Did Training Exercises Prevent Andrews Air Force Base From Responding to the 9/11 Attacks?

Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without
interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air
Force Base] ... right next to the capital?

- Paul Hellyer, Canadian minister of national defense, 1963-1967

Many aircraft at a military base just outside Washington, DC, were taking part in training exercises around the time the terrorist attacks occurred on September 11, 2001, it has been revealed. But whether these exercises impaired the ability of the various units at the base to effectively respond to the attacks has never been properly investigated.

On September 11, FAA air traffic controller James Ampey was on duty in the control tower at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, near the District of Columbia border. He later told the 9/11 Commission that there was "an unusually high number of aircraft taking off and landing at Andrews that morning, because previously scheduled military exercises were under way." Ampey apparently did not tell the Commission what specific exercises these were, or the time period during which the aircraft were "taking off and landing" at the base. [1] However, other publicly available information offers minor clues about these exercises.

'GLOBAL GUARDIAN' EXERCISE
Journalist and author Dan Verton has described that, around the time of the Pentagon attack on 9/11 (9:37 a.m.), "civilian and military officials were boarding a militarized version of a Boeing 747, known as the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC), at an airfield outside of the nation's capital. They were preparing to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise." [2] The airfield Verton referred to could well have been Andrews Air Force Base, as this is located only 10 miles from Washington. [3] Indeed, according to Miles Kara, who was a professional staff member of the 9/11 Commission, primary source information reveals that an E-4B took off from Andrews that morning, and was airborne at 9:27 a.m. [4] The exercise Verton referred to was likely "Global Guardian," which was "in full swing" when the attacks began, and for which three E-4Bs were launched. Global Guardian was an annual exercise run by the U.S. Strategic Command, to test its ability to fight a nuclear war. [5] Whether other aircraft taking off or landing at Andrews were also participating in Global Guardian is unknown.

NORAD EXERCISE ON 9/11
Another major exercise taking place on September 11 was "Vigilant Guardian." It seems less likely, however, that aircraft at Andrews would have participated in this.

The annual Vigilant Guardian exercise was being conducted by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), including its Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). [6] Vigilant Guardian has been described as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States," and was scheduled to include a simulated hijacking during the morning of September 11. [7] However, the DC Air National Guard (DCANG), which is based at Andrews, was not part of the NORAD air defense force. [8] Furthermore, members of the DCANG had just returned from a major training exercise in Nevada. With only a few pilots available, 9/11 was reportedly a "light flying day" for the unit, which would indicate that it would not have participated in Vigilant Guardian or any other major exercises that morning. [9] And since Andrews was not one of NORAD's seven "alert" sites around the U.S., it seems unlikely that any of the other military organizations there would have been involved in a NORAD exercise. [10]

NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONS AT ANDREWS
While only limited information is available indicating what exercises the planes at Andrews were involved in, we know that numerous military organizations are located at the base, in addition to the DCANG, some of which may have had air defense capabilities. And some of them could well have been participating in the exercises Ampey referred to.

Among more than 60 separate organizations located at Andrews Air Force Base are units from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. [11] These include Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, which flies the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet, and Naval Air Facility, Washington, DC, which has numerous aircraft available, including the F/A-18 Hornet. [12] Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 at least appears to have had air defense capabilities that may have been able to provide protection against the attacks on September 11: At around 9:50 a.m. that morning, one of its officers called a friend who worked at NEADS, and said: "Dude, get us in the war. I've got wrench turners on our planes uploading weapons. What can we do?" [13]

Another unit at Andrews was the 1st Helicopter Squadron. Its primary mission was "to support [Department of Defense] contingency plans for transport of key government officials should a national emergency arise." It had around 200 members of staff, and possessed 19 twin-engine UH-1N "Huey" helicopters. Many of these helicopters reportedly flew throughout the day of September 11. [14] Whether the 1st Helicopter Squadron was involved in the training exercises that morning is unknown.

DID EXERCISES AFFECT THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE?
It is essential to investigate whether the training exercises impaired the organizations at Andrews in their ability to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Were any of them delayed or otherwise hindered as a result of their participation in an exercise? Were assets, such as aircraft and personnel, which could otherwise have been utilized in the response to the attacks, unavailable because they were being used in an exercise? Were military and civilian air traffic controllers in the Washington area perhaps confused about flights in their region because of the exercises taking place?

In a news report published on the day of 9/11, Knight Ridder stated, "Air defense around Washington, DC, is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base." [15] Indeed, the DC Air National Guard is known as the "Capital Guardians." [16] According to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, "Many planes were scrambled out of Andrews" throughout the day of September 11. [17] And yet the first fighter jet to take off from there in response to the attacks was an unarmed DCANG F-16, which took off at 10:38 a.m., more than 30 minutes after the attacks had come to an end. [18] Might fighter jets have been able to respond earlier on, only the emergency responses of units at Andrews were somehow delayed by the training exercises?

AIR GUARD HINDERED BY TRAINING MISSION AND RECENT EXERCISE
As mentioned above, it seems unlikely that the DC Air National Guard would have been involved in a major training exercise on September 11. However, other circumstances seem to have significantly reduced its ability to respond to the attacks.

Three days earlier, on September 8, members of the DCANG returned from a major exercise in Nevada, called "Red Flag." Most of its fighter pilots, who flew commercial planes in their civilian lives and were involved with the unit on only a part-time basis, were consequently away, either back at their airline jobs or on leave, according to different accounts. The unit reportedly had just seven pilots available on 9/11. [19] At least three of these were inexperienced, junior pilots. [20] And of the seven pilots, three had taken off shortly before the first attack in New York occurred, for a routine training mission around 200 miles away from base, over North Carolina. They did not arrive back at Andrews until after the attacks had ended. [21]

While discussing the 9/11 attacks, in 2004, Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian minister of national defense, posed the question, "Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base] … right next to the capital?" He said: "With a quick-reaction alert they should have been in the air in five minutes or 10 minutes. If not, as a minister of national defense, which in the United States would be the secretary of defense, I would want to say, 'Why not?'" [22]

His questions are as pertinent today as they were five years ago.

NOTES
[1] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower." 9/11 Commission, July 28, 2003.
[2] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. Emeryville, CA: McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2003, pp. 143-144.
[3] "Andrews AFB, Maryland." GlobalSecurity.org, March 3, 2002.
[4] Miles Kara, "9/11: The Mystery Plane; Not so Mysterious." 9/11 Revisited, June 30, 2009.
[5] Joe Dejka, "Inside StratCom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist." Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002; Joe Dejka, "When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making." Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[6] William B. Scott, "Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks." Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[7] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 122; Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Vanity Fair, August 2006.
[8] William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93." Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 9, 2002; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 76.
[9] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major David McNulty, Chief of Intelligence, 121st Fighter Squadron, Air National Guard, Andrews Air Force Base." 9/11 Commission, March 11, 2004.
[10] Pat McKenna, "FANGs Bared." Airman, December 1999.
[11] "Andrews Air Force Base: Welcome." DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; "Andrews AFB, Maryland."
[12] "Andrews Air Force Base: Tenant Units." DCMilitary.com, February 9, 2001; "Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units." DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001.
[13] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 188.
[14] "Capital Flying." Air Force Magazine, January 2001; "Andrews Air Force Base: Andrews Units." DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower."
[15] Steve Goldstein, "Focus of Training for Terrorist Attacks has Been Chemical, Biological Warfare." Knight Ridder, September 11, 2001.
[16] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital." Washington Post, April 8, 2002; William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93."
[17] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower."
[18] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 44; Miles Kara, "Relevant Andrews Transmissions." 9/11 Commission, February 17-18, 2004; Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: A History. New York: Random House, 2007, p. 446.
[19] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Major Billy Hutchison, 113th Fighter Wing Air National Guard, Andrews Air Force Base." 9/11 Commission, February 27, 2004; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major David McNulty"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 156.
[20] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Major Billy Hutchison"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 236-237. These pilots were Eric Haagenson, Lou Campbell, and Heather Penney Garcia.
[21] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower"; Miles Kara, "Relevant Andrews Transmissions"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major John Daniel Caine, USAF, Supervisor of Flying at 121st Squadron, 113th Wing, Andrews Air Force Base on September 11, 2001." 9/11 Commission, March 8, 2004.
[22] "Paul Hellyer, Former Defence Minister of Canada Questions the Lack of Fighter Response on 9/11 and Comments on the Shallowness of the 9/11 Investigation." Connect the Dots, May 27, 2004.

Bobcats Over Washington on 9/11: What Were Two Mystery Aircraft Doing Overhead at the Time of the Pentagon Attack?

Two military aircraft were flying at high altitude near the Pentagon around the time it was hit on 9/11, but the identities of these aircraft and what they were doing over the Pentagon are unknown.

The planes had the call signs "Bobcat 14" and "Bobcat 17." A partial transcript of air traffic controller communications reveals they were communicating with the control tower at Washington's Reagan National Airport, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, between at least 9:31 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. on September 11. [1] (The attack on the Pentagon took place at 9:37 a.m. [2]) Radar data has shown that the two aircraft flew "in trail" (in single file, with one directly behind the other) at an altitude of 21,000 feet, and were overhead in the few minutes before the Pentagon was hit. [3]

LAUNCHED FROM DOVER AIR BASE
It would seem essential to establish the exact identities of these aircraft and find out what they were doing in the vicinity of the Pentagon at such a critical time. Yet, eight years after the attacks took place, we still do not have this information. (The fact that these aircraft were near the Pentagon at the time it was hit is itself virtually unknown.)

According to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, "flight strips and other information" indicate that the two aircraft, Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17, "originated out of Dover Air Force Base in Delaware." The memorandum added, "It is possible, but not confirmed, that they were Air Force corporate passenger jets." When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Bob Lazar, the acting operations manager at Reagan Airport on September 11, said he "did not remember any aircraft with the call sign 'Bobcat' that hung out over the National airspace" that day. All he could say was that he did remember two aircraft "coming from the north, but he did not think that they entered National's airspace." [4]

OTHER AIRCRAFT NEAR THE PENTAGON
Furthermore, there were at least two other military aircraft near the Pentagon at the time it was hit. A C-130 cargo plane that took off from Andrews Air Force Base, which is 10 miles from the Pentagon, was airborne by 9:33 a.m., and was seen by numerous witnesses above the Pentagon just after the attack there. [5] Its pilot reportedly witnessed the explosion from the Pentagon crash. [6]

And television news reporters described a "white jet" plane that was "circling the White House" a few minutes after the Pentagon was hit. [7] (The White House is about three miles from the Pentagon.) Two government sources familiar with the incident later told CNN that the plane was a military aircraft, but its details were classified. An analysis by CNN suggested the aircraft was an E-4B, which is a militarized version of a Boeing 747 that is used as a flying command post. [8] One such aircraft is known to have taken off from an airfield outside Washington, DC, shortly before the Pentagon was hit. [9]

Considering the historical significance of the 9/11 attacks, which have had devastating consequences that affect us to this day, it is essential that important details surrounding those attacks be thoroughly investigated. We therefore need to know exactly what the two aircraft--Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17--were, and why they were flying above the Pentagon around the time it was attacked on September 11.

NOTES
[1] "Partial Transcript; Aircraft Accident; AAL77; Washington, DC; September 11, 2001." Federal Aviation Administration, September 20, 2001.
[2] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 10.
[3] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower." 9/11 Commission, July 28, 2003.
[4] Ibid.
[5] "AA 77 Radar-Based Timeline and Maps." 9/11 Commission, n.d.; "9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane Near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies he is Far Away." Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[6] "The Secret History of 9/11: The U.S. Government Reacts." CBC, September 10, 2006.
[7] "Planes Crash Into World Trade Center." ABC News, September 11, 2001; "The White House Has Been Evacuated." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001.
[8] "Tropical Storm Humberto Heads for Texas; Democrats Blast Petraeus Timeline for Troop Withdrawal; Interview With General David Petraeus." Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, CNN, September 12, 2007.
[9] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. Emeryville, CA: McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2003, pp. 143-144. According to former 9/11 Commission staff member Miles Kara, this E-4B aircraft took off from Andrews Air Force Base and was airborne at 9:27 a.m. See Miles Kara, "9/11: The Mystery Plane; Not so Mysterious." 9/11 Revisited, June 30, 2009.

Was Delta 1989 Part of a Live-Fly Hijacking Exercise on 9/11?

It has been widely reported that on September 11, 2001, four passenger aircraft were hijacked, and three of them subsequently hit their intended targets in New York and Washington. Less well known is that, during the two hours over which the 9/11 attacks occurred, air traffic controllers and military personnel had to devote significant time to a fifth plane that was incorrectly reported as hijacked. This aircraft was, in the words of one military official, "the first red herring of the day." [1]

The aircraft was Delta Air Lines Flight 1989, a Boeing 767 that had taken off from Boston. From around 9:30 a.m., it was repeatedly suspected of having been hijacked. Even though subsequent events had indicated the aircraft was fine, a police SWAT team and FBI agents were sent out to it after it made an emergency landing in Cleveland, Ohio, and it was not until about two hours after the plane landed that all its passengers had been allowed off.

While a person might dismiss the suspicions about Delta 1989 as understandable mistakes in the chaos and confusion of the attacks, there is another possible explanation for what happened. We know that the U.S. military and other government agencies were running various training exercises on September 11. At least one military exercise was scheduled to include the scenario of a plane being hijacked. In light of this, the possibility arises that Delta 1989 was playing the part of a hijacked aircraft in a training exercise, and this led to all the mistaken reports about it. Certainly, the number and nature of suspicious incidents around Delta 1989 make this possibility seem worthy of serious consideration.

While much remains speculative, if this explanation is correct, it would have serious implications. It would mean that, at the time the attacks took place, a "live-fly" exercise was being conducted, which involved a real aircraft pretending to be hijacked. It would imply that this exercise was not promptly canceled, but instead continued throughout the entire duration of the attacks. And it would raise a sinister possibility: that the role of Delta 1989--and the exercise it participated in--was to somehow help rogue individuals within the U.S. military and government to successfully perpetrate the 9/11 attacks.

TWO CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
There are two specific categories of evidence indicating that Delta 1989 was a mock hijacked aircraft in an exercise. Firstly, there were incidents where the plane and its pilots behaved unusually, such as failing to respond to radio communications. It was as if they were playing the part of a plane under siege, in order to test the ability of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and military personnel on the ground to recognize and respond to a hijacking. Secondly, there were incidents where some government personnel and members of the military alerted others that Delta 1989 had been hijacked, or was in danger of being hijacked, apparently with little justification for doing so. It is at least possible that these individuals were 'injecting' false information into the system, for the sake of the exercise, in order to create a realistic impression that Delta 1989 had been hijacked, when in reality it was fine.

I will describe this evidence later on, and then conclude by examining a military exercise that was held in mid-2002, which makes clear what kind of role Delta 1989 might have played in an exercise on September 11.

DELTA 1989 RESEMBLED FLIGHTS 11 AND 175
One thing that is notable about Delta 1989 is how much it resembled American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175--the first planes to be hijacked, which crashed into the World Trade Center. Like these aircraft, Delta 1989 was a Boeing 767, heavy with fuel, and making a transcontinental flight across America. Also like these two flights, it had taken off from Boston's Logan Airport, at around the same time as they had done. [2] And according to numerous accounts, it had the same destination as Flights 11 and 175, of Los Angeles, California. [3] (However, a few accounts have said its destination was Las Vegas. [4])

Some accounts have claimed that Delta 1989's similarity to Flights 11 and 175 contributed to it mistakenly being suspected as hijacked. But if Delta 1989 was involved in a training exercise, this would mean that an exercise was scheduled for 9/11 in which the mock hijacked aircraft had almost identical characteristics as two of the aircraft targeted in the real-world attacks. This would be an extraordinary "coincidence," to say the least, if not highly suspicious.

Not only did Delta 1989 resemble the first two hijacked planes, it also happened to be just 25 miles behind the fourth hijacked plane--United Airlines Flight 93--at the time this aircraft was apparently taken over by hijackers. This caused air traffic controllers at the FAA's Cleveland Center to initially conclude that Delta 1989, not United 93, had been hijacked. When, at 9:28, controller John Werth heard screaming over the radio, he was unsure which aircraft, out of seven or eight in the airspace he was monitoring, it had come from. When the Cleveland Center controllers then heard a voice with a heavy accent over the radio, saying "Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain. ... We have a bomb on board," they thought it had come from Delta 1989. They concluded that the Delta flight had been hijacked and started notifying their chain of command of this. It was only after Flight 93 was subsequently observed flying erratically and its pilots failed to respond to radio communications that Werth concluded this flight, and not Delta 1989, had been hijacked. [5]

WAS DELTA 1989 PLAYING A HIJACKED AIRCRAFT IN AN EXERCISE?
It has been well established that the U.S. military and other government agencies were conducting training exercises at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred, and some of the exercise scenarios had uncanny similarities to the actual attacks. [6] One exercise, which was being conducted by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), was scheduled to include a simulated aircraft hijacking. As Vanity Fair described, this exercise "was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a 'traditional' simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum." [7]

When NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York, was notified of the first real-world hijacking at 8:38 a.m., its mission crew commander, Major Kevin Nasypany, thought this was part of the exercise, which he'd helped to design. He said out loud, "The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour." [8] NEADS was in fact alerted to the suspected hijacking of Delta 1989 almost exactly one hour later, at 9:39 a.m. [9] This was therefore around the time it was due to be notified of the simulated hijacking in the exercise, and supports the contention that Delta 1989 was playing the targeted aircraft in that exercise.

Delta 1989 made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport shortly after 10:15 a.m. [10] Cleveland was one of six major Ohio cities that for several years had been part of a federal program to help defend against domestic terrorism. [11] A possibility therefore worth considering is that the decision to land Delta 1989 in Cleveland was made before 9/11, so that personnel on the ground there would be able to respond to a simulated hijacking, as part of a training exercise for this federal program.

DELTA 1989 INDICATED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIJACKED
As previously mentioned, there are two categories of evidence that suggest Delta 1989 was playing a hijacked aircraft in an exercise. The first category involves incidents where the plane and its pilots behaved suspiciously. These incidents are summarized below.

i) Just after 9:39 a.m., when a radio transmission was heard coming from the hijacked Flight 93 in which a hijacker said, "There is a bomb on board," Cleveland Center controller John Werth started handing off the flights he was dealing with to other controllers so he could devote his attention to Flight 93. But, according to author Lynn Spencer, the crew of Delta 1989 missed the hand-off to their new frequency. The new sector controller dealing with Delta 1989 called out to the plane several times but received no response from its pilots. According to Spencer, Delta 1989 "was out of radio contact for several minutes," and this news soon reached an FAA teleconference. [12]

ii) Cleveland Center controllers again became suspicious when, at 9:44 a.m., the pilot of Delta 1989, Captain Paul Werner, called and requested a change of course so he could land in Cleveland. As USA Today noted, "the captain's request comes before he can know that the FAA wants every flight down." [13] (The FAA Command Center instructed air traffic control centers to tell all aircraft to land at the nearest airport a minute later, at 9:45. [14]) USA Today continued: "On this day, the fact that the pilot requests to be rerouted before he is ordered to land seems suspicious. Why the urgency?" The reason was reportedly that Delta Air Lines had been alerted to the concerns about Flight 1989's safety and had been closely monitoring the aircraft. It had then sent the pilots an instruction to "Land immediately in Cleveland." But even though Cleveland Center was in charge of Delta 1989, for some reason it was not informed of this. [15] Its air traffic controllers then noticed Delta 1989 making a 30-degree turn back toward its new destination of the Cleveland airport. Spencer described, "An abrupt change of course for a transcontinental [Boeing] 767 out of Boston raises further suspicion." [16]

iii) As Delta 1989 descended toward Cleveland, controllers at the Cleveland Center became suspicious again because pilot Paul Werner failed to reply to a message. According to USA Today, the reason was simply that Werner was "busy." But the controllers grew "alarmed. Why didn't he respond? Have both jets--the United [Flight 93] and the Delta flights--been hijacked?" [17]

iv) A notable example of Delta 1989 behaving unusually--perhaps because it was playing a hijacked plane in an exercise--occurred while it was under the control of the Cleveland Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). TRACONs are FAA facilities that guide aircraft approaching or departing an airport. The Cleveland TRACON was in contact with Delta 1989 as it descended from 9,000 feet down to 3,000 feet. [18]

According to a detailed chronology produced shortly after 9/11 by the Cleveland Airport air traffic control tower, "One anomaly that perpetuated concern" at the TRACON was that Paul Werner "never used the 'heavy' designator in his communications." [19] The term "heavy" notifies controllers that they need to provide extra space behind very large aircraft, which are above a certain weight, because these aircraft generate significant wake turbulence. [20] The TRACON controllers used this important term in their communications with Delta 1989, but "the pilot did not respond with it."

Although this may seem a minor technicality, it is of much significance. The control tower's chronology stated: "The use of 'heavy' in the terminal environment is of the highest importance. Increased separation standards are required, and misapplication of separation standards can be disastrous. For pilots, not referring to a heavy aircraft as 'heavy' is tantamount to calling a doctor 'Mister.'" Therefore, Werner's failure to use the term "kept everyone alert and skeptical of the security" of Delta 1989. [21]

Could the reason Werner failed to use the 'heavy' designator be that he was acting the part of a pilot who was surreptitiously trying to alert controllers that something was wrong on his flight, as part of an exercise?

v) A curious final incident occurred after Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The plane was directed to park at a remote area, and its pilots were told not to allow passengers off. Eventually, the Cleveland Police SWAT (special weapons and tactics) team and a team of FBI agents went out to the aircraft. [22] Members of the SWAT team, who'd taken up a position just behind the aircraft, saw Paul Werner with blood running down his face as he leaned out of the window to give them the "all clear" signal. The explanation Spencer has given for his bleeding face is that Werner accidentally knocked his head and cut it when he returned to his seat, after going to the cabin to speak to the plane's passengers. While this may be correct, in light of the evidence described above, might Werner's bloodied face alternatively have been simulated--using fake blood--because he was acting the part of the pilot of a plane under siege? Perhaps this was supposed to convey the impression that he had been assaulted by one of the exercise's mock hijackers. [23]

If Delta 1989 was taking part in a training exercise, the evidence above raises an important question: How aware were the pilots that real-world attacks had occurred in New York and Washington? Reportedly, at around 9:15 a.m., they heard over the radio that two aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center. According to USA Today, Werner figured these planes "must be small ones--not passenger jets like the Boeing 767 he commands." The pilots also heard the hijacker transmissions, apparently coming from Flight 93, between 9:28 and 9:39 a.m. [24] But did they think these hijacker communications and the news of the attacks in New York were real, or did they believe they were part of an exercise? The question remains uninvestigated and, therefore, unanswered.

MILITARY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WRONGLY REPORTED DELTA 1989 AS HIJACKED
The second category of evidence that Delta 1989 was playing a hijacked aircraft in an exercise is a series of incidents where personnel within the military and other government agencies reported that the flight had been hijacked, or was in danger of being hijacked, apparently without having much evidence that this was the case.

Again, individually these incidents could be dismissed as understandable results of the morning's confusion, or as concerns elicited by the unprecedented and shocking events taking place. But the number of incorrect reports suggests the possibility that false information was being deliberately 'injected' into the system for an exercise, to create a realistic impression that Delta 1989 was a hijacked aircraft. The incidents are summarized below.

i) The first three notable incidents occurred before anyone claimed Delta 1989 had been hijacked. Shortly after 9:03 a.m., when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, FBI agents called the FAA's Cleveland Center and warned its controllers to keep an eye on Delta 1989. According to USA Today, the FBI suspected "that terrorists plan to hijack [Delta 1989] next." Apparently they had seen no indications that the flight was in danger, but were concerned because of its similarities to the first two hijacked aircraft, such as it having taken off from Boston at around the same time as them. [25]

ii) Then, at 9:19 a.m., the FAA's New England regional office called the FAA's Command Center in Herndon, Virginia, and asked it to tell the Cleveland Center to contact Delta 1989 and advise its pilots to use extra cockpit security. It is unclear why the New England regional office made this request. In response to it, as the 9/11 Commission described, the Command Center "ordered controllers to send a cockpit warning to Delta 1989 because, like American 11 and United 175, it was a transcontinental flight departing Boston's Logan Airport." [26]

The FAA's Boston Center had previously asked the Command Center to contact all FAA centers, with the instruction to tell airborne aircraft to increase their cockpit security. What is curious is that the Command Center's instruction to the Cleveland Center regarding Delta 1989 was apparently an exception: the 9/11 Commission has said it found "no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on [the Boston Center's] request." [27]

iii) The third incident from before Delta 1989 was suspected as hijacked occurred at 9:27 a.m. Colonel Alan Scott, the former vice commander of the Continental United States NORAD Region, told the 9/11 Commission that, at this time, the FAA's Boston Center reported to NEADS "a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight '89." [28] Boston Center's report to NEADS was odd for two reasons. Firstly, Delta 1989 "never turned off its transponder," according to the 9/11 Commission, so it was never missing and should have been clearly visible on radar at all times. [29] Secondly, at 9:27, Delta 1989 was being handled by the FAA's Cleveland Center, not the Boston Center. [30] So why did the Boston Center contact NEADS about a flight that was not under its command?

iv) Boston Center called NEADS again at 9:39 a.m. regarding Delta 1989. Colin Scoggins, the center's military liaison, reported that the flight was a possible hijack. [31] Again, the question applies as to why the Boston Center made this call, since Delta 1989 was still under the control of the FAA's Cleveland Center. [32] And it appears that Scoggins had no evidence that the flight had been targeted. According to the 9/11 Commission, Boston Center simply "guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked," apparently because--like Flights 11 and 175--it was a transcontinental 767 that had departed Boston's Logan Airport. [33]

v) At 9:45 a.m., one of the ID technicians at NEADS called the FAA's Cleveland Center and incorrectly said that Delta 1989 was "a confirmed hijack." This prompted a supervisor there to go "running back and forth" around the center, informing the controllers and managers of the news. [34]

The supervisor, Kim Wernica, spoke to John Werth, the controller who had been handling Delta 1989. She told him, "It's the Delta, it's the Delta!" She said a military liaison on the phone had confirmed that the Delta jet had been hijacked. However, due to its pilots' normal responses to his instructions, Werth had already concluded that Delta 1989 had not been hijacked. He told Wernica he was pretty sure that Flight 93, not Delta 1989, had been hijacked, and when she returned a few moments later, he said Delta 1989 was "fine, at least for now." But after Wernica consulted again on the phone, she came back and said to Werth, "They said it's a confirmed hijack and a bomb threat." Convinced that Delta 1989 was being confused with United 93, Werth responded, "Tell them they're full of it!" [35]

MILITARY, FAA, POLICE, AND FBI RESPONDED TO HIJACK REPORTS
Although they turned out to be incorrect, the reports that Delta 1989 had been hijacked were taken seriously at the time and acted upon. NEADS commanders ordered their troops to call Air National Guard bases in the vicinity of the Delta aircraft, to see if any of them could launch fighter jets. [36] According to the 9/11 Commission, NEADS ordered jets from Ohio and Michigan to intercept Delta 1989. [37]

When Delta 1989 was coming in to land, Cleveland Hopkins Airport was evacuated. As Spencer wrote, this was because the flight was "confirmed hijacked," and air traffic controllers "believe it contains a bomb intended to detonate when the aircraft crashes into the terminal." [38] Furthermore, for the first time in his administration, Mayor Michael White ordered the evacuation of all federal and city buildings in Cleveland; a parking ban was issued downtown; and owners of large commercial high-rises in Cleveland were asked to evacuate their buildings. [39]

After it landed, Delta 1989 had to park at a remote area of Cleveland Airport, far away from the terminal. Its passengers were only allowed off after a police SWAT team came out, and FBI agents then carefully took the passengers off the plane in small groups. [40] Bomb-sniffing dogs were subsequently taken onboard and the aircraft was searched, but no explosives were found. [41]

EXERCISE MAY HAVE CONTINUED DESPITE REAL-WORLD ATTACKS
If, as the evidence above indicates, Delta 1989 was part of a military exercise based around a fictitious aircraft hijacking, this raises serious questions about the events of 9/11 and the emergency response to the attacks.

The evidence casts doubt on the claim that a NORAD exercise that morning was canceled after Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the WTC at 9:03 a.m. According to Airman, the official magazine of the U.S. Air Force, "Shortly after the second airliner smashed into [the] World Trade Center ... the exercise ceased." [42] Larry Arnold, the commanding general of the Continental United States NORAD Region, said that after Flight 175 hit the South Tower, "I thought it might be prudent to pull out of the exercise, which we did." [43]

But if Delta 1989 was participating in it, then the evidence indicates that this exercise continued for much longer. For example, NEADS received the incorrect report that Delta 1989 was a possible hijacking at 9:39 a.m., and called the FAA's Cleveland Center to report the aircraft as a "confirmed hijack" at 9:45 a.m. These two communications could have been part of the exercise, intended to 'inject' a realistic impression of a hijacking into the system.

And it appears that Delta 1989 may still have been playing a hijacked aircraft while it came in to land (with the pilot failing to use the 'heavy' designator), and continued doing so after it landed at around 10:18 a.m. (when the pilot appeared out of the plane's window, apparently with blood running down his face). This would mean the exercise continued throughout the entire duration of the real-world attacks, ending only after the fourth aircraft to be targeted--Flight 93--supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m. [44] If this was indeed the case, why was the simulated hijacking allowed to continue for so long? And who was responsible for this?

A LIVE-FLY EXERCISE IN 2002
We can better understand the role Delta 1989 might have played on September 11 by examining a later NORAD training exercise. "Amalgam Virgo 02" was a "live-fly" exercise conducted in June 2002, although NORAD was planning it as early as July 2001. [45]

This exercise involved two real aircraft being "hijacked," with actors playing the terrorists. One aircraft, a Delta Air Lines 757, was bound from Utah to Alaska and was taken over by FBI agents acting as hijackers. The other was a Navy C-9 bound from Washington State to Vancouver, Canada, with members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police playing the hijackers. On both planes, military personnel acted as civilian passengers, but the 757 had actual Delta Air Lines pilots at the controls. According to a NORAD spokesman, "both aircraft ... were to receive instructions once in-air, detailing the hijacking scenario affecting them and the roles they were to play."

NORAD launched fighter jets in response to the simulated hijackings. CNN reported before the exercise: "We don't know exactly how these [simulated] hijackings will play out. Neither do the pilots. Even their bases from which the U.S. and military--the U.S.-Canadian jets will be scrambled, don't know they are." After NORAD ran through a number of scenarios, the mock hijacked planes landed and law enforcement officers on the ground ran through scenarios around dealing with the hijackers.

About 1,500 people participated in Amalgam Virgo 02, including employees of NORAD, the FAA, the FBI, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Delta Air Lines. The NORAD spokesman said the exercise was "very intense, very realistic." [46]

Could Delta 1989 have been taking part in a similar exercise on September 11? Were some of its passengers played by military personnel or other government employees? Only a thorough new investigation of the 9/11 attacks can answer these and the many other crucial questions that remain, around Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 and its possible involvement in a training exercise on September 11.

NOTES
[1] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Public Hearing. 9/11 Commission, May 23, 2003.
[2] Matthew L. Wald and Don Van Natta Jr., "Impact of Grounding Jets is Still Unclear." New York Times, October 18, 2001; Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board." USA Today, August 12, 2001; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 27-28.
[3] Paul Singer, "No Explosives Found on Cleveland Plane." Associated Press, September 11, 2001; Matthew L. Wald and Don Van Natta Jr., "Impact of Grounding Jets is Still Unclear"; Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board"; Tiana Velez, "How a Tiny Ladybug Changed the World for a Pilot on 9/11." Arizona Daily Star, September 24, 2007; Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 167.
[4] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 28; Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Vanity Fair, August 2006.
[5] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With John Werth, Air Traffic Controller, Area 4, Lorain Sector." 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 11-12, 28.
[6] See "Complete 9/11 Timeline: Training Exercises on 9/11." History Commons.
[7] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes."
[8] Ibid.
[9] "Timeline of the Events of the Day of 9/11 Drafted by the 9/11 Commission." 9/11 Commission, n.d.
[10] "DAL 1989 Order of Events." Federal Aviation Administration, September 16, 2001.
[11] "Cleveland Security." The Spotlight, WCPN, September 20, 2001.
[12] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 167-168.
[13] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board"; Alan Levin, "For Air Controller, Terror Still Vivid 7 Years Later." USA Today, September 11, 2008.
[14] U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Statement of Jane F. Garvey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Before the House Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 107th Cong., 1st sess., September 21, 2001; Alan Levin, Marilyn Adams, and Blake Morrison, "Part I: Terror Attacks Brought Drastic Decision: Clear the Skies." USA Today, August 12, 2002; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 29.
[15] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 167; Alan Levin, "For Air Controller, Terror Still Vivid 7 Years Later."
[16] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 168.
[17] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board."
[18] "DAL 1989 Order of Events"; "Co-Located TRACONs (Terminal Radar Approach Control)." Federal Aviation Administration, March 24, 2006.
[19] "DAL 1989 Order of Events."
[20] Meryl Getline, "Who You Calling Heavy?" USA Today, June 1, 2005; Meryl Getline, "Organs on Board." USA Today, May 22, 2006.
[21] "DAL 1989 Order of Events."
[22] Ibid.; Michael O'Mara, "9/11: 'Fifth Plane' Terror Alert at Cleveland Hopkins Airport." WKYC, September 11, 2006.
[23] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 270.
[24] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board"; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 11-12; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 166-167.
[25] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board."
[26] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 10, 455.
[27] Ibid. p. 23; Staff Report: The Four Flights. 9/11 Commission, August 26, 2004, pp. 25-26.
[28] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Public Hearing; "Timeline 6/17/03 Based on NEADS-FAA Transcripts." 9/11 Commission, June 17, 2003; "Timeline of the Events of the Day of 9/11 Drafted by the 9/11 Commission."
[29] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 28.
[30] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board"; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 10.
[31] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes"; "Timeline of the Events of the Day of 9/11 Drafted by the 9/11 Commission."
[32] Marilyn Adams, Alan Levin, and Blake Morrison, "Part II: No One Was Sure if Hijackers Were on Board."
[33] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 27-28.
[34] "NEADS Audio File, Identification Technician, Channel 4." North American Aerospace Defense Command, September 11, 2001; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Kim Wernica, Operations Manager at Cleveland ARTCC on 9/11." 9/11 Commission, October 2, 2003; "Timeline of the Events of the Day of 9/11 Drafted by the 9/11 Commission."
[35] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Kim Wernica, Operations Manager at Cleveland ARTCC on 9/11"; Alan Levin, "For Air Controller, Terror Still Vivid 7 Years Later."
[36] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes."
[37] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 28.
[38] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 191-192.
[39] Paul Singer, "Plane Makes Emergency Landing." Associated Press, September 11, 2001; "Cleveland Reacts to the Terror." The Spotlight, WCPN, September 12, 2001; "Cleveland Security."
[40] Michael O'Mara, "9/11: 'Fifth Plane' Terror Alert at Cleveland Hopkins Airport"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 229.
[41] Paul Singer, "No Explosives Found on Cleveland Plane"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 271.
[42] Jason Tudor, "Inner Space: Cheyenne Mountain Operations Evolve Following Sept. 11 Hijacking." Airman, March 2002.
[43] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 59.
[44] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 30.
[45] "NORAD to Sponsor Multi-Agency, Bi-Lateral Exercise." U.S. Department of Defense, May 31, 2002; Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons." USA Today, April 18, 2004.
[46] Gerry J. Gilmore, "NORAD-Sponsored Exercise Prepares for Worst-Case Scenarios." American Forces Press Service, June 4, 2002; "Airborne Anti-Terrorist Operation Getting Underway." Live Today, CNN, June 4, 2002; "Mock Hijacks Play out Over U.S., Canada." United Press International, June 4, 2002; Nick Wadhams, "Joint U.S., Canadian Hijacking Drill Takes off With Whidbey Flight." Associated Press, June 5, 2002.

The F-16s That Failed to Protect Washington on 9/11: Was the Langley Jets' Emergency Response Sabotaged?

Langley Air Force Base was the second military base that launched fighter jets to defend America in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Three of its F-16s were ordered to take off toward Washington at 9:24 a.m. that morning, but by the time they were airborne, more than 40 minutes had passed since the first attack on the World Trade Center, and almost half an hour since the second.

Furthermore, the pilots were hindered by an extraordinary combination of confusion, communications problems, conflicting orders, breaches of protocol, and other difficulties. Consequently, when the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m., the jets were further away from it than they'd been when they took off. According to witnesses on the ground, fighters did not arrive over the Pentagon until around 10:40 a.m.--more than an hour too late to protect it from the attack.

A close examination of publicly available accounts raises the possibility that deliberate attempts were made to sabotage the ability of the Langley jets to respond to the 9/11 attacks, thereby paralyzing normal, well-practiced procedures. In this article, I focus on three particular aspects of the jets' response.

Firstly, I examine the initial order to launch F-16s from Langley AFB. Notably, instead of the usual two jets taking off, a third pilot took off in a spare jet. This left the unit with no supervisor of flying (SOF) to communicate with other agencies and pass on vital information to the pilots. Secondly, I question why, instead of heading toward Washington as instructed, the jets initially flew out over the ocean, where they were of no use in defending against further attacks. I look at the mysterious role played by the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility in Virginia Beach, which was handling the jets while they were over the ocean. Could this facility have been misdirecting them? Thirdly, I look at the breakdown of communications between the military and the Langley jets, and the confusion experienced by the pilots that this contributed to.

Taken together, the sheer number of things that went wrong appears highly suspicious, and makes clear the urgent need for a new and unrestrained investigation of 9/11, to find out what was really going on that day and who was behind the attacks.

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE
Langley Air Force Base is in Hampton City, southeastern Virginia, about 130 miles south of the Pentagon. [1] It covers some 2,900 acres, and employs about 9,000 permanent military personnel and 3,000 civilians. It is the headquarters of the Air Combat Command, which provides active Air Force pilots to deploy for overseas combat missions, and the home of the 1st Fighter Wing, which is one of the largest fighter wings in the Air Combat Command. [2]

Crucially, on 9/11 the 119th Fighter Wing of the North Dakota Air National Guard had a small detachment at Langley AFB. Although it had only four aircraft and 18 full-time members of staff, this unit was involved in the air defense mission of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). It was one of NORAD's seven "alert" sites around the U.S., all of which kept a pair of fighter jets ready for immediate takeoff. [3] As author Lynn Spencer described: "As an alert site, the [119th Fighter Wing's] pilots are always just five minutes away from rolling out of the hangars in their armed fighters. They live, eat, and sleep just steps from jets." [4]

JETS TAKE OFF BUT LOSE THEIR SUPERVISOR
At 9:24 a.m. on September 11, NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), which is based in Rome, New York, ordered jets belonging to the 119th Fighter Wing to scramble (i.e. launch immediately) from Langley AFB. [5] In public accounts and testimony, NORAD officials subsequently claimed these jets were scrambled in response to either Flight 77 (the third hijacked aircraft) or Flight 93 (the fourth hijacked aircraft). However, according to various evidence uncovered by the 9/11 Commission, the scramble was in response to an incorrect report that Flight 11 (the first hijacked aircraft) hadn't crashed into the World Trade Center and was heading south toward Washington. The Langley jets were initially ordered toward the DC area, but their heading was soon adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area, about 35 miles north of Washington, so as to block the path of the supposedly southbound Flight 11 as it approached the capital. [6]

It is important to recognize here that, despite the unprecedented nature of the 9/11 attacks, the task the F-16s were being asked to perform was a well-practiced and routine one. Even before September 11, NORAD regularly launched fighters in response to suspicious aircraft. It reportedly performed 67 such scrambles between September 2000 and June 2001. [7] And a 1994 General Accounting Office report stated: "Overall, during the past four years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged … less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress." [8] So, over that period, NORAD launched fighters to intercept suspicious aircraft once per day on average. Yet on September 11, the performance of the NORAD jets launched from Langley AFB was disastrous.

Problems began as the jets prepared to take off. The 1st Air Force's book about 9/11 stated that the fighters were "given highest priority over all other air traffic at Langley Air Force Base." [9] But according to Lynn Spencer, while on the runway, they were instructed to "hold for an air traffic delay," because the FAA's Washington Center had not yet cleared airliners out of the way for their intended path. [10] All the same, the fighters were finally airborne at 9:30 a.m. [11]

THREE JETS LAUNCH INSTEAD OF TWO
Of particular significance is that, instead of just launching its two F-16s that were kept on alert, the 119th Fighter Wing launched a third jet at this time. Unlike the two fully-armed alert jets, this aircraft had guns only and no missiles. [12] Its pilot was Captain Craig Borgstrom, the operations manager at the alert unit. In the event of a scramble order, he was supposed to man the battle cab and serve as the supervisor of flying. As the SOF, he had a critical role to play. He was responsible for monitoring scrambled jets, working with local air traffic controllers, and communicating with NEADS so as to get all necessary information about the jets' mission to pass on to the pilots. But by taking off himself, Borgstrom left his unit without an SOF. [13]

The reason for this alarming breach of protocol was that, shortly before 9:24, someone from NEADS called Borgstrom and asked him with urgency, "How many total aircraft can you launch?" When Borgstrom replied that, other than the two pilots on alert duty, he was the only pilot at the unit that day, the caller instructed him: "Suit up and go fly! We need all of you at battle stations!" [14] The two alert pilots were apparently shocked when they were told that their SOF would be taking off with them. According to Spencer, it "doesn't make any sense to" Major Dean Eckmann, the unit's lead pilot, and his initial response was "What?" [15] The other pilot, Major Brad Derrig, was "stunned. ... [N]ot much surprises him, but this does." And the unit's crew chiefs and mechanics were "bewildered" when they watched Borgstrom taking off, as they had "just been left with no commanding officer in the midst of a situation completely foreign to them." [16]

The decision to send the unit's SOF into the air caused serious problems. In her book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, Lynn Spencer explicitly pointed out two examples. Firstly, at around 9:30 a.m., Tech Sgt. Jeremy Powell called from NEADS, wanting to tell Borgstrom that his jets' mission was to set up a combat air patrol over Washington and intercept an airliner heading for the city. But with Borgstrom gone, the phone rang and rang. Finally, a sergeant answered it and told an incredulous Powell that the SOF had taken off. Powell knew that the alert unit at Langley was meant to keep an SOF on duty 24/7, and was speechless. Presumably, Borgstrom's absence meant the three F-16s did not receive Powell's message about what their mission was. [17]

Then, at around 9:34 a.m., William Huckabone, a staff sergeant at NEADS, noticed that the F-16s were drastically off course, heading east out over the ocean instead of north toward the Baltimore area (see below for details). The jets urgently needed to be redirected onto their intended course. But, as Spencer described, Huckabone could not "get word to the jets through their SOF--he's flying!" [18] Presumably there were other times when the absence of the SOF meant NEADS, and perhaps other agencies, were unable to quickly pass important information to the jets, but these incidents have not yet been reported.

Furthermore, we do not know who at NEADS instructed Borgstrom to take off in the spare jet, thereby leaving his unit without its SOF. In an interview, Borgstrom later said, "to this day, I don't know who it was" that made the call. [19] When Jeremy Powell had called from NEADS and learned that Borgstrom had taken off in a third jet, he exclaimed: "Three? I only scrambled two!" [20] Whoever instructed Borgstrom to take off should be rigorously questioned about why they issued such an unprecedented--and dangerous--order.

DID NAVY CONTROLLERS SEND THE JETS THE WRONG WAY?
After being delayed during takeoff, things got significantly worse for the Langley jets. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had ordered them to fly north, toward the Baltimore area. [21] But at around 9:34 a.m., William Huckabone noticed that instead they were going east over the ocean, toward a military training airspace called Whiskey 386. [22] As a result, when the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m., the Langley fighters were about 150 miles from there--further away from the Pentagon than they had been when they took off. [23]

The 9/11 Commission put forward rather elaborate reasons why the jets headed in the wrong direction, such as that the scramble order had not conveyed complete instructions for the pilots to follow, and that "a 'generic' flight plan--prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly--incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east ... for 60 miles." [24]

However, evidence shows that the question of why the jets went so drastically off course requires further investigation. For example, a Navy facility was responsible for handling the F-16s while they were out over the ocean. The Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia, is the Navy air traffic control agency that handles all over-water military operations. It is known by the call sign "Giant Killer." [25] When Nasypany asked Major James Fox--the leader of the NEADS weapons team--why the Langley jets had flown out over the ocean, Fox replied, "Giant Killer sent them out there." [26] Certainly, what little has been reported about the actions of this facility appears quite bizarre and suspicious.

UNCONCERNED CONTROLLERS
When William Huckabone first noticed that the Langley jets were off course, along with Master Sergeant Steve Citino he called Giant Killer to try and get them redirected onto the correct heading. Yet the Navy controller who answered their call sounded indifferent, as if he were oblivious to the seriousness of the situation. He responded: "You've got [the Langley F-16s] moving east in airspace. Now you want 'em to go to Baltimore?" Huckabone said yes, told the controller to get the jets to call NEADS, and asked him to inform the FAA's Washington Center that the F-16s needed to head toward Baltimore. Yet the controller showed no sense of urgency, saying: "All right, man. Stand by. We'll get back to you." In frustration, Citino snapped: "What do you mean, 'We'll get back to you'? Just do it!" After hanging up the phone, Huckabone joked, "I'm gonna choke that guy!" [27]

Another controller at Giant Killer showed similar indifference a couple of minutes later, when Huckabone again contacted the facility. Kevin Nasypany had just ordered that the Langley F-16s be sent toward the White House, and declared "AFIO" (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for Washington airspace, which would give the military authority over the FAA for that airspace. Huckabone told the Navy controller: "Ma'am, we are going AFIO right now with [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct [to] Washington." The declaration of AFIO was an unusual and unique event. When Dean Eckmann, the lead Langley pilot, was finally notified of it, he was startled, because, according to Spencer: "He has never, in all his years of flying, received such an order. He's only heard about it and, to him, it means no less than the start of World War III." Yet, in response to Huckabone's information, the controller at Giant Killer appears to have shown no signs of emotion, and offered only modest reassurance that the Langley fighters would be given the necessary clearance. She said, "We're handing 'em off to [the FAA's Washington] Center right now." Apparently unsettled by the controller's lack of urgency, Huckabone instructed her: "Ma'am, we need that expedited right now! We need to contact them on 234.6. ... Do you understand?" [28]

As previously mentioned, one consequence of all the problems with the fighter response was that at the time the Pentagon was hit, the Langley jets were further from it than they had been when they took off. They had flown almost 60 miles out over the Atlantic Ocean and were 150 miles from Washington. [29] In fact, numerous witnesses on the ground have recalled seeing the first fighter jet arriving over the Pentagon possibly an hour or more after the Pentagon attack. [30] Authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman have placed this at 10:40 a.m. [31] According to the New York Times, "witnesses, including a reporter for the New York Times who was headed toward the building, did not see any [fighter jets over the Pentagon] until closer to 11 [o'clock]." [32] Upon seeing the first jet arriving overhead, one firefighter commented: "Thank God that guy's there! Where has he been?" [33]

COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN AND CONFUSION
Another indication that the Langley F-16s' ability to respond to the crisis was being sabotaged is that military personnel repeatedly experienced problems when trying to communicate with them. Lynn Spencer described three particular incidents in which NEADS was unable to contact the fighters, although presumably there were other occurrences of this problem.

Firstly, when at around 9:34 a.m. William Huckabone noticed the jets were off course, he supposedly had "no direct method of contacting the jets, as they are out of radio range over the ocean in Giant Killer's airspace." Then, at 9:36 a.m., when NEADS declared AFIO for Washington airspace, Steve Citino tried to contact pilot Dean Eckmann to notify him of this. But, according to Spencer, Citino initially received "no response; the fighters are not yet in radio range." [34] And, minutes later, Citino was still "having trouble communicating with the Langley fighters heading toward Washington," supposedly because "NEADS radio coverage east of Washington is poor." [35]

While Spencer's explanation--that the Langley jets were outside NEADS's radio range--may be correct, these communications problems should surely be investigated further, to check this. This is especially the case since, as tape recordings of the NEADS operations floor from September 11 have revealed, personnel there repeatedly complained about various communications problems that morning. For example, one member of staff at NEADS told an American Airlines employee, "We cannot call out for some reason." Later on, when a caller mentioned, "We're having a tough time getting hold of you guys," a NEADS employee responded, "We're having problems with our phone lines as well." [36] During a 2004 interview, 9/11 Commission staffers mentioned to NEADS employee Chief Master Sgt. Edward Aires that "they had heard in past interviews that there were communication lapses and difficulties between NEADS and Langley scrambles." [37] Might there have been deliberate attempts made to block communications to and from NEADS that morning?

PILOTS HEAR JUMBLED COMMUNICATIONS
What is more, the three Langley pilots were confused by what journalist and author Jere Longman described as a "jumble of radio communications." [38] According to the New York Times, as the pilots approached Washington, "Their radio frequencies became cluttered with orders and chatter." Pilot Brad Derrig recalled: "It was like getting 10 hours of conversation in about 10 minutes. No one knew what was going on." [39] Craig Borgstrom has said that he and the two other pilots "were hearing a lot of chatter but nothing about airliners crashing into buildings." He recalled: "There was some confusion for us, this was very abnormal. We were all three on different frequencies ... and were getting orders from a lot of different people." [40]

Could these jumbled communications have been part of a deliberate attempt at paralyzing the emergency response, by trying to prevent legitimate orders from reaching the pilots?

PILOTS CONFUSED AND UNINFORMED
The poor communications between the pilots and their contacts on the ground, combined with the lack of an SOF to pass information to and from the pilots, may help explain why the pilots had so little understanding of what was going on. They were even unsure of what their mission was. As the 9/11 Commission stated: "The Langley pilots were never briefed about the reason they were scrambled. ... The pilots knew their mission was to divert aircraft, but did not know that the threat came from hijacked airliners." [41]

Brad Derrig described the confusion--what he called "the smoke of war"--over what was happening that morning, saying, "No one knew exactly what was going on." [42] Craig Borgstrom said that, as the crisis unfolded, he "had no idea" the Pentagon and World Trade Center had been struck by suicide terrorists in airplanes. Describing the growing confusion, he said, "It was a mess." [43]

Borgstrom has said it was only when he caught sight of the burning Pentagon that he started thinking, "OK, maybe there's some type of attack going on," adding, "You start correlating Washington, DC, with New York." [44] When Dean Eckmann saw the Pentagon, he actually thought the Russians had attacked it. He told the 9/11 Commission: "I reverted to the Russian threat. ... I'm thinking cruise missile threat from the sea. You know, you look down and see the Pentagon burning, and I thought the bastards snuck one by us. ... No one told us anything." [45]

Eckmann and Derrig had even thought that they were headed to New York rather than Washington. Craig Borgstrom described: "The other two guys I was flying with initially thought that we were going to New York because they knew the Trade Center had been hit and they'd seen the smoke. ... I was more familiar with the area and knew we were going more toward DC." But, he recalled, as they approached Washington, "We still have not been intel briefed as to what's going on." [46] At that time, according to Lynn Spencer, when Brad Derrig "looks up to see smoke on the horizon in front of him, he assumes that he is looking at New York. He had heard about an aircraft hitting the World Trade Center just before they were scrambled, and with all the changes in coordinates they've been given, he has no idea that he's looking at Washington." [47]

Furthermore, it was only when the jets returned to base, after being airborne for over four hours, that the three pilots learned about Flight 93--the fourth hijacked plane, which supposedly crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania. [48]

OTHER PROBLEMS
We have seen that there were numerous ways in which the Langley jets were hindered on 9/11: the delay while they were on the runway and the problems that occurred because the alert unit's supervisor of flying took off in a spare fighter; the fact that the F-16s flew east over the ocean, instead of going north as NEADS had instructed; the inexplicable indifference of the Navy controllers who were handling the jets while they were over the ocean; NEADS's repeated inability to contact the pilots directly; the jumbled communications the pilots were receiving over their radios; and the fact that the pilots were not informed about what was going on or what their exact mission was.

There is evidence of additional problems that further impeded the Langley F-16s that morning. Lynn Spencer described two notable incidents.

After the pilots had initially been misdirected over the ocean, NEADS weapons director Steve Citino forwarded coordinates to them, telling them to establish a combat air patrol over Washington. However, Citino apparently gave out the wrong coordinates. According to Spencer, "He inadvertently transposed two of the coordinates, and the F-16s turned onto a flight path that would take them 60 miles southwest of Washington." When he noticed the jets heading the wrong way, Citino had to contact them again to get them on the correct course. [49]

And after receiving the incorrect coordinates, lead pilot Dean Eckmann had a problem with his aircraft. The bearing pointer on its horizontal situation indicator, which shows a plane's position relative to its intended destination, froze, so he had to get the heading from one of the other pilots. [50]

These incidents are only what have been described in the publicly-available accounts. It seems reasonable to assume the jets experienced other complications that have so far gone unreported. A thorough and unrestrained investigation of the 9/11 attacks is imperative in order to reveal such problems, find out why the Langley F-16s were so badly obstructed in carrying out what should have been a routine emergency response, and uncover who was responsible for this.

NOTES
[1] Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Draft: Work Plan for a Treatability Study in Support of the Intrinsic Remediation (Natural Attenuation) Option at IRP Site - 16. San Antonio, TX: Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, June 1995, p. 1-3; Jonathan Weisman, "Shoot-Down Order Issued on Morning of Chaos." USA Today, September 16, 2001.
[2] Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Draft: Work Plan for a Treatability Study in Support of the Intrinsic Remediation (Natural Attenuation) Option at IRP Site - 16, p. 1-3; "Langley AFB, Virginia." GlobalSecurity.org, January 21, 2006; Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 114.
[3] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 17; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 114.
[4] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 117.
[5] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[6] Ibid. pp. 26-27, 34.
[7] Dan Collins, "Scrambling to Prevent Another 9/11." Associated Press, August 14, 2002.
[8] Jerry Herley et al., Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force is no Longer Needed. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, May 3, 1994, p. 4.
[9] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 63.
[10] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 143.
[11] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[12] Ibid. p. 465; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 141-143.
[13] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 116, 118.
[14] Ann Scott Tyson, "A New Diligence in the American Blue Yonder." Christian Science Monitor, April 16, 2002; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 118.
[15] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 119.
[16] Ibid. p. 142.
[17] Ibid. p. 148.
[18] Ibid. p. 149.
[19] Craig Borgstrom, interview by Leslie Filson, circa 2002.
[20] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 148.
[21] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With NEADS Alpha Flight Mission Crew Commander (MCC), Lt. Col. Kevin J. Nasypany." 9/11 Commission, January 22-23, 2004; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[22] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Vanity Fair, August 2006; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 149.
[23] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27.
[24] Ibid.; Staff Report: The Four Flights. 9/11 Commission, August 26, 2004, p. 96.
[25] Matthew L. Wald, "Military Air Controller is Criticized in Close Encounter." New York Times, February 10, 1997; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 143.
[26] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 151.
[27] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 149-150.
[28] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 150-151.
[29] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 27; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 151.
[30] "(10:40 a.m.) September 11, 2001: First Fighter Seen Arriving Over the Pentagon." Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[31] Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11. New York: Presidio Press, 2008, p. 130.
[32] David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., "In Four Days, a National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency." New York Times, September 16, 2001.
[33] Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight, p. 131.
[34] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 149-150.
[35] Ibid. p. 180.
[36] "(9:12 a.m.-11:57 a.m.) September 11, 2001: NEADS and NORAD Experiencing Communications Problems." Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[37] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Bill Aires." 9/11 Commission, January 23, 2004.
[38] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 76.
[39] Kevin Sack, "2 Pilots Praise Passengers Who Fought Hijackers." New York Times, November 15, 2001.
[40] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 66.
[41] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 45.
[42] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 222.
[43] Ann Scott Tyson, "A New Diligence in the American Blue Yonder."
[44] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 65.
[45] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 45.
[46] Craig Borgstrom, interview by Leslie Filson.
[47] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 182.
[48] Kevin Sack, "2 Pilots Praise Passengers Who Fought Hijackers."
[49] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 180-181.
[50] Ibid. p. 181.

Why Was There No Jet Fuel at the Flight 93 Crash Site?

The official account of United Airlines Flight 93 is a remarkable story of heroism and selfless bravery. On September 11, 2001, 46 minutes into its journey from Newark, New Jersey to San Francisco, California, Flight 93 was supposedly taken over by four fanatical Muslim hijackers, members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network. Their plan was to crash it into a target in Washington, DC, most likely the White House or the U.S. Capitol building. However, passengers and crew members on board made a series of phone calls to relatives and others on the ground, and were told of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They consequently made the courageous decision to try and retake control of the plane. Following passenger Todd Beamer's now-famous call to action, "Let's roll!" the attempt began. Though they failed to take back the plane, the passengers forced the hijackers to crash Flight 93 into the ground in a sparsely populated area of rural Pennsylvania. All on board the plane were killed, but countless lives in Washington were saved.

Then-President Bush subsequently acknowledged the significance of the actions of these passengers. He said: "In those moments, and many times since, terrorists have learned that Americans are courageous and will not be intimidated. We will fight them with everything we have." [1] On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, he said the men and women on Flight 93 "gave America our first victory in the war on terror." [2] Addressing the nation two months after the attacks, Bush concluded a speech by referring to Todd Beamer's famous last words, saying: "We will, no doubt, face new challenges. But we have our marching orders: My fellow Americans, let's roll." [3]

Extraordinary though the story of Flight 93 is, under closer scrutiny we find it is highly problematic. Many aspects are questionable, and this is perhaps most apparent when we examine the scene where Flight 93 supposedly crashed. Although the plane was reportedly "heavily laden with jet fuel" when it "slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land," examination of the soil and groundwater around the crash site found no evidence of contamination by jet fuel. [4]

NO JET FUEL AT THE CRASH SITE
Six days after 9/11, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began taking soil samples around the Flight 93 crash site, to test for jet fuel, hydraulic fluids, and other hazardous materials. At least three test wells were sunk to monitor groundwater for signs of contamination. [5]

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Flight 93 had about 37,500 pounds of fuel remaining when it crashed, which was around 77 percent of its fuel load on takeoff. [6] Yet the DEP tests found no evidence of this huge volume of jet fuel at the crash site. Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." [7] She said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated," much of the jet fuel assumed to have spilled at the site "seems to have dissipated." [8]

FUEL SUPPOSEDLY BURNED UP, BUT FIRES WERE SMALL
DEP Secretary David E. Hess suggested a possible explanation for this absence of jet fuel, which was that "most of the hazardous fluids were consumed by the crash's fire." [9] A particular problem with this explanation is that some of the first witnesses to arrive at the scene noticed only very small fires there.

Faye Hahn was a local emergency medical technician whose company was quickly dispatched to the crash site. However, she has recalled, "Arriving on the scene" there was "no smoke, no fire." [10] Jeff Phillips, who worked at a nearby salvage yard, heard a colleague calling out, "Plane down, plane down!" and then headed out with another employee to locate the crash site. He has recalled, "We had to have been at least among the first 20 people" to have arrived there. Yet, he said, the crater where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground "was just a spot that had a little fire on it, which was the airplane fuel burning." [11] And Lee Purbaugh, who worked at a nearby scrap yard, was also one of the first to arrive. Reportedly, he "scrambled down the bluff from the scrap metal company and ran 300 yards to the place where the plane had crashed." He found "a smoking hole in the ground. But why wasn't there more fire?" [12]

Are these tiny fires what we would expect if a large commercial aircraft had just crashed there? And could they really have burned up 37,500 pounds of jet fuel?

PAPER SURVIVES THE FIRES
Hess's theory that "most of the hazardous fluids were consumed by the crash's fire" is further complicated by the fact that, though evidence of a huge volume of jet fuel was not found, large amounts of paper (which is, of course, highly flammable) survived, and were discovered around the crash site. [13]

Roger Bailey, a local volunteer firefighter, has said that as he walked through the crash's debris field, he found "mail. I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board. Mail was scattered everywhere. ... It seemed like every piece of mail that I looked at was from Blue Cross and Blue Shield." [14] Faye Hahn confirmed that, after she arrived at the crash scene, she saw "papers everywhere," and she'd "bent over to check many papers on the ground and found that they were pieces of mail." [15] Journalist and author Jere Longman has claimed that Flight 93 "had been carrying thousands of pounds of mail," and added that "pieces had scattered about, envelopes with California addresses, magazines, paper on the ground and in the trees, some of the envelopes burned, some still in the same unharmed condition in which they were mailed." [16] Also found at the crash scene was a "Bible that, oddly, was unscorched," and the charred remains of the visa of alleged hijacker Ziad Jarrah. [17]

If the fires had been able to consume 37,500 pounds of jet fuel, surely they would have also burned up all this paper?

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
How do we make sense of this evidence--the absence of jet fuel in the soil and groundwater, yet the mass of paper debris that survived? Was this site really where United Airlines Flight 93--a Boeing 757-200 weighing maybe over 100 tons--crashed into the ground?

Another possible explanation to consider is that this scene was somehow fabricated to give the appearance that a large commercial jet plane had crashed there. Debris, including large amounts of paper, was planted. One witness in fact described the crater where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground as appearing "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch, and dumped all this trash into it." [18]

If this is what happened, it would explain why early witnesses at the scene noticed a particularly strong smell of jet fuel in the air. They later recalled this smell being "overpowering," "incredibly strong," "really strong," or "just horrendous." [19] According to Jere Longman, "The pungency of unburned jet fuel was so strong that it blistered the lips of investigators." [20] Yet, as we have seen, tests found no fuel in the soil. So, rather than being the result of a Boeing 757 having crashed, might this odor have been created by some other means? The purpose was to help create the impression that a plane had crashed, so as to convince the first responders of this, and get information supporting this possibility into initial news reports.

By the time--weeks later--that contradictory evidence came to light, the idea that Flight 93 crashed at this site in rural Pennsylvania had become widely accepted, and was deeply entrenched in the public consciousness. New evidence that disproved this idea, such as the absence of jet fuel in the soil and groundwater, could then be ignored as if it were trivial.

Yet evidence like this is of critical importance. If Flight 93 did not crash into that field, as was officially claimed, then we need to find out what happened to it, and what the fate was of its unfortunate passengers and crew.

NOTES
[1] "Bush Speaks to Air National Guard." CNN, October 9, 2003.
[2] "Transcript: Bush's Sept. 11 Anniversary Address from the Oval Office." Associated Press, September 11, 2006.
[3] "President Discusses War on Terrorism." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 8, 2001.
[4] Tom Gibb, "Latest Somerset Crash Site Findings May Yield Added IDs." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 3, 2001; Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground." Washington Post, May 12, 2002.
[5] Steve Levin and Tom Barnes, "Flight 93 Relatives Gathering for Service." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 17, 2001; Tom Gibb, "Latest Somerset Crash Site Findings May Yield Added IDs."
[6] John O'Callaghan and Daniel Bower, "Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 Digital Flight Data Recorder Information." National Transportation Safety Board, February 13, 2002.
[7] Tom Gibb, "Latest Somerset Crash Site Findings May Yield Added IDs."
[8] "Environmental Restoration Begins at Somerset Site." Pittsburgh Channel, October 2, 2001.
[9] Steve Levin and Tom Barnes, "Flight 93 Relatives Gathering for Service."
[10] David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph. Johnstown, PA: Noah's Ark Publishing Company, 2002, p. 31.
[11] Ibid. pp. 29-30.
[12] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 213.
[13] Gerard Wright, "On Hallowed Ground." The Age, September 9, 2002.
[14] Glenn J. Kashurba, Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 Aftermath--An Oral and Pictorial Chronicle. Somerset, PA: SAJ Publishing, 2002, pp. 38-39.
[15] David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, pp. 31-32.
[16] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, pp. 213-214.
[17] Phil Hirschkorn, "9/11 Panel Describes How Attackers Got Money." CNN, August 22, 2004; Mike Masterson, "Flight 93: A Hallowed Field." Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, June 13, 2006.
[18] Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground."
[19] Glenn J. Kashurba, Courage After the Crash, pp. 32, 40, 43, and 64.
[20] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 261.

Rehearsing 9/11: How Training Exercises Foretold the Attacks of September 11

The idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been
wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11.

- Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, senior U.S. government and military officials repeatedly claimed that what happened that day was unexpected. In May 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." [1] Two years later, President Bush stated, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." [2] General Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on September 11, said, "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised." [3]

Yet these claims were untrue. Not only had the U.S. military and other government agencies discussed the possibility of such attacks, they also conducted numerous training exercises in the year or two before September 11 based around scenarios remarkably similar to what occurred on 9/11. As John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, said, "No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks against major buildings ... but the idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11." [4]

The existence of these training exercises proves that official claims that the events of September 11 were unimaginable have been false. However, future investigations of 9/11 will need to determine whether these exercises served a more nefarious purpose. For example, might they have been intended as a smokescreen for rogue individuals working within the military and other government agencies who were involved in planning the attacks? Thus, if colleagues overheard these individuals discussing matters such as planes hitting the World Trade Center or crashing into the Pentagon, they could have claimed they were simply talking about a forthcoming training exercise.

The following summary outlines three specific categories of training exercises and preparations that took place before September 11. Firstly, those that dealt with terrorists deliberately crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. Secondly, those that considered an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon. And thirdly, those that resembled other aspects of the 9/11 attacks, such as the use of planes as weapons more generally.

1) PREPARING FOR AN ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

i) Military Personnel Briefed on Possible Attack on the WTC

At some point before 9/11, members of staff at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York appear to have been briefed on the possibility of terrorists deliberately crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. In her book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, author Lynn Spencer described the actions of Trey Murphy, a former Marine who on September 11 was a weapons controller at NEADS. Murphy learned of the first plane hitting the WTC while still at home. According to Spencer: "The news brought to mind one of his briefings: What if a terrorist flies an airplane with a weapon of mass destruction into the World Trade Center? It had always been one of the military's big fears." She added, "The image on the [television] screen certainly reminded him of his briefing." [5]

ii) NORAD Trains for Terrorists Crashing a Hijacked Plane into the WTC

At unspecified times during the two years prior to September 11, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace) conducted training exercises that simulated hijacked aircraft being deliberately crashed into targets so as to cause mass casualties. As USA Today later reported, "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center." NORAD stated that "Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft" in these exercises. Among other things, the exercises tested "track detection and identification" (presumably on military radar screens); "scramble and interception" by fighter jet planes; and "hijack procedures." According to NORAD, the exercises were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises, and unlike what happened on 9/11, the planes in the simulated scenarios were coming from a foreign country rather than from within the United States. [6]

NORAD added that, before 9/11, "At the NORAD headquarters' level we normally conducted four major exercises a year, most of which included a hijack scenario." [7] Shortly after September 11, the New Yorker similarly reported, "During the last several years, the government regularly planned for and simulated terrorist attacks, including scenarios that involved multiple-plane hijackings." [8]

In spite of these specific concerns and preparations, the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that NORAD was "unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. [It] struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge [it] had never before encountered and had never trained to meet." [9]

2) PREPARING FOR A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON

The number of training exercises based around a plane crashing into the Pentagon is particularly notable. In the 12 months prior to 9/11, we know of three such exercises that were conducted, and a fourth exercise that considered, but rejected, this scenario.

i) The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise

Between October 24 and October 26, 2000, emergency responders gathered at the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room in the Pentagon for the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise. Responses to several scenarios were rehearsed, including the possibility of a passenger aircraft crashing into the Pentagon. A military news service described the exercise: "The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses, and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas." It sounds almost like a description of what happened on September 11. But then "Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the 'plane crash' was a simulated one." [10]

ii) Medics Practice for a Plane Hitting the Pentagon

Little over six months later, in May 2001, the U.S. Army's DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic--which are both located within the Pentagon--along with Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, held a tabletop exercise. The scenario they practiced for was an airplane crashing into the Pentagon's west side--the same side as was hit on September 11. [11] There have been some contradictions between reports, regarding the exact details of this exercise. But according to U.S. Medicine newspaper, the plane in the scenario was a hijacked Boeing 757, the same kind of aircraft as allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11. [12] The Defense Department's book about the Pentagon attack, Pentagon 9/11, reported that the plane in the exercise scenario was a twin-engine aircraft (Boeing 757s are twin-engine aircraft), but that it crashed into the Pentagon by accident, rather than as a consequence of a hijacking. [13] The commanders of the two Pentagon clinics that participated later said this exercise "prepared them well to respond" to the attack on 9/11. [14] And Air Force Surgeon General Paul Carlton Jr. commented, "We learned a lot from that exercise and applied those lessons to September 11." [15]

iii) Practice Evacuation Conducted in Response to Simulation of a Plane Hitting the Pentagon

Just one month before September 11, a third plane-into-Pentagon training exercise was held. General Lance Lord, the assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force, later recalled his experiences of 9/11, commenting, "Fortunately, we had practiced an evacuation of the building during a mass casualty exercise just a month earlier, so our assembly points were fresh in our minds." He added, "Purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building." [16]

iv) Military Considers, but Rejects, Exercise Scenario of a Hijacked Plane Being Crashed into the Pentagon

For another exercise, military planners actually considered the possibility of a commercial aircraft being hijacked by terrorists and then crashed into the Pentagon. [17] From April 17-26, 2001, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conducted the exercise Positive Force 01, which was designed "to test, evaluate, and train the national defense community in decision making and execution of mobilization and force deployment in response to multiple crises." [18] Positive Force was a "continuity of operations exercise," dealing with government contingency plans to keep working in the event of an attack on the U.S. [19] NORAD was one of the agencies invited to participate. [20]

During the planning of this exercise, special operations officers had to think like terrorists and plot unexpected attacks that would test NORAD's air defenses. According to an officer who was temporarily assigned to NORAD in the spring of 2001, "the NORAD exercise developers wanted an event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon." [21] The NORAD employee who suggested this had been asked for a scenario in which the Pentagon was rendered inoperable and part of its functions had to be moved to another location. [22] However, the U.S. Pacific Command didn't want the scenario, "because it would take attention away from their exercise objectives." Joint Staff action officers then rejected the scenario as being "too unrealistic." [23]

3) OTHER PREPARATIONS AND EXERCISES

There were other training exercises and emergency preparations that are noteworthy. Few specific details have been disclosed of these. They have not been reported to have included scenarios of aircraft hitting the World Trade Center or Pentagon, but they relate to what happened on 9/11 in other ways.

i) Department of Transportation Exercise Involves a Cell Phone Call from a Hijacked Plane

Less than two weeks before September 11, on August 30, 2001, an exercise was held at the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, as part of its preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympics. According to Ellen Engleman, the administrator of the DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration, this was a "full intermodal exercise" (although she did not explain what exactly that meant). Engleman has recalled: "During that exercise, part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially hijacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when 12 days later, as you know, we had the actual event [of 9/11]." [24] (As has been widely reported, numerous passengers on the hijacked planes allegedly were able to make calls using cell phones to people on the ground.) The Department of Transportation was subsequently much involved in the emergency response on September 11, with its Crisis Management Center being activated less than 30 minutes after the first attack on the WTC. [25]

Although further details of this exercise are unknown, the fact that Engleman referred to "other aspects of the scenario that were very strange" indicates that it resembled the 9/11 attacks in other ways.

ii) Threat of Planes as Weapons Considered During Preparations for 'Special Security Events'

The possibility of attacks resembling those that occurred on 9/11 was considered during the preparations for what are called "National Special Security Events" (NSSEs). This is particularly notable, since preparations were underway in the two cities targeted in the attacks--New York and Washington--the morning of September 11, for National Special Security Events due to take plane later that month. Considering that only four or five events per year were being designated as NSSEs, it seems hard to dismiss this as just coincidence.

Since 1998, the National Security Council has had the authority to designate any important upcoming public event as an NSSE. [26] Events such as the 2000 Republican and Democratic National Conventions and the 2000 presidential inauguration were designated as NSSEs. [27] Once an event has been designated as an NSSE, the Secret Service becomes the lead agency for designing and implementing its security plan, while the FBI and FEMA also have major security roles. [28]

According to the Secret Service, there would be "a tremendous amount of advance planning and coordination" for NSSEs. A variety of training initiatives would be conducted, including "simulated attacks and medical emergencies, inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises." [29] Most significantly, according to Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI from September 1993 to June 2001, in the years 2000 and 2001, the subject of "planes as weapons" was always one of the considerations in the planning of security for "a series of these, as we call them, special events." Freeh told the 9/11 Commission that "resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat," and confirmed that "the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions" was "part of the planning" for NSSEs. [30] Although Freeh did not state it, it seems a quite likely possibility that the "simulated attacks ... inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises" held during 2000 and 2001 in preparation for NSSEs would therefore have included the scenario of planes being used as weapons.

Furthermore, the morning of September 11, Secret Service employees in New York were "about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly." [31] An additional 100 Secret Service employees were in New York to help prepare for the event. [32] The General Assembly's annual gathering of world leaders was scheduled for September 24 to October 5, with President Bush due to give his address on September 24. [33] Significantly, this event was designated as an NSSE. [34] Since the UN's previous 'Millennium Summit' in New York in September 2000 was an NSSE, it seems logical to assume that the 2001 gathering received NSSE status before 9/11, and not simply as a result of the attacks. [35]

Preparations were also underway in Washington, DC on September 11 for the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which were scheduled to take place on September 29-30. Many of the agencies that would be involved in the emergency response to the Pentagon attack later that morning were taking part in these preparations. [36] It was reported several weeks before 9/11 that these meetings had been designated as an NSSE. [37]

The question therefore arises, might preparations for the threat of planes being used as weapons have been taking place around the time of the 9/11 attacks? Were "simulated attacks ... inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises" based around planes used as weapons scheduled in New York and Washington around that period? Further research and investigation is required to answer these questions.

OTHER EXERCISES?

The above summary describes training exercises and preparations that have been reported or publicly discussed. But it seems reasonable to assume that there were other exercises held in the year or two before 9/11 that have not yet been reported and that also resembled the attacks that took place that day. If they occurred, we need to know about these other exercises and we must consider what role they might have played in the planning and execution of the September 11 attacks.

NOTES

[1] "National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing." White House, May 16, 2002.
[2] "President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference." White House, April 13, 2004.
[3] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons." USA Today, April 18, 2004.
[4] Kevin Howe, "Expert Stresses Need for Intelligence." Monterey County Herald, July 18, 2002.
[5] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 179.
[6] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons."
[7] Barbara Starr, "NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building." CNN, April 19, 2004.
[8] "September 11, 2001." New Yorker, September 24, 2001.
[9] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 45.
[10] Dennis Ryan, "Pentagon MASCAL Exercise Simulates Scenarios in Preparing for Emergencies." MDW News Service, November 3, 2000.
[11] Arlington County, Virginia, report, Titan Systems Corp., Arlington County: After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon. 2002, p. B17; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Defense Department, Office of the Secretary, Historical Office, 2007, pp. 23 and 107.
[12] "Crisis Response Puts Agencies on Path to Better Coordination." U.S. Medicine, January 2002.
[13] Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, p. 107.
[14] Matt Mientka, "Pentagon Medics Trained for Strike." U.S. Medicine, October 2001.
[15] Dean E. Murphy, September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday, 2002, p. 222.
[16] Lance Lord, "A Year ago, a Lifetime ago." Air Force Print News, September 10, 2002.
[17] Danielle Brian, "POGO Letter to Hon. Thomas K. Kean, Chairman, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." Project On Government Oversight, April 13, 2004.
[18] "Positive Force." GlobalSecurity.org, June 9, 2002.
[19] Julian Borger, "Hijackers Fly into Pentagon? No Chance, Said Top Brass." The Guardian, April 15, 2004.
[20] Nicole Gaudiano, "Military Considered Hijacked Plane Exercise, and Rejected it." Air Force Times, April 13, 2004.
[21] Terry Ropes, "Exercise Scenario." September 18, 2001, internal e-mail; Julian Borger, "Hijackers Fly into Pentagon? No Chance, Said Top Brass."
[22] Nicole Gaudiano, "Military Considered Hijacked Plane Exercise, and Rejected it."
[23] Terry Ropes, "Exercise Scenario"; Julian Borger, "Hijackers Fly into Pentagon? No Chance, Said Top Brass."
[24] Mineta Transportation Institute, National Transportation Security Summit, Washington, DC. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, October 30, 2001, p. 108.
[25] Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Federal Aviation Security Standards. 107th Cong., 1st sess., September 20, 2001; Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Statement of Ellen G. Engleman, Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 10, 2001.
[26] Bruce M. Lawlor, "Military Support of Civil Authorities: A New Focus for a New Millennium." Journal of Homeland Defense, October 2000; "National Special Security Events." United States Secret Service, 2002.
[27] "National Special Security Events Fact Sheet." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, July 9, 2003; "Fact Sheet: 2005 Presidential Inauguration: National Special Security Event." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 8, 2004.
[28] "National Special Security Events Fact Sheet"; Sarah D. Scalet, "In Depth: Democratic Party Convention Security." CSO, September 2004.
[29] "National Special Security Events."
[30] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Tenth Public Hearing. 9/11 Commission, April 13, 2004.
[31] United States Congress, Honoring United States Secret Service New York Field Office for Extraordinary Performance During and Immediately Following September 11, 2001. 107th Cong., 2nd sess., April 23, 2002.
[32] "Spotlight on: Barbara Riggs." PCCW Newsletter, Spring 2006.
[33] "UN General Security Council Condemns Attacks." Reuters, September 12, 2001; "Bush to Attend UN General Assembly." Associated Press, October 29, 2001.
[34] Al Baker, "Security Tight for Start of United Nations Meeting in New York." New York Times, November 10, 2001; House Committee on the Judiciary, Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security. 107th Cong., 2nd sess., July 9, 2002; "National Special Security Events Fact Sheet."
[35] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2000, p. 177; United States Congress, Making Appropriations for Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base Realignment and Closure for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 29, 2000; "Preparing for the World: Homeland Security and Winter Olympics." White House, January 10, 2002.
[36] Arlington County, After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon, p. A4; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 314.
[37] "Washington is Seeking Support to Handle Protests at 2 Meetings." New York Times, August 18, 2001.

What Do NORAD's 9/11 Computer Chat Logs Reveal?

In April 2006, journalist Michael Bronner received in the post 30 hours of recordings he had requested from the Pentagon. These recordings, which came as a series of computer audio files on three CDs, had captured events on the operations floor at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector throughout the day of September 11, 2001. [1] NORAD--the North American Aerospace Defense Command--is the military organization responsible for monitoring and defending the airspace of North America. Its Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, New York, is responsible for monitoring and protecting 500,000 square miles of airspace above the northeast U.S., including the airspace over New York City and Washington, DC. [2] It was within this airspace that the 9/11 attacks occurred, and from the NEADS operations floor that the U.S. military's response originated. Evidence of what happened there that day is clearly in the public interest and of obvious importance for attempts to unravel how the attacks were able to succeed. In an August 2006 Vanity Fair article based on the recordings, Bronner therefore referred to these "NORAD tapes" as "the authentic military history of 9/11." [3]

However, the NORAD tapes are not the only record of the actions of NORAD and its Northeast Air Defense Sector on September 11. In her recent book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, commercial pilot and author Lynn Spencer revealed the existence of other crucial documentation. Yet, more than seven years on from 9/11, this record remains unreleased to the public and its contents are almost completely unknown.

Spencer described how, at around 9:25 a.m. on September 11, Master Sergeant Joe McCain, the mission crew commander technician at NEADS, received a call from the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR) headquarters at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Major General Larry Arnold and his staff at Tyndall had been trying to gather information about the ongoing crisis, and wanted to know the transponder codes for the two fighter jets that had been launched in response to the first hijacking. The CONR officer that made the call told McCain to "send [the transponder codes] out on chat." By "chat," he meant NORAD's computer chat system. [4]

NORAD'S COMPUTER CHAT SYSTEM
According to Spencer, the chat system used by NORAD that day was "similar to the chat rooms on most Internet servers, but classified." It had three chat rooms that could be used by anyone with proper access. One room was specifically for NEADS, and connected its ID, surveillance, and weapons technicians to its alert fighter squadrons, and was where NEADS received status reports on fighter units and their aircraft. Another chat room was for CONR, and was where its three sectors--NEADS, the Western Air Defense Sector (WADS), and the Southeast Air Defense Sector (SEADS)--communicated with each other and could "upchannel" information to CONR headquarters. The third room was the Air Warfare Center (AWC), where senior NORAD commanders from the three NORAD regions--CONR, Canada, and Alaska--communicated with each other. Although NEADS was allowed to monitor this room, it could not type into it. [5]

Furthermore, when a training exercise was taking place, one or two additional chat windows would be open specifically for communicating exercise information, so as to help prevent it being confused with real-world information. [6] This fact is of particular significance, as the whole of NORAD, including the staff at NEADS, was involved in at least one major training exercise the morning of 9/11. The annual "Vigilant Guardian" exercise has been described as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States," and was scheduled to include a simulated hijacking that day. [7] According to Larry Arnold, who was the commanding general of NORAD's Continental U.S. Region, this exercise was only canceled after the second World Trade Center tower was hit at 9:03 a.m. [8]

PAPER LOGS DOCUMENT COMMUNICATIONS
NORAD kept paper logs of the communications that took place in its computer chat rooms. As Spencer described, at NEADS it was Joe McCain's responsibility "to monitor the chats and keep paper logs of everything that is happening. ... These chat logs help to keep everyone on the same page, but in a situation like the one unfolding [on 9/11] they have to be updated almost instantaneously to achieve that end." [9] These logs are actually referred to in the notes at the back of the 9/11 Commission Report. However, this is only in relation to a single communication made across the chat system. As the report described: "At 10:31, General Larry Arnold instructed his staff to broadcast the following over a NORAD instant messaging system: '10:31 Vice president has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].'" [10] This detail makes clear that crucial information was being communicated in the NORAD chat rooms. Yet, to date, we know practically nothing about what else was being discussed in them.

Clearly, the details of the NORAD chat logs for the day of 9/11 need to be made public and must be carefully examined. They may not tell us the full story of the U.S. military's response to the attacks, nor give us all the answers we require about why the military failed so catastrophically to protect the nation. But they will surely fill a large gap in the puzzle.

NOTES
[1] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Vanity Fair, August 2006.
[2] Leslie Filson, Sovereign Skies: Air National Guard Takes Command of 1st Air Force. Panama City, FL: 1st Air Force, 1999, p. 51; Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes."
[3] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." The NORAD tapes were previously subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission in November 2003. (See Philip Shenon, "9/11 Panel Issues Subpoena to Pentagon." New York Times, November 8, 2003; Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Knopf, 2006, pp. 85-88.) However, the Commission played only a few short excerpts from the tapes, during its final public hearing on June 17, 2004. In August 2007, the producers of the popular 9/11 documentary film Loose Change received audio files of the NORAD tapes, which they made fully available to members of the public over the Internet. (See "NORAD Live and Uncut." Official Loose Change Blog, August 30, 2007.)
[4] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 139.
[5] Ibid. p. 139.
[6] Ibid. pp. 139-140.
[7] Hart Seely, "Amid Crisis Simulation, 'We Were Suddenly No-Kidding Under Attack.'" Newhouse News Service, January 25, 2002; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, pp. 41 and 122; Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes."
[8] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 59.
[9] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 140.
[10] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 42 and 465-466.