Background
Fighters on Alert
On 9/11 NORAD attempted to protect Washington by scrambling fighters from Langley Air Force Base. This was ineffective, though, and questions were raised almost immediately about the decision. Why, it was asked, didn't they launch fighters from the much closer Andrews Air Force Base, instead?
The 9/11 Commission provided a simple answer: Andrews was not a NORAD base. The closest fighters on alert in the area were based at Langley.
All the hijacked aircraft were in one of NORAD’s Continental U.S. sectors, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (also known as NEADS). NEADS is based in Rome, New York. On 9/11, it could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters. These were the 2 Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Langley, Virginia.
9/11 Commission Staff Statement 17
Airman (the “magazine of America’s Air Force”) offers some confirmation that Andrews wasn’t always on alert, at least when this article was published back in December 1999:
During one Commission hearing we were told that the Secret Service had requested alert aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base, but this had never happened:
MR. LEHMAN: Secret Service has told us that they had repeatedly before 9/11 requested alert aircraft to protect the Capitol, particularly at Andrews Air Force Base, and other air defense, that this was never acted on by the Pentagon, was there a reason why?
GEN. MYERS: That never came to my attention. I was never -- as the vice chairman at the time, and I started in 1 March of 2000, from the time I was the vice chairman, I was never aware, or even as NORAD, I was never aware of a request from the Secret Service for that kind of service.
MR. LEHMAN: But when you were NORAD commander, there had already been a private aircraft that crashed into the White House grounds. There were repeated and written worries about the potential for private aircraft to make suicide attacks, and there were 11 separate intelligence reports circulating broadly through the intelligence community that al Qaeda had planned to use aircraft as weapons, although the focus was overseas. Didn't anybody at NORAD try to connect the dots and say that this is something we've got to worry about, that it's a target in the Capitol area, that we'd better get ready for it? But, instead, when even NORAD's own planning staff proposed to include in exercises the dealing with hijacked suicide aircraft, it was rejected by NORAD as by the NORAD commander, I think it was after your time, as something to be exercised and planned for.
GEN. MYERS: I think it was rejected, and General Eberhart can be clearer on this, I don't think it was by the commander, I think it was by the planning group that was meeting because it did not fit the scenario at the time. But, the use of aircraft as a weapon, as a missile, other than World War II and the Kamikaze situation, I'm not aware, and I've tried to research this, and the best information I get, I am not aware that an aircraft has ever been used as a weapon. Now, there have been landings on the White House lawn, there was a landing in Red Square, there have been lots of stupid things. There was talk about crashing airplanes into the CIA. But, in most of that threat reporting leading up to 9/11, it was hijacking an airplane and in the normal hijack mode, not in the mode of a weapon.
Now, there were some talks about in post hijack situations where they talked to about people over the demands were made that they were going to crash, one instance, into the Eiffel Tower, but even the work that was done and the hijackings that were planned for the Philippines, which is a well-known plot, they planned to hijack the airplanes and blow them up primarily.
So, no, the threat perception, there was not -- the intelligence did not point to this kind of threat, and I think that explains our posture.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.htm
However, it's been claimed that Andrews may have had other fighters on alert, just not for NORAD use. This doesn't seem to fit with the above story, that says "the Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States", but it's worth considering the evidence put forward.
Combat-ready
Some of the first researchers into this story noticed that the Air Force said Andrews had "combat ready" aircraft. The phrase quickly appeared in many claims, presumably because the authors believed this meant "on alert":
But we immediately thought it unlikely that Andrews would keep two squadrons of fighters on permanent 15 minute alert. And sure enough, a Google search for the phrase reveals it doesn't mean "available to launch within minutes" on an emergency intercept. It's a far more general term, and rather more obviously just means "ready for combat". Here's an example:
12/12/2007 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- F-22 Raptors here reached Full Operational Capability Dec. 12, according to Gen. John D.W. Corley, Air Combat Command commander.
The announcement officially makes Langley's F-22 squadrons combat ready.
"After years of collaborative effort, a key milestone for the F-22A has been reached," said General Corley. "The integrated 1st Fighter Wing and 192nd Fighter Wing team at Langley possess sufficient Raptors, equipment and trained Airmen to provide Air Dominance for the Joint Force for many years to come."
FOC for the F-22 means the aircraft are now ready for global engagement, said Lt. Col. Mark Hansen, Air Combat Command F-22 Integration Officer.
"Crews are now [fully] organized, trained, equipped and ready for the joint fight."
Since the F-22s reached Initial Operational Capability two years ago, the 1st Fighter Wing and the Air National Guard's 192nd Fighter Wing have dedicated time and resources into finding how to best use and maintain the world's most advanced fighter. The fighter has deployed and trained across the world to define and refine its capabilities and tactics.
The 1st FW has been training for the wartime mission since the F-22 went IOC, said Brig. Gen. Mark A. Barrett, 1st FW commander. Langley's Raptors were declared IOC in December 2005, making them capable of some combat operations such as homeland defense.
"We are available to be tasked at any time, to do whatever our nation requires," General Barrett said. The 1st and 192nd Fighter Wings will continue to baseline the F-22 so the rest of the Raptor fleet can learn from their experience, he added.
Even though Team Langley has reached the Raptor's FOC, they will continue training to get better every day, said Col. Jay Pearsall, 192nd FW commander.
"There's no change in training," he said. "Everybody is working hard, and we're ready to go to war, (on) deployments or on exercises."
The F-22 Raptor's unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, gives the Raptor numerous advantages over any potential adversary.
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123079128
They can do "homeland defense" and doubtless they have pilots around most of the time, but there's nothing here about having fighters on permanent 15-minute alert because that isn't what "combat-ready" means.
Highest state of readiness
Andrews Air Force Base is the home of DCANG (District of Columbia Air National Guard). Soon after 9/11 it was noticed that the DCANG mission, at least according to the web site, was "to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness".
Andrews was the home of the 113th Wing, which included the 121st Fighter Squadron (mission: to provide "capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency". And there was also the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, supported by a reserve squadron providing "maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness".
These last two mission statements don't strike us as particularly relevant, however the first has grabbed the attention of many researchers. In The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, for instance, David Ray Griffin wrote:
It would be hard to read these statements, especially DCANG's statement about combat forces in "the highest state of readiness," as referring to anything other than fighter jets on alert around the clock.
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, David Ray Griffin
That may be Dr Griffin's opinion, but it's not ours.
"Readiness", in the military sense, isn't just a word or vague concept. It's a detailed measurement of whether the military resource in question is able to carry out the tasks it was designed to perform. So the readiness of a tank regiment might take into account the number of men assigned to it, their training levels, the condition of the tanks, whether there are enough spare parts available, and so on. This 1996 GAO report provides some useful background:
To talk about "combat forces in the highest state of readiness" is really just a longer way of saying "combat-ready", then, and in itself says precisely nothing about how long it might take for a force to become available.
Another aspect to this story appeared when Jared Israel noticed that the DCANG mission statement disappeared from the site, at some point between April 19th and September 13th 2001. David Ray Griffin suggested in The 911 Commission Report: Distortions and Omissions that this may have been "an attempted cover-up on the part of the US military", however as the statement doesn't mean what Griffin claims this would seem very unlikely.
Defends Washington
Dr Griffin explains that Andrews Air Force Base must have fighters on alert at all times, as it has the primary responsibility for defending the nation's capital:
This point was made the day after 9/11 by a story in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Citing a National Guard spokesman, this story said: "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border."
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, David Ray Griffin
Did a National Guard spokesman really say this, though? We looked at the original article and it's not exactly clear:
There's no use of quotes here to tell us which information came from the reporter, and which was sourced from the spokesman. From the way it's written we'd say "equipped with F-16 fighter planes" definitely came from the National Guard spokesman, while "The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there" probably did. But the first sentence could well be the voice of the reporter, and it's certainly just an assumption to say otherwise.
There's also nothing in the original article that tells us the reporter meant Andrews had forces that could have prevented the attacks. Quite the opposite, in fact. It begins:
Go read the whole thing: it's worth it.
We have three problems with Dr Griffin's use of this quote, then.
First, we don't believe it can be unambiguously sourced to the National Guard.
Second, we're not fully clear on what it means. Saying "The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there" appears to imply that the fighters performing this air defence are not part of DCANG, for instance: so who are they? What do they mean by "air defence"? Why do they say "mainly" - which parts of this air defence do they not carry out? It seems an unwise assumption to say it means "have fighters on a permanent NORAD-like 15 minute alert".
And third, we don't know their justification for the quote. If this was simply a line written by the reporter, say, then did research it? If so, where? Or did he simply write down what he believed to be true, but was actually a mistake?
And this matters, especially in view of the quote we mentioned earlier:
If the Air National Guard exclusively "performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States", then that would appear to contradict the idea that Andrews did something similar, too. Of course you could then raise similar objections to this article - we don't know where they got that line, either - but still, we'd expect Airman Magazine to have a better handle on this than the average US reporter.
There's an even more significant contradiction in what Lt Col Phil Thompson told Aviation Week and Space Technology, in 2002, about his Andrews pilots:
"Never been an air defense unit".
Overall, then, Dr Griffin's quote does not clearly show that there were fighters on alert at Andrews on 9/11, and more authoritative sources say this simply wasn't the case.
Scrambled planes
In The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, Dr Griffin tells us that the "no-planes-on-alert-at-Andrews" claim is challenged by a fact even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, that planes were scrambled from Andrews immediately after the Pentagon was hit. He then goes on to say:
However, this fact could be deflected by defenders of the official account by pointing out that according to the same story, Secret Service agents had called Andrews at 9:03 to notify it to have F-16s armed and ready to scramble. This story then says that when the Pentagon was struck, the Secret Service called Andrews back and said: "Get in the air now!" With the loading virtually complete by then, the missile-carrying F-16s were able to get up and over Washington within 10 minutes. This story would, therefore, provide a way to reconcile the claim that Andrews had no fighters on alert with the fact, observed by many, that Andrews were able to send up many fighters within minutes of the attack on the Pentagon.
This solution would, however, face problems. One problem is the fact that immediately after 9/11, a spokesman for the National Guard, in referring to the delay by Andrews in sending up fighters, did not try to explain this delay by appealing to this claim. I refer here to the National Guard spokesman who told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Washington's air defense is provided primarily by fighter planes from Andrews. The paper then quoted him as saying: "But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon." There is no suggestion that the fighters were scrambled as soon as they could be, after they got loaded with missiles. Such a claim would, in any case, be implausible: Fighters loaded with bullets, but no missiles, could have provided considerable protection. Even fighter jets completely unloaded would be better than no fighters at all, given their ability to deter and, if all else failed, ram an airliner headed towards the Pentagon, the White House or the Capitol. In any case, the account given by this spokesman for the National Guard, given on September 11 or 12, fits with the story told in those early days by General Myers and NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder - that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon strike.
The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, David Ray Griffin
This is a strange claim, and for more than one reason.
The first comes in the apparent creation of a false dilemma: either there were fighters on full-time alert at Andrews, or they had nothing useful at all. But in reality there's another option, that Andrews had some pilots and fighters, just not sufficiently prepared that they could take off in a few minutes. As a result, NORAD went to Langley instead, and while Andrews got some fighters up eventually, it took longer. That's not inconsistent with there being no fighters on alert there, at all.
The second oddity comes in the way Dr Griffin treats the "busy reloading" story as just some convenient excuse. CooperativeResearch, a site he normally favours, provides more details here:
(After 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secret Service Wants Fighters Scrambled from Andrews; None Are Ready to Fly
A few minutes after 9:03 a.m., a squadron pilot at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland (just ten miles from Washington), hears that two planes have crashed into the WTC. He calls a friend in the Secret Service to see what’s going on. The Secret Service calls back, and asks whether Andrews can scramble fighters. According to weapons officer, Major Dan Caine, who takes this call, the Secret Service agent then tells them “to stand by and that somebody else [will] call.” Apparently anticipating the need to launch fighters, one commander has already started preparing weapons for the fighters. However, the weapons are located in a bunker on the other side of the base, and the process takes time. Senior Master Sergeant David Bowman, 113th Wing munitions supervisor, says, “We were doing it as fast as we could, because for all we knew the terrorists were getting ready to hit us.” It normally takes three hours to get weapons from the storage sheds and load them onto the fighters. However, on this occasion, it is later claimed, it only takes 45 minutes. The fighters don’t take off though for about another hour and a half (see (10:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Whilst the crew at Andrews are unloading missiles onto a flatbed trailer, Dan Caine answers another phone call from someone in the White House, requesting armed fighters over Washington. Caine says: “I could hear plain as day the vice president talking in the background. That’s basically where we got the execute order. It was ‘VFR (Visual Flight Rules) direct.’” Meanwhile, there are also three unarmed F-16 fighters assigned to the Andrews base on a training mission 207 miles to the south in North Carolina. These are not recalled until much later, and don’t reach Washington until 10:45 a.m. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/2002; Filson, 2004, pp. 78,84] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold has said, “We [didn’t] have any aircraft on alert at Andrews.” [MSNBC, 9/23/2001] However, prior to 9/11, the District of Columbia Air National Guard [DCANG] based at Andrews had a publicly stated mission “to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.” Prior to 9/11, the mission statement was posted on the DC National Guard’s public website. Shortly after 9/11, this mission statement is removed and replaced by a DCANG “vision” to “provide peacetime command and control and administrative mission oversight to support customers, DCANG units, and NGB in achieving the highest levels of readiness.” [District of Columbia Air National Guard, n.d.]
This provides a very reasonable explanation of the delay, then.
But the most bizarre issue comes with Dr Griffin's supposed revealing of a "problem" with the account, based on his "National Guard spokesman". Here's the quote in context:
Dr Griffin tells us that the quote "but the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon" came from the National Guard spokesman, however it's not directly attributed to him in the copy, and it's written in the voice of a reporter, not someone in a Public Affairs office. (It's hard to believe an official spokesman would have used language like "took to the skies", or described the attack as "devastating", for instance.)
Even if we're wrong about the source, though, we can't help but ask: so what? Is Dr Griffin really asking us to believe that, because an unnamed National Guard spokesman said "but the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon", omitting the words "because they were busy arming", this somehow counts as convincing evidence that the arming never happened? What about the possibility that he didn't have the full details? Or was a junior officer who had been told that he'd be issued with a statement to provide later, and so was unwilling to comment further?
And how do we get from any of this to it showing that Andrews has fighters on full-time alert? It simply doesn't follow, and in our view this doesn't provide any evidence at all to support Dr Griffin's claims.