‘Possible hijack in progress’: Air traffic controller remembers 9/11

Published

3 years ago

September 11, 2021

admin

It was a “beautiful late summer morning in New York”, remembers Mike McCormick, an air traffic manager at the New York air traffic control centre.

“I’d spent a long weekend with my young son,” he recalled, including his son’s first visit to the World Trade Center, and had celebrated his birthday with his wife in Manhattan.

“I was getting caught up on all my office work,” he told Sky News, when at 8.45am the call came in that “there was a possible hijack in progress 39,000 feet over Albany, New York, and heading southbound”.

“I immediately went out to the air traffic control room floor, and we were able to confirm with American Airlines that it was an actual hijacking,” as the airline had spoken to a staff member onboard the plane.

“One flight attendant had already died from stab wounds, and several passengers had been injured and hijackers had knives and bombs,” according to the information the flight attendant had shared with American Airlines, and the airline shared with Mike.

He then went to the air traffic control position and with his team tracked American Airlines Flight 11 southbound along the Hudson River which runs from the Adirondack Mountains upstate through Albany and almost directly south into the Atlantic Ocean on the border of New York and New Jersey.

“I quickly got on the phone with the New York approach control and the Newark air traffic control tower which overlooks the Hudson River in New York City.

“I asked the controller to look up the Hudson River to look for American [Airlines’] Boeing 767 that may attempt to land at Newark Airport, thinking that there was perhaps an emergency on board, and the aircraft may be partially disabled.

“Unfortunately [the controller] reported that the aircraft had struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex,” Mr McCormick said.

“Immediately after reporting that, a controller behind me hollered out: ‘I have another one’,” he remembered.

The second plane was United Airlines Flight 175 and the air traffic control team watched as it made a sharp turn and again flew towards the World Trade Center.

“During those 11 minutes when I was watching [Flight] 175 on the radar display, I attempted several times to notify authorities that another hijack was in fact in progress, the first aircraft was in fact an actual hijack, and our country was now under attack,” Mr McCormick said.

His attempts to notify the authorities were unsuccessful.

Just after 9am, United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center complex.

Fighter jets had been scrambled, but weren’t able to intercept the hijacked planes, Mr McCormick told Sky News.

“Myself and the manager at Boston centre had our military specialists contact Northeast Air Defence. Unfortunately, when the military specialists came out to tell me that the fighter jets were airborne – they requested the location, identification and transponder codes for the hijacked aircraft – the second aircraft had already hit the World Trade Center.”

A minute after the second plane had hit the second tower, Mr McCormick made the decision to shut down all New York airspace.

The impact was enormous. Many planes were force to turn around and go back to Europe while others were forced to land at alternate destinations in Canada due to the complete shutdown on aircraft entering New York airspace.

Closing down the skies over New York effectively meant closing down air travel over the “northeastern United States, and the North Atlantic, western Atlantic, and Caribbean portions of Atlantic Ocean, where we butt right up against the air traffic control services provided by NATS UK [formerly National Air Traffic Services],” Mr McCormick told Sky News.

As the reality of what was happening became clear to Mr McCormick, he became angry: “I was very angry that someone would choose an industry that I love, and that’s aviation, to attack our country. I had never thought that aircraft would be used as weapons.”

But by the end of the day, he thought back to “how the men and women, the air traffic controllers across the entire United States rose to the occasion and cleared the skies of all the other aircraft, because that was in fact the only way that we could disarm the terrorists, was to remove their access to their weapons of choice”.

Shortly after closing down the airspace, the team was made aware of another potentially in-progress hijacking, this time of United Airlines Flight 93, which had departed from Newark Airport in New Jersey and was heading eastbound over western Pennsylvania.

“I got on a national teleconference with FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) headquarters in Washington DC, and a controller joined our teleconference from Washington Dulles Airport and was counting down miles from the White House for a fast moving jet aircraft.

“Ten miles from White House, nine miles from White House, all the way down to one mile from White House when the aircraft made a sweeping right turn. I thought perhaps the target was changed to the Capitol, but the aircraft was too high and too fast. It continued its right turn around and came back and hit the Pentagon.”

“Fighter jets were also scrambled to perform an intercept at Washington DC. Unfortunately, they got over Washington DC, just as the aircraft hit the Pentagon,” he said.

“Shortly thereafter is when United 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, due to the heroic efforts of the passengers and crew onboard that aircraft.

“We were not aware of the struggles that actually occurring onboard,” Mr McCormick told Sky News, adding: “However, we were closely tracking the aircraft, so we could see that the aircraft was descending.

“And we knew there were not any likely targets in that area, so I made the assumption that there was a struggle in a cockpit and somehow they were able to force the aircraft into the ground, and it was at a high rate of speed too. The crater form by their heroic activities was over 30 feet deep.”

Nobody knows what the actual target selected by the terrorists onboard that flight was.

“The assumption, and the working assumption that we had that day, was that it was headed toward Washington. So more than likely, it would have been a visible target, a high-profile target similar to World Trade Center,” Mr McCormick told Sky News.

That most likely would have been the Capitol Building, according to Mr McCormick, as a very large and prominent building on top of a hill with “easy access to it from the air if you were to a plan attack vectors.

“The White House is very difficult to hit, because it is a much smaller building, and has high rise buildings around it [which makes] it difficult to actually fly an aircraft into the White House.”

US

Voter in UK ‘terrified’ by US election legal battle, as up to 4,000 ballots challenged in Pennsylvania

Published

2 hours ago

November 5, 2024

admin

Voter in UK 'terrified' by US election legal battle, as up to 4,000 ballots challenged in Pennsylvania

Up to 4,000 people voting overseas in the US election are having their ballots challenged in Pennsylvania, a key battleground state, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

They include Selma Aldi, 47, from Camden in north London who received a letter on Sunday explaining that her ballot in the US presidential election is at risk of being rejected.

“It was a shock,” she said. “It was terrifying to be targeted, to potentially lose a right that I hold as very important. It’s even a feeling that someone is questioning my identity.”

Latest on US election

The trainee GP, who grew up in Hershey, Pennsylvania left America in 2000 but has voted via absentee ballot in every US presidential election since.

A letter from election officials in Dauphin County outlines the legal challenge. It reads: “The applicant is not registered to vote and therefore is not eligible to vote in Pennsylvania.

“Under Pennsylvania law, it is a felony to permit any person to vote who is not registered.”

A hearing on the legal challenge is scheduled for Friday, in which Ms Aldi can respond.

Around 2.8 million US citizens living abroad are entitled to vote in the election, no matter where they are on polling day.

But each state has different procedures and rules on how election paperwork can be sent and received.

But Ari Savitzky, senior staff Attorney at the ACLU said “any attempt to challenge [voters] eligibility is a clear violation of their rights”.

He told Sky News: “Between 3,000 and 4,000 challenges have been filed in Pennsylvania to the absentee ballots of US citizens living abroad.

“For decades, federal law has guaranteed the right of US citizens living abroad to vote in federal elections at their last US residence.

“In addition to being legally baseless, these challenges are an abuse to voters and to election administrators.”

Deborah Hinchey from another voting rights group, All Voting is Local, said: “Election deniers across Pennsylvania have submitted thousands of mass challenges to overseas voters.

“They want to block as many ballots as possible and silence our voices… but these baseless challenges have failed before and the proper checks and balances are in place to make sure they’ll fail again,” she added.

Tonight, Sky News will have access to the most comprehensive exit poll and vote-counting results from every state, county and demographic across America through its US-partner network NBC.

You can find out more about Sky News’ coverage here.

US

Elon Musk can keep giving away $1m to voters, judge rules – as lawyer admits winners aren’t chosen randomly

Published

5 hours ago

November 5, 2024

admin

Elon Musk can keep giving away m to voters, judge rules - as lawyer admits winners aren't chosen randomly

Elon Musk can keep giving away $1m to voters in battleground states, a judge has ruled – as a lawyer admitted the winners aren’t chosen randomly.

Musk – a supporter of Republican candidate Donald Trump – launched the giveaways last month via America PAC, his political action committee (PAC).

He has already handed out $16m in the scheme, which is open to registered voters in seven key battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – who sign a petition pledging to support free speech and gun rights.

On Monday, Pennsylvania Judge Angelo Foglietta ruled the giveaways could carry on, rejecting a district attorney’s request that he shut it down because it allegedly violated state election law.

US election latest: Harris team reveals when it expects results

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, said it was “a political marketing masquerading as a lottery”, adding “That’s what it is. A grift.”

Judge Foglietta did not explain his ruling on the matter but Chris Gober, a lawyer for America PAC, had argued the winners are not chosen by chance and are instead hand-picked based on who would be the best spokespeople for the group – despite Musk’s assertion that they would be chosen randomly.

Mr Gober said the final two winners before Tuesday’s presidential election will be in Arizona on Monday and Michigan on Tuesday.

He said the recipients “are not chosen by chance”, adding: “We know exactly who will be announced as the recipient today and tomorrow.”

America PAC director Chris Young said recipients are vetted ahead of time to “feel out their personality, (and) make sure they were someone whose values aligned” with the group.

In closing arguments, Musk’s legal team said it was “core political speech” as anyone taking part had to sign a petition endorsing the US Constitution.

Given there will be no more Pennsylvania winners before the programme ends, Musk’s lawyers said any legal bid to stop it under Pennsylvania law was irrelevant.

Launching the plan in the state on 19 October, Musk said they would be “awarding a million dollars randomly to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election.”

The following day, he said in a social media post shown in court that anyone signing the petition had “a daily chance of winning one million dollars!”

Musk did not attend the hearing.

US

What a Trump presidency would mean for global wars and European security

Published

14 hours ago

November 4, 2024

admin

What a Trump presidency would mean for global wars and European security

Donald Trump says he would end Russia’s war in Ukraine should he return to the White House – but any rushed deal will likely leave Kyiv much weaker and European security in even greater peril.

Another major flashpoint a Trump presidency would immediately seek to influence is the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.

Mr Trump came close to direct war with Tehran during his first term in office and prior restraint could well give way to direct confrontation this time around.

US election latest: Harris and Trump make final pitches

Then there is the overwhelming longer-term challenge posed by China, with North Korea another growing headache especially after Mr Trump tried but failed to woo the leader of the hermit state during his first stint as commander-in-chief.

With the US election on a knife edge, hostile and friendly capitals around the world have been gaming what a second Trump White House might mean for their respective national interests and for the most pressing global security threats.

Mr Trump’s track record of unpredictability is a challenge for traditional foes – but also for Washington’s closest allies, in particular fellow members of the NATO alliance.

The Republican nominee has made no secret of his frustration at how the US has for decades bankrolled the security blanket that protects Europe.

During his first term as president, Mr Trump threatened to withdraw the US from the alliance – a move that would almost certainly sound its death knell. His rhetoric did help to spur allies to dig deeper into their pockets and spend more on their militaries, though.

But the damage of years of underinvestment is deep and the pace of recovery is too slow for European NATO allies and Canada to credibly stand on their own as a potent military force any time soon.

In terms of immediacy when it comes to global crises, the impact of a Trump victory on 5 November would be felt most acutely by Ukraine and also by Iran.

The presidential candidate has repeatedly claimed that he would quickly end the Ukraine war, though without explaining how or what peace would look like.

In an indication of where his priorities lie, however, he has accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of being the “greatest salesman on earth” for securing tens of billions of dollars in weapons and other assistance that Washington has given to Kyiv.

Yet – coupled with Ukraine’s willingness to fight – that military aid is the biggest reason why Ukraine has managed to withstand almost 1,000 days of Vladimir Putin’s war.

Stop the flow of American weapons, and Ukrainian troops – despite their own ingenuity and the support of other allies – will simply lack the firepower to keep resisting the onslaught.

By contrast, US vice president Kamala Harris, who is vying for the top job, has made clear that she views continued support to Ukraine as being as vital to US and Western interests as it is to Kyiv’s – a far more familiar stance that echoes the view of her NATO partners.

While US support for Ukraine would undoubtedly change under a Trump administration, that is not the same as facilitating a complete surrender.

The former president – who portrays himself as the ultimate dealmaker and has adopted a new election slogan – “Trump will fix it” – will not want to be held responsible for the total absorption of Ukraine into Mr Putin’s orbit.

Putin and Iran

His relationship with the Russian president is a particularly interesting dynamic.

When president, he infamously said he trusted Mr Putin’s denials over his own intelligence agencies when it came to claims about Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

But with the right advice, might a future President Trump be able to use his connection with Mr Putin to the West’s advantage?

At the very least, it adds a new level of unpredictability – which is perhaps the most important element when it comes to assessing the potential impact on the world of a second Trump term.

On Iran, in stark contrast to his approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine, a future President Trump may well back much greater US military support for Israel’s conflict against Tehran and its proxies – perhaps even direct involvement by US forces in strikes on Iran.

Mr Trump has an even tougher stance towards Tehran and its nuclear ambitions than Joe Biden’s administration.

His decision to rip up a major nuclear deal with Iran was one of his most significant foreign policy acts during his four years as president.

It is also personal, with Iran accused of hacking the Trump campaign in recent months – an attack that would surely only heighten tensions with Iran during any second Trump term.

On election night, Sky News will have access to the most comprehensive exit poll and vote-counting results from every state, county and demographic across America through its US-partner network NBC.

You can find out more about Sky News’ coverage here.