanation is given. AND NOBODY ASKS QUESTION!

The changing timetable as the absence of air defense on 911 is the heart of the 911 hoax. So, everybody who believes in the OCT try to explain this issue!

[Make7]

8. Two years?

September 13, 2001:
MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/myersconfirmation091301.html

And on the same day, from the same confirmation hearing:

September 13, 2001:
MYERS: The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/myersconfirmation091301.html

Sounds to me like he was saying the order to establish combat air patrols was given after the Pentagon was struck, but that he doesn't know when NORAD may have responded with fighter aircraft to intercept the hijacked planes.

-Make7

[philb]

9. Why weren't the AWACS and fighters sent up over D C after WTC2 since

the military also had a report that the 2nd Flight 11 plane was headed for D C?

Is there any evidence of what happened to the second Flight 11 plane, the one with the passengers that was delayed in Boston?

What evidence is there that there were passengers on the plane that hit WTC1, since there is no evidence passengers loaded on it in Boston?
see Woody's thread

[Make7]

10. Me first.

New York Daily News - September 11, 2002:
DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person.

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/17949p-17009c.html

Now - what evidence is there that there was a second plane?

-Make7

[philb]

11. The records at the Boston Airport and other things

[Make7]

13. What records? What other things? n/t

[John Doe II]

16. Sorry,

but what's the sense of this question?
1. I don't think you doubt youself that there was a second plane.
2. What importance does your question have towards the always chaning timeline of FAA and NORAD?

[Make7]

19. A second Flight 11?

I was responding to philb's questions about "the second Flight 11" - I don't think it has anything to do with the timeline issue. You might want to reply to his post and ask him why he brought it up.

-Make7

[JackRiddler]

20. Read the Commission Report, Chapter 1

That's where you will find the red herring of "Phantom Flight 11," which is either

1) an artifact of the wargames on 9/11/01

2) a hoax by the Commission to justify their version of the timeline

but the Commission claims they just can't figure out where this "faulty information" came from (which is bullshit, since absent an actual blip on a radar screen whether or not it corresponds to a real flight no one would be calling out an alarm about a non-existent flight)

[John Doe II]

17. Sounds different to me

Myers state that they didn't scramble fighters before the Pentagon was attacked. Asked for a precise time when NORAD responded he's unable to respond.
So he knows that the scrambling happened after the Pentagon hit but he doesn't know exactly when.

Let me tell this very clearly: I think it is simply shocking to see that two days after 911 the acting Chairman of the Joint Chieffs of Stuff has no clue about the exact timeline of NORAD's action. And he has the guts to show up for his promotion tour??? And nobody gives a shit about his lack of knowledge???

Btw there is somebody else who backs up my reading of Myer's statement. And this is somebody who certainly should know. The spokeman of NORAD:

But Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, had a different version. He said the command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane, American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles, slammed into the first World Trade Center tower at 8:45 a.m. Tuesday.
Never before had a hijacked airliner been steered into a skyscraper, Snyder noted, in trying to explain the lack of immediate response.
The spokesman said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:40 a.m. , during which time the second trade center tower was struck by United Air Lines Flight 175, which also originated in Boston and was destined for Los Angeles.
By that time, military authorities realized the scope of the attack, Snyder said, and finally ordered the jets aloft.
(Boston Globe, 9/15/01)
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/bostonglobe091501.html

So it took them a third attack to realize the scope of the attack!
Reading this I can only vomit.

So here you go: the first story of NORAD's action is this: waiting until the Pentagon is hit.

[Make7]

18. General Myers should have known the times, but.....

as the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he may have been somewhat busy at the time. Perhaps it wasn't high on his priority list.

I think his statements are ambiguous enough to allow for different interpretations. Apparently we differ on ours.
____________________

But it seems there was confusion about the times right from the start:

Boston Globe, 9/15/01:
...the CBS Evening News reported last night that two supersonic F-15s were scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base early in the sequence of hijackings, but were able to fly only to within 70 miles of New York City before the second of two hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers.

The network also broadcast a flight timetable showing that the Otis fighters did not reach New York until it was too late. The NORAD spokesman would not comment on the network report.

...

According to CBS News, the Federal Aviation Administration alerted air defense units to the hijackings at 8:38 a.m. Tuesday, less than 10 minutes before the first tower was struck. Otis received its order to scramble its alert aircraft at 8:44 a.m., the network reported, and the planes took off at 8:56 a.m. They were still 70 miles away from New York when the second tower was struck at 9:03 a.m.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/bostonglobe091501.html

So there were reports that jets were airborne before the Pentagon was struck, even before NORAD changed its story "when people started asking questions".
____________________

You don't find this account at all strange?

Boston Globe, 9/15/01:
"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.

...

Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, had a different version. He said the command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane, American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles, slammed into the first World Trade Center tower at 8:45 a.m. Tuesday.

...

Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/bostonglobe091501.html

I thought hijacked aircraft were one of the circumstances fighters were ordered to intercept. Or even when a plane is off course, the Payne Stewart incident comes to mind.

Is the NORAD spokesman saying they routinely intercept aircraft, but not if they are "normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans" that happen to be hijacked?

Ten minutes was not enough notice? He said they didn't scramble planes until after the Pentagon was struck. How much notice is that? Almost fifty minutes after the impact of Flight 11? More than thirty minutes after the impact of Flight 175?

Maybe a plane smashing into a building isn't considered a "potential threat".
____________________

I wonder what the fighter pilots would say if they had the opportunity.

Cape Cod Times, August 27, 2002:
Both say they were scrambled too late to do anything about the hijackings. Even if they had left several minutes earlier, they concede there's little they could have done.

The only person who could have ordered the planes shot down at the time was the president. And he was still at a public event when the second plane struck.

"I think we would have escorted the plane right into the tower," says Duff, who is also a full-time commercial pilot.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021020054053/www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/sickestxz27.htm

And from the same article:

Cape Cod Times, August 27, 2002:
It's the last thing he (Duff) expected when he reported to work that day at 7:30 a.m. on a picture-postcard morning on Otis. But just after 8:35 a.m., he received a call that an American Airlines flight out of Boston apparently had been hijacked.

He immediately told another pilot, who uses the call name Nasty, and the pair quickly prepared for flight. They decided that Duff, who had been scrambled to lead a hijacked Lufthansa flight to safety seven years earlier, would take the lead.

By the time they were strapped into their F-15s, an official military scramble was issued.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021020054053/www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/sickestxz27.htm

I wonder how long it takes to get geared up for a flight. More than an hour? Perhaps they did take off before the Pentagon was struck.

And it is interesting to note that it appears Duff had previously been scrambled for a hijacking incident. Maybe they do scramble aircraft for hijackings - perhaps it just takes about an hour to get airborne.
____________________

And I'll add this just for fun:

The 9/11 Report, Chapter 1:
Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

So I think it is safe to say that fighter aircraft were airborne before the Pentagon was struck. To me, it seems that the only one saying that they weren't is Major Mike Snyder. Perhaps he was just mistaken when he said that. I don't think his account makes sense.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

21. I'm not sure at all

First of all I'm not sure if two different readings are possible of Myer's statement. I don't see any way to read in his words that fighters were scrambled before the Pentagon was hit. And btw let me say this straight: I'm simply shocked that somebody who is in charge of the defense of his country simple is absent till everthing is over and then two days not even has a clue about a precise timetable about the defense that was organized without him.

And who should know better what the air defense did than their spokesman. Therefore I think we have to take Snyder very seriously and as his words support what Myer's seemed to say. And of course he doesn't want to comment any reports about Otis fighters.

I completely agree with your judgement that the explanation of Snyder is simply weird to say the least.

The radar data the Commission quotes are certainly no proof to me. Let's keep in mind that they quoted tonnes of data to show that the seimic recording of UA 93 crash time was wrong by three minutes. And they didn't even bother to explain how Jeremy Glick could have been on the phone at least one minute after his wife told him of the WTC collapse (9:59) while officially already participating in the attack since two minutes. More on this you'll find in the DU archive "Why the 10:03 cannot be true".

Concerning the Otis fighters in general. Why does no account of them pop up in the news right on 911 or the next days? I'll open a thread on this topic.

[Make7]

22. Myers said he didn't know the time of a NORAD response.

I'm not saying he stated as fact that fighters were airborne before the Pentagon was hit. He said he didn't know when they were airborne. I don't see how that can that be interpreted as no fighters being airborne until after the Pentagon was hit - if he doesn't know the time, it could have been before.
____________________

I did say I was posting the radar data just for fun. :)
____________________

The CBS Evening News reported on the Otis fighters on 9/14/01. Does that not count as the next days?

-Make7

[John Doe II]

23. I think we can agree on the fact

that Snyder's statement is official. He's NORAD spokeman. And he said clearly that there weren't fighters scrambled. And I think we can also agree that Myers certainly didn't contradict this statement. (I still think that one can interpretate his words that he said the same as Snyder but we can discuss that). So this is the first story of the air defense: No fighters scrambled before the Pentagon was hit.
CBS introduced the second story (and interestingly Snyder contradicts this story!) that fighters were scrambled before.
But let's keep in mind that nowhere on September 11, 12 or 13 any statement anywhere was made that Otis fighters were scrambled to chase AA 11.
And let's keep in mind that eyewitnesses close to the airbase contradict in their accounts that fighters were scrambled at that time.
And so far I'm still looking for any witness that saw fighters in the sky of New York at 9:25 (please have a look at the thread on the Otis fighters).
And we shouldn't forget that this thread is also about the third and even the fourth story of the air defense. The fact that people lied under oath or that the Commission Report lies.
So far, I don't see any proof that Snyder's statement wasn't correct and that in fact the first story is the truth. Show me any proof for the presence of the Otis fighters.
But we can also discuss how it can be possible that a story changes four times and everytime it is supposed to be nothing but the truth.

[Make7]

24. Yes, he is a spokesman for NORAD.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the information he gave was correct - I think his whole story is strange. But based on what he said, the first "official" report is that no fighters were scrambled before the Pentagon attack. Gen. Myers' statement certainly did not contradict Snyder's, but I don't believe it was a confirmation of it either - Gen. Myers clearly said that he did not know the time NORAD responded. (And if he didn't know the time, how could he know that it was after the Pentagon was hit?)

CBS had to get some of their information from a military source (or sources), and reading the Globe article it seems as if the CBS story was coming out at about the same time as Snyder's statement. Do you know when Snyder was speaking to the press? Some of what is written in the Globe makes me think CBS may have reported their story first.

The only thing I found to give some time frame to the locations of the fighters are the statements made by the pilots themselves. Perhaps that's not eye-witness enough for you - I'm sure the people near Otis Air Force base had a better view than the pilots. :)
____________________

I think we have different views of Synder's comments for the same reason. They don't fit. I'm inclined to think he was mistaken for that reason and you are inclined to think it is significant for the very same reason. It is not likely we will agree about that.

In addition to his statement, I also think the changing times concerning Flight 93 are strange. (However, I don't know if any of the other stuff really changed enough to raise my eyebrows.)

Right now, I'm curious about the exact times of the first CBS report and the first Snyder statement, but I didn't have much luck trying to pinpoint either one. (Although I really don't have too much time lately.)

-Make7

[John Doe II]

25. In any case

It remains that we have FOUR different timelines. Even if it might be possible that at one moment Snyder's story coexisted with CBS infos.
And I really wouldn't have any reason to doubt the statements of the two pilots. But once and again the problem is that their accounts are full of contradictions. For further details see Paul Thompson's Timeline.
And whatever we think about Snyder one thing I believe is sure: He is NORAD's spokeman. That doesn't mean he is always right but the very least one could say is that his statements are official and therefore significant. So, why does the Commission accept the changing of the timeline? Why do they even present a completely new timeline in the Report without bothering to explain why the third account was wrong. And why does the fact that people lied under oath when mentioning 9:16 as UA 93's hijack time have no consequence at all?
This is the simple line of this thread:
Why does a timeline change four times? Why are people allowed to lie under oath or that the Final Report contains lies? And why are no questions asked?

[Make7]

27. In your original post you wrote:

"Do you wonder if the Commission pointed out that General Arnold and General Scott lied to them under oath?
Do you wonder if the Commission thought theses changes might require further investigation or only a footnote?"

From the first chapter of the report:

More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning.

In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA.¹⁷⁵ This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.¹⁷⁶ This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C.¹⁷⁷

In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,¹⁷⁸ United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start moving directly toward Washington, D.C.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

175.William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003.

176. Larry Arnold testimony, May 23, 2003.

177. See DOD record, NEADS MCC/T Log Book, Sept. 11, 2001.The entry in this NEADS log records the tail number not of American 77 but of American 11:"American Airlines #N334AA hijacked." See also DOD record, Surveillance Log Book, Sept. 11, 2001.

178.William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003; DOD briefing materials,"Noble Eagle; 9-11 Timeline," undated.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

So apparently they did point out the inconsistencies in the testimony. And I guess they thought they had investigated it enough. And I guess they thought it deserved more than a footnote, because they put it in the first chapter.
____________________

It seems to me that you don't have four complete timelines in your original post - some are just bits and pieces.

I think if one compares the timeline from the first official press release from NORAD on 9/18/01 to the final commission report times - it matches closely except for the notification time to the military for Flight 175 and the second mistaken Flight 11 notification and response. (I'd go into more detail if I had time right now - maybe in a few days I'll get to it.)

Of course I realize you don't see things the same way - and that's what makes it interesting - everyone has a different perspective.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

28. As always: I very much appreciate your work!

Ok. I'll take it back that they didn't even write a footnote.
BUT still.

Can anybody please explain me how it is possible that high ranking military Generals have two years after 911 still inaccurate government accounts of those events ?
Give me a break!
The hearing is about the Air defense. That's the job of theses guys. And they are under oath and tell apparently completely wrong things.
May 2003!
"inaccurate government accounts of those events". Seriously. What is this?
If you're under oath and you tell not the truth you're normally put on trial. It is as simple as this. Or in other words: How can it be possible that NORAD didn't know the timeline of their activity on 911???

I think if one compares the timeline from the first official press release from NORAD on 9/18/01 to the final commission report times - it matches closely except for the notification time to the military for Flight 175 and the second mistaken Flight 11 notification and response. (I'd go into more detail if I had time right now - maybe in a few days I'll get to it.)

Yes, but also and foremost: UA 93!
What happened to the 9:16 claim?
This is especially important as there was absolutely no reason how the FAA could possibly have known that UA 93 was hijacked at that time.
So, why was it claimed to have been the case for more almost THREE years??

[stickdog]

15. Yes, it's useful in knowing that he realized he might have fucked up

when earlier in the EXACT SAME testimony he declared:

MYERS: When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.

[stickdog]

6. It's straight from the disinfo handbook. Just pile lie on top of lie with

no real explanation until the smoking gun is completely surrounded by smoke and mirrors.

[philb]

12. National Security and Interception Procedures- military

National Security and Interception Procedures

Interception Signals:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

Emergency or Hijackings
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator of the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit.

So the FAA coordinator should have a record of which jets were chasing which planes. Where were those records during the 9/11 Commission Hearings?
FOIA request??

[JackRiddler]

26. this topic deserves a new kick

Skeptics, know this stuff!^^

[John Doe II]

29. And another witness: Giuliani

Here's another witness that supports the very first story:
no air defense to New York before the Pentagon was hit

Interestingly Giuliani gives his statement in 2004 (so when the story had already changed twice) and please keep in mind that he gave it under oath:

So I got through to the White House. Chris Henick was on the phone, who was the, who was then the deputy political director to President Bush. And I said to him, "Chris, was the Pentagon attacked?"

And he said, "Confirmed."

And then I asked him if we had air support. I said, "Have you -- do we have air support? Do you have jets out, because I think we're going to get hit again?"

He said, "The jets were dispatched 12 minutes ago and they should be there very shortly, and they should be able to defend you against further attack." And then he said, "We've evacuating the White House and the vice president will call you back very, very shortly."
And I put down the phone and within seconds got a call in another room from the vice president. I walked over to that room, picked up the phone. The White House operator was on the phone and said, "Mr. Mayor, the vice president will be on in a moment."

And at that point, I heard a click. The desk started to shake and I heard next Chief Esposito, who was the uniformed head of the police department. I'm sure it was his voice. I heard him say, "The tower is down. The tower has come down."

(Commission Hearing, 5/19/04)

Strangely there is no transcript on the homepage of the Commission for this hearing. But I found it here:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/features/giuliani_5_19_04.shtml

So, we can pinpoint the call to around 9:57 and therefore the dispatching of the fighters to 9:45.

Now, let's get this straight:
We do have three big witnesses who state that there has been no air defense before the Pentagon was attacked: General Myers, NORAD spokesman Snyder and Giuliani.

As Giulani spoke under oath: Why does the Commission not only decide to go for another timeline (and even telling that fighters had been over New York at 9:25 although this is completely absurd in view of Giuliani's call) and don't even bother to write a refutation of the first story in a footnote....

[Make7]

30. You were probably expecting this....

But first, how have you been? Haven't seen you around here very much lately - are you still spending a lot of your time on the London bombings?

Now - on to the discussion:

First, they do have links to the transcript and to videos available on their website. (Although it looks like the very beginning is missing from the transcript.)

Check here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing11/index.htm

Second, the commission talked to the fighter pilots, other military personnel, had audio tapes from NEADS and FAA communications, statements from FAA personnel, and reconstruction of the radar data.

From the endnotes of the report:

117. For the distance between Otis Air Force Base and New York City, see William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003. For the order from NEADS to Otis to place F-15s at battle stations, see NEADS audio file,Weapons Director Technician position, channel 14, 8:37:15. See also interviews with Otis and NEADS personnel: Jeremy Powell interview (Oct. 27, 2003); Michael Kelly interview (Oct. 14, 2003); Donald Quenneville interview (Jan. 7, 2004), and interviews with Otis fighter pilots: Daniel Nash interview (Oct. 14, 2003); Timothy Duffy interview (Jan. 7, 2004). According to Joseph Cooper from Boston Center,"I coordinated with Huntress <"Huntress" is the call sign for NEADS>. I advised Huntress we had a hijacked aircraft. I requested some assistance. Huntress requested and I supplied pertinent information. I was advised aircraft might be sent from Otis." FAA record, Personnel Statement of Joseph Cooper, Oct. 30, 2001.

119. NEADS audio file, Weapons Director Technician position, channel 14; 8:45:54; Daniel Nash interview (Oct. 14, 2003); Michael Kelly interview (Oct. 14, 2003); Donald Quenneville interview (Jan. 7, 2004); Timothy Duffy interview (Jan. 7, 2004); NEADS audio file, Mission Crew Commander position, channel 2, 8:44:58; NEADS audio file, Identification Technician position, channel 5, 8:51:13.

120. FAA audio file, Boston Center, position 31R; NEADS audio file, Mission Crew Commander position, channel 2, 8:58:00; NEADS audio file, Mission Crew Commander position, channel 2, 8:54:55. Because of a technical issue, there are no NEADS recordings available of the NEADS senior weapons director and weapons director technician position responsible for controlling the Otis scramble.We found a single communication from the weapons director or his technician on the Guard frequency at approximately 9:11, cautioning the Otis fighters: "remain at current position until FAA requests assistance." See NEADS audio file, channel 24. That corresponds to the time after the Otis fighters entered the holding pattern and before they headed for New York. NEADS controllers were simultaneously working with a tanker to relocate close to the Otis fighters.At 9:10, the senior director on the NEADS floor told the weapons director,"I want those fighters closer in." NEADS audio file, Identification Technician position, channel 5. At 9:10:22, the Otis fighters were told by Boston Center that the second tower had been struck. At 9:12:54, the Otis fighters told their Boston Center controller that they needed to establish a combat air patrol over New York, and they immediately headed for New York City. See FAA audio files, Boston Center, position 31R. This series of communications explains why the Otis fighters briefly entered and then soon departed the holding pattern, as the radar reconstruction of their flight shows. DOD radar files, 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron,"9/11 Autoplay," undated.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

Perhaps they thought that this information was more accurate than the information Giuliani received over the phone from the deputy political director to President Bush.

-Make7

[John Doe II]

31. Thanks for asking

Yes, I've been away for some time; Worked a lot on London and then my harddisk broke. I lost quuite a lot of stuff. Never mind.
Good to see you, too!

And thanks for correcting me on the Commission's homepage. Last time (which is some months ago) it was the only hearing that wasn't put up. But certainly I should have doublechecked again before making such claim. Thanks for the correction.

You write:
Perhaps they thought that this information was more accurate than the information Giuliani received over the phone from the deputy political director to President Bush.

I'd immediately agree with you if this call would be the only source for the claim that there were no fighters. It would be even ridiculous.

Yet, it is not only what the deputy said but:
The time of the call is very clear (Guiliani asks if the Pentagon had been attacked and hears from the evacuation). Further the time is very exactly pinpointed by the fact that Guiliani hardly was at 9:25 when the fighters should have been above NY in his emergency center. Moreover he notices that the collapse happened just after the call.

So, in any case, it is even not important that the deputy confirms the absence of the fighters in the call. What is important the undeniable fact that the very reason for the call that happened around 9:58 is the absence of any airfighters above NY. Is it believable that the Mayor or New York has no clue for 33 minutes that there are already fighters above his city?

But his call is only one source backing up the suspicion that in fact there weren't any fighters as it is claimed now but that the very first story of the air defense is true.

We have not only Guiliani.
We have Myer's statement.
We have NORAD spokeman Snyder's statement.
We do have the absence of any statement before September 14 that
mentions fighters before the Pentagon is attacked.
We have a central article in the Cap Code Times from September 12 where nothing is mentioned of any activity before the given time.
We have two eyewitnesses next to Otis who witnessed activity only after the given time.
We have the absence of any eyewitnesses in New York stating the arrival of the fighters at 9:25.
We have the absence of any video showing fighters above the burning towers.
We have two transcripts from television broadcasting mentioning the arrival of the fighters which was clearly after 9:25.

What does the Commission have?
Evidence that can't be checked.
Pilot's statements that is very contradictory as Paul Thompson's timeline shows.