It's standard protocol, unfortunately it's part of the Air Force's job to do things like that in the event of a hijacking. However that morning, it appears they were told to stand down. Andrews airforce base was 10 miles from the Pentagon and had two operational combat squads there that didn't follow standard protocol by intercepting the Pentagon flight as it entered the most restricted airspace in the world. I'm not saying it lends any credence to a conspiracy, but you shouldn't confuse what you think is right and wrong with what the Air Force protocol is relating to hijacked flights.

It's standard protocol, unfortunately it's part of the Air Force's job to do things like that in the event of a hijacking. However that morning, it appears they were told to stand down. Andrews airforce base was 10 miles from the Pentagon and had two operational combat squads there that didn't follow standard protocol by intercepting the Pentagon flight as it entered the most restricted airspace in the world. I'm not saying it lends any credence to a conspiracy, but you shouldn't confuse what you think is right and wrong with what the Air Force protocol is relating to hijacked flights.

Can you give me examples of hijacked planes being shot down as per "Standard Protocol" before 9/11?

Prior to 9/11, the procedures for managing a traditional hijacked aircraft, as I said, were in place and pretty well tested.... The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC (National Military Command Center).... The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time.... It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time..... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they (the military brass) were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else..... from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario.... this is very, very important, in response to your question.... the NMCC was called. They were added to this open communication net. In my 30 years of history, there was always somebody listening to that net..... I truly do not mean this to be defensive, but it is a fact -- there were military people on duty at the FAA Command Center on the morning of 9/11, as Mr. Sliney said. They were participating in what was going on. There were military people in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization in a situation room. They were participating in what was going on.

I think that, given the inordinate amount of utter nonsense on this thread, the attacks have been quite light.

From a personal view, it' the first time that I've read a thread that's left me convinced that mental health issues are a factor.

Well,,you can sometimes prove a conspiracy. Of course, when its just an imagined conspiracy, then its like religion. If you go back to one of the more famous, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was conclusively proved to be a complete forgery, there are still people who believe this, and for every piece of hard evidence, some kind of alternative is proposed....

It is unfortunate that the Alex Jones' of the world have made any subject they cover completely taboo.

Not exactly taboo is it? Google anything to do with 9/11 and most of the results will be conspiracy bks.

The followers all claim to be "open minded" and doing "research" yet fail to read (or understand) anything opposing their view.

I'm certainly not a "follower",most definitely not averse to anyone challenging my points of view and I'm happy for anyone to correct me on anything I think I may understand. The only things I've posted in this thread point towards a massive failure in both intelligence and military leading up to the events and information being suppressed both leading up to the events and after.

People who challenge the conspiracy seem to be the most fervent listeners, rather than just ignoring the st.