Steven Gaal Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 New Video: Inside 9/11 - Who diverted the fighter jets? Though all this is history now, with more than 10 years having passed by, some crucial questions remain unresolved. In the recent study "Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11", published in October 2012 in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", some of these questions are covered in great detail. You can read it here: http://www.journalof...-33-Oct2012.pdf Now a video has been released, explaining these findings: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Air Defense on 9/11: Anomalies and Questions Published on Nov 7, 2012 by GlobalResearchTV The Air Defense on 9/11: Anomalies and Questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 This crapola is marred by numerous glaring errors. In his paper the author said: That doesn´t mean they [the fighters from Otis and Langley] could have shot down those planes, for there was no shoot down order issued at that time. But at least they could have reached the airliners and taken a look into their cockpits, so that we had a chance to know who actually controlled those planes. This is something we still don´t know at all. He made a similar claim in the video, but outside of truther circles there is no doubt who was flying the planes and even intercepting the planes might not have shed any light on this, SOP for hijack intercepts was for the fighters to have held back. And or course even if the fighter pilots had looked into the cockpits and said the hijackers were flying truthers would simply have accuse them of lying. In the video he said the flying time from Otis to New York was “10 to 12 minutes” and repeated this in his paper [pg. 3] but failed to provide in either. This is false. As I noted in a post years ago: "According to airnav.com it's 167.6 nautical miles from Otis AFB to the Port Authority Downtown Manhattan/Wall St Heliport the closest airport to the Trade Center [ http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFMH - Enter KJRB in the search box near the middle of the right margin of the page]. 167.6 nautical miles = 194.4 statue miles. The fighters were capable of supersonic speeds but "Rules in effect … on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts" [ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y ]" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2656&st=420&p=63167entry63167 Speed of sound varies with factors like temperature, air pressure and altitude but is about 700 mph and it would take time for the fighters to gain altitude and reach near Mach speeds and then descend and decelerate to an altitude and speed to have intercepted flight 175. Minimum time would have been about 20 minutes. He also claimed: The military airbase closest to Washington was Andrews Air Force Base, just about 10 miles outside the capital. It was home to the President´s Air Force One and also to the 113th Fighter Wing whose proclaimed mission was “to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness”. Even though Andrews was not an alert base - as was Otis or Langley Air Force Base either of which could launch armed fighter jets within 10 to 15 minutes - the Andrews fighter pilots called themselves proudly the “Capital Guardians”. At least it is fair to suggest that these fighters should have reached Washington first. But never provided an basis for this assumption. He claimed no expertise in air force operations nor did he cite anyone who did. He also babbled: On the morning of 9/11 seven fighter pilots were available on the base, three of them already in the air on a training mission 200 miles - or 10 to 12 minutes flying time - south of Washington. 17 His cited source said nothing about the distance or flying time of those fighters only that they were “over Dare County, North Carolina”. A minor quibble but the Dare County proving ground is about 210-20 miles from DC but more seriously he once again under estimates the flight time. Since the planes were a little bit further away than the ones at Otis were from the WTC but already in the air then the flight time was probably about the same, i.e. 20 minutes minimum. I could go on but don't have unlimited time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 13, 2012 Author Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Gee all these exercises on 911 ,but two in chain of command for intercept "off Duty" with newbie in charge COLBY UNaddressed =================================================================================== Gee inflight data on intercept planes MIA like the two people in the chain of command. COLBY UNaddressed ========================================================================= Gee Flight data on one plane not in 911 report at all. COLBY UNaddressed +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gee twice (with authors corrected timeline) at same time when planes hit targets planes turn. At the same time.....golly coincidence or conspiracy ??????????? COLBY UNaddressed =========================================================================== My deep background thread of 911 simulations RED section not address by Colby. Colby has contended over 3 times that intercepts were not affected by training exercises. BUT IF YOU READ MY THREAD "RED" PART how could you contend that ?? GOLLY maybe thats why its COLBY UNaddressed. (Colby loves the 'addressed' phrase). ####################################### 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001: NEADS Surveillance Technicians Instructed to Remove Simulated Information from Radar Screens NORAD’s air defence computer system, the AN/FYQ-93. [source: Federation of American Scientists]A technician at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) instructs personnel on the NEADS operations floor to turn off their “sim switches,” apparently so as to remove from their radar screens simulated information for a training exercise that was being conducted this morning. [Northeast Air Defense Sector, 8/23/2001; 9/11 Commission, 2004] Staffer Complained, 'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim' - A few minutes earlier, at 9:30 a.m., a member of staff on the operations floor complained about simulated information—presumably false tracks—appearing on NEADS radar screens. He said: “You know what, let’s get rid of this godd_mn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let’s get rid of that crap.” [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001] (A “sim switch” presumably allows simulated material on radar scopes to be turned on or off.) Technician Instructs, 'Turn Off Your Sim Switches' - Now a member of NEADS staff, who according to a 9/11 Commission document is Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond, gives an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, “All surveillance, turn off your sim switches.” Seconds later, apparently in response to this instruction, someone on the operations floor tells a colleague, “You got your sim switches down.” [9/11 Commission, 2004] Sim Switches Turned On for Day's Exercise - Simulated material (“sim”) is apparently appearing on NEADS radar screens because of the NORAD training exercise, Vigilant Guardian, that was being conducted this morning (see (6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has revealed that NORAD has the capacity to inject simulated material into the system, “as though it was being sensed for the first time by a radar site.” In a training exercise in December 1998, for example, NORAD ran “30 different simulations, some of them being mass attacks, some of them being single missiles.” An information page on the current exercise stated, “All of NEADS, operations personnel are to have their sim switches turned ‘on’ starting at 1400Z 6 Sept. 01 till endex [the end date of the exercise].” Since Vigilant Guardian was originally scheduled to continue until September 13, this would mean NEADS personnel had their sim switches turned on this morning. [US Department of Defense, 1/15/1999; Northeast Air Defense Sector, 8/23/2001] Radar Equipment Set to Display 'Sim Tracks' - A memo outlining special instructions for Vigilant Guardian participants further detailed how NORAD equipment needed to be set to display simulated material during the exercise. It stated: “The exercise will be conducted sim over live on the air sovereignty string. The Q-93 must be placed in the mixed mode to allow the telling [i.e. the communicating of information between facilities] of sim tracks.” [Northeast Air Defense Sector, 8/23/2001] The Q-93 is a piece of equipment used by NORAD, which is described as “a suite of computers and peripheral equipment configured to receive plot data from ground radar systems,” and which “performs track processing.” [General Accounting Office, 12/24/1992 ; Federation of American Scientists, 4/23/2000] The Q-93 also “receives flight plans from the FAA, and has bi-directional communications with NORAD headquarters and a real-time link to AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System planes].” [Satterthwaite, Corman, and Herm, 6/2002] Exercise Supposedly Canceled Earlier On - While NEADS radar scopes are still displaying simulated material as late as 9:34 a.m., some accounts will claim the Vigilant Guardian exercise was canceled shortly after 9:03 a.m., when the second World Trade Center tower was hit (see (Shortly After 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Airman, 3/2002; Filson, 2003, pp. 59] And according to a report in the Toronto Star, “Any simulated information” for the exercise was “purged from the [radar] screens” at NORAD’s operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, shortly before the second WTC tower was hit (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Toronto Star, 12/9/2001] However, NEADS will receive a phone call from the operations center at 10:12 a.m. in which the caller asks it to “terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain” (see 10:12 a.m. September 11, 2001). [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001] Edited November 13, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Gee all these exercises on 911 ,but two in chain of command for intercept "off Duty" with newbie in charge COLBY UNaddressed =================================================================================== Addressed repeatedly in other threads; no evidence either significantly delayed response times. This is an example of crackpot thinking; raise a point half a dozen times, if some only responds five proclaim victory and claim it was “Unaddressed” Gee inflight data on intercept planes MIA like the two people in the chain of command. COLBY Unaddressed No idea what you’re babbling about. =========================================================================Gee Flight data on one plane not in 911 report at all. COLBY UNaddressed +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No idea what you’re babbling about. Gee twice (with authors corrected timeline) at same time when planes hit targets planes turn. At the same time.....golly coincidence or conspiracy ??????????? COLBY UNaddressed=========================================================================== No idea what you’re babbling about. My deep background thread of 911 simulations RED section not address by Colby. Colby has contended over 3 times that intercepts were not affected by training exercises. BUT IF YOU READ MY THREAD "RED" PART how could you contend that ?? GOLLY maybe thats why its COLBY UNaddressed. (Colby loves the 'addressed' phrase). ####################################### 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001: NEADS Surveillance Technicians Instructed to Remove Simulated Information from Radar Screens Addressed repeatedly in other threads; no evidence this significantly delayed response times. This is a classic example of crackpot thinking; raise a point half a dozen times, if some only responds five proclaim victory and claim it was “Unaddressed” This thread on JREF is of interest, “BCR” is John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and author of The Ground Truth, The Untold Story of America Under Attack On 9/11; “Cheap Shot” is Colin Scoggins, the military operations specialist at the FAA's Boston Center on 9/11. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8769224 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Yep - I've spoken to F-15 and F-16 pilots about this and they see nothing unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Quote ========================================================================= Gee Flight data on one plane not in 911 report at all. COLBY UNaddressed +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No idea what you’re babbling about.// END Colby (honored with GG ALLIN brown) Quote Gee twice (with authors corrected timeline) at same time when planes hit targets planes turn. At the same time.....golly coincidence or conspiracy ??????????? COLBY UNaddressed =========================================================================== No idea what you’re babbling about.// END Colby SO Colby didnt look at all the videos ......Colby undressed (help Im going blind) Edited November 15, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 In his paper the author cited Miles Kara, a 9/11 Commission staffer who specialized in air defense issues, about 8 times. Mr. Kara reviewed the video and essential said it was crap. See July 7, 2011 http://www.oredigger61.org/?page_id=2409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) There had been no hijacking in nearly a decade and no domestic hijacking in the memory of FAA personnel on duty that day. The role had not been exercised, nor was an actionable communication link with DoD established as events of the day revealed. (Colby sources) Gee ......lots of activity related to (thats to) a hijacking for such a rare event on a particular day .....what day ??? Golly .......Sept ...wait wait cant remember ...14th ... 18th ??? Sept hummm..????(???).........well maybe one day I will remember.... All coincidence.....(Gaal) NRO: National Reconnaissance Office CIA's plane into building exercise during 9/11 related pages: 9/11 wargames (PLEASE DONT SKIP THESE LINKS,makes my point) NORAD's wargames (PLEASE DONT SKIP THESE LINKS ,makes my point) 9/11 parable: a wargame analogy (PLEASE DONT SKIP THESE LINKS ,makes my point) The US National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, was conducting a simulation of a plane crash into their headquarters (near Dulles Airport in Virginia) on September 11! For more about the NRO, see www.fas.org/irp/nro/index.html This war game was not a "terrorism" exercise - but it did simulate a plane going off course (on the approach to nearby Dulles Airport) and crashing into the NRO's headquarters, control center for US spy satellites. This war game was to test the emergency response procedures in the event of this type of accident, and included practice evacuation of the buildings. It is very damning that the war game planners (of all of the war games, not merely this one) ensured that the NRO's headquarters was largely evacuated at precisely the time that 9/11 was taking place, which minimized the number of officials who were able to monitor the events via the Pentagon's satellite intelligence systems. On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/21/national1518EDT0686.DTL JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 21, 2002 (08-21) 15:08 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- "Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building" By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press WASHINGTON [september 2002] "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident. "Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport. Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground. The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA www.questionsquestions.net/topics/question.htmltoday's question... Brian Salter, qq editor 5 June 2003: Why were 3000 NRO employees sent home after 9/11? There have been a number of disinfo limited hangouts floating around, all of them designed to offer apparently revealing inside details of 9/11 but actually serving the purpose of whitewashing evidence of US govt. complicity. One which has been hanging around for a while centers on the terrorist training exercise that the NRO (National Reconaissance Office) had scheduled the same morning of the attacks. The super-secret NRO happens to be the agency which operates US spy satellites. A mainstream article about it is here: http://www.boston.co...ne_exercise.htm The limited hangout build around this is that the 9/11 "terrorists" somehow learned about the secret exercise in advance, and "piggybacked" their own attack on the same date in order to confuse US defences. This is used as a supposed explanation for lack of action on prior warnings, failure of air defences to operate, etc, on the assumption that military and intel personnel thought that everything going on was part of the the "exercise". I don't know of any serious 9/11 researcher who finds this a credible overall theory, given the fact that there is an abundance of evidence pointing beyond such a scenario, to official complicity and specific prior knowledge. This has been discussed very thoroughly among researchers. That aside, there is an interesting detail in the above article: "The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA. After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said." Sent home... why?? Recently, I heard one alternative speculation about this which deserves some inquiry. Namely, that certain high-ranking NRO staff may have needed this time to eliminate or alter satellite surveillance of the Washington, DC area during the attacks. Note that it has been alleged for years that the US has 24 hour high resolution satellite monitoring of the capitol and surrounding regions, where critical government institutions are located. If so, there would then be a record of Flight 77's flight path and imact. Would there be something there to hide? With the recent 9/11 Commission hearings on 9/11 air defences having stirred up debate, this is perhaps something to consider. Edited November 16, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Still waiting for evidence this led to significant delays in response times. Once again we see you intentionally scrambling threads. Your post on this one belongs on the "911 Deep background Simulations" thread, and your reply there belongs here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Debunking the Debunkers NORAD Stand-Down: A stand-down is defined as "a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert." This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11. One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar. As stated by the 9/11 Commission, "With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude." The commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal. As defined by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, AWACS is "a sophisticated detection aircraft, fitted with powerful radar and a computer, capable of simultaneously tracking and plotting large numbers of low-flying aircraft at much greater distances than is possible with ground radar." On 9/11 an AWACS plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area was ordered to return to its base in Oklahoma limiting the communications and surveillance capabilities of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector. In 2006 New Scientist magazine reported that "US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit." The 35 USAF bases that were within range of the 9/11 flights unquestionably possessed highly-sophisticated radar. Commercial airliners do not need their transponders turned on in order to be tracked by the US military. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the US military lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder signal. Another excuse given by defenders of the official story is that NORAD only looked outward for threats, not inward. There is much evidence that looking inward was also one of their responsibilities, but in any event, there is at least one incident which proves NORAD could be tasked to defend any part of the skies over the United States and Canada, as well as much evidence that it is not the only time this has happened, but rather, the only time we have been privy to. The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths cites an article in a 2002 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, which claims that, "Before September 11, the only time officials recall scrambling jets over the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart’s plane veered off course and crashed in South Dakota in 1999." Popular Mechanics adds, "Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions from the end of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in these zones were primarily being used for drug smuggling." But an October 13, 2001 Calgary Herald article reported that before 9/11 fighter jets "were scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or 'unknowns' twice a week." As Professor David Ray Griffin pointed out in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "Twice a week would be about 100 times per year, and 'babysitting' is not what planes would do with jets suspected of smuggling drugs into the country." Furthermore, a 1994 United States General Accounting Office report on continental air defense states, "Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress." As the New York City Activist blog pointed out, "Admittedly this is the early 1990′s, not 2001, and the quote is from a report which recommended trimming down the force. But still it casts a lot of doubt on the Popular Mechanics claim that intercepts were a rare occurrence." And as Griffin points out in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "In this account NORAD made 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which 'involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft in distress,' not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the fact that 1992 was part of 'the decade before 9/11,' it is doubtful that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically after that." A Canadian government performance report on their arm of NORAD for 1999-2000, the same period as the Payne Stewart flight, relevant to military operations in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, backs up Griffin’s statements. The report states, "If required, 'unknown aircraft' are intercepted and identified by aircraft dedicated to NORAD. Over the past year, NORAD has intercepted 736 aircraft, 82 of which were suspected drug smugglers…" While not addressing these reports, Mike Williams of the “debunking” website 911myths.com states, "The Popular Mechanics claim that there was one intercept of a 'civilian plane over North America' in the decade before 9/11 still seems quite absolute, but then that just means it wouldn’t take much to disprove it. Just find a media report of an intercept, an interview with a pilot who was intercepted when they accidentally flew too close to the White House, anything like that... How difficult can it be?" Being that Williams only provides two examples of other intercepts for comparison on his webpage concerning the Payne Stewart incident, and that he could not find all the information needed to draw firm conclusions on these, he should know that finding any detailed statistics on such matters is difficult. The aforementioned entry on the New York City Activist blog highlights the following from the 2004 Complaint & Petition to the NY Attorney General (Spitzer at the time) for a new criminal investigation into 9/11: Also necessary would be data on cases of errant planes or unknowns in which no scramble orders were issued. Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD’s Northeastern Air Defense Sector (“NEADS”), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis–with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred–would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission. When 9/11 researcher and activist Aidan Monaghan sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to the FAA he was informed that, "...The FAA does not track or or keep information about the request for support of NORAD for intercepting aircraft throughout the National Airspace System." When Monaghan tried obtaining FOIA information from NORAD he was advised that they are not subject to the FOIA because they are a bi-national organization between the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps those in government are the ones worthy of the question, "How difficult can it be?" When Williams was asked in an interview to give his "strongest argument" against a NORAD stand-down he stated that, "I would point out the Payne Stewart intercept time of over 70 minutes, and the pre-9/11 confirmation that NORAD only had 14 fighters on alert at one time, none of which were at Andrews Air Force Base." First off, as is pointed out in Paul Thompson's article "The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11," "We know details of a 1999 fighter scramble, because famous golfer Payne Stewart was aboard a runaway Learjet. With the pilot unconscious, NORAD used fighters from a number of bases outside NORAD’s official seven bases to follow the plane as it crossed over several states before finally crashing." So William's first point takes away from his second one. As reported by Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, after the second strike on the WTC, "Calls from fighter units… started pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’" One of these bases was Syracuse, which offered to have planes in the air with some weapons within ten minutes. Paul Thomson notes that, "Even if fighters didn’t take off from Syracuse until 9:20, that still would have been enough time for those fighters to reach Washington before Flight 77 did, if they had been ordered to protect that city." Sadly, fighters from Syracuse did not take off until over an hour and a half after their offer to help. William's admits on his page concerning Andrews that they "had some pilots and fighters, just not sufficiently prepared." This refers to their excuse for not launching fighters until 95 minutes after the second WTC crash because they were loading missiles, however, the first three planes to launch only had guns available. Just as with Syracuse something could have been done much earlier. David Ray Griffin is quoted on William's page as stating "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." William's doesn't focus on this though, instead he rebuts Griffin's other argument that the "arming never happened." While Griffin's latter point here isn't well supported, the article "IGNORAD - The military screw-up nobody talks about" by former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Scott Shuger also notes that there are other techniques fighters could have used with a hijacked plane, Shuger states: It can first rock its wingtips to attract attention, or make a pass in front of the plane, or fire tracer rounds in its path. So even though on 9/11, the NORAD pilots working the first three airliners didn't have shootdown authority (they got it only after the Pentagon was hit), they would or should have been ready to try these other techniques, which might well have spooked or forced the hijackers into turning, which might have given the fighters a chance to force them out to sea. And even if the hijackers decided instead to fly right into a fighter in their way, wouldn't an airburst have killed fewer people than two collapsed flaming skyscrapers did? As it turned out Shuger knew what he was talking about. Almost 8 months after his January 2002 article AviationWeek.com reported that: Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to 'Get in the air now!' Those fighters were flown by three pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in Washington. These or other heroes like them could have and should have been in the air much sooner on 9/11, but don't take my word for it. In the 911blogger.com article "The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Service's Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?" Captain Brandon Rasmussen from Andrews is quoted as stating that, "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." All this being said, the fact that NORAD's force had been cut down to 14 fighter jets and that Andrews wasn't more prepared is problematic enough. As "Loose Nuke" commented on the 911 Blogger article: 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. Back to the Payne Stewart incident, on Willams' old webpage on the subject he states that, "To be fair, if the first fighters had been closer (as they were on 9/11) then the response time would have been better." His new page on the subject no longer contains this line. So much for being equitable! Regardless, using a roughly 76 minute starting point for a refutation is fine because these events are barely comparable. Stewart was flying a 6-8 passenger Learjet 35, not a large commercial airliner, which was not flying over densely populated areas, did not have its transponder turned off, and was on autopilot as opposed to having terrorists at the helm clearly attacking the country. The third strike on 9/11 at the Pentagon took place at 9:38 a.m., 44 minutes after Flight 77 veered off course at 8:54 a.m. This is a conservative figure, and judging from William's own page on the subject, one with which he would agree. By this time the first tower had already been struck. Being that the FAA received 52 pre-9/11 warnings, including five that "specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings," and warned airports in the spring of 2001 that "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion," the moment Flight 77 deviated from it's course it should have become a target for interception. Although many government officials would claim that they thought the first strike was just an accident, couterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke wrote in his 2004 book Against all enemies that a member of his White House staff told him that, “Until we know what this is, Dick, we should assume the worst.” And in Bob Woodward's 2002 book Bush at War it was reported that when CIA Director George Tenet learned of the strike he was told specifically that, “The World Trade tower has been attacked,” after which he immediately suspected bin Laden. Furthermore, Williams neglects to mention the fact that the jets already in the air which failed to reach the first two strikes were not redeployed towards the deviating planes headed for the capital. This would have guaranteed interceptors reaching Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon. To put it all another way, if the military can get to a Learjet in roughly 76 minutes when they are not being waged war on, then 44 or more minutes should be sufficient when they are. These points hold all the more true for the fourth plane to perish that day. Based on a timeline provided by NORAD, on September 17, 2001 CNN reported that at "9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have been hijacked." The 9/11 Commission would later claim that NORAD is first notified about Flight 93 one minute after it had already crashed at 10:07 a.m. However, the initial report is supported by statements from two NORAD commanders that they were already tracking the flight when it changed direction at 9:36. This would mean that the military was tracking the flight for 50 minutes as opposed to zero! This is just one of many such changes made in the 9/11 Commission's third mutually contradictory version of events. During testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta had the following exchange with 9/11 commissioner Lee Hamilton regarding the plane coming into the Pentagon: MR. MINETA: ...There was a young man who had come in and said 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?"... MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the -- MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon. MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah. The 9/11 Commission would assert that the military "had at most one or two minutes to react" to Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon, however, Mineta's testimony indicates that they had 10 to 12 minutes, leading many to suspect the orders were stand-down orders. They omitted Mineta’s testimony from both their final report and the official version of the video record, however, they did imply Mineta was mistaken, stating that the discussion between Cheney and the aide occurred later than he claimed, and that it was referencing a shoot-down order for Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field. So, were the orders for a stand-down or a shoot-down? As pointed out by 9/11 researcher "jimd3100": Even if the 9-11 Commission is correct, when they claim he arrived at 10:07 (according to the White House) Mineta makes it clear the order was given before he got there. There was no shoot down order given before 10:07. The 9-11 Commission seems to admit this. ...It seems very clear from the evidence that no shoot down order was given until 10:20 and none relayed to the military until 10:31. Which means if an order was given before 10:20 there is no reason to believe it was a shoot down order. Which would seem to indicate it was a stand down. Now thanks to recent research by "jimd3100" we know that a one Douglas F. Cochrane was the naval aide Mineta was referring to. When 9/11 researcher Jeff Hill followed up and phoned Cochrane, asking him what the orders were, Cohrane replied that he was "really not prepared to talk about this subject at all." Jeff then pleaded with Cohrane to ease his mind about whether the orders were stand-down orders, to which Cohrane replied that he had "nothing further to add" to the information already publicly available. Hill then asked Cohrane if he thought answering his questions would get Cheney in trouble, Cohrane paused, and then stated that "The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11." As it turns out, it is against the law for Cohrane to say anything else because his interview with the 9/11 Commission has been classified. We need to be allowed to view Cohrane's testimony, but even if he says the orders were shoot-down orders, the fact remains that after seeing the second tower struck at 9:03 AM the National Military Command Center realized there was "a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States," but yet shoot-down orders were not relayed to the military until 10:31. The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that: Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." It is often claimed that 9/11 skeptics are quote mining the 9/11 Commissioners, as to suggest that they agree with our case, but this is the real logical fallacy. Kean admitted they were lied to and he did not know why. He can think that the 9/11 Commission's story of astounding incompetance is correct all he wants, but the fact remains that his report failed to tie up “those loose ends" and prove that ineptitude is all that was at hand. As David Ray Griffin has stated: ...Although this explanation has been widely accepted, is it really believable? If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason. Equally counter intuitive is the fact that the top officials in charge of NORAD and the FAA on 9/11 were rewarded for their supposed incompetence with promotions instead of charges of perjury. In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command, combined with the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks, caused deliberate confusion. 911myths.com features outdated pages on the issues of live-fly exercises and false radar blips, proving once again that we don't need "debunkers" to answer these questions, but rather a new investigative body willing to tie all "loose ends" so there is no need for Loose Change or their detractors. Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'" "I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen. - Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground Instructor. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12-year career in the field of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA. Edited November 18, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 On 9/11 an AWACS plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area was ordered to return to its base in Oklahoma limiting the communications and surveillance capabilities of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector. According to the cited source this happened “in the immediate confusion after the attacks.” and 'NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) will contact the AWACS later on, and instruct it to turn around and head to Washington, to provide radio and radar coverage over the capital (see (11:25 a.m.) September 11, 2001).' I assume the rest is similarly distorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 AS I have contended to assert (and you deny) the simulations interfered with 911 intercepts. The confusion was the simulation/exercises. THANK YOU ,YOU "HAVE" made my point. see link to read how AWACS could have helped = On 9/11 an AWACS plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area was ordered to return to its base in Oklahoma limiting the communications and surveillance capabilities of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector. Before 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001: AWACS Planes on Training Missions in Florida and Near Washington, DC While President Bush is still in Sarasota, an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System plane) is flying a training mission off the coast of Florida. Referring to the AWACS plane, NORAD Commander Larry Arnold later says: “I had set up an arrangement with their wing commander at Tinker [Air Force Base, Oklahoma] some months earlier for us to divert their AWACS off a normal training mission to go into an exercise scenario simulating an attack on the United States. The AWACS crew initially thought we were going into one of those simulations.” Another AWACS is also flying a training mission, near Washington, DC, the morning of 9/11. [Code One Magazine, 1/2002] When its pilot, Anthony Kuczynski, hears of the first WTC crash, he mistakenly believes he is involved in a planned military simulation. He says, “We sometimes do scenarios where we’re protecting the United States from bombers coming in from unknown areas.” [St. Thomas Aquin, 4/12/2002] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 AS I have contended to assert (and you deny) the simulations interfered with 911 intercepts. The confusion was the simulation/exercises. THANK YOU ,YOU "HAVE" made my point. No the confusion was four nearly simultaneous hijackings and crashes. try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 NO COLBY WRONG. I PUT THE PILOTS WORDS IN RED> DOES RED HURT YOUR EYES ??????????????? THE EXERCISE CAUSED THE CONFUSION. Another AWACS is also flying a training mission, near Washington, DC, the morning of 9/11. [Code One Magazine, 1/2002] When its pilot, Anthony Kuczynski, hears of the first WTC crash, he mistakenly believes he is involved in a planned military simulation. He says, “We sometimes do scenarios where we’re protecting the United States from bombers coming in from unknown areas.” [St. Thomas Aquin, 4/12/2002] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Let's see, he was in DC and though the 1st crash, at 8:46, might have been part of a drill, presumably by the time the Pentagon crash, 9:37, he knew what was happening. Also he was NOT participating in such a drill at the time, but his quote indicates they were regular occurrences. Here's the relevant passage from the original source (don't you ever learn Gaal, get the original): Earlier that morning, when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash, Kuczynski thought he was involved in a planned military simulation. It didn't take him long to realize it was real. "We sometimes do scenarios where weíre protecting the United States from bombers coming in from unknown areas," he said. "But we never really thought that there'd be a threat that was taking off from the United States." http://web.archive.o...2/anaconda.html Another own goal or should I call it an 'owngaal'? Edited November 20, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now