I know this may be old hat, but I read this and thought it was good. Any thoughts?

FAA worker says hijacked jeltiners almost collided before striking World Trade Center Thursday, September 13, 2001 By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff , mckeona@telegraph-nh.com

The two hijacked jets that sliced into the World Trade Center nearly crashed into each other before reaching New York City, according to a Federal Aviation Administration employee who works in the Nashua control facility.

FAA air traffic controllers in Nashua have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, said the employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

By 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, the military had taken control of U.S. airspace, the employee said. The jet crashed into a field at 10:37 a.m.

The incidents fell in line with a handful of incredible and unprecedented events that unfolded in America on Tuesday, said the employee, who worked in the control center that fateful morning. The center is one of 20 FAA facilities that monitor long-distance flights once they leave airports.

The morning's surreal moments included a controller, who had just arrived for work, discovering that his wife's American Airline flight was involved in the day of terror, the employee said.

Controllers never expected that the terrorists who hijacked the plane had their sights set on the north tower of the World Trade Center, the employee said.

Even as the tower burned, controllers still hadn't concluded that another hijacked plane - United Airlines Flight 175 - would slam into the other New York skyscraper, the employee said.

The terrorists, however, nearly had their plans dashed when the two planes almost collided outside the city, the employee said. "The two aircraft got too close to each other down by Stewart" International Airport in New Windsor, N.Y., the employee said.

Controllers have also learned that an F-16 fighter closely pursued hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 until it crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash.

One air traffic controller - with the help of an assistant - monitored the flight patterns of the two jets that toppled the World Trade Center, the employee said. He directed American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 - both Boeing 767 jets that had Boston to Los Angeles routes, the employee said.

The same controller handled Egypt Air Flight 990 when it crashed off the coast of Massachusetts in 1999, the employee said. Hijackers gained control of American Airlines Flight 11 around Gardner, Mass., the employee said. "American was just flying around, doing what it wanted," the employee said of the jet's approach to New York.

United Airlines Flight 175 remained in the hands of its pilots until Albany, N.Y., the employee said. Terrorists apparently seized United Airlines Flight 93 late in its interrupted route, the employee said.

The controller in charge of flights 11 and 175 noticed the American Airlines plane had encountered difficulties when its transponder - the device that sends an electrical radar pulse to air traffic control centers - shut off, the employee said. At that point, the plane veered from its course west, the employee said.

Soon after, the controller realized a hijacker stood in the cockpit when the plane's captain - John Ogonowski of Dracut, Mass. - turned on his microphone, the employee said. Ogonowski activated the microphone so the FAA could hear the terrorists' threats, the employee said.

The controller heard someone instruct, "'Nobody do anything stupid'" and no one would get hurt, the employee said. After that, the controller heard no more conversations, the employee said.

"That's all that was heard," the employee said. When it became apparent the plane had fallen into the hands of hijackers, a third controller began helping the controller and his assistant, a procedure followed during all hijackings, the employee said. FAA controllers also notified concerned government organizations such as the military, the employee said.

Then, controllers shut down all other air traffic quickly, the employee said.

But many of the aircraft didn't immediately answer FAA calls, the employee said.

Planes flying through the Nashua center's airspace on their way to Georgia or Florida were told to land at other airports and avoid the airspace of the hijacked flights, the employee said.

The controller spoke with United Airlines Flight 175 for quite some time after terrorists took command of American Airlines Flight 11, the employee said. FAA controllers never expected Flight 175 to hit the second World Trade Center tower because of that sustained contact with the crew, the employee said.

"It's not in anyone's mind they're hitting a target," the employee said. "When somebody takes a plane over, they try to negotiate a release with money," the employee said.

Many controllers also watched events unfold on the control center's television, the employee said.

"After the first plane hit, nobody imagined it would happen again," the employee said. "We all thought that was it. It totally caught everybody off guard."

The controller is "pretty disturbed" that he lost both planes, the employee said. He handled both flights because they shared similar routes on their intended journey to Los Angeles, the employee said.

Other controllers will handle the disasters in other ways, the employee said.

But controllers can feel rather helpless after such a tragedy because they "are just a voice in the air," the employee said. "You can't do anything."

Controllers will rally around each other, the employee said. Controllers are very supportive of one another, the employee said.

They are "like family - sitting shoulder to shoulder 40 hours a week," the employee said.

The employee wouldn't identify the controller who lost his wife, or her name.

She was a businesswoman who had just missed her flight the night before, the employee said.

"We're waiting to see what happens next," the employee said of the country's concern about the potential of more terrorist air attacks. "It pretty much opens the door to a bunch of stuff going on," the employee said of the terrorists' use of planes as weapons.

Albert McKeon can be reached at 249-3339.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Content © 2001 Telegraph Publishing Company, Nashua, New Hampshire.

-- bill (Bill@bill.com), November 24, 2001

Answers

Did you ever see so many "the employee said"s? I was so busy looking for that phrase, I didn't get any sense out of the whole article. Anybody care to count them?

-- gibson girl (bobtravous@email.com), November 25, 2001.

Not exactly a stellar piece of journalism, is it? I counted up to 24 and decided that was enough.

As to the comments...er....what the "employee said", I have heard most of it early on. The plane reportedly suffered a hit, and then there was an interview with some official who commented that it "was a hard decision", seemingly saying that it was not easy to order it shot down. Honestly, if the military did shoot it down they did so rightfully. As sad as it is, there would have been no choice.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), November 28, 2001.

Doreen are you saying that is it might sometimes be acceptable for your military to kill civilians?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 28, 2001.

Well if that isn't an old lawyer style of interpretation ----I object! Council is inflaming the witness!--

John, you have had three jets with people on them kamikaze into skyscrapers and the military nerve center, these people are sentenced to death by the action of criminals and already know so-if there were some kind of an "anti gravity suspension in time wave" that could be shot at the plane and stop it's movement in any direction, I would say NO it isn't acceptable. In this scenario at this singular moment, it was acceptable for the plane to be shot down. It saved more people from being killed, and the people on the plane were going to be killed anyway. It's ugly. Life is sometimes that way. Please don't insult the people who died and their family by reducing it to legalisim.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), November 29, 2001.

Nice one Doreen.....attack if you don't have a creditable defence.

OK, so those people on the plane were 'worth less' than those who 'might' have been killed whenever, wherever the plane eventually came down? Did you make that decision? Did God make that decision? What if the president and all his men had been on the plane, would the same rules have applied?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 29, 2001.

What attack?

Who said anyone was "worth less"? I believe the credible defense is made in the staement above. If the president and his ilk were on the plane that was hijacked and the scenario were the same, YES it should be shot down. Same if it were me on the plane. Or you. Or my nieces and nephews. Or anyone else. Yes, inumerable lives are worth numerable lives that are going to be sacrificed anyway.

What kind of argument are offering in your supposition that the plane should NOT have been shot down? If the plane had hit it's target it would have certainly killed not only everyone on board but many on the ground.

It is foolish to suggest that you let it go and hit whatever else they had targeted when it was definitely hijacked and we had already lost the WTC and the Pentagon had been hit.

As to the decision about lives,-b-e-e-e-rother. Yes, God does determine who lives and who dies. No, I do not, nor would I want to make that decision. I also wouldn't want to make the deicsion to let it go ahead and finish it's criminal mission.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), November 29, 2001.

Doreen you attacked me by suggesting that my question some how insulted the memories of those unfortunate people.

According to the reports I recall the last communication from the plane said the passengers were about to attach the hi-jackers, I hope they did as this is the only credible explanation I have seen for why the plane crashed when it did. If the military had destroyed the plane it would have denied those people their right to fight their attackers which they apparently did. If only half a dozen passengers had the macho balls I oftentimes see spouted on this forum things might have been quite different and it is not beyond the realms of feasibility that the plane would have landed with numerous survivors.

I do not believe anyone had the right or authority to order an attack while one of the passengers or crew was still alive.

You inferred the passengers and remaining crew were worth less that some unknown and only potential casualties on the ground.

Are you going to apply your same logic about 'numerable' and 'inumerable' lives to the civilians of Afghanistan?

I interpret you answers as affirmative to my question "Doreen are you saying that is it might sometimes be acceptable for your military to kill civilians?"

P.S. No I don't for a moment believe the military really did attack.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 30, 2001.

John, in matters of life and death, beyond your right to hold it, I have no respect for your opinion..... We are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum and honestly, since you are strongly against people protecting themselves with the equalizing force of firearms, I suspect we shall never agree in the least on this subject.

I also must say that since you are over in NZ and not here you are almost assuredly not as well informed on this subject as you might think. There were numerous reports that were only heard once on he radio given by government officals and then gone forever.

Surely you cannot believe that when we were anticipating 20,000 dead at the WTC it would have been correct for the military to sit on heir heels and do nothing?

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), November 30, 2001.

Doreen, I asked the question if you thought it is right for your military to kill your civilians, apparently you think it is.

Now you ask me if I think it would have been right for the military to have done nothing after the morning's earlier events. My answer is that shooting down the aircraft would have been wrong when it was known at least some of the passengers were attempting to change the on-board situation.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 30, 2001.

Well it seems that there would have been no way for the military to KNOW that there were people on board that were trying to do someting about the situation.

If you think that I am in favor of military killing civilians I suggest you look at about a thousand of my other posts and realign your thoughts. I think I am fairly well known for keeping our Constitution at the forefront.

All that I am saying is that when a plane is admittedly, knowingly, obviously, hijacked....by the same blokes who just killed thousands of other citizens in an unprecedented terroist activity, and the military is supposed to protect our citizens (NOT civilians) lives, and the plane is not responding to orders regarding landing (who is pilot???I don't know, do you?) it is patently obvious that a terribly difficult decision has to be made. It was reported that "they" thought the plane intended to attack Camp David...How they came up with that is a mystery to me.

At any rate, I do not KNOW this plane was shot down, and I don't KNOW that it wasn't. I feel sad for all of the people who lost their loved ones either way.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), November 30, 2001.

Hmmmm in this country we expect the police to do what they can to protect us citizens against evil doers. The military is reserved for international matters and even then we don't allow them to operate without the control of our civilian government.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), November 30, 2001.