As we have already determined, the ultimate authority for the "official" explanation for the air defense failure of Sept. 11th is the U.S. military.

In matters of defense, the military holds the power, authority, and critical information. Even where the media "fills in" certain parts on its own, (which don't directly relate to civilian air defense) we find they do tend to correspond quite tightly to the military line; so our examination of the "official" explanation is also about the behavior of the media.

Whether the "official" explanation is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, (and to what degree) this is where the military stands. By examining the "official" explanation in some detail, we come closer to understanding the military's role in the tragedy.

Readers may recall that the "official" NORAD timeline of events, contained in the Sept. 16th report from CNN,

was the starting point for our discovery that, a shocking abandonment of routine procedure, and delays in responding to the hijackings had occurred on Sept 11th. In this, the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control appears to be directly responsible for: ['leaving the Air Force no opportunity to respond in time'].

Although most readers would not have taken the time to add and subtract the various times in this article -to clarify the exact length of the delays- the official figures are there; and the negligence they reveal is truly staggering.

Our Newsday article of the 23rd does not hold back any such punches in clarifying the details,

So an extraordinary negligence on the part of the FAA/ATC is clearly a matter of public record.

The military, we are told, was so handicapped by the delay in being notified, that fighter-intercepts could not be gotten "there" in time.

Thus, we hear the theme

repeated, implied, in numerous forms and guises.

And from our CNN article of the 16th, (cited above) we read,

If we recall our previously cited information from the website of the American Federation of Scientists, however,

we find that the top speeds of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.

While the planes could not be expected to reach their top speeds with a full fuel and weapons load, it seems pretty clear that,

If the F-15's from OTIS AFB, for example, (taking off at 8:52, NORAD/CNN, ibid) had travelled at 1200mph, (20 miles/minute, two thirds their top speed) they would have flown the 190 miles to New York City in 9.5 minutes -in time to intercept Flight 175, before it struck the tower at 9:02.

Given that the pilots (supposedly) 'really tried,' it's rather extraodrinary that:

Instead, the military has talked about other "factors."

Speaking before the Senate Confirmation hearings, soon-to-be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers said,

This view is repeated in our previously mentioned Newsday article of the 23rd,

Only seven bases? For the entire United States?

This is an extraordinary claim.

First of all, although the Soviet threat has been dramatically reduced, it still is a nuclear power, and an unstable one at that.

Second, the armed forces is not one of those institutions which has a hard time finding a justification to maintain funding in the context of a reduced threat. So while a reduction would be reasonable, from one hundred to seven seems absurd.

Third, since we have documented numerous ANG bases as maintaining full "battle-ready" squadrons, (parts 1B, Flights 11 and 175) and since

it certainly doesn't seem as if only seven bases had active jet-fighters on that day.

Fourthly, the fact that four separate reports, (on the scene, Sept 11th) stated that Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington scrambled F-16's, (after the Pentagon was hit) -and that these reports were later denied by the military, (through other media reports)- suggests further room for doubt.

Overall, the claim of "too few planes" stands on shaky ground.

Even if the claim was accurate, however, it would still remain largely irrelevant to the central cause of the Sept 11th failure: the extreme delay in airforce response.

So the above claim does not lessen or explain the outrageous delays attributed to the FAA, nor does it explain why the military authorities have said nothing critical about that; it merely serves to spread a small piece of the blame around.

Continuing on with the article....

Meaning what? That we didn't put planes up in the air because we didn't have the presidential authority to shoot them down?

On Sept 16th, Vice-President Dick Cheney was interviewed on the television program "Meet the Press."

Pleading sympathy for the "horrendous decision" that had to be made, (to "shoot it down") he says,

Although this line was repeated in report after report, this has absolutely nothing to do with why routine, standard procedure was not followed by the FAA/ATC (and others) on Sept 11th.

You and I may expect to experience some hesitation, if we were faced with the decision of authorizing the shoot-down, (just as George W. Bush found a sudden fondness for the third grade); but military personel are trained to follow procedures in emergencies precisely because those procedures put you in the best position to handle unknown contigencies, whenever they come up.

One does not know in advance, -whether the appearance of a fighter-intercept may cause hijackers to turn a plane around, surrender, land, crash, etc. Regardless of the unknowns, you follow routine procedures to the furthest extent possible.

You get the planes in the air.

Truly, the above line of thinking from such top military officials runs contrary to everything the military stands for.

In no way does it help to explain or lessen the FAA delay -nor explain why the FAA is not being openly criticised for having left the Air Force so unable to respond.

It merely deflects attention away.

In our attempts (so far) to find within the "official" explanations something to satisfy our grasp of the facts, the reader may, no doubt, be aware of a growing sense of confusion.

This may be, in part, due to the confused or insubstantial nature of the explanations themselves; yet it's also a reflection of something else.

Confusion, it turns out, is one of the central reasons that the media and the military give as the cause of the civilian air defense failures of Sept 11th.

Within this framework, we see two principle components.

This is where the blame for the failure of civilian air defense on Sept 11th is spread around to many "factors."

Included in amongst the three components discussed above, (the FAA delay, 'too few planes,' and 'to shoot or not to shoot down,') we read of,

If this "defense official... didn't know anybody" who had thought through the possibility of airliners as weapons, maybe he should try to 'get out' more.

He's certainly not qualified to speak for those in strategic operations.

He is, however, not the only one.

We can certainly see a great sense of confusion here.

Just how real it is, may be a little more-difficult to determine.

It's clearly untrue that "no one" had envisioned the hijacking of American airliners as suicide weapons.

Best-selling books had been written about it.

Military strategists are paid, (top-dollar) to discuss and plan for every contingency; and while there are practical limits to this, it certainly would have included terrorist hijackings and suicide attacks.

Another example, (from way back in 1994)

Obviously, the military wouldn't have been as "completely caught off-guard" as the media and the public was.

If the unprecedented nature of the attacks did catch some personel off-guard, this still does not explain the abandonment of routine procedure -for an extremely long period of time- whereby, the FAA and/or NORAD did not get the planes in the air, (in anywhere near the time that they should have).

So the culture of "confusion" we have thus far chronicled seems to be expanding further still.

After examining,

Nowhere is the confusion surrounding the events of Sept. 11th more clearly expressed than in the attack on the Pentagon; for here is the command centre of the world's most powerful military: unable to defend itself from a hijacked airliner.

Newsday quite rightly says,

and this,

In other words:

This makes no sense, with what we already know about the Pentagon.

At the risk of repetition, readers may recall ,

So now we have the Secretary of Defense, his closest aides, the top two generals, and many other top Pentagon officials, all claiming they were clueless as to what was going on, due to "conflicting reports."

If we recall, (along with General Myer’s “crisis-action statement) our earlier statement from the New York Times, (Sept 15)

Even after they admit being informed by the FAA, the Pentagon left it's own employees completely unaware -defenseless.

Some readers may recall officials offering an excuse for this outrageous negligence: saying they believed the White House was the original target, and that the plane turned towards the Pentagon at the last minute..

As we have since learned, the actual radar data shows this claim, (repeated in numerous mainstream reports) to be fraudulent, (see above link).

Even if this claim was true, neither did the Pentagon command warn the White House personel to take defensive measures, (“get away from the windows, y’all!”). Nor does this explain why, if the Pentagon admits to following Flight 77 on radar, (i.e. 'we believed it was headed toward the White House') why the Defense secretary and his staff were not even informed of the crisis until after the crash.

Truly, some parts of the command staff were aware of the situation, while others, (the most senior ones) claim they were not.

"Conflicting reports" are claimed as culprit behind the "confusion"; when the actual reports coming from top Pentagon officials themselves simply could not be more conflicting, casual, and clumsy.

This is not the way that the military is supposed to operate.

"Confusion" or ignorance is, in the military, an excuse of those not fit for command.

“Command” means taking responsibility for disorder, when it occurs; a prevailing condition of confusion means failure at the command level; and honour dictates that responsibility for correction must go to the highest level of command at which the confusion prevails.

Only a command coward would pass off his/her own incompetence on the sincere confusion of subordinates -or refuse to chastise those subordinates who neglect to inform their superiors, while refusing to take decisive action.

This spits in the face of everything the military stands for.

Top commanders who claim "confusion" as the cause for inaction are not doing their job.

We thus arrive at the foot of the dark door of Sept 11th, 2001: the black hole of accountability, the zone of the unknown, the conduct collapsed.

By a careful, logical analysis of the available documentation, we have woven our way through the fabrications and duty denied.

We do not yet know the intricate details, the motivations, the movements of those involved; but we have established from where the kernel of dis-connection comes.

Without abandoning our careful, consistent approach, it now becomes possible for us to look into the shocking scope of confusion, and see a sudden clarity beginning to emerge.

Thus, we move from confusion, to

From a command perspective, a condition of confusion is considered a sign of failure; for which, an honourable command takes full responsibility.

Few of us seem to be aware that confusion can also be a weapon, by which a dishonourable command can strike upon its' subordinates -either to gain greater control over them, or cover-up negligent/incompetent behaviour.

Just look at any number of national or international “events,” disasters, emergencies, where certain elements are supposedly in control, yet where “confusion” reigns; here, we see all the lower-level officials, bureaucrats, reporters, frantically running around… trying to maintain some sense of order.

It rarely occurs to them, (or us) just how easy it would be, for top-level commanders to sew a crippling confusion across a vast breadth of jurisdictions -simply by refraining from making their small, but critical, contribution.

Such an elite wouldn’t have to openly interfere with the implementation of standard procedure; they’d merely neglect to fulfill their role, fade into the background, and temporarily become less visible.

In other words: the perpetrators do not appear to be involved.

The conscious creation of confusion does not necessarily mean a completely planned campaign from start to finish; for it may simply be a response to unintended, high-level negligence/confusion, (as damage-control); but either way, the claim of "confusion" is itself the key to understanding the riddle in the middle of the clues.

Such a command wouldn’t, (or couldn't) go too far out of sight; (before its claim to authority begins to be called into question); so soon as the "coast is clear," and/or when "the job" is done, dishonourable command steps back into the picture, providing an explanation for “what went wrong,” and relieves “the people” of the doubt which formerly prevailed.

In fact, in the midst of great shock, whole populations have shown themselves to be grateful for the re-imposition of the most brutal escalations of authoritarian control, (in lieu of the chaotic alternative).

The history of the twentieth century alone is rich with such examples: from countless coup d'etats; to everyday, a shredding of rights in the name of "national security."

In the case of Sept 11, we are not yet sure, the degree to which this criminal confusion was intentional... (at what point it became conscious).

At the very least, top officials in the Department of Defence instituted a system-wide campaign of claimed ignorance and denial, to cover-up the fact that something went horribly wrong in the

It’s now absolutely clear that top Pentagon officials lied about,

How do we know this?

Are we to believe that NORAD was not talking to the Command Centre in the Pentagon all that time? -after two, then three terrorist attacks?

The fact that this wasn't done, would have compelled even the lamest of media to ask the Pentagon why it didn't act when it knew what was happening. The Pentagon would then have to admit that it was not "in command" during a national emergency.

The Pentagon denied only what it had to, and remained silent about everything else, (citing national security, if necessary).

Again, exactly when such top officials went into the damage-control mode of ignorance and denial is still open to question; what is now abundantly clear is that the “official” timeline, (of when NORAD claims the FAA informed them about the various hijackings) has lost practically all its credibility.

It’s quite possible that the FAA/ATC did everything by the book on Sept 11th, and informed the Pentagon/NORAD within minutes of the first signs of trouble -and that, the Pentagon’s descent into incompetence and negligence began long before Flight 77 struck its’ walls.

Far more likely than the FAA informing NORAD that Flight 77 was hijacked at 9:25, (at least thirty-five minutes after it should have, see Part 1A, Flight 77) is that the Pentagon concocted that story after the attack, so as to make it seem as if they had little time to respond.

The Pentagon would have known that Flight 77 was a suspected hijack by 8:50, (as per radar data, ATC, The NY Times, etc.); with all the necessary radar screens in front of them, they would have known of the lost transponder contact at 8:55/9:00 am (Newsday); yet they warned no one in Washington; as the plane approached, they left their own employees to the mercy of a ruthless attack.

In fact, the fact that the Pentagon got hit, that it seems to have been caught off-guard, was the single-most compelling reason why most people assumed that every other department of government must have been caught off-guard, as well.

We can now see that this is simply not true; but the appearance of being caught "off-guard," (with all its attendant sympathies) is largely why the Pentagon could get away with concocting the story about being “unaware” of Flight 77, and being “uninformed” about Flight 93; and why, the entire governmental apparatus got a immediate "pass," (beyond the rank of suspician).

Is it possible that top military officials could be so conscious of damage-control tactics, (and the manipulation of the public mind) that they intentionally did nothing, (even after they admit being informed about the plane) knowing this would increase the apparent credibility of their story?

It boggles the mind to consider, (if the plane had continued on to another target) how long the Pentagon may have continued to stay curled up in its cocoon of isolation, in order to maintain the virtuous vaccuum of "we were not informed."

Within this nebulae of layered-denial, it may be difficult to extract clear information, as to the identities of those directly involved; yet with this criminal confusion now within our conscious grasp, we can turn to look upon the many mirrors by which we have arrived at our vantage point, with a clarity hitherto unseen.

In our earlier examination of 'we could not have foreseen,' we observed such quotes as,

These claims have little foundation in fact.

The editors at the "Emperor’s Clothes" website put it this way,

Here is a call for compassion to cushion the blow;
a solace, seeking
soft sympathy
scrutiny unravelling
in the strings
of tied-up emotional trauma; we wrap
our arms instinctively 'round
the claimants to an equal burden of pain,
and raise high the silent admonition:
'Do not even think of criticizing us now.'

We can now clearly see that earlier references to,

primarily serve to diffuse attention from the high-point of decision-making authority.

If we recall our earlier list of three possible explanations for the collapse of civilian air defense, (Part 1C: Who is to Blame?) we can see that the military and media authorities have chosen the least-likely scenario, (simultaneous combustion) as the explanation of choice.

The central source of the deception, (The Pentagon) also takes a small share of the heat. This is likely the reason why officials there did not even warn their own employees about Flight 77, thirteen minutes after they admit being notified by the FAA

The failure to evacuate/warn is a small one, in comparison to the planes being allowed to get through.

Yet by taking a small share of the blame, the Pentagon manages to re-gain some credibility, albeit in a rather twisted way.

i.e. ['Yes. We were caught off-guard; but relatively-speaking, only a little'].

In spreading the blame around, the DOD would have known they couldn't be too obvious in laying the blame at the door of the FAA: they'd have to admit being informed at some point; so they made it "thirteen minutes"; and afterwards, laid no charges (nor criticism) in an attempt to,

For its part, the Military excuses what, (by official accounts) could only be called extreme criminal negligence on the part of the FAA; no charges are laid; nor does the military even openly criticize them.

FAA officials are merely told that they cannot speak directly to the media about the events, (Newsday, 23rd) and any disciplinary action will take place by internal review.

In this case, it appears the primary role in explaining the FAA "lapses" falls to the mainstream press.

From our oft-cited Newsday article of the 23rd, we read,

The only thing confused here is the logic of the reporting:

For those of us now familiar with basic FAA regulations, (see Part 1A , (Flight 77) the loss of transponder signal is considered to be an "emergency situation."

After two planes in the region had, (by this time) been hijacked -and one of them flown into the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack- it's real simple: if you lose transponder signal with a plane, it's an emergency, don't delay, assume the worst. Call the FAA, NORAD, 911, mommy, anybody... 'America is under attack.'

The above report tell us that, "controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana, " (right after telling us: "Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible as what's called a "primary target....").

Are they saying that Indianapolis didn't have access to generalized radar? Why did they have to "wait" for it to re-appear? Could they not have gotten out of their chair to look at another screen? (By this account, one can almost imagine seeing officials craning their necks to look "far to the east, over West Virginia").

How about calling someone down the hall? Or Leesburg? Or NORAD? -to say, "We've got an emergency!!"(?) "Flight 77's off the screen!!!"

Our 'investigative' reporters tell us that the plane was 'lost' for ten minutes, before Leesburg picked the signal up again; and when they did pick it up, "they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no transponder identification.... [and] during the confusion...."

Now, repeat after me class, (very slowly): no radio contact, no transponder signal = ?

That's right. No confusion here.

The point at which Flight 77 went silent may have been strategically chosen to maximize confusion amongst ATC officials; but this would have bought the terrorists no more than a minute -at the most- before high level security officials would be called in.

Remember: an emergency within a national emergency existed. "If you're in doubt as to whether a situation is an emergency, handle it as if it is one." (FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c)

And what is the routine response to lost transponder/radar/cockpit contact? You order intercept fighters into the air to re-establish contact.

Warning signals should have been going off all over the place -right to the top.

The article tells us, "The simple action of turning.. off [the transponder] appears to have given the Flight 77 terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable invisibility."

So "valuable," in fact, that the authors appear moved to downplay the nineteen minutes more that it took the FAA to inform NORAD.

The authors repeat this theme in relation to Flight 11,

It's a safe explanation, the mantra of the machine: we never have enough technology; look to better systems to solve our problems; don't ask questions about the people in control of them.'

Can you see how thin the explanation is?

Yet it's quite effective in diffusing people's attention from the obvious questions.

Why?

The short answer is that this information is coming to us from the military, (whom we have been trained to think of as our "protectors" in times of crises) and is being accepted as fact by every major newspaper and television station in the country, (a fuller explanation to follow, see part Part 1F, Media Summary).

In our earlier section, ('we really tried') we were told that the F-15 jets from Otis Airforce Base "flew like a scalded ape, topping 500mph, and that the F-16's from Langley "broke the sound barrier, and travelled supersonic at 720 knots."

We compared this with the apparent fact that the top speed of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.

While the planes would not be expected to reach their top speeds with a standard fuel and weapons payload, it seems clear that the official version shows the planes flying well below their capability, while giving the oppositte impression.

This contradiction may be explained easily enough, given the liklihood that the planes were not even scrambled; that is, that the entire story, was a fabrication.

Consider the following report,

[NOTE: the above report only specifically refers to the Langley planes, but does, (imo) shed some suggestive light onto the OTIS ones as well].

Also of interest: it seems that in the first few weeks following the Sept 11th tragedy, there was an inordinate amount of media attention paid to praising the military.

Now, in a time of national shock, when a certain patriotic zeal is nearing its height, such praise might not at first seem unusual -that is, for firefighters and police, (who bore the brunt of the rescue attempts).

But for the airforce?

That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the fact that no regular citizen was refering to the Air Force as heroes on Sept 11. If anything, there was a sense of shame: not a vocal protest; more a dissappointment; certainly not praise.

Yet for the first time, (in my memory, at least) there was CNN: carrying live coverage of the Military Ceremonies Confirming General Richard Myers as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -with George W. Bush and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld heaping praise upon praise, amongst others.

It was a long and tedious affair, yet CNN obviously felt it was "newsworthy" enough to take a two-hour dip in the ratings.

Then there's the report I came across, (now where did my "tedious details" folder go?) of Senator Edward Kennedy, presiding over a ceremony at Otis Air Force base, thanking the pilots and ground crew for their 'valiant' attempts to intercept the terrorists.

This appears to be but another arrogant attempt by the military authority to associate the public's grief with its' own.

If some would justify this on the basis of trying to raise the morale of the Air Force, it's a pretty pathetic reflection of the world's most powerful war machine: to be praised in failure, that it doesn't have to look in the bloody mirror.

In a previous section, ('few planes available') Pentagon spokespersons told us there were "far fewer" bases with planes on standby-alert than there used to be.

How many? exactly?

Seven.

We discussed the improbablity of this figure, based on the number of bases with "battle-ready" squadrons, the still-existing Soviet threat, the legendary budgetary appetite of the armed forces, the use of other bases in previous emergencies, the cover-up surrounding ANDREWS AFB, and so on.

Well, it turns out that,

Now that didn’t take long, did it? (four days).

Thank God for the Air Force! See how quickly they act when they really want to?

We’re safe now.

This sudden capacity for preparedness, was also reflected in the words of General Richard Myers, as he spoke before the Senate on Sept. 13th. (see Part 1F)

In answer to the question,

the General replied,

So, no new technologies, systems, intelligence needed: "we have what we need," two days after the attacks.

As we have already seen, General Myers himself, (at the Senate hearings) laid the bulk of the blame for the air defense failure on 'two few planes.' Two days later, he says "we have what we need."

Does this mean that we had our 26 bases on strip alert within two days? Or eighteen bases in one day?

It most likely means that the Air Force already had what it needed on Sept 11th, (and that those routine safeguards were not implemented) -as the documentation has been suggesting all along.

As most Americans already know, the protection of American civilian airspace is the specific "mission" of the Air National Guard, (ANG).

We have already discussed this "mission" in some detail -in relation to a few individual squadrons, (see Part 1B, Flights 11, and 175).

Official documents from the National Guard are a little more specific.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Does it not sound, (as far the regulations go) that the Air National Guard and civilian air defence have an effective security apparatus in place? -which features a healthy reliance on the ability of local commanders to act, (when needed)?

Does it not also seem reasonable that, if the entire Air National Guard force was reduced from a "strip alert" readiness of one-hundred bases to seven, (presumably from orders on high) then this would be a clear betrayal of the Air National Guard’s central reason for existence? -what its members are paid to do?

And should not heads be rolling?

In suggesting the number of bases "on alert" was seven, it’s likely that military spokespersons are playing a slight of hand: describing the seven bases under the direct control of NORAD; when, in fact, other bases are fully capable of putting planes in the air; such as, (noted above) when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course.

A clue to the veracity of this may be found in the following, from our Newsday article of the 23rd, which specifically mentions Andrews AFB twice, in a clear attempt to counter numerous earlier reports that planes had been scrambled from there, (that is, after Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. See Part 1A, Flight 77).

Then, much later in the article,

Do you notice how our "defense official" attempts here to confuse NORAD's external border patrols, (protecting against outside, foreign threats) with protection against domestic air-emergencies? -for which fighter-intercepts are routinely deployed?

The article in question doesn't mention that Andrews is the home of Air Force One, (the President's plane) which obviously implies that they would have fighters on standy-by to protect it; (does anyone remember the "extraordinary escort" Air Force One eventually recieved on Sept 11?).

This further attempt to deny the use of fighters at Andrews on Sept. 11, (see USA Today, Sept. 16) raises the relevance of resolving this contradiction.

Were all four separate, on-the-scene media reports mistaken? -in their description of fighters scrambling from Andrews AFB?

We can see why the military/media alliance would later try to deny the story: because it blows the relevance of the Langley cover; but why would Andrews fighters be scrambled at all? If the Pentagon was claiming "we weren't informed," why not just keep the planes on the ground and maintain the chosen appearance?

The likely answer shows the multi-facted nature of the cover-story:

According to the above ANG documents, this same Andrews AFB houses the headquarters of the Air National Guard.

May we surmise from this, that if Andrews AFB was to temporarily "stand-down," that the entire Air National Guard would be placed in a similar posture?

Also, it would appear that the "crisis-action team" spoken of in the ANG regulations is the same crisis-action team that General Richard Myers speaks of -as being "up" in the Pentagon, after the first plane attack occurred, (8:50). (see Senate Confirmation Hearings, Part 1F).

At the highest levels of ANG and Pentagon command, at least, there appears to have been no problem with communication.

Knowing what we now know, about the fabrication of timelines, unscrambled planes, and "scalded apes," let's look at this shooty explanation... in a little more detail.

Continuing on with the article....

Do you see what's being said here?

The authorities are going to great lengths to make it seem as if it would not have mattered if the planes had been in position to intercept: so as to suggest that, the question of why they weren't, becomes irrelevant.

That's like the fireman saying to owner of the house which just burnt to the ground, 'It doesn't really matter that we took so long getting here because the hose we're using has a big hole in it.'

They're also making a clear attempt to confuse the issue of shooting a commercial airliner down, with the concept of "interception" -a routine procedure.

Here's Vice-President Dick (oil-slick) Cheney, speaking on the Sept. 16^th edition of NBC’s "Meet the Press."

Earlier on, he had said,

deliberately confusing the issue of "interception" (which is done on a routine basis) with shooting a plane down.

Yes, it’s true: shooting down airliners would be somewhat of a "new territory." But does this justify the abandonment of time-honoured, emergency procedure?

So what -if you don’t know what to do before the planes go up? You get the planes in the air so that you have an option, if and when the time comes to act. That's what procedure is for: to follow through on a prepared plan for when the emotions want to spill over.

We didn’t know how the terrorists were going to act on Sept 11, did we? And we still don’t know how a future suicide-pilot might respond to a fighter, sent to intercept them.

Such sentiments issued by the military/media, are shameless appeals for a wounded public to immerse itself in emotional grief, feel sorry for "the boys" in uniform, and leave the question of military order, duty, and responsibility to those "more-qualified."

We find the same "shooty" logic in the following article of Sept. 13^th,

So, sympathy for the poor, beleaguered officials is the order of the day. Never mind that the F-16’s "in the air" had no "capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky" if they couldn’t get there in time!!

All this is merely a distraction from the real question of why the planes weren’t even in the ballpark.

Nor is it even necessarily true that the President is the only one who can authorize a shoot-down. I mean, what if he's incapacitated? Kidnapped by terrorists? Or forcefully confined by a group of school kids?

Readers may recall (from Part 1A) that top White House officials repeatedly claimed, (on Sept 11 and 12) that Air Force One, (the President’s plane) was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska on Sept 11, because there had been "credible evidence that Air Force One and the White House were targets."

As we have documented, this claim was later dismissed as false and/or irrelevant(!?) by those same top officials.

It's the 'White House' aspect of this story that was also used to explain why the Pentagon was caught 'off-guard' in relation to Flight 77.

In response to reporters comments about radar data showing a direct path to the Pentagon, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said,

Pentagon officials may have been trying to corroborate this when they said,

Cheney continues,

This colorful commentary from Cheney receives an interesting examination in the following article,

The most descriptive of all the 'white-house-as-target' stories came from numerous voices in the mainstream press,

Readers may recall an earlier report from Bob Orr, CBS Transportation Correspondent,