 Purple Belt
Status:
|
|
The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11
By Paul Thompson
On May 22 and 23, 2003, the 9/11 Independent Commission held its second set of public hearings, focusing on the issue of air defense. It’s not surprising if you haven’t heard about this, because the hearings were poorly covered by the media, with major papers such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times failing to write any articles on them.
NORAD’s war room located in the Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs, Colorado. [Discover magazine]
That’s unfortunate, because the hearings were important, and the issue of air defense is critically so. Could at least some of the 9/11 attacks have been stopped if the US air defense system had reacted faster? We need to know the answers and identify possible failures if we are to prevent future attacks from succeeding.
The heads of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), the Transportation Department, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in charge of defending America’s airspace), and others testified before this commission hearing. Unfortunately, many of their statements consisted of evasions, lies, and spin. Their statements will be examined more closely below. But before that, it is important to ask, what intelligence warnings could have led to an improved defensive posture by 9/11, and what actions were taken to improve the nation’s defense against terrorism before 9/11?
No Warnings at All?
In his May 2003 testimony, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta stated to the Independent Commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile. We had no information of that nature at all.” [Norman Mineta Testimony, 5/23/03] FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said, “I was not aware of any information about (planes) being used as weapons that was credible.” [UPI, 5/22/03 (B)] Mineta and Garvey were merely repeating the same claims many Bush administration officials have made since 9/11. For instance, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in May 2002, “All this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” [Washington Post 9/18/02] Even President Bush stated, “Never did anybody’s thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets—never.” [NATO, 9/16/01]
Attacks Using Planes as Weapons
Careful examination of the published record clearly shows these claims there were no warnings are simply not true. Historically there have been many attacks using planes as weapons, an obvious example being the kamikaze strikes by Japanese pilots on Allied ships in World War II. More recently, in 1994, there were three separate attempts to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. A disgruntled Federal Express worker tried to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but was overpowered by the crew.A lone pilot crashed a small plane onto the White House grounds, just missing the president’s bedroom.An Air France flight was hijacked by a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, with the aim of flying it into the Eiffel Tower; however, French Special Forces stormed the plane while it was refueling.[New York Times, 10/3/01]
In January 1995, acclaimed 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others were within weeks of implementing a massive plot named Operation Bojinka when they were foiled by authorities in the Philippines. This plot involved the simultaneous bombing of up to a dozen passenger airliners flying over the Pacific Ocean. But in some variations of this plan, planes were to be hijacked and flown into “key structures” in the United States. According to a US intelligence analysis shortly after the plot was uncovered, “The World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon, the Transamerican Tower, and the Sears Tower were among the prominent structures that had been identified in the plans that we had decoded.” [Village Voice, 9/26/01] One pilot, Abdul Hakim Murad (who incidentally learned to fly in US flight schools), confessed that his role was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01] Details of Operation Bojinka were widely known within the US government. Yet Khalid Shaikh Mohammed escaped capture and later stated that the 9/11 attacks were essentially a refinement and resurrection of Bojinka. [Australian, 9/9/02] Even the fact that Mohammed would have led a resurrection of Bojinka should have been no surprise, because in 1997 the intelligence agency of Qatar, where Mohammed had been hiding, told the US that Mohammed was once again planning “to hijack some planes.” [UPI, 9/30/02] In June 2001, US intelligence additionally learned that Mohammed was interested in “sending terrorists to the United States” and planning to assist their activities there. [Los Angeles Times, 12/12/02]
Ethiopian Flight ET 961 crashes into the Indian Ocean in 1996. [WTN]
Bojinka was only the most spectacular of many failed plans to use planes as flying bombs. In January 1996, US intelligence received information concerning a planned suicide attack by individuals connected with al-Qaeda. They wanted to fly from Afghanistan to the US and crash into the White House. In October 1996, an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and crash it into Tel Aviv was exposed. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] On November 24, 1996, several Ethiopians took over a passenger airliner, and let it run out of fuel. Hijackers fought with the pilot as the hijackers tried to steer the plane into a resort on a Comoros Islands beach, but seconds before reaching the resort the pilot was able to crash the plane into shallow waters instead, 500 yards short of the resort. 123 of the 175 passengers and crew died. [New York Times, 11/25/96, Australian, 11/26/96, Houston Chronicle, 11/26/96] In August 1998, a CIA intelligence report asserted that Arab terrorists were planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. Later, other intelligence information connected this group to al-Qaeda. [New York Times, 9/18/02, Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] One month later, information given to US intelligence suggested that al-Qaeda’s next operation might involve crashing an aircraft loaded with explosives into a US airport. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, Washington Post, 9/19/02] Two months later, in November 1998, the US learned that a Turkish group, cooperating with al-Qaeda, planned to crash an airplane packed with explosives into a famous tomb during a government ceremony. They were arrested before they could carry out the plot. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
In March 1999, US intelligence learned that a US citizen who was involved in al-Qaeda planned to fly an explosives-laden hang glider into the Egyptian Presidential Palace in Cairo. There were problems in testing the glider in Afghanistan, and he was eventually arrested before the plot was carried out. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] Later that year, an Egyptian pilot intentionally flew a passenger airliner into the ocean, killing everyone on board. [AP, 1/21/00, Atlantic Monthly, 11/01, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 3/25/02] In August 2001, US intelligence learned of a plot to either bomb the US embassy in Nairobi from an airplane or crash an airplane into it. Two people who were reportedly acting on instructions from bin Laden met in October 2000 to discuss this plot. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
A “ring of steel” completely surrounded the July 2001 G-8 summit’s meeting place as part of Italy’s extensive security. [AP]
In July 2001, Bush attended the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy. The Egyptian government warned that al-Qaeda planned to assassinate Bush and other heads of state using “an airplane stuffed with explosives.” [New York Times, 9/26/01] US intelligence also learned of this from Russia and other sources. [CNN, 3/02] The Italian government surrounded the summit with antiaircraft guns, kept fighters in the air, and closed off local airspace to all planes.[Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01] The reports were taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore. [CNN, 7/18/01] The plot was reported in the media before the summit began, so, not surprisingly, the attack was called off. [Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01] Some media reports even mentioned that the plan was to attack Bush on the ground from al-Qaeda-controlled aircraft. [BBC, 7/18/01]
Foreign Government Warnings of Planes as Weapons
Numerous foreign governments warned the US that it was likely to be attacked by airplanes used as weapons. In 1999, the British warned that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways, possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] In early August 2001, Britain gave a categorical warning that the US should expect multiple airline hijackings. This warning was passed on to Bush a short time later. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02] In June 2001, Germany warned that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] In August, Russian President Putin warned the US that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02]
In late July 2001, “Egyptian intelligence [learned] ... from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] This closely matches the details of the actual 9/11 plot, with its four pilots who trained on Cessnas. Around the end of August, Egyptian intelligence followed up with a warning that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] Jordan passed on the message that a major attack, code named the “Big Wedding,” was planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used.[International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] “Big Wedding” was in fact al-Qaeda’s secret code name for the 9/11 attacks. [Chicago Tribune, 9/5/02]
Israel went even further, warning in mid-August 2001 that between 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent, “major assault on the United States.” They said it was likely to be on a “large scale target” (the CIA has denied this warning). [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] On August 23, Israel even gave the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US who were about to stage an attack. It’s not known if these were the exact same 19 hijackers as in the 9/11 attack, but at least four of the names on the list were the same: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] Apparently Israeli agents had been monitoring the hijackers inside the US for months. For instance, beginning in December 2000, agents lived a few blocks from Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta, and observed them “around the clock.” [Salon, 5/7/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02]
Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator at the time of 9/11, testifying before the 9/11 Commission. [C-SPAN]
An al-Qaeda Attack Expected Within the US
Bush officials, when admitting that any warnings were known at all, have suggested that most intelligence information pointed toward overseas attacks only. FAA Director Jane Garvey repeated this in her May 2003 testimony, saying attention “was focused on threats overseas.” [UPI, 5/22/03 (B)] But even this is not true—many of the foreign government warnings mentioned above pointed to attacks in the US, and there was much more evidence that the target was inside the US.
In the autumn of 1998, US intelligence heard of an al-Qaeda plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington areas. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, New York Times, 9/18/02] Around this time bin Laden declared a worldwide fatwa, or religious call to arms, against US targets and American citizens anywhere in the world. By December, a US intelligence assessment stated, “Multiple reports indicate bin Laden is keenly interested in striking the US on its own soil.” [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, Washington Post, 9/19/02] Later in the month a Time magazine cover story, entitled “The Hunt for Osama,” reported that intelligence sources had “evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet—a strike on Washington or possibly New York City...” [Time, 12/21/98]
In July 1999, an agent of Pakistan’s intelligence service, in the US to buy illegal weapons for al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, pointed to the World Trade Center and stated, “Those towers are coming down.” An FBI informant recorded him saying this and similar threats against that building on two other occasions. This information reached higher officials, including the office of Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. [WPBF Channel 25, 8/5/02, Cox News, 8/2/02, Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02]
In September, US intelligence learned of a planned al-Qaeda attack in the US, possibly against landmarks in California and New York City. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] Two months later, in December 1999, an al-Qaeda bomb attack on the Los Angeles International Airport was narrowly averted. Ahmed Ressam was arrested by an alert Washington state border guard who noticed his nervousness. [New York Times, 12/30/01] Documents found with Ressam led to co-conspirators in New York, Boston and Seattle. Enough people were arrested to prevent a series of attacks planned for December 31, 1999. National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke later said that as a result, “I think a lot of the FBI leadership for the first time realized that ... there probably were al-Qaeda people in the United States.” [PBS Frontline, 10/3/02]
In April 2000, a man walked into the FBI office in Newark, New Jersey, and claimed he had received hijacking training at an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan. He also stated that he was supposed to meet five or six other individuals in the US and participate in the hijacking of a 747. Pilots in the hijacking team would either fly the plane to Afghanistan or blow it up. The individual passed an FBI polygraph, but the FBI was unable to verify his story or identify his contacts in the US. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
In late July 2001, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, foreign minister for the Taliban, tried to warn the US that al-Qaeda was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands. His message was told to US officials, but it is unclear how far the warning was passed along. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02] Then, according to a CIA official, “There was something specific in early August that said to us that [bin Laden] was determined in striking on US soil.” [AP, 10/3/01] “Shortly before” 9/11, there was even an intercept of a conversation between Osama bin Laden and an associate talking about an incident to take place in the US on or around 9/11, and its implications. [Sunday Times, 10/7/01]
Experts Realized Planes Could Be Used as Weapons
Despite the Bush administration’s frequent protests to the contrary, many experts had considered this type of attack. In 1993, an expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon suggested that an airplane could be used as a missile to bomb national landmarks. But the panel was not allowed to mention this in its published report. According to one of the authors, Pentagon officials said, “We don’t want it released, because you can’t handle a crisis before it becomes a crisis. And no one is going to believe you.” [ABC News, 2/20/02] However, the next year one of the panel’s experts wrote in Futurist magazine, “Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but, because of their symbolic nature, provide more bang for the buck. In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with the aim of overtaxing a government’s ability to respond, as well as demonstrating their professionalism and reach.” [Washington Post, 10/2/01] Later in 1994, Tom Clancy published a book in which terrorists try to destroy the US Capitol Building by crashing a radio controlled airplane into it. In a Time magazine cover story the next year, Senator Sam Nunn repeated Clancy’s idea, and said it was “not far-fetched.” [Time, 4/3/95]
It turns out that in every Olympic Games since 1972, security officials have specifically attempted to prevent any plane crashes into crowded stadiums. [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/20/01] For instance, in the 1996 Games held in Atlanta, Georgia, planes were banned from getting too close, helicopters and jets were deployed to intercept suspicious aircraft nearby, and so on.[Chicago Tribune, 11/18/01] At the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Australia, six planes were kept in the sky at all times to intercept any aircraft. Officials considered al-Qaeda the number-one threat, and the idea of “a fully loaded, fueled airliner crashing into the opening ceremony” was one of their greatest fears. [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/20/01]
In September 1999, a report by a group advising the president and US intelligence on emerging threats contained these ideas: “Al-Qaeda’s expected retaliation for the US cruise missile attack ... could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation’s capital.Al-Qaeda could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building.Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House.Whatever form an attack may take, bin Laden will most likely retaliate in a spectacular way.” [AP, 4/18/02] The Bush administration later claimed to have never heard of this publicly released report until long after 9/11, even though the New York Times said it was “widely shared within the government.” [CNN, 5/18/02, New York Times, 5/18/02]
This large model of the Pentagon was used in the October 2000 MASCAL simulation. Note pieces of an airplane are broken up in the Pentagon’s interior courtyard. [Dennis Ryan]
War Games Prepare for 9/11
In truth, the US government seemed quite concerned the possibility of an attack using a plane as a weapon. For example, on October 24-26, 2000,Pentagon officials carried out a “detailed” emergency drill based upon the crashing of an airliner into the Pentagon. [MDW News Service, 11/3/00, Mirror, 5/24/02] Also, US Medicine magazine reported that in May 2001, “DoD [Department of Defense] medical personnel trained” to respond to “an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner” crashing into the Pentagon. [US Medicine, 10/01] On June 1-2, 2001, NORAD sponsored a multi-agency planning exercise named Amalgam Virgo involving the hypothetical scenario of a cruise missile launched by “a rogue (government) or somebody” from a barge off the East Coast. Bin Laden was pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise. [American Forces Press Service, 6/4/02] Before 9/11, it was already planned that the next year’s version of Amalgam Virgo would involve a simultaneous hijacking scenario. [NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] Additionally, at some point before 9/11, NORAD conducted another drill, in which a hijacked plane slammed into a highly visible US target. Details of this drill are not known, except that it involved a plane hijacked from a foreign airport. [AP, 10/7/01]
The cover of NORAD’s June 2001 Amalgam Virgo exercise proposal.
Remarkably, on the morning of 9/11 itself, “ [John] Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.” [National Law Enforcement Security Institute, 8/02] Fulton’s team was part of the National Reconnaissance Office, which “operates many of the nation’s spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.” The simulation was to start at 9:00 a.m., four miles from where one of the real hijacked planes had just taken off. Apparently it was cancelled when real events took over. [AP, 8/21/02] Also on 9/11, NORAD was in the middle of another periodic war game, this one called Vigilant Guardian. Details are vague, except that the scenario tested “an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide” [Newhouse News, 1/25/02], and according to one NORAD employee, “everybody” at NORAD initially thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02, ABC News, 9/11/02]
Nobody Knew?
The above is only a partial listing of all the information that should have alerted the Bush administration to the nature of the 9/11 attack. For instance, one could also go into detail about the failure to appreciate FBI agent Ken Williams’s July 2001 memo warning of al-Qaeda agents training in US flight schools, or the failure to follow up on the August 15, 2001, arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui which led one flight school official to complain to FBI agents, “Do you realize how serious this is? This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!” [New York Times, 2/8/02] There were numerous additional warnings suggesting targets like the World Trade Center and indicating exactly when the attacks would happen (see this page and this page for more).
It’s no wonder the Bush administration has refused to allow most of the findings of the 2002 9/11 Congressional Inquiry to be made public, and has repeatedly attempted to prevent any serious investigation into 9/11. [Newsweek, 4/30/03, Newsweek, 2/4/02] Stunningly, the administration now wants material that has already been made public to be reclassified. The Congressional Inquiry was not allowed to reveal which warnings reached which officials. Its final 800-page report—still being withheld—is said to “name names” regarding who was told what. For instance, it apparently says that one CIA briefing from July 2001 was presented to Bush. That briefing predicted that al-Qaeda would launch a terrorist strike “in the coming weeks.” It added, “Attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” [Newsweek, 4/30/03]
If that briefing wasn’t enough to cause concern for the president, the very title of the CIA’s daily briefing to Bush on August 6, 2001, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” should have. This also was kept from the public until someone leaked it to the press in May 2002. The entire memo focused on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. Some accounts claim it was 11 pages long, instead of the usual two or three pages. [Newsweek, 5/27/02, New York Times, 5/15/02, Die Zeit, 10/1/02] Its contents have never been released. However, a Congressional report later described what is likely this memo. Supposedly, it mentions “that members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, had resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists; FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks and the number of bin Laden-related investigations underway; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the US with explosives.” [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying before the 9/11 Commission. [C-SPAN]
What Preparations?
So given all these warnings, and undoubtedly many more that have not been made public, wouldn’t one naturally think the US government would have taken basic steps to guard against hijackings? Even forgetting planes as flying bombs, what about defenses against traditional hijackings? Transportation Secretary Mineta was asked at the May 2003 hearing, “Did this higher level of [terrorist] chatter ... result in any action across the government? I take it your answer is no.” He replied, “That’s correct.” [AP, 5/23/03 (C)]
In fact, rather than strengthening defenses, there actually were suggestions to weaken the country’s defenses even further. Supposedly, in 1997, the number of fighters on 24-hour active alert defending the continental US was reduced from about 100 fighters to only 14. And in the months before 9/11, the Pentagon was planning to reduce that number still further! “While defense officials say a decision had not yet been made [by 9/11], a reduction in air defenses had been gaining currency in recent months among task forces assigned by [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld...” [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01 (B)] Additionally, several months before, the FAA had tried to dispense with “primary” radars altogether and only use radars that detect transponder signals. Had that happened, when the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponder signals, no radar would have been able to find them. Luckily, NORAD rejected the proposal. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02]
Furthermore, despite all of the threats made against prominent landmarks, especially those in Washington and New York City, no steps appear to have been taken to better defend logical attack targets or these cities generally. For instance, there had long been a surface-to-air missile battery on top of the White House. [Telegraph, 9/16/01] Such batteries were not set up in New York City or anywhere else, in the way that the Italian government did to protect Genoa in July 2001. Nor were fighters kept in the skies as they were over recent Olympic Games, despite the high probability that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US [to paraphrase the title of Bush’s August 6 briefing] within a matter of weeks. In fact, the nearest military base with fighters on alert was 188 miles from New York City, and 129 miles from Washington. The fighters at Andrews Air Force Base, only 10 miles from the center of Washington, were not put on a higher alert status, as far as we know.
Bush’s national security leadership held about 100 meetings between the January 2001 inauguration and 9/11, but terrorism was discussed in only two of these meetings (on June 3 and September 4). [Washington Post, 5/17/02] By comparison, Clinton’s Counterterrorism Security Group of similar stature met two or three times a week between 1998 and 2000. [New York Times, 12/30/01] And on August 22, 2001, FBI agent John O’Neill, the government’s “most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists” [New Yorker, 1/14/02], quit after a critical article about him was published in the New York Times. O’Neill believed interim FBI Director Tom Pickard orchestrated the article as part of an effort to remove him, because the incoming FBI Director Robert Mueller wanted O’Neill replaced with a Bush ally. [PBS Frontline, 10/3/02, New Yorker, 1/14/02] O’Neill was killed in the 9/11 attacks.
The FAA sent 15 general terrorist warnings to US airlines between January and August 2001. But airlines had been receiving at least one such warning a month for a long time. [CNN, 3/02, CNN, 5/17/02] As one newspaper later put it, “There were so many that airline officials grew numb to them.” [St. Petersburg Times, 9/23/02] The Bush administration officials acknowledged that these warnings were so vague that they did not require tighter airline security. [AP, 5/18/02] In late June 2001,Richard Clarke, the White House National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, did give a direct warning to the FAA to increase security measures in light of an impending terrorist attack.But the FAA refused to take such measures, and nothing was done about its refusal.[New Yorker, 1/14/02]
Protection for a Lucky Few
Bush being briefed at his ranch in August 2001. [AP]
In fact, just about the only known actions taken by top-level Bush administration officials were to protect their personal safety. According toCongressman Porter Goss (R), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “the chatter level [of intercepted terrorist communications] went way off the charts” in summer 2001 and stayed high until 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 5/18/02] Both Bush and Vice President Cheney responded by spending nearly the entire month of August on vacation at separate locales. [AP, 7/30/01, Jackson Hole News and Guide, 7/15/01] Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney said she was disturbed about the implications that “24-hour fighter cover was placed over the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas” during his vacation there from August 4-30, 2001. [Counterpunch, 9/18/02] ABC News reported that Bush was doing “nothing much” on his vacation, aside from his regular daily intelligence briefings. [ABC, 8/3/01, Washington Post, 8/7/01, Salon, 8/29/01] On August 6, when Bush received the briefing entitled, “Bin Laden to Strike in US,” he apparently “broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing.” [New York Times, 5/25/02] Despite this carefree attitude, when Bush spent the night in Sarasota, Florida, the night before the 9/11 attacks, surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort where he was staying. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Presumably the presence of fighters in August and surface-to-air missiles protecting Bush that night were hardly typical security procedures.
Perhaps even more remarkable was the behavior of Attorney General John Ashcroft. In May 2001, he told a Senate committee that counter-terrorism was his “highest priority.” But on September 10, 2001, Ashcroft rejected a $58 million increase in funding for counter-terrorism programs, and sent an internal memorandum stating his seven priorities—none of them relating to counter-terrorism. [New York Times, 6/1/02, Guardian, 5/21/02] Yet, back on July 26, 2001, CBS News reported that Ashcroft had stopped flying commercial aircraft due to a threat, but “neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ...would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.” [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walked out of his own office rather than answer questions about why he had stopped flying on commercial planes. [AP, 5/16/02] The San Francisco Chronicle concluded, “The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. ... The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02]
Salman Rushdie.
Actually, some other lucky few received warnings not available to the general public. On September 3, 2001, author Salman Rushdie was banned by US authorities from taking internal US flights.Rushdie said the FAA told his publisher it had “intelligence of something about to happen.” The FAA later confirmed that “it stepped up security measures concerning Mr. Rushdie but refused to give a reason.” [London Times, 9/27/01] Years before, Iran had issued a religious fatwa against Rushdie calling for his murder, so if Rushdie had been caught up in a hijacking it would have been a major propaganda coup for the terrorists. (Its interesting to note that Rushdie was only banned from internal US flights while the US later claimed their only concern was overseas.) Even more curiously, two days after 9/11, Newsweek reported, “The state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.” [Newsweek, 9/13/01] Far from becoming a hot topic, the only subsequent media mention of this story was in the next issue of Newsweek: “A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.” [Newsweek, 9/17/01]
It almost seems as if Bush administration officials didn’t really care if a terrorist attack happened or not, as long as they and other important people were not killed in it.
The Response to the 9/11 Hijackings
With this background understanding of the numerous warnings given and a complete lack of protective measures taken, we can now turn to the subject of the May 2003 Independent Commission hearings. How effective were the air defenses on 9/11? Not surprisingly, with only 14 fighters on 24-hour active alert, the military was already at an unnecessary disadvantage. But even factoring in such a lack of planes, the defensive response to the hijackings was so remarkably poor that it has caused some to wonder if the hijackers were deliberately allowed to succeed.
Before looking at how the military response to 9/11 fared, we should consider the defensive posture on the East Coast at the time. Officially, there were only two air force bases in the Northeast region that were formally part of NORAD’s defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard Base on Massachusetts’ Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington. [BBC, 8/29/02] During the Cold War, the US had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14 fighters in the continental US by 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01 (B)] A cursory web search shows that until recently, many units were on five-minute alert status, which meant that from the moment they were scrambled (ordered into the air), they were guaranteed to be airborne within five minutes. NORAD has claimed that on 9/11 fighters in bases within its system, including Otis and Langley, were guaranteed to get airborne within 15 minutes, not five. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01, NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] (Why this reduction in capability happened even as the terrorist threat dramatically increased is another unanswered question.)
Ralph Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, did not testify before the 9/11 Commission.
These planes within NORAD’s system routinely scrambled after other aircraft. Often the goal was drug interdiction. General Ralph Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, said that before 9/11, “Normally, our units [flew] 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission.” [Federal News Service, 10/25/01] In 2000, there were 425 “unknowns”—pilots who didn’t file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters were scrambled in response to 129 of those cases, when problems were not immediately resolved. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01] Unfortunately, statistics on how many minutes it took for these fighters to get airborne apparently have not been released.
But there are dozens of other air force bases on the East Coast. How quickly other bases could get fighters into the air varied from base to base. Before 9/11, the web sites of many of these bases used terms like “combat ready,”“five minute alert,”“highest state of readiness,” and so on, indicating they should have been able to quickly respond as well. For instance, the web site for Andrews Air Force Base next to Washington boasted that it hosted two “combat ready” squadrons, “capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency.” The District of Columbia Air National Guard was stationed at Andrews, and its web site claimed its mission was “to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.” Both web sites changed on September 12, 2001, and the phrases suggesting such quick response capability were removed. [DC Military website, DCANG Home Page (before and after the change)] Bases at Westfield, Massachusetts; Syracuse, New York; and Hartford, Connecticut, also promised high readiness status, and these bases would have been in good positions to defend the skies on 9/11.
The Morning of September 11, 2001
As the sun rose on September 11, 2001, NORAD was already taking part in the Vigilant Guardian war game, which had begun a few days before. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02, Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/02, Code One Magazine, 1/02] As a result, NORAD was in peak form. It was fully staffed and alert, and senior officers were manning stations throughout the US when the first hijacking was reported. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Because of the war game, NORAD “had extra fighter planes on alert.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NORAD’s Northeastern US sector, said, “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/02]
American Airlines Flight 11
The location of military bases discussed here have been added onto this map of the flight paths for all four hijacked flights. Flight 11 is the Boston flight that went far north. Flight 175 also left from Boston. Flight 93 left from New York, and precisely followed its intended route until Cleveland. Flight 77 left from Washington. Langley is about 20 miles off the map to the south. [USA Today]
All four of the hijacked planes were scheduled to take off within several minutes of 8:00 a.m., though Flight 93 was delayed on the runway for 40 minutes. Flight 11 from Boston was the first plane to get hijacked. Edited transcripts of the cockpit transmissions show that the last routine communication between Flight 11 and Boston’s air traffic control was at 8:13 a.m. and 47 seconds. [New York Times, 10/16/01 (C)] The loss of communication was quickly noticed—flight controllers can be heard discussing it at 8:15. Furthermore, “just moments” after the radio contact was lost, the transponder was turned off as well. [MSNBC, 9/15/01] The transponder is the electronic device that identifies the jet on the controller’s screen, gives its exact location and altitude, and also allows a four-digit emergency hijack code to be sent. Boston air traffic manager Glenn Michael later said, “We considered [Flight 11] at that time to be a possible hijacking.” [AP, 8/12/02]
Normally, pilots press the ELT (emergency locator transmitter) button as soon as they suspect a hijacking is in progress. This button is within easy reach. However, the pilot of Flight 11, Captain John Ogonowski, did not press this button, and nor did the pilots on Flights 77 and 93. There has been speculation that this may have been because hijackers were already in the cockpits when the hijackings began, posing as a guest pilot sitting in the cockpit’s extra seat. [Fox News, 9/24/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01] This would explain, for instance, why Flight 11’s radio contact and transponder signal were both lost at about 8:14, while two stewardesses calling from the flight indicated the hijackers in the passenger section didn’t get out of their seats until about 8:21. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, ABC News, 7/18/02] But Captain Ogonowski was clever. He began turning the talk-back button off and on, which enabled flight controllers to hear what was being said, and also showed them that something was wrong. One controller said, “The button was being pushed intermittently most of the way to New York,” and continued until about 8:38, so he must have started not long after 8:14. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01, MSNBC, 9/15/01]
Flight controllers suspected something was wrong, but perhaps were confused because the ELT button had not been activated. But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01], and the plane also was clearly off course by that time (see adjacent flight path map). As a result, at “about 8:20” Boston flight control decided that Flight 11 had probably been hijacked. [Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 9/15/01 (C)] However, it did not notify NORAD or anyone else of a possible problem.
This is when the failure of America’s air defense system began. FAA regulations in force at the time state, “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft.” [FAA regulations] They also state, “If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” [FAA regulations] Furthermore, MSNBC explained that a significant course deviation is “considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour” and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be. [MSNBC, 9/12/01] But, as ABC News later put it, around 8:20, “There doesn’t seem to have been alarm bells going off, traffic controllers getting on with law enforcement or the military. There’s a gap there that will have to be investigated.” [ABC News, 9/14/01]
If there still was any doubt Flight 11 had been hijacked, that doubt was removed at 8:24. Because Captain Ogonowski was periodically holding down the talk-back button, beginning at 8:24 and 38 seconds, Boston flight controllers heard the hijackers in the cockpit broadcasting a message to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport.” A flight controller responded, “Who’s trying to call me?” The hijacker continued, “Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01 (C)] A Boston flight controller later said that immediately after hearing this voice, he “knew right then that he was working a hijack.” [Village Voice, 9/13/01] At 8:25 exactly, seconds after hearing this message, Boston flight control notified other flight control centers of the hijacking. But, supposedly, once again it did not notify NORAD. Incredibly, NORAD asserts that it wasn’t told of the hijacking until 8:40—a full 15 minutes later! [NORAD, 9/18/01]
Larry Arnold, NORAD Commander on 9/11, testifying before the 9/11 Commission. [C-SPAN]
These 15 minutes are vital. As mentioned previously, NORAD guaranteed that its fighters could take off within 15 minutes of being given the order to scramble. It must also have taken a few minutes for NORAD to confirm the situation and pass the word to the pilots. Let’s say this takes five minutes (in actual fact, when Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD’s Command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, first heard that Flight 11 had been hijacked, he said, “Go ahead and scramble them, and we’ll get the authorities later” [ABC News, 9/11/02], so pilot notification could have happened very quickly). It would then have taken another 15 minutes at most to get the fighters in the air. A NORAD spokeswoman said that fighters from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes. [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] So, adding this up, 8:25, plus 5, 15, and 12 minutes, means that the fighters would have reached New York City by 8:57. This would have been too late for Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46, but it would have reached New York six minutes before Flight 175, which crashed at 9:03.
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center’s South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we’re climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
Richard Myers was Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, and acting Chairman during the crisis. [Reuters]
Did the Otis Fighters Even Exist?
What is NORAD hiding with these conflicting notification times, and absurd “scalded ape” statements? Remarkably, it is possible that the story of fighters scrambling from Otis could be a complete fabrication. Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers was the acting head of the US military on 9/11 because the Chairman was out of contact on an international flight. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Two days after 9/11, under oath and in front of a Congressional committee, Myers was asked when the order to scramble planes was first given. He responded, “That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck [at 9:37].” [Myers Senate Confirmation Hearing, 9/13/01] If true, the claim that fighters were ordered scrambled at 8:46 is incorrect by almost one hour! This idea was not simply Myers’s confused recollection. The next day, NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder also claimed that no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. Only then did the military realize the scope of the attack and order fighters into the air. [Boston Globe, 9/15/01 (D)] NORAD’s current story of two fighters being scrambled at 8:46 was first reported on CBS Evening News on September 14, hours after Snyder agreed with Myers’s assertions. [CBS, 9/14/01] But even after that, in early October 2001, NORAD commander General Ralph Eberhart stated, “We did not anticipate this threat would take off from inside the United States and it would be a matter of double-digit minutes” to respond. [AP, 10/7/01] So in other words, even though NORAD fighters were supposed to be able to take to the sky within 15 minutes of being ordered to do so, NORAD claimed it was unable to respond unless it was warned more than an hour (or does he mean 99 minutes?) in advance!
United Airlines Flight 175
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that NORAD’s claim that fighters were scrambled at 8:46 is true. What else do we need to know about Flight 175, in order to judge the air defense response? On May 22, 2003, a NORAD spokesman claimed that the FAA notified NORAD that Flight 175 was “possibly hijacked” at 9:05, two minutes after it had crashed into the World Trade Center, and that its transponder was never turned off. [NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] Both of these assertions contradict all previous post-9/11 reports, including NORAD’s earlier timeline. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
At 8:16 a.m., Flight 175 took off late, 16 minutes after both its scheduled departure and the departure of Flight 11. [CNN, 9/17/01, AP, 8/19/02] The hijacking also started much later than on Flight 11. Flight 175’s last routine communication occurred four seconds before 8:42. Exactly one minute later, a Boston flight controller said of the flight, “He’s off about 9 o’clock and about 20 miles looks like he’s heading southbound but there’s no transponder no nothing and no one’s talking to him.” [New York Times, 10/16/01 (B)] So, all at once flight control discovered the radio had been cut off, the transponder had been turned off, and the plane was seriously off course. The FAA immediately notified NORAD before the minute was out. NORAD’s own timeline, released one week after 9/11, states that NORAD was notified about this plane at 8:43. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Actually, notifying NORAD was unnecessary, because by this time NORAD technicians had their headsets linked to Boston flight control to hear about Flight 11, and so NORAD learned about Flight 175 at the same time Boston did. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] If there was any doubt the plane was hijacked, that was removed five seconds after 8:44. A nearby airliner said to flight control about Flight 175, “I just picked up an ELT [emergency locator transmitter] on 121.5 it was brief but it went off.” [New York Times, 10/16/01 (B)] Clearly, NORAD’s latest claim that it was not notified until 9:05 is wildly incorrect. As for its recent claim that the transponder was never turned off, the above flight controller’s comment, “there’s no transponder no nothing,” shows how incorrect that is. But apparently, the transponder didn’t stay off for long. It was turned off for about 30 seconds, and then changed to a signal that was not designated for any plane on that day. [Newsday, 9/10/02] Ironically, this “allowed controllers to track the intruder easily...” [Washington Post, 9/17/01]
Both Flights 11 and 175 were never lost to Boston flight control’s radar. When Flight 11 turned its transponder off at 8:14, that only prevented Boston from determining the plane’s exact altitude, because they could still track the plane using primary radar. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01, Newhouse News, 1/25/02] Boston flight controller Mark Hodgkins later said, “I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down.” [ABC, 9/6/02] At some point before the plane turned toward New York City at 8:28, the FAA had tagged Flight 11’s radar dot for easy visibility, and at American Airlines headquarters, “All eyes watched as the plane headed south.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/15/01] But apparently NORAD had different radar, and Boston had to periodically update it on Flight 11’s position by telephone until NORAD finally found it a few minutes before it crashed into the World Trade Center. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, ABC News, 9/11/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02]
So in the 18 minutes between the crash of Flight 11, many eyes watched their radars show Flight 175 inexorably making its way toward New York City, heading nearly 180 degrees away from its previous flight path. Also, “several minutes” after the first attack at 8:46, Boston flight control reported to NORAD that it was Flight 11 that had crashed into the World Trade Center. [New York Times, 9/13/01 (F), Newhouse News, 1/25/02] NORAD now claims it wasn’t notified about this until 9:05. [NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03]
F-15 pilot Major Daniel Nash flew after Flight 175. [Cape Cod Times]
Also “within minutes” of 8:46, two open telephone conference calls were established between the FAA, NORAD, the Secret Service, and a number of other government agencies. [FAA, 5/22/03, UPI, 5/22/03 (B)] Even Bush and Cheney were occasionally heard on these open lines. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, CNN, 9/4/02, ABC News, 9/11/02] But between the crashes of Flights 11 and 175, not everyone who should have been informed actually was. Flight controllers in New York City later complained that Boston controllers didn’t give them a conclusive report of what happened to Flight 11 until a minute or two before Flight 175 crashed at 9:03. They also weren’t told there was a concern with Flight 175 until right before it crashed. [New York Times, 9/13/01 (F)] And despite so many agencies being in the know through the conference call, apparently no one thought to notify officials in New York City. As a result, from about 8:55 until shortly before the second crash, a public announcement was broadcast inside the South Tower of the World Trade Center, saying that the building was secure and that people could return to their offices. [USA Today, 9/3/02, New York Times, 9/11/02, click on interactive popup]
Even worse, the pilots flying toward New York City were poorly informed. One pilot, Major Daniel Nash, says he can’t recall actually being told of the Flight 11 crash. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] Both pilots say they weren’t told about Flight 175 until after it had crashed. [ABC News, 9/11/02, ABC, 9/14/02] At no point in the day were these pilots given permission to shoot down any airliners. Nash points out that even if he had reached New York City before Flight 175, he couldn’t have shot it down because only the president could make that decision, and he was preoccupied with a classroom of children in Florida. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02]
American Airlines Flight 77
So clearly NORAD and the rest of the government has little to be proud of regarding Flights 11 and 175. With better communication, a good portion of the people inside the World Trade Center could have been warned in time to leave, and perhaps Flight 175 could have been prevented from hitting the South Tower altogether. But the response to Flight 77 was even worse.
Flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport near Washington at 8:20, ten minutes after the scheduled departure time. [8:20, CNN, 9/17/01, Guardian, 10/17/01] Its last routine radio communication was made 51 seconds after 8:50, and then it failed to respond to a routine instruction. [New York Times, 10/16/01 (D)] According to a USA Today map, it likely had already turned about 90 degrees from its scheduled flight path by this time (see the flight path map above). According to the New York Times, “a few minutes” after 8:48, flight controllers learned that Flight 77 had been hijacked. [New York Times, 9/15/01 (C)] But, as with Flight 11, they clearly violated regulations and failed to immediately notify NORAD.
A few minutes later, Flight 77 began turning around over northeastern Kentucky, and eventually headed back toward Washington. [Washington Post, 9/12/01, Newsday, 9/23/01] At 8:56, Flight 77’s transponder signal was turned off. [Guardian, 10/17/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01] The New York Times later pointed out that “by 8:56 a.m., it was evident that Flight 77 was lost.” Starting at 8:56, flight controllers repeatedly called for Flight 77 over the radio and received no reply. [New York Times, 10/16/01] Ev |
