Talk:U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Old thread

I am thinking of removing this entire section:

An American Airlines pilot stayed at the controls of hijacked Flight 11 much of the way from Boston to New York, sending surreptitious radio transmissions to FAA controllers on the ground as he flew. The transmissions were intermittent, and were timed to include a voice that was threatening the pilot.[20] Those tapes are now presumed[vague] to be in the hands of Federal law enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight control facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center[21]; all data and study results of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are now in possession of the FBI.[22]

as it is based primarily on an article dated September 13, 2001 which was speculative. While not entirely inaccurate, the "tapes" have been released to the public, pieces of them are in other 9/11 articles, and according to the American_Airlines_Flight_11 article, Atta took the controls and accidentally sent transmissions to air traffic control.

Please let me know if there are any objections. Justin Z (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

While conceding that pieces of the tapes are in other 9/11 articles, perhaps you could locate the pieces and supply links, Justin Z? This is to say that your intention to delete material you have conceded is accurate is to engage in a form of speculation, speculation that the pieces are not worth your time to locate and that others should not be informed of their existence based on your lack of motivation in locating them.

These are objections.

Parserpractice (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2009

That is a vague thing to say, and it is inconsistent with the account that Atta took the controls right away. I just read the article, and the premise is a speculation that the transmissions were intentionally caused by an AA pilot in the pilot's seat. It should not be stated as fact. (I think it's possible that if this was done intentionally, it might have been done from a jumpseat, but that's just as speculative.) The Christian Science Monitor presumed on 9/13/01 that the tapes were in the custody of federal law enforcement officials. That should not be in the present tense, though what the CSM presumed on 9/13 is not very relevant today. And to the last point, the page in the citation isn't loading. Might be a dead link. I agree this paragraph is a mess, and doesn't contain encyclopedic information. Dcs002 (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs says that editors making claims based on the supposition that they have personally researched and understood material, have citations in other words, yet choose not to present those citations while making claims about citations presented by other editors is OK. Then Dcs claims that material surrendered to the FBI as described on the NTSB page given has been or should by now have been released to the public. Has Dcs researched its current release status, or is Dcs merely speculating? Has Dcs done a FOIA?

Parserpractice (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FAA and military response

This section is kinda silly since the whole article is about the military response. This section is crawling with opinions stated as fact and cited by 9/11 conspiracy websites. It's an absolute mess!

I'm removing the paragraphs under the subheading "Flight 11" that begin with "From the late 1950s into the 1980s the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (S.A.G.E.) Air Defense System...," "Correlation of radar track to flight plans was chosen by NATO...," and "Under the FAA’s Long Range Radar Replacement Program...." They just describe technology, in long and painful detail, as if it were cut & pasted from some history textbook. It's out of place, and whoever put it there didn't attempt to relate it to flight 11. It speaks of autopilot systems that NORAD could use to take over a plane and direct it to intercept, but it doesn't say that function was for use in military interceptors tracking enemy bombers, nor does it mention that the program was retired in 1983. It cites a section on another Wikipedia that is itself completely uncited. And the concluding sentence of these bizarre paragraphs is the following opinion: "In short, with the above given radars there should have been no reason why NEADS/Rome could not track Flight 11." It's gone! Dcs002 (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This entry is the final rebuttal I will make to claims by the Dcs editor that the SAGE Air Defense System is unrelated to events on 9/11. I will state again that I feel the Dcs unit is performing a trolling function, which would be obvious to anyone who had read these links.

"In 1966, Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown saw emerging technologies as the key to a more cost-effective and efficient air defense system. Brown's plan called for phasing out most military radars around the nation's periphery. Detection duties would be assumed by FAA radars that would feed information into military control centers. By 1968, only radar stations around the nation's perimeter remained in Air Force jurisdiction. All (SAGE) gap-filler radars ceased operations. Interior stations were either closed or turned over to the FAA."

"The DoD and the FAA had been negotiating throughout the 1970s for the FAA to assume control of most tracking duties as part of a proposed Joint Surveillance System."

"In the early 1980s, when the JSS project was completed, the JSS operated 46 long-range radar sites. 31 of the sites had FAA-operated search radars and Air Force-manned height-finder radars. 5 sites had FAA radars that simply provided a data tie to one of the SAGE Regional Control Centers (RCC)."

"Initially, these 46 radar sites provided data feeds to the 6 remaining SAGE ROCCs. During 1983, these 6 ROCCs were replaced by 4 Region Operation Control Centers (ROCCs) that operated as part of the JSS."

"By 1987, the 4 ROCCs relied mostly on data-feeds from the FAA JSS radars."

"JSS was an Air Force/FAA cooperative effort to provide a peacetime air surveillance and control system to replace SAGE and BUIC systems. Region Operations Control Centers (ROCCs) opened in 1983 and featured the Hughes H5118ME computer. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/searching_the_skies.htm

Hughes H5118ME replacement for SAGE; used at JSS ROCC's/SOCC's

http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip.php

Mentioning that NATO used SAGE-system advancements is also related in that the NATO Air Defense Ground Environment (NADGE) network used the very same Hughes H5118ME computer.

The Hughes H5118ME computer does what, you say? "Several means of target identification are available, including IFF, voice identification and computer comparison of target characteristics. A correlator then generates target tracking for genuine targets. A NATO national commander, based on his evaluation of aircraft not identified by IFF or from pre-filled flight plans, can direct his own nations fighters to intercept the aircraft." http://ed-thelen.org/aadcp.html

U.S. military and NATO both chose the same system to correlate radar returns to filed flight plans.

SAGE system led directly into JSS with FAA performing the role of gap filler radars for the nation's interior, fed directly into the Region Operations Control Centers (ROCCs). Neither NORAD nor FAA was 'going it alone', it is "Joint" by definition. NEADS/Rome has never given a satisfactory explanation for its inability to track.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs says "Deleted paragraph of opinions. Many sentences with "asked us to believe" & other opinionated matters. No new factual content, only opinions." in his comments describing his/her deletion of material in the Aftermath section which describes Col. Marr's responsibilities as commander of NEADS.

Aftermath section is an appropriate place to summarize Col. Marr's responsibilities. Marr is to have awareness of logistics in his sector.

He is to have command of his sector.

He did not even have command of the technology Dcs describes in his paragraph above.

Now Dcs would have us believe that technology is irrelevant.

Dcs did not attempt to relate it to Flight 11.

Autopilot systems are not a topic of discussion in this article.

Tracking of aircraft is the intended use of the technology.

The detail is to be gleaned from the links: it is not all pre-digested.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead and restore the deletions I made, but that doesn't change their inappropriateness for this article. The last several paragraphs in the Aftermath section are purely argumentative. The article is no place to make arguments. It's meant to be an encyclopedic resource with neutral information.

Nothing that I deleted from the flight 11 section was directly related to flight 11. We don't need a history of the outdated SAGE system to describe the known facts about flight 11. None of that is encyclopedic knowledge of what happened concerning flight 11. It was three paragraphs of history summed up by the statement "In short, with the above given radars there should have been no reason why NEADS/Rome could not track Flight 11." This is a subjective (and irrelevant) conclusion. When you say something should or should not be, that's your opinion. Articles in Wikipedia are not about what someone thinks should or should not have happened; they're about what did happen. (Your conclusion is irrelevant because it was the FAA who was having problems tracking flight 11 as a primary target in an area of poor FAA primary radar coverage. You made no reference to how the systems you described handles primary targets, which must be identified as hostile before they're even tracked.) Dcs002 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Tracking technology is directly related to Flight 11. Boston Center had no problem tracking Flight 11 all the way south to NYC. Yet, you claim FAA had trouble tracking Flight 11. This is an utterly senseless claim, as FAA controllers are quoted in the article as having tracked Flight 11 without problems.

Descriptions of radar tracking technology help to give a sense of capabilities. As the Air Force is not in the habit of accepting regressions of technological capabilities, and the JSS utilizes both better computers and radars, how likely is it that the current military systems do not also utilize SAGE-like automatic notification of deviation from flight plans correlated to radar track? You may also reference the codeonemag. reference I provided today that explicitly states that SEADS correlates tracking with flight plans in such a manner.

As for identifying targets as hostile before they are tracked, I can only say that you are truly missing the point. These 'heavies', as they are called, are recognized as air hazards beforehand, and have been for decades. They are tracked.

Colonel Marr missed almost all of his responsiblities, as did Maj.Gen. Arnold on 9/11. Argumentation is for those who would excuse them for failing in their responsibilities. This article has amassed so much documentation that the "argumentation" is for the excusers only. If excusers can only vandalize, they have no right editing. Instead of claiming sections need total re-writes and then refusing to offer that re-write, while making claims that are demonstrably untrue, be an editor rather than vandal.

Parserpractice (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Marr or anyone else failed in their responsibility on 9/11 is potentially libelous. It's information about a living person, and statements assigning responsibility to him need to be treated according to Wikipedia policy. Accusing them of failure based on your own conclusions, and not a historically accepted finding of responsibility, is not encyclopedic content. Concluding from the evidence that anyone bears responsibility for anything is something that should be published elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to argue your own conclusions. That's what history journals are for. That's where all of this stuff belongs, where it can be peer reviewed. Encyclopedic articles need to reflect a consensus opinion, like textbooks, unless it is clearly stated (and relevant to the article) that it represents a minority opinion.

Are you referring to "heavy" in the aircraft's callsign? "United 11 heavy?" Which refers to a max takeoff weight of over something like 250,000 lbs, causing a significant wake turbulence risk to following aircraft? Regardless, what makes you think that NORAD tracks them as if they were hostiles? NORAD's mission before 9/11 was to look at incoming targets, not those of domestic origin. You can say that I'm missing your point, but where did you get that information in the first place? Everything I've read about NORAD pre-9/11 says that tracking domestic flights was not their mission.

None of this represents a historical consensus. Dcs002 (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs repeatedly questions an editor's meaning for statements, statements that are based on the links/citations provided. Does Dcs actually read the links? "Heavies" are clearly defined and referred to in several of the links given: most of Dcs' efforts at deconstruction have indicated a lack of comprehension of terms used and concepts applicable.

As for Flight 11 blending into a screen of radar blips, the article also indicates that Flight 11 was well above the normal speed of an airliner along the Hudson corridor. This would cause the primary return to stand out markedly, but of course Dcs will ignore the importance of that as well as Dcs feels he has already cast sufficient aspersion upon FAA ATCs on that day.

Despite Boston Center tracking Flight 11 throughout its entire flight track, Dcs will claim there were "gaps" in coverage, etc.

Dcs says, "... but where did you get that information in the first place?" I reply with read the citations: they are not there for filler.

Dcs lacks the thoroughness required to reference sources provided for relevant content. Lacks, demonstrable by this point, the desire to reference those sources. Is this lack in keeping with the intent of Wikipedia? He/she appears to be attempting to hijack Wikipedia.

book written about attack on white house etc that planners could no conceive? typical in the box thinking that got americans killed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

People please confine your conspiracy theories to the section marked for that purpose. This whole page is so riddled with conspiracy theory posing as fact that I found it useless to learn anything from it. The whole page is interspersed with "could have" and "would have" statements, and at least one "no reason why" claim. What info is cited often points to conspiracy websites, and in one case at least (which I removed) a citation of a completely uncited Wikipedia article. Please try to remember what an encyclopedic article looks like, and don't post things unless there is a solid foundation for them and you properly cite them.

Other editors, there's an immense amount of work to do cleaning this article up. Let's roll! Dcs002 (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And PLEASE keep in mind that the article is NOT a place to argue your conclusions about what happened. Don't approach it as a place to provide evidence for what you believe. It's a place to provide well-documented information without any personal spin or attempt to persuade anyone of anything. Your opinion might be right, and maybe you've got evidence to back it up, but this is not the place to try to prove it.

Information should also relate to the header it's given under. IOW, don't use the Flight 11 section as an area to provide information that's not directly pertinent to the military response to the events related to flight 11. Please no general information about NORAD's history of radar tracking technology, no general information about air traffic or NORAD procedures, or the history of individuals involved (unless that history relates directly to the response to flight 11). Dcs002 (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

SAGE system utilized automatic notification of deviation from flight plans compared to radar track.

Deletion of material based on claims that material refers to "conspiracy websites" will either be specifically identified by deleting editor, or deletions will be undone.

SEADS correlates radar return to flight plans: comments? http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/arp_02/noble/index.html

Claims that material refers to "conspiracy websites" will either be identified, or treated as "speculation".

Parserpractice (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I find references 2, 3, 8, 37, 39, and 65 problematic. 2 refers to a book with an agenda, 3 refers to a discussion board, 8 refers to a completely uncited Wikipedia article, 37 & 39 refer to articles posted on informationclearinghouse.com (a rather dubious source), and 65 has nothing to do with the material it supposedly cites. These are the ones that were obvious to me after a quick look. After this first look, I wonder how many others are inappropriately cited. There are also numerous citations with dead links. Poorly or inappropriately cited material is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.

In my frustration yesterday I referred to "conspiracy websites." By that I meant the informationclearinghouse.com articles and the book in reference 2, though I did not name them specifically. In hindsight I overstated the matter. But these were the links I checked into when I read information that seemed odd to me, like the location of the fighters based at Andrews. Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs says, " ... and 65 has nothing to do with the material it supposedly cites." Read the link. Dcs says, "I wonder how many others are inappropriately cited." This is your task at this moment: your editing skills need to be verified by actually reading the links and demonstrating human comprehension skills. A rather dubious editing effort, claiming 65 is inappropriately referenced.

Identify the dead links.

You continue to make claims.

The Andrews fighters seemed "odd" to you? Interesting.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is as much about preparedness as about the military's response on 9/11. It is, in fact, impossible to consider the military's response without considering its preparedness. JSS evolved out of SAGE system developments, and is hopefully an improvement on SAGE capabilities.

Deletion of large blocks of informative text on the state of the military's preparedness are inappropriate, and are, in fact, forms of speculation, the very same type as JustinZ, above, has exhibited. These types of deletions are more accurately described as _Vandalism_.

Information found within links provided can appear to be "encyclopedic": do remember you are on an encyclopdia page while reading the article.

DCs says: "Information should also relate to the header it's given under.". The military's main explanation, albeit inadequate, is that it had trouble tracking Flight 11, the first hijack of the day, troubles that persisted throughout its day. This calls into question the military's tracking capabilities on any day; therefore the text on NORAD's tracking capabilities. It is absolutely relevant; therefore if you, as an editor versus Vandal, feel it needs its own header, then set it up rather than delete blocks of text.

It's really that simple: edit rather than vandalize.

Parserpractice (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is titled "U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks," not US preparedness on 9/11. The title suggests it's not as much about preparedness as response. But if you believe response should receive detailed coverage, read my next note. Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your 'editing' effort is as much about comprehension as intention. A 'normal' expectation.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you should create a section heading for military preparedness and not stick all of that under flight 11.

And FYI, NORAD's radar was not a part of the story with flight 11, which was tracked by FAA radar and controllers. Once the transponder was switched off it became a matter of tracking a primary target, and FAA radar coverage for primary targets is incomplete along portions of the flightpath. It was one primary target among many others that might or might not be cluttering ATC radar. (Have you ever seen an FAA radar screen? I was in the Dulles tower in 1991, and the primary targets were like dense background noise.) NORAD was asked just minutes before flight 11 hit WTC1 to respond to a primary target whose location was unclear. As it was a primary target, NORAD had no real information to identify which primary target was flight 11. (Remember, some thought flight 11 was still airborne and headed toward DC. Its position was not known by radar.) For that reason, not only is your information misplaced, it is also irrelevant to flight 11, whose section you put it under. Until 9/11, NORAD's radar, whatever its capabilities, was concentrated on the ADIZ, not domestic traffic.

Since you put your own conclusion at the end of this information, "In short, with the above given radars there should have been no reason why NEADS/Rome could not track Flight 11...," it is argumentative and therefore inappropriate. You, and individual, don't know the answer about what "should have been." That is subjective language and inappropriate. Did you consider primary targets vs. tracking airline transponders? Do you know where all the areas of weak primary target coverage are in FAA radar? The fact remains that the position of flight 11 was not known, whether or not you think that should have been the case. You can't be stating opinions like that as fact.

If you personally investigated this topic, then the appropriate thing to do is to publish your findings elsewhere and let other people cite your work as appropriate. Wikipedia articles are no place to publish findings of your own research. Again, another area of violation of Wikipedia policy.

Removing sections of an article that violate Wikipedia policy is not vandalism. Dcs002 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs says, "NORAD had no real information to identify which primary target was flight 11." Yet Mark Hodgkins and Colin Scoggins were able to identify Flight 11 with ease, and as is required of them, were able to identify Flight 11 for NORAD personnel.

You are continuing to make tangential, inaccurate statements buried within irrelevant argumentation designed to make itself appear 'qualified'.

Flight plans require an aircraft to follow a prearranged flight path with agreed upon waypoints. Flight path is allowed to change only after waypoints are achieved. This is what allows aircraft with and without transponders to be easily identified as errant.

Joint Surveillance System is just that: joint. Joint siting and joint use. Dcs is essentially claiming that NORAD was going it alone on 9/11. I read that as an attempt to confuse others. This is vandalism in its very essence.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

From Michael Bronner's Vanity Fair article:

"... the facility's war room: a dimly lit den arrayed with long rows of radarscopes and communications equipment" (Long rows of radarscopes for tracking aircraft in their sector.)

"... the crew, about 30 Americans and five or six Canadians" (Region/Sector Operations Command Centre crew to man radarscopes and direct NORAD aircraft, 35 or more and could not locate these airliners?)

"Boston's request for fighter jets is not as prescient as it might seem. Standard hijack protocol calls for fighters to be launched —scrambled — merely to establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane" (Intercept procedure.)

"trying to find out, as fast as possible, everything they can about the hijacked plane: the airline, the flight number, the tail number (to help fighter pilots identify it in the air), its flight plan, the number of passengers ("souls on board" in military parlance), and, most important, where it is, so Nasypany can launch the fighters." (This is inaccurate on Bronner's part: NORAD does not need all that information before launching interceptors.)

"Radar is the NEADS controllers' most vital piece of equipment" (There you have it.)

"In order to find a hijacked airliner — or any airplane — military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates." (Another untrue statement on Bronner's part. See Citino's directive to Langley pilots to take FAA guidance.)

"American Airlines refused to confirm for several hours that its plane had hit the tower. This lack of confirmation caused uncertainty that would be compounded in a very big way as the attack continued. (Though airlines have their own means of monitoring the location of their planes and communicating with their pilots ...)" (This would be the Aircraft Situation Display to Industry, ASDI)

""The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," Marr later explained." (Col. Marr certainly remembers he has training exercises every day in his sector, each exercise having its own refueling tankers assigned to it. What the need for Marr to make such a statement? Marr's statement implies that the ongoing training exercises are more important than the hijacks. Logistics awareness and logistics command. Lt.Col. Duffy reassigned a refueling tanker for CAP over NYC later.)

"Major General Larry Arnold (retired), who had been on the other end of the secure line with NEADS's Colonel Marr throughout the attack" (Phone calls instead of marshalling assets at his disposal, assets already airborne.)

"As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott's and Arnold's testimony were misleading, and others simply false."

"The Langley fighters were headed the wrong way"

"Colin Scoggins has spotted a low-flying airliner six miles southeast of the White House." (Only later does NEADS begin to conform to use of FAA guidance for locating aircraft.)

"Radar analysis in the following weeks will show that the plane abruptly veers away and turns toward the Pentagon, though the controllers at NEADS have no way of knowing this in the moment." (Continued inability to track by NEADS technicians: preparedness?)

"Nasypany's voice can be heard cursing in frustration: "Goddammit! I can't even protect my N.C.A. [National Capital Area].""

"CITINO: Quit 2-5 [Langley fighters], mission is intercept aircraft over White House. Use F.A.A. for guidance." (This is the procedure in civilian-controlled airspace.)

"NEADS believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point." (by 10:10AM, yet has only scrambled 4 fighter jets?)

"At that point in the morning, Marr later told me, preventing an accidental shootdown was a paramount concern." (Evidently of greater concern than getting interceptors in the air and on site?)

"Two more problems emerge: the controllers can't find the White House on their dated equipment, and they have trouble communicating with the Langley fighters" (Preparedness?)

"Farmer wrote to me in an e-mail summarizing the commission's referral. "The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept …" (Missed responsiblities, false testimony, and misleading explanations.)

Parserpractice (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

The two paragraphs in the lead section are a cut-&-paste found on numerous conspiracy websites. Needs a complete, neutral rewrite. Dcs002 (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnote #3 relevant content is excerpted from: Command Cells Speed Airspace Reactivation by William B. Scott Aviation Week and Space Technology June 10, 2002 http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020610/aw52.htm

This is not a conspiracy website.

Parserpractice (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnote #3 links to a discussion board (http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/6-06-03/discussion.cgi.83.html), not the website you posted above. A discussion board is not a reliable source for encyclopedic information. Worse is the sentence it supports, including "Burden of proof falls on the 3 military liaisons...." This lead section is not a place to make such arguments or assign personal responsibilities. It's a summary of the article. And as written, it represents no one's opinion but yours.

Citation #2 refers to a book whose stated purpose is to debunk the Popular Mechanics research. As such, I think its neutrality is highly questionable.

And yes, the exact text is a direct quote found on numerous conspiracy websites. No matter what websites they come from, such extensive direct quotes violate Wikipedia policy.

This article (and the paragraphs you've apparently posted) contravenes numerous Wikipedia policies concerning POV & neutrality issues, argumentation, poor and lacking sourcing, and extensive quotation. Information is badly disorganized and I found it nearly impossible to find the information I wanted when I first visited the page (times, origins, and numbers of fighters launched in response, and what they did while airborne). Much if the information under specific headings is completely unrelated to the headings. This article is a disaster and it needs a massive and neutral rewrite to bring it into compliance. Dcs002 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs says, "Footnote #3 links to a discussion board ". The discussion board openly references an article in Aviation Week, a publication for which I do not have a subscription. The reference is clear.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help requested from WikiProject September 11, 2001

I have posted a request for help on the WikiProject September 11, 2001 discussion page. I am seriously concerned about this article for the reasons stated throughout this page, and I'm also concerned that my own attempts to clean it up might be futile. I realize now that my deletions yesterday were ill advised, but I don't know what else to do. I remain convinced that much of what's on this page needs to be removed. Dcs002 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the "help" will be willing to read the citations given and be able to relate the material to the topic at hand.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs says, "I realize now that my deletions yesterday were ill advised, ..."

They are ill-advised because you do not demonstrate comprehension and retention of relevant information. Your synthesis product is flawed as a consequence.

I invite credible contributions.

Parserpractice (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to postings by Parserpractice because I believe they have taken on the nature of personal attacks. I have not edited the page since my deletions were restored, nor have I posted any discussion comments, other than this one, since I made my request for help. I will not be drawn into further bickering. This page needs serious help, not so much for its factual content as for its POV, neutrality, aspersions on living persons, disorganization, improper citations, speculativeness, and argumentativeness, all detailed above. This subject is highly emotionally charged, and I know Parserpractice has put a great deal of effort into shaping this article into its current form, and is of course somewhat reluctant to accept changes to her/his work. That's human nature. But cooler heads must prevail, and if that means outside intervention, then so be it. I am clearly not the one to clean this article up when it it so carefully guarded in its current form. This is why I've asked for help. Dcs002 (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank Dcs for deciding to no longer 'respond' to this article. My honest opinion is that Dcs is literally trolling.

Dcs mentions "aspersions on living persons", yet has openly accused FAA Air Traffic Controllers of missing their responsibilities. He/she states that NORAD was not responsible for tracking domestic origin aircraft but notably takes 'care' not to state who is responsible for tracking domestic origin aircraft.

Dcs feigns understanding topic material, yet when called to question for his/her understanding of that material refuses to demonstrate comprehension of said material, instead retreating into arguments that something is in violation of Wiki policies. This is perhaps supposed to suggest compliance with something 'higher', but when his/her retreat implies a refusal to regard material easily sourced and doubly requested to source, what conclusion can be reached? Conclusion: Dcs is attempting to subvert the referencing capabilities the internet provides. Mute silence is his/her response by that point, so a further conclusion is brought forth: Dcs is trolling/vandalizing in the name of supposed 'compliance'.

Dcs in his/her Contributions page has edited a list of historical aircraft hijackings. He/she also claims on this discussion page that sections of text in the article are cut&pastes from "Conspiracy websites". Therefore, Dcs has researched these topics before.

Dcs claims dead links exist, but does not attempt to identify them, fix them, or remove them. Yet these claims are used as fodder to make further claims, and those claims have been proven repeatedly to be substanceless, even erroneous. Therefore, Dcs is telling us that he/she is, at best, a 'reluctant' editor. In that spirit, I thank Dcs for his/her 'decision' to no longer respond.

Parserpractice (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki articles used as references

There appear to be some wiki articles being used as references in this article e.g. current ref 68. They need to be replaced with references that comply with WP:V which I guess are probably somewhere in the wiki articles being referenced. Or perhaps some of the references are meant to be internal links to those articles. Either way, someone who cares needs to fix it as other wiki articles can't provide WP:V compliance for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, yes, some of the references will be changed to internal links. I plan on doing so in the shortest term.

Parserpractice (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation problems

I just clicked on each citation looking for dead links. As of 10/10, I found 5 of them (11, 25, 27, 33, & 48). In addition, I read a few of them and checked back to the information being supported by these sources (e.g., 23-26, 52, & 64) and found that many actually do not support the statements, and in some cases (23, 24, 26) the sources actually refute the statement they are given to support.

When listing a source as a reference for material in the article, it is important that the editor listing those sources be familiar with their content, that the citations be as complete as possible (i.e., not just naming the author and title), that the statement(s) they are given to support actually are supported by them, and that the sources are of high quality. If not, the statements they are meant to support should be clearly given as the opinions or conclusions of the authors who wrote the referenced material. Of course it's up to the Wikipedia community to keep on top of dead links and changing information, but at the time sources are cited they should adhere as closely as possible to Wikipedia's standards. (If tweaking is needed, others can help to elaborate or clean up problematic citations. Just ask for help.)

I give today's date, 10/10/2009, because I see some citations have already changed since last time I looked at the article. All citation numbers are accurate as of this afternoon.

Here is a list of the problems I've noticed so far (some repeated from my posts above, though some citation numbers have changed):

2 refers to a book, titled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Its stated purpose is not neutral. The title suggests its intent is to debunk the conclusions of those, like the editors of Popular Mechanics, who have publicly debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories.

3 leads to a discussion board. Should link to original article cited, regardless of whether it's cited in the discussion board.

11 dead link

18 is an incomplete reference, giving only author, title, & page number - Date? publisher? Media type (book, magazine article, web media, etc.)?

23 refers to a 5 minute alert status vs 2-3 minute readiness from forces at battle stations. 2-3 minutes does not refer to NORAD's usual response time, only a response time when forces who are already at battle stations. Any evidence that was the case on 9/11? Were Otis fighter crews at battle stations already when the scramble order came? If not, this reference is not valid for the point being made.

24 makes passing reference to 10 minute time to intercept a stray VFR aircraft wandering into the ADIZ. Nothing about 2-3 minute response time.

25 dead link

26 refers to a 5 minute alert readiness, not a normal response time of 2-3 minutes

23-26 collectively refute the statement they are given to support

27 dead link

33 deak link

35 article from informationclearinghouse.info, which boasts its status as representing minority journalistic opinion. A dubious source for encyclopedic information

37 same as 35 above

44 same as 18 above

48 dead link

50 same as 18 above

52 does not refer to Marr or Arnold approving a scramble of any planes at Langley. Unrelated to material it's cited to support

61 different source but same issues as 18 above. Only authors and title are given. I know this is a widely cited book by the two 9/11 Commission co-chairs, but it still needs proper referencing. Other readers might not know about the book, or that it is a book.

64 is unrelated to content -- nothing on that site (www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1881) relates to FAA telecommunications or recordings. However, a link from that page (http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf) does contain related information, and would likely be the more appropriate source to cite for such information.

Dcs002 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to this quote by Dcs: "64 is unrelated to content -- nothing on that site (www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1881) relates to FAA telecommunications or recordings. However, a link from that page (http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf) does contain related information,".

The link does describe changes made to FAA communication procedures and recording of phone calls.

Shuffling of reference citation numbers does occur: on today's date cite #64 is to an article about Litton contracts, not a link to OIG of DOT.

A careful reading of both the oig.dot.gov links will show that the content of both is essentially identical, something I had noted at time of inclusion and since forgotten.

A notable quote from the oig. link: "The time at which the Air Force liaison joined the FAA Headquarters phone-bridge and established contact with NORAD was relevant to the Commission's mandate."

Parserpractice (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not being flippant when I now say to Dcs that by now, especially with the frequency of edits for this article, that a credible effort to identify dead or inappropriate links must become more deliberative. You must forego referring to "link # such & such" and instead copy & paste the shortcut, the actual internet address, for detailed consideration. The top of this page says to assume good faith: I will require that Dcs give the actual internet addresses for links the Dcs editor finds troublesome. Otherwise I am forced to view such identification efforts as make-work for other editors. Clarity, by this point, dictates that the 'troublesome' links be Given. As with the original article, Dcs is to be required to reference his/her sources.

Parserpractice (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just ran through all the links and found 2 dead links, not the 5 Dcs claimed above. There has been no deletions recorded on the article History page since Dcs made his/her claim shortly after midnight.

1 of the dead links are from Air Force magazine. It is:

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0302/home.html

Dead link topic: increased integration of FAA radars into Air Force use.

The other dead link was a hosted story:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MID_AIR_COLLISION_AIRSPACE?SITE=MAFAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The hosted story is a very recent publication, so is not likely to be truly dropped from archives. Searching. Topic: daily number of aircraft in NYC area.

Parserpractice (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting to see this: Cite error: Invalid

These are changes made by "Smackbot", supposedly maintenance fixes from earlier today.

Topic: NORAD response times, link #27,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/158fw.htm

I fixed one other already.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parserpractice (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cit 21 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&key=1) is outdated, and the sentence it supports is no longer correct as of 8/11/2006. Eight NTSB reports with much data are available online through the National Security Archive page http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm Dcs002 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis template

This article draws on published information to synthesize conclusions concerning failures of responsibility by individuals involved in the military response to 9/11. These syntheses are not published in the cited literature, nor are they attributed to any prominent 3rd party. Therefore I believe this article contains violations of the WP:SYN policy. Dcs002 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As with other claims made by the Dcs editor above, the "syntheses" will either have to be explicitly identified by Dcs and/or other editors, or this template will eventually be removed.

Explicitly identified, or removed template. These are fair and realistic conditions: a refusal by Dcs and/or other editors to explicitly identify will be taken as ongoing attempts to cast aspersion on content material.

Failure of responsibility: Dcs and/or other editors must explicitly state wherein the failure lies, or effect re-wording of existing text. Refusal to state or re-word will be taken as ongoing attempts to cast aspersion on content material.

Concept: edit vs. vandalize.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV template

This article argues in favor of a particular position, that of making a case for responsibility of perceived military failures. Furthermore, it lacks balance in the proportion of information given for various aspects of this topic. A disproportionate amount of information is presented concerning the history of NORAD's radar technology under the subheading Flight 11. Minority viewpoints are presented are presented in the attribution of responsibility for the perceived inadequate military response on 9/11, the belief that not only was NORAD's existing radar technology capable of tracking all of the missing flights, but that NORAD actually was tracking them, contrary to numerous published reports to the contrary. These minority views are not expressed as such, nor are any prominent adherents to these views named. For these reasons, as well as many others outlined above in previous sections, I believe this article contains violations of various aspects of the WP:NPOV policy. Dcs002 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs claims the article "... lacks balance in the proportion of information given ...". This claim implies that there is other Points of View which are not presented in the article. This is a possibly true condition, and by claiming its possiblity exists Dcs has obligated him/herself to presenting the potential other Points of View. Rather than assigning to him/herself the role of minimization of other editors' contributions coupled with refusal to present or acquire balancing Points of View, Dcs has herein obligated him/herself to presentation of such balancing Points of View.

Dcs has confined him/herself to commenting only on current content: he/she has evidently decided not to attempt additions to the article. This is to be explained as ...? Unless explanation is provided, 'reluctance' will be the default explanation. Reticence on these issues is becoming most unseemly. This 'reticence' is consistent with efforts at 'make-work' for other editors.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remove NPOV template, it's not substantiated. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This atricle is a tremendous improvement over where it was 3 years ago, and the NPOV template certainly no longer applies to it. However, the NORAD Timeline section is troubling. The section seems to simply be a refutation of the NORAD Timeline rather than a description or summary of it. In its current form, I think that section needs NPOV help. I understand there were problems with it, but this article is primarily about the military actions on 9/11. I wonder if that whole section needs to be removed to a new page. Today we have a pretty clear picture of what the military did on 9/11, and this article does a good job describing those events. The NORAD Timeline itself was published a week or so later. It is one of many sources of information about the military actions on 9/11, military & civilian, and barring any actual cover-up, I think discussions of its credibility as a source (though I don't think it's actually used as one) belong here, not in the article. Dcs002 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for help from the Mediation Cabal

I requested help from the WP Mediation Cabal to help us resolve these issues. Dcs002 (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs, by requesting "help" from this party & that, implies that he/she 'should' be able to effect sought changes by him/herself. Dcs does, after all, seem to feel he/she has pools of resources to fortify him/herself, yet has only proffered 'reluctance' to-date when cued for presentations. Minimizations, 'reluctance', and "help" requests to-date.

Parserpractice (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom says: "Can you translate that into English?" Translation: assuming Tom is referring to the sum result of his entry, Tom is indicating that he, too, lacks the motivation to edit the article. References to beds, etc.: who knows Tom's motivations?

Parserpractice (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom, who also goes by username Threeafterthree, claims to have founded Wikipedia in 2001. Surely you are not going to leave such entries as above without having read the entire Discussion page? If you had, you'd understand the passage you are referring to. I am bemused that someone making your claims is preparing to replay the same failings of comprehension and retention as Dcs has. Surely you are about to explain yourself?

Parserpractice (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For notation purposes, user "Tom" has deleted his entry referred to above.

Parserpractice (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To acknowledge the most recent edit by Dcs as of the date of this entry, the edit was quite acceptable. Added material was quite helpful, informative, and relevant. I did make slight changes to the wording. A creditable editing effort.

Parserpractice (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Our Mediator has made major changes to this article as a result of our mediation. Per the mediator's request, I held off a few days before making any edits of my own. I have now made several changes in keeping with the mediation. So far I have worked from the lead section through the section on flight 175. Dcs002 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now made it through the Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) preparedness: Background section. Almost done! I'd like help with the wording if anyone has better skills at making this more readable. I'll make a request for comment when I've finished. Dcs002 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am now finished editing the article for NPOV, SYN, excess detail, & BLP content, but the writing, organization, & style need a lot of help. Maybe this article should be organized by military units instead of by flights? Dcs002 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Medusa's Agenda: "Maybe this article should be organized by military units instead of by flights?"

Or by instances of plausible deniability lost?

Parserpractice (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs more copyedit

I've read through, not looking for truth/untruth and not looking at or for citations. Looked only at format & grammar. I think it needs even more touch-ups. Things that happened in the past should not be referred to in the present tense (like sports reporting). There are verbs missing subjects; I fixed some, but don't know enough to fix others. Many quotes appear to be not marked as such, and some quotes don't appear to be attributed to anyone. Good luck, Hordaland (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dcs, I thank you for fixing the message board link. Now at least I know that even that is possible thru the archivers. I obviously had not even tried, didn't think it was likely.

Parserpractice (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran reflinks against the article...

...and filled in a lot of references so they have at least minimal titles, access dates, deadlink flags where needed.- Sinneed 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of reverting...

It is generally better to propose something new. What are the objections to breaking the long and detailed section previously tagged "aftermath", which extends from 1982 to 2009?- Sinneed 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The objections are these, and possibly more: each topic described in the Aftermath section, (title now changed to Air Sovereignty Alert preparedness), gives insight to the technological capabilities, states of responsibility awareness of key individuals, and casts a light of questioning on the 9/11 Commission's coverage of core issues of accountability.

These topics are the means of understanding the military response: they are the only methods available for the military to respond with, as that is the military's job. Preparedness, and capability. If they were unprepared, then an accounting is in order. If incapable, an accounting is in order. To argue that they are "an unstructured mess" is to be, what?, arguing that the military has perhaps a 'New' job: to define the 'enemy' as the military sees fit? Sinneed does admit that the topics do have direct relevance but the only proposed "new"-ness he offers/edits is to retitle the section. A thousand cuts with a "hatchet" will give a quite different article by task's end, yes? Compose something new, and perhaps the changes will be seen as acceptable edits.

The Aftermath section was presented so as to enable the reader to connect the content themselves, rather than stating a third party's conclusion as a citation. If advances were made in "1982" that bear upon 2001, but the military did not incorporate those advances before 2001, does that mean we should not consider that failure to incorporate those advances (ASDI) because they did not occur "After" 2001? Absurdity is the result of such thinking. Part of the Aftermath of the matter is the lack of accounting for such failures, to this day. In this and other senses, "1982" occurred "After" 2001. An editor's failure to grasp their responsiblity for handling the topic in that manner is also part of the "Aftermath". Welcome.

Parserpractice (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:TLDR - focus on content, not philosophy, not editors. 1982 is not after 2001, and is not aftermath. Please move on (edit) to the part where a change is proposed.- Sinneed 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

POV, Unsourced, and detail chopping.

The article is massively too detailed. I will be working through the article, cutting detail. I will also be briefly flagging, then cutting, unsourced content. This article is more like a magazine or newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. The intricate detail either doesn't belong because it is in the sources and can be read there (I don't plan to toss any sources), or it doesn't belong in the article at all.- Sinneed 19:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Not at this time. - Sinneed 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at this time?

Detail is everything for this topic: you may want to discuss deletions first - they will be undone if inappropriate. I do not plan on sheepdogging your edits. Again, detail is everything here.

"The intricate detail either doesn't belong because it is in the sources and can be read there ...", you say. Your response to those demands is usually a . That attitude is bordering on belligerant. You may want to include yourself in the mediation Cabal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-13/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

Parserpractice (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: inconsistent and sloppy writing (my own) on this article page

After mediation on the issue, I have made a lot of content changes to this article, but I'm sure what I've left is inconsistent in style and sloppy writing. I think I'm too close to this article to see a lot of it, and I'd appreciate some help with the writing, formatting, and style. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC: 9/11-related article with many recent, major edits. Please check

After mediation, I have made numerous edits in an attempt to remove excess clutter, BLP, SYN, & NPOV problems. (Obviously this is a very volatile issue.) I would appreciate it if some of you historians would look over the article now to see if any of these issues remain, or if there are other content-related issues. (I think the writing style needs help, and I've made another RFC for that issue.) I have tried to make these edits from an NPOV, but nobody's perfect. Prior to these edits, the article read like an indictment of many specific military and FAA officials. Thanks - Dcs002 (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --John (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kamikaze?

In the Flight 93 section, I removed the word "kamikaze" for several reasons. Most urgently, I think their is potential to offend American fighter pilots by comparing them to the Japanese suicide attackers from WWII, who were committed to their own death in their attacks. Second, I think there is potential to offend descendants of actual Japanese kamikaze pilots who, in their hearts, entered into a deeply spiritual ritual, sacrificing everything for their homeland, and giving tremendous honor to their families. Third, intentional collision, as American fighter pilots had trained for prior to 9/11, was a tactic of opportunity, where death is not an objective. This makes the use of the term "kamikaze" literally incorrect. Intentional collision involves colliding with the other aircraft in an attempt to bring it down, surviving if possible. American pilots trained in this option are taught to collide with particularly vulnerable parts of the enemy aircraft, such as control surfaces and parts of the wing, which might leave their own aircraft intact, or at least controllable enough to land safely. Failing that, the fighter pilot might have the opportunity to eject to safety. In contrast, kamikazes were not allowed parachutes. Fourth, the word "kamikaze" is emotionally charged, distracting from the facts. The combination of this emotionality with literal incorrectness was, IMO, reason to replace it immediately. I think the current wording preserves the heroic attitude of the American fighter pilots without these issues.

This has been my first edit of this article since mediation in 2009. Dcs002 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

When were the two F-15s ordered to "battlestations"

This doesn't seem definitive: "At 8:38, Boston Center contacted NEADS in Rome, New York. This was the first report of a hijacking that reached NORAD.[6] The two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts were ordered to battle stations (seated in their aircraft, engines not yet started). At 8:46, just at the time the first tower was hit, Nash and Duffy were ordered to scramble"TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ref 17 (Viser, Matt (2005-09-11). "Two pilots revisit their 9/11 - The Boston Globe". Boston.com. Retrieved 2009-10-26.) says the pilots began to prepare (suit up & head to the hangar) following an 8:34 AM call from the FAA, no orders given yet. Reference 5 (Bronner, Michael (August 2006). "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2009-03-19.) puts the Battle Stations order between 8:38 and 8:40, when the pilots were already suited up and on their way to the hangar, almost at Battle Stations already. (The Battle Stations order had little effect because the pilots had taken their own initiative to go to Battle Stations already, cutting a great deal off of their total response time.) The Scramble order came just before 8:47 according to ref 5, and at 8:46 according to ref 17. Dcs002 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

transportation secretary's testimony

Now I am reading his testimony [1] and cant figure out whether he is saying there was order to shot or not to shot plane 77? 124.248.191.82 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Because it appears the fighter plane was scrambled, and there was option to shot the civilian plane... but it was not shot. so what was the order? 124.248.191.82 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The 9/11 commission report states that according to the sum of the testimony they received and the evidence, the shoot-down authorization came from Cheney, after he had consulted with the President, but that authorization did not come until after UA 93 had crashed, and long after AA 77 had crashed and Phantom Flight 11 was no longer believed to be a threat. the order was based on a Secret Service projection giving an estimated arrival time for UA 93 into DC. Neither Cheney, the Secret Service, nor anyone advising Cheney at the time knew that UA 93 had already crashed. They didn't realize they were relying on a time estimate rather than an actual flight that was being tracked. The fighters that were airborne were never in position to fire on any of the hijacked planes, and while the hijacked planes were still airborne, they did not have authorization to shoot them down. This is all in the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 1. I'm not reading the transcript you're reading, but the Transportation Secretary would not have any responsibility concerning the issuance or acting on a shoot-down order, so I don't have the context of your question (the option existed to give the order, but it wasn't given, and previous testimony by NORAD officers that they had fighters in position with that authorization was incorrect, along with many other parts of their testimony), but this is how the Commission reported the testimony they received. Hope it answers your question :) Dcs002 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cit for when AA confirms Flight 11 down

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/748464/posts is a list of what went out on the AP wire on 9/11. A report that went out at 10:26 AM says AA had acknowledged Flight 11 had gone into the tower. A bit lower on the page is an AP timeline showing that AA had acknowledged Flight 11 had gone into the tower sometime between "shortly after 10 a-m Eastern" and 10:28 a-m Eastern, or, after Tower 2 collapsed but before Tower 1 collapsed. In one location this article says AA did not confirm the crash for "several hours," and in another it says "for two hours." In any case it was still believed by Cheney, the Secret Service, and I think NORAD to be airborne or possibly airborne until after 10:00, but we need a more precise time if anybody can find one. Dcs002 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this [2] or this [3] would be a better source for that timeline? freerepublic.com looks like a serious activist site, and maybe not the best source. Dcs002 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090717222752/http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf to http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120319054625/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/politics/16TERR.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/politics/16TERR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090804000923/https://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1881 to http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1881
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031016010748/http://www.janes.com:80/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010504_2_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010504_2_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw090971.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091108202459/http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm to http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted flight recorder recovery

I reverted this edit because it was not related to the military response to the 9/11 attacks. It was part of the investigation that followed. The FBI's involvement was investigative, and they are a civilian agency, not part of the military. The focus of the article is how the US military responded to the attacks - what they knew, how and when they knew it, how they responded, and what effect their response had, that sort of thing. The investigation was the job of the FBI, and not part of the military response. Thank you for your contribution, but I think it should go on another page. Dcs002 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)