9/11 - The Lost Tapes

[Kenny]

Did anyone watch this last night?

I thought it was fascinating and still sends a tingle down my spine

[DanO1978]

Did anyone watch this last night?

I thought it was fascinating and still sends a tingle down my spine

Was going to watch this, but was overruled

Worth a gander on 4OD then?

[Kenny]

I'd say so, yeah. They got some footage of F-16s and F-15s mixed up, but just small errors. Scary how unprepared they were for something like that

[AlexC]

It was watch that or the programme on Roger Bushell that was on at the same time on BBC4 so I've recorded The Lost Tapes. The programme about Roger Bushell was very good, but it was sad to see how many of the contributors have died since the making of the programme. Made just in time it seems.

[Sussexlad]

Not a bad programme to watch. My observations were:
1. OK, they weren't consistent whith their references to or pictures of both F-15's and F-16's but 'Jo Public' would've been none the wiser.
2. Working as I do in IT, it just proves to me once again that the American's love of 'following the process' doesn't always work. Ok, we may not have done any better in that situation but it showed that a bit of pragmatism and quick thinking was needed rather than always following the rule book.
3. One of the main flaws was that when the jets based to the south were finally ordered to scramble from Langley AFB, they headed in an easterly direction and out over the sea as per their operational procedures. This was because that was where an attack on the East Coast was thought most likely to eminate from. By the time they realised they were needed above New York, they were 100's of miles from it and the second hijacked plane had already struck the south tower.
4. The American's often talk a lot but don't actually say much more than merely state the obvious. This happens in my IT work a lot and appears to have existed at least some of the time during the emergency situation on 9/11. Obviously, it was stressful but perhaps there was too much attention paid to unvalidated information and speculation over it that resulted in really important actions not being taken quickly enough.
5. By the time fighter jets were given authorisation to shoot down any passenger jets that did not respond to radio calls or were not showing properly on radar due to their transponders being switched off, all the hijacked jets had either reached their intended targets or crashed. The eventually authorised policy was to sacrifice lives in the air to save lives on the ground. This may have worked had the necessary authorisations been provided sooner and there had been better communication between the civilian ATC and the military.

Tim.

[DanH]

One thing that occurred to me when I watched it was the issue of shooting down a hi-jacked plane and sacrificing people in the air to save lives on the ground. I couldn't help but wonder what the reaction would have been if this had actually been carried out and what the general public would have thought of the people who had made the decision (I believe they mentioned that it was the Vice President who gave authorisation in this instance). There would inevitably be people who would insist that more could have been done ahead of that course of action, so really they would would have been facing a situation in which they would be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

[pbeardmore]

I thought it was very good and a differnt angle on what happened that day.

One thing that shocked me was how unprepared they were both at a structural level and at an individual level. Hijcking is not something new. One of the things I was expecting was the use of a prearranged code word that everyone had trained for so that put a certain process into action and also snap everyone out of "is this a training mission" mentality. Some of the staff seemed completely ill prepared to deal with a hijacking (one of the guys within the forces using the word "cool" when first hearing that they were dealing with a "real world" hijacking).

Also, why did the fighters wait until they had a vector before taking off, why not send a pair North and a pair South in the meantime?

Also, the USAF not getting the message regarding the 4th airliner was never really dealt with.

On another note, why is it that transponders can be turned off? Why would you not want them on all of the time?

Well worth watching IMHO

[DamienB]

On another note, why is it that transponders can be turned off? Why would you not want them on all of the time?

If it's malfunctioning (and they can), then the off button is a very valuable button indeed. Also off on the ground makes sense, so you aren't cluttering up a display somewhere. If you have electrical problems you may want to switch it off too. (Hardly compares to airliner flying but I've had an alternator failure when flying a GA aircraft, that meant everything electrical was running from the battery, so I turned off everything including the transponder to save the juice for radio use if I needed it and flaps on final).

I didn't think there was anything new in the programme really. US air defences didn't have the slightest chance in hell of responding to the first two hijackings - there were only 5 minutes between them learning of the first hijacking and it hitting the first tower, and only 17 minutes after that the second one hit. If they had really been on the ball the other two jets could possibly have been dealt with but hindsight is a wonderful thing and their entire air defence network was - as with just about every other country at the time - aimed at dealing with jets with red stars on.

[Sussexlad]

On another note, why is it that transponders can be turned off? Why would you not want them on all of the time?

I think the point the programme was trying to make was that the hijackers could have turned the transponder off or forced the crew to.

[pbeardmore]

On another note, why is it that transponders can be turned off? Why would you not want them on all of the time?

I think the point the programme was trying to make was that the hijackers could have turned the transponder off or forced the crew to.

Yes, I got that. My point was (and Damian made some good points) why do pilots (and therefore hijackers) have the ability to turn them off when it seems pretty useful from a security perspective to be able to see the aircraft at all times. Easy to have a circuit/sensor to ensure they can be turned off only on the ground. Have no idea what their power draw is.

Or thinking outside the box, an emergency transponder than can be activated remotely via a digital code held only by ATC?

Response time for the first aircraft is not an issue as the F-15s had no idea at that time what the plans were so even if they had of intercepted, they would have just watched. I think the 4th aircraft is the big issue. If it was not for the incredible bravery of the passengers , it would have gone on to hit another target and the USAF were not even informed that it had been hijacked until after it crashed

Do planes with Red Stars have transponders?

[Unknown74]

Frighteningly interesting documentary. It was/is totally horrific to think that America could be so blind to the fact that this was being planned.

[Thumper]

Thanks for the heads up, I watched it on 4od this afternoon. Scary some of those tapes especially the reaction when more and more hijackings were coming through and when they were stating this is real life, not an exercise. When that ATC lady, military I think said "oh cooool" in an excited voice I raised my eyebrow. OK I know a lot of people are good at their jobs because they don't get emotional but I found that quite a strange reaction.

The amount of confusion was unreal, to be honest it was a right mess. It just seemed that everyone was panicking and not knowing what to do or when to do it, although there was plenty of communication it was, well, just a mess! I also didn't know that a Vice President can issue an order to shoot down a hijacked aircraft with hostages on-board, I know Bush was in the school at the time but he wasn't unreachable, surely he could have stepped outside to give a command/decision? I remember seeing the film footage of the whisperings in his ear and the look on his face but he didn't actively do anything did he? I have no idea on that, can anyone enlighten me?

I hate to think how much worse that would have been had United 93 been shot down, I use the term loosely but "luckily" it came down in fields without any further loss of life and never made it to it's intended target. Although it's a film, United 93 is very good, really makes you think, mighty brave bunch of people on that plane.

[RRconway]

Re all the transponder comments.

I can't think of any electrical equipment on an aircraft that can't be turned off or isolated by means of a CB.
To not be able to isolate such equipment in the event of overheating or fire would be pretty daft.

The programme was interesting and quite chilling and upsetting when you hear the voices of those who lost their lives, may they rest in peace.

As to who could have done what differently, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Let's just hope the lessons are learnt, and moreover we never need to prove the lessons have been learnt.

Jeff.

[pbeardmore]

Good point re the transponder,

re hindsight, is it unreasonable to expect to have a plan in place for a highjacked airliner within US airspace? and, as soon as a hijack is established, the plan is put into operation. Obviously , no plan works perfectly and there is always room to learn, but it was the lack of a plan from the start that I found surprising.

This makes for interesting reading re the 2009 observations (ignore the conspiracy stuff)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._milit ... 11_attacks

[747woody]

What you have to remember is that this was the first time that the world had seen suicide hijackings. Up to this point the policy for dealing with hijackings was to engage with the hijackers to try and secure a peaceful outcome. With hindsight we know that was not an option, but who knew that on the day, other than the hijackers?

[RRconway]

Good point re the transponder,

re hindsight, is it unreasonable to expect to have a plan in place for a highjacked airliner within US airspace? and, as soon as a hijack is established, the plan is put into operation. Obviously , no plan works perfectly and there is always room to learn, but it was the lack of a plan from the start that I found surprising.

No not at all unreasonable. As 747woody said though, hijack plans until then involved getting the hijacked aircraft onto the ground.

When the first aircraft hit the tower, they had to assess was it intentional or a hijacker who couldn't fly as well as he thought, (remember the military commanders were going on eyewitness reports which may not be conclusive) so they may have thought it was an unintentional building collusion by the hijackers.
When the second aircraft hit and they realised maybe this is different to what had been seen historically, they had already committed to the pre planned plan, and from that point they were trying to catch up.
They had to commit to the only plan they had to begin with, surely?

Cheers,
Jeff.

[pbeardmore]

Agree about the suicide part, but fighters intercepting highjacked airliners was agreed as a concept between FAA and USAF before 9/11.
But the lines of communication, format of communication and prioritisation seemed pretty confused on the day.

I wonder if any exercises were held and how closely they could recreate that situation. To be fair, you could not have an airliner simply turn off its transponder and say "come and find me".

[T_J]

Channel 4 2100-2230 The Plot to Bring Down Britain's Planes

Documentary exploring a 2006 terror plot that aimed to detonate bombs simultaneously on several US airliners departing from Heathrow, which if successful could have killed more than 2,000 people. The programme reconstructs the MI5 investigation that prevented the attack, and reveals how American intervention forced British security services to make premature arrests that might have jeopardised the operation. Featuring interviews with the then home secretary John Reid, former US Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA.

From TV Easy. Also available one hour later on Channel 4 + 1

[Jimbo27]

On the National Museum of the USAF web page they have a series of lectures available as podcasts.

One of them is by the pilot of Air Force One. Among other things he was the pilot of AF1 at the time of 9/11, and it is worth listening to, clearly there was an awful lot of confusion on that day.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/MuseumLectureSeries

Jim

[silver fox]

Much is made of the idea of intercepting any and every aircraft that should not be around.

Working purely from memory on this, but back in the Cold War days the RAF were asked to stage a "nuclear attack" on the USA.

Vulcan B2s were used, nothing particularly sneaky, 4 aircraft came in across the Dew Line over flew Canada, 1 Vulcan was intercepted by the FCAF more by luck than actual detection and even with warning that the raid was incoming the remaining 3 all made it to bombing point.

A further 6 aircraft attacked along the Pacific coast, 2 Vulcans went in using ECMs and making as much "noise" as they could before beating a hasty retreat, the other 4 took a clear run and all made it to bombing point.

I must ask if 7 out of 8 aircraft can make it through prewarned defences, I see very little chance of detecting and preventing a 9/11 event once terrorists have taken control of the aircraft.

The main significance here was that when the attacking aircraft had penetrated the border, they were away and clear, the 9/11 atackers never left USA airspace.

Things may well have changed considerably but stopping an airborne attack from within your own borders will still be incredibly difficult.