The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Service's Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?

Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, at 9:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001, an officer at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, DC, was notified that the Secret Service wanted fighter jets launched over the nation's capital. It was now obvious the U.S. was under terrorist attack, and Washington would have been an obvious potential target. And yet the Secret Service's request came to nothing.

No fighters had taken off from Andrews by 9:37 a.m., when the Pentagon was hit. Nor had any launched by the time Flight 93 apparently crashed in Pennsylvania, shortly after 10:00 a.m., while flying toward Washington. In fact, fighters did not launch from Andrews until over 90 minutes after the second attack in New York. The first fully armed fighters did not launch from there until more than two hours after that attack. So why was the Secret Service's early request for help not acted upon? Why did fighter jets only take off from this massive Air Force base to defend the capital well after the morning's attacks had ended?

The Secret Service agent who made the early request that fighter jets be launched appears to have been Nelson Garabito. Garabito was responsible for coordinating the president's movements, and was also the Secret Service's liaison to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He was in the Secret Service Joint Operations Center (JOC) at the White House that morning. Just after Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., Garabito called Terry Van Steenbergen, his counterpart at the FAA, who was at the FAA headquarters in Washington. According to the 9/11 Commission, shortly into the call, Van Steenburgen told Garabito "that there were more planes unaccounted for--possibly hijacked--in addition to the two that had already crashed."

Possibly in response to this information, Garabito appears to have asked Van Steenbergen to arrange for fighters to be launched over Washington. Van Steenbergen asked three of his colleagues at the FAA to call various air bases to see if they could get fighters into the air. One of these colleagues, Karen Pontius, had previously worked at Andrews Air Force Base, so she made the call to the FAA air traffic control tower there. [1] Garabito would have been unable to call the tower himself, because, according to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, the Secret Service "did not have a phone line to the Andrews tower."

Pontius spoke to Steve Marra, an air traffic controller in the Andrews tower. Marra has recalled that Pontius "told him to launch F-16s to cap the airspace over Washington." He relayed this information to the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG), which is based at Andrews, across the airfield from the control tower. [2] Marra appears to have done so when DCANG officer Major Daniel Caine phoned the tower and asked if any air traffic control measures were being implemented in response to the attacks. [3] Caine later recalled that the tower controller--i.e. Marra--told him "that they just received the scramble order." However, oddly, Caine told the 9/11 Commission that the Andrews tower "would not have been in the loop for any Secret Service orders to scramble aircraft." [4]

If the DC Air National Guard was notified of this early "scramble order," why was that order not acted upon? Pilots and others working for the DCANG at Andrews were already well aware of the crisis taking place. Upon learning of the second crash, someone at the unit reportedly yelled, "We're under a terrorist attack!" [5] And, seeing the television coverage of the burning WTC towers, an officer exclaimed, "Well, holy shit, if this is a terrorist attack, we need to get something in the air!"

Furthermore, a request from the Secret Service should have carried considerable weight. According to author Lynn Spencer, "Given that the Secret Service provides protection to the president--and that the president, and the vice president when the president is not available, is the ultimate commander in chief of the military--the Secret Service also has certain authority over the military and, in this case, the DC Guard." [6]

After his call to the control tower, Daniel Caine called his contact at the Secret Service, Kenneth Beauchamp, who was at the White House JOC. Caine later told the 9/11 Commission that, on reflection, he believed it was his hearing that the tower had received the "scramble order" that prompted him to call Beauchamp. [7]

And yet Beauchamp supposedly contradicted the Secret Service's request for fighters. Even though it was obvious that the U.S. was under attack, and it should have been clear that Washington was a likely target for any further attacks, he said the Secret Service did not require assistance from the DCANG. Caine had asked: "Do you have any additional information? Are you guys going to need some help?" and Beauchamp replied, "No, but I'll call you back if that changes." [8]

Caine has said that during this call, which he described as "a very quick, confusing conversation," Beauchamp told him that "things were happening and he'd call me back." [9] However, Beauchamp did not call Caine back. [10] (Another Secret Service agent, though, did subsequently call Caine, and asked about getting fighters launched. [11])

According to Lieutenant Colonel Marc Sasseville, the acting operations group commander under the 113th Wing of the DCANG, at the time Caine spoke to Beauchamp, "we weren't thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system." [12] But when Brigadier General David Wherley, the commander of the DC Air National Guard, subsequently called the Secret Service JOC shortly after the Pentagon was hit and spoke to Beauchamp, Beauchamp implored him to launch jets to protect Washington. Beauchamp said: "We want you to put a CAP [combat air patrol] up over the city. We need some fighters now." [13]

Between the second WTC attack at 9:03 a.m. and the Pentagon attack at 9:37 a.m., the DCANG fighter pilots on duty at Andrews appear to have been waiting around and doing very little, when they should have been hurrying to get airborne.

One of those pilots, Captain Brandon Rasmussen, was promptly informed of the second crash in New York after it occurred, and immediately realized its implications. He recalled: "I think everybody knew that this was a coordinated attack that was happening. We had no idea who it was by, but it was definitely intentional when you get two airplanes hitting both towers." And yet, he said: "At that point, we didn't know what we could possibly do; that's New York City way up the road. So … like everybody else in America, we're just standing by and watching the news."

This is extraordinary! An Air Force base just 10 miles from Washington had learned that the nation was under attack. And yet the immediate response of its pilots was to stand around watching television!

Rasmussen said it was only after the news broke about the Pentagon being hit that "we knew that we were going to be sticking around home and being quite busy," and "the squadron leadership went into action." [14] DCANG commander David Wherley only headed across the base from his office to the fighter squadron building, to assist his unit's response to the attacks, after a woman at his office saw on television that the Pentagon had been hit and started shrieking. [15]

But even after the Pentagon attack, the DCANG pilots were not immediately told to prepare for takeoff. Rasmussen recalled that at that point, "I'm just kind of standing back, waiting for somebody to task me with something." He added, "I was just waiting at the ops desk for someone to say, 'Okay, we've been cleared to take off and go.'" [16]

The first DCANG jet to take off from Andrews Air Force Base was an F-16 that had just returned from a training mission over North Carolina. It had little fuel remaining, carried no missiles, and had only practice ammunition. It took off at 10:38 a.m., an hour after the attack on the Pentagon. [17] Two more F-16s took off at 10:42 a.m., but these were also armed with only practice ammunition and had no missiles. [18] At 11:11 a.m., Rasmussen and Daniel Caine took off in their F-16s, the first fighters to launch from Andrews armed with missiles as well as bullets. [19] By that time, the attacks were long over.

Rasmussen has expressed his and the other DCANG pilots' frustration at having to wait around before being allowed to get airborne. He said that when his unit finally received authorization for its jets to take off, "We were relieved to actually be given permission to go up and do something, instead of feeling totally helpless. I mean, we are fighter pilots, just like guard dogs chomping at the bit, ready to go." [20]

Although the DC Air National Guard was not part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) air defense force, its mission at the time of the 9/11 attacks included providing "capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." Lieutenant Colonel Phil Thompson, the chief of safety for the DCANG, said, "We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things." [21] The unit was in fact known as the "Capital Guardians," implying that it was responsible for protecting Washington, DC. [22]

The fact that, in spite of an early request for help from the Secret Service, it took the DC Air National Guard so long to put together a response to the attacks should be of concern to all Americans. The unit's disastrously slow emergency response needs to be thoroughly probed as part of a rigorous new investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

[1] "USSS Statements and Interview Reports." 9/11 Commission, July 28, 2003; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition) . New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 464-465; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Terry Van Steenbergen." 9/11 Commission, March 30, 2004.
[2] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower." 9/11 Commission, July 28, 2003.
[3] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 76.
[4] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major John Daniel Caine, USAF, Supervisor of Flying at 121st Squadron, 113th Wing, Andrews Air Force Base on September 11, 2001." 9/11 Commission, March 8, 2004.
[5] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital." Washington Post, April 8, 2002.
[6] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 123.
[7] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major John Daniel Caine."
[8] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 124.
[9] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 76.
[10] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major John Daniel Caine."
[11] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 78.
[12] William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93." Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 9, 2002.
[13] "Memorandum for the Record: BG David Wherley, on September 11, 2001, Commander of the 113th Wing of the USAF Air National Guard, Andrews AFB." 9/11 Commission, August 28, 2003; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 184-185.
[14] Brandon Rasmussen, interviewed by Leslie Filson, September 18, 2003.
[15] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital"; Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: A History. New York: Random House, 2007, pp. 445-446; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 184.
[16] Brandon Rasmussen, interviewed by Leslie Filson.
[17] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital"; William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93"; "UA93 and Andrews Timeline." 9/11 Commission, n.d.
[18] William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93"; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 82; Brandon Rasmussen, interviewed by Leslie Filson.
[19] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 84; "Relevant Andrews Transmissions." 9/11 Commission, February 17-18, 2004.
[20] Brandon Rasmussen, interviewed by Leslie Filson.
[21] "Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.", Summer 2001; William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93"; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 76.
[22] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 122.

More info about Andrews Air Force Base on 9/11 ...

For more information about the goings on at Andrews Air Force Base on 9/11, check out the following two previous blog entries of mine:

Did Training Exercises Prevent Andrews Air Force Base From Responding to the 9/11 Attacks?

The Andrews Air Force Base Stand Down: How the 'Capital Guardians' Failed to Guard the Capital on 9/11


great work, Shoestring!

Thanks for putting this together.

Beauchamp's behavior in particular is quite 'extraordinary'; after a 'summer of threat', which included warning signs and intelligence regarding a plot by 'Al Qaeda' to attack US cities with planes, and the twin towers having been hit in NYC, someone at Secret Service (probably Garabito) requests DCANG to provide air cover over DC- a total no brainer. However, when asked by Caine, "Are you guys going to need some help?" Beauchamp replies, "No, but I'll call you back if that changes." Then, AFTER the Pentagon is hit, Beauchamp tells Gen. Wherley, "We want you to put a CAP [combat air patrol] up over the city. We need some fighters now." And no fighters w/ missiles are in the air over DC until over TWO HOURS after the SECOND WTC tower was hit. On pg 2 of Note 13 it says, "Wherley had no properly armed planes at Andrews. His units were not air defense units." There's a 'summer of threat', warnings of a planes as missiles attack, CIA and FBI knew operatives were in the country, nothing was done to disrupt the plot, and nothing was done to harden security, nothing was done to defend the nation's capital. Rather, it appears some took action to leave the capital open to attack.

All the people named in this article need to be put under oath, and grilled w/ real questions about what they did and didn't do, and why.

Lack of Andrews AFB response ...

All the people named in this article need to be put under oath, and grilled w/ real questions about what they did and didn't do, and why.

Yes, I agree. What is needed is for the conditions to be right so that it will be safe for whistleblowers to come forward and talk publicly about what was really going on that morning.


Why wasn't the DOD involved

Why wasn't the DOD involved immediately in getting planes up as soon as the second plane struck and cover DC, NY LA and and so forth?

The fact that they did nothing is preposterous. They don't need to be called by the secret service.

So much for the planning experts at the Naval War College, West Point and the AF Academy. This was GROSS NEGLIGENCE not only in defense planning, but in execution.



Definitely treason and murder

I agree completely. I reckon the fighter pilots and military officers involved that day (apart from any rogue operatives among them) were more than capable of putting together a fast and effective response to the attacks. It was simply that normal emergency procedures were somehow sabotaged, thereby paralyzing America's defenses.

What is needed is an investigation that will find out exactly how those procedures were sabotaged and who was responsible for this. Those individuals will then need to be brought to justice.


we are the ones we have been waiting for?

instead of waiting forever for another so-called 'official' or criminal investigation, i suggest following the lead of an octogenarian forensic engineer, Donald Meserlian, (who is one of the hundreds of signatories of the ae911truth petition). Don has filed a formal complaint against his municipal court judge for violating USC 18 par. 2383 Misprision of Treason.
‘Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both’.

"Based on the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "The right to petition" contains an implied "obligation to respond" otherwise the "right to petition" is a meaningless right. The "Oath of Office" that officials must take states that they will "uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution". Violation of the "Oath of Office" by public officials is an act of treason per United States code 18USC Par. 2382, misprision of treason."

Meserlian's truth proclamation-petition provide what he alleges to be documented evidence of treason. According to Richard Gage, AIA, for this model to gain credible consensus, the text of the proclamation needs to be changed to become accurate.

The facts proposed in Meserlian's proclamation include that the 9-11 commission interviewed William Rodriguez , WTC janitor, who stated that he and 14 other people were in a WTC 1 basement office when, without warning, "the group felt a tremendous explosion emanating from somewhere below them in one of the five WTC sub levels and felt the floors tremble and saw the walls crack just seconds before the group heard another distant explosion coming from high above." and

seismographic evidence was recorded 21 miles north of ground zero, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) stated time when the planes struck the twin towers (see table) prove that basement explosions occurred 14 and 17 seconds respectively for WTC 1 and 2 before the planes struck the towers, and

the Twin Towers and WTC 7, (which was not struck by an airplane), all fell down about in the same time as a freely falling object , and

the "smoking gun" indisputable evidence that explosives were used was contained in the red/gray layered chips in the dust when the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed 9/11/01

# # #

After the NYC Council rejected 80,000 petitioners call for a referendum vote to conduct a real investigation, I believe it is time that citizens demand that their local public officials, who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.SA, take appropriate actions.

We are the ones we are waiting for. Don Meserlian requests you contact him to join in such a campaign. More information is posted at

Fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<> <>~<>
for life's survival in the 21st Century

Secret Service Takes Rank over DOD

if there's a domestic attack on US soil. Therefore, Dick Cheney was able to assert his authority over the military via the Secret Service chain of command as soon as it was apparent America was "under attack" --- which was clearly the case by 9:03 a.m. when the 2nd tower was struck.

In this way a civilian had rank over the military and was able to sabotage the response... the SAME civilian who was in charge of war games running simultaneous to these 'surprise attacks.' (The May 8, 2001 Executive Order signed by Bush placed Dick Cheney directly in charge of managing the 'seamless integration' of all training exercises throughout the entire federal government and all military agencies, specifically all "training and planning").
*This mandate also created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney.

So Cheney was in charge of air defenses and giving orders PRIOR to the Pentagon strike.... And he was also in charge of FEMA's Tripod II as well as other drills that HE scheduled for that particular day. Plus Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission by saying that he didn't arrive at the PEOC until nearly 10:00 a.m. "maybe 9:58."

In addition to the May 8 Executive Order, intercept protocols might also have been altered . They had the Means, the Motive, the Opportunity, and they Benefitted. ... And they Covered Up.

Exactly, look at the entire chain of command

This is a well-researched article; but I think it suffers from the absence of the larger context; i.e. the entire chain of command.
One of the commentators below says that "Secret Service trumps DOD in the case of a domestic attack."
No, I don't think so. The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the President, Vice-President, etc; it's DOD that's primarily responsible for protecting domestic airspace.
If in practice it appears that the Secret Service is the senior authority, I think it derives from its covert nature, which allows its agents to slip through the cracks of the communication chain, and thereby throwing wrenches in the works at key points.
The Secret Service is SUPPOSED to be but one element in the chain of command.
Insofar as domestic airspace goes, Secret Service is mere liaison. The chain of command goes from Air Traffic Control to FAA to NORAD to the NMCC (National Military Command Council) in the Pentagon, (and the Defense Secretary).
Two key points: Dick Cheney admitted on NBC a few days after the attacks that the FAA and Secret Service were on an open line by the time the first tower was struck (8:50). If the secret service was involved, that means that DOD was already informed; for why involve secret service, (i.e. Cheney) if the seriousness of the threat had not already gone beyond a mere off-course plane?
And sure enough, Richard Meyers confirms this on Sept. 13, 2001, in his confirmation hearing before the Senate, (to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) that "our crisis action team [NMCC] was up by 8:50."
Once the DOD is activated, then it shouldn't matter what the Secret Service does or doesn't do. The DOD has the ability to track planes and authorize intercepts, period.
I think it's clear that the Secret Service played a role in confusing, stalling the orders; but there had to be collusion at a higher level in the military.
In other words, the DOD is the only instrument (here) where we (supposedly) can expect any accountability, i.e. where we can expect someone to say, "this is MY responsibility." The Secret Service is, by it's nature, a closed book; and it's for this precise reason why the DOD likes to hide behind the Secret Service so as to cover up the trail of accountability.
It's true that there was no "stand-down" order explicitly given. It was an EFFECTIVE stand-down.


having a little problem with the msg. board.
sorry for any duplicate post.


I've been trying to post this in reply to "What happened to DOD?"

Oh well.

Show "no planes" by sheeple1950

military planes

Physics not withstanding, the same would be true if the planes were military planes.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

There's still no definitive evidence of a stand down

So I don't think we should call it such.

We know without doubt that NORAD generals lied to the commission about the response that morning. We know there are at least 3 timelines. We don't know why they lied.

Certainly, Cheney's exchange with the young aide in the bunker is suspicious; but until we find out what "the order" was, we can't say there was a stand down.

there may not have been an explicit 'stand down' order

if there was, it seems unlikely it would be on paper- perhaps at some point during the two hours from the first sign of hijacking to the crash of UA 93, some proactive personnel getting creative were ordered to stop doing whatever they were doing- but you are correct, that we don't have evidence that happened. It may be there was an agreement between certain key people to do nothing- and by their inaction/'indecision' to prevent others from disrupting the plot.

There is evidence that numerous people who should've known better, and who were in a position to take action, didn't- despite long-standing procedures, training and common sense. It's a fact that long periods of time passed after certain facts were known, and steps were not taken to defend the nation.

The 9/11 Commission didn't answer the most important questions; they ignored some of them, and obfuscated others. A full investigation is in order, the official 9/11 story has been repeatedly exposed as a baseless myth.

First off...

This is very interesting Shoestring. Secondly, because "long-standing procedures, training and common sense," didn't seem to come into play on 9/11, and instead, "other" practices seemed to be followed, it stands to reason that someone, somewhere may have given an order that prevented "long-standing procedures, training and common sense" from transpiring that morning. I don't know who did what, but I do know that there is reason to believe that the White House was involved in creating a story that was simply untrue.

Look to the previous White House for the truth. Most roads lead to it.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Yes but then the only change

Yes but then the only change that needs to be made is to write 'stand down' with quote marks, or to use the phrase "effective stand down."

You want to keep the term 'stand down' because it packs a lot of information into it and gets the point across powerfully for those who consider the whole thing a bungle. But yes, so far there is not -- and may not ever be -- direct evidence of a stand down order. Nonetheless, there was an effective one, and that should be conveyed.

Evidence of a "stand down"

In 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission:

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory often claim that Mineta was referring to United 93 and not to unidentified plane coming towards Washington D.C. before the explosion at the Pentagon.

right on

that is most certainly strong evidence of a stand down.. thanks for posting.

IMHO, I Believe The Point Is...

A) This was clearly a de-facto STAND DOWN which allowed PNACs "New Pearl Harbor" to run its course.

B) This is evidenced by no substantive accountability for "Mission Failure" by those in the defense chain of command.

C) No amount of BS "Coincidence Theory", or "Confusion Theory" trumps the fact that multiple drills were conveniently running on 9/11/01 in a weak attempt to provide cover for the real world ops.

So, everyone was standing around watching TV, or reading "My Pet Goat", waiting for orders. Dick Cheney confirmed in the presence of Norman Mineta that those orders "...still stand". Unfortunately, those could only have been stand-down orders, based on the evidence of what transpired; Both that morning, and since (no serious demotions or charges brought). I hardly think we need to wait for some "real investigation" to understand the broad strokes of the situation. It would be nice to have one, but the system, in its current corrupt state, doesn't hold itself accountable very often, and I believe we need to proceed in light of what we know NOW, rather than expend energy on deciphering details. Let's defeat the enemy before he gains more ground, then we can hold treason trails and send these bastards to Siberia or the gallows.

I'm leaning toward exposing the general M.O. of deception and lies, the covert NWO agenda, and exposing and purging our government and military command structure of traitors to The Constitution. All while helping to foster the solution JFK described as " informed and engaged citizenry". Another integral component is supporting the few members of congress and the military command structure not sold out to the NWO cabal.

Where is the next General Smedley Butler?

Thank you for the great post Shoestring.

And thanks for enduring my rant,


"Few victories can rival the initial one of parting company with the spectators and stepping into the arena" - Stewart Howe

A lawsuit:

Even if the official version of the events of September 11, 2001 was the truth, the air defence of the United States could not fail without huge errors were committed. In a normal situation, the American justice would have to search the persons having made these errors because they caused the death of thousand persons. Therefore the failure of the air defence of the United States can make the object of a lawsuit of the families of victims in order to find the responsible of these errors. It is one of the possibilities for a lawsuit. This lawsuit may be particularly motivated by the fact that NORAD lied to the official commission of inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001.

Naturally, you should not hope that your president, Mr Obama, will allow a new investigation concerning the events of September 11, 2001.

Excuse me for my poor English that is not my language.


I seem to be a bit confused as I was to understand that the first response by the Air Force including both Washington and New York was not until shortly after the first tower went down in New York. I recently found this video that clearly shows a U.S. Military F-15 in New York before either tower is on the ground. Maybe someone could clarify this for me as I feel it has much importance. God bless all and thank you for your time.

Should forward this research in the name of a friend of mine

The 911-commission report tells us, that shortly after the second attack, the secret service (Garabino) phoned the FAA Headquarter (Steenbergen). Then Steenbergen should hav told Garabino of more hijacked planes. Now lets go the 911/interviews:

According to Garabino, shortly after the second aircraft hit, he phoned Steenbergen. Steenbergen told him of 4 hijacked planes, two outstanding heading towards Washington D.C.

According to Steenbergen, 30 seconds after the second aircraft hit, Garabino phoned him and gave him "all information", Steenbergen says, that he was fed / informed by Garabino. After my understanding, "all information" includes the two hijacked planes heading toward Washington.

According to the official account, after this phone call Garabino failed to warn Cheney against the two planes. According to the official account, the secret service was not able to contact Andrews station, too. How strange. And of course: How should the FAA, Steenbergen guessed rightly, 30 seconds after the second crash, of 2 additional hijacked planes heading towards D.C? That is ridiculous.

When one takes the account of Steenbergen, and sees, that he was informed by the secret service, then everything fits in the picture:

Garabino did not fail to warn Cheney, because everything was under control. The secret service did not try to contact Andrews, because the secret service did not want fighters over Washington. But why the secret service did inform the FAA at all?

The interview with Steenbergen gives the answer:

After hearing from Garabino, Steenbergen gave orders, to clear the airspace over Washington D.C. for non-airliners shortly after 09:06 am. Lynn Spencer confirmed that information, she got it from several controllers during interviews. The answer is:
= The secret service informed the FAA, because the secret service was afraid of an accident of the hijacked planes with another plane.=

But the Steenbergen crew (Diane Creen, Karen Pontius, Scott Hagen) also tried to scramble airplanes after they cleared the airspace. Pontius reached Andrews and spoke with Mister Steve Marr.
9/11 Commission, 7/28/2003; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 465

Marr spoke with Caine from the DCANG. Caine phoned the secret service, asked weather they need help, and what did tell the secret service agent Beauchamp before the pentagon crash?

"Caine had asked: "Do you have any additional information? Are you guys going to need some help?" and Beauchamp replied, "No, but I'll call you back if that changes."
Filson, 2003, pp. 76
9/11 Commission, 3/8/2004
Spencer, 2008, pp. 124


Bruce Barret, OMIC FAA New York, stopped the Otis-fighters in flying over Manhattan, before the second crash.

"Bruce Barrett directs Pete Mulligan and Marty Rosenburg to stop all traffic into NY ARTCC."

The time and stop was confirmed by the FAA-controller from Boston, Scoggins, in the jref-forum:

"When they did launch the first tower had been hit. Relayed to me by third person, when the F-15's first talked to Boston Center the controllers advised them they were to late and cleared them into W-105. Around this time New York had gone ATC Zero for the hijacked aircraft. Boston Center assumed they were talking about AAL11, not UAL175, who Boston Center had no idea it had been hijacked. If we knew we would have pursuaded New York to take the fighters."

08:55 "They're not going to let them hold over New York."

Mister Barret had the power, to call the fighters from OTIS in:

"He believes that the OMIC (Operations Manager in Charge) has the responsibility and operational knowledge to contact the military."
"It would be OMIC who would have responsibility and operational knowledge on what channels to go through to get military assistance"
source McCormick:

"McCormick stated that Bruce Barrett was communicating the situation along the appropriate air traffic channels."
Robert Felser, Military Operations specialist
"Felser would provide the OMIC with the appropriate numbers, but the OMIC is in charge of actually making the decision to ask for a fighter scramble."

Due to Mister Barretts sabotage, at 09:03, there was a "coup" in the FAA, New York. Mulligan tried the contact the military, although he did not have the authority - instead of Barrett:

In a conference call, Peter Mulligan, a manager at the FAA's New York Center, tells the FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia: "We have several situations going here. It's escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us. Just get me somebody who has the authority to get military in the air now."
Federal Aviation Authority, 10/14/2003, pp. 15