Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Steven Gaal

911 Deep background Simulations

Recommended Posts

WND

As early as 1987, the Federal Aviation Administration adopted a rule ensuring that commercial pilots could not board planes with guns, despite existing regulations that permitted pilots, under certain conditions, to be armed, according to an industry group.

So the conspiracy goes back to 1987?

The article contradicts your speculation

The APSA memo claimed that the process to rescind the rule began in July 2001 and was scheduled to take effect in September – around the time of the hijackings that saw terrorists commandeer flight decks and fly fully fueled airliners into both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

But John Mazor, a spokesman for the
, told WND the FAA directive rescinding the armed-pilot rule was issued July 17, 2001 and took effect much later – on Nov. 14, 2001.

So it seems the rule was announced in July but was not slated to go into effect till after 9/11, not mention the other holes in this fable discussed in my previous post.

######################################################################

THE FBI SHUT DOWN OF ARAB MUSLIM WEB SITES

IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO 9/11.

FBI accused of anti-Muslim bias

Among the sites the FBI shut down just days before 9-11 was the web site for the Arab World's leading independent TV news channel.

From the BBC article 9/7/01

"Infocom said the raid resulted in a temporary shutdown of websites it hosted for about 500 customers, including that run by Al-Jazeera television and the newspaper Al-Sharq, both based in the Gulf state of Qatar."

From the Guardian article:

Monday September 10, 2001

Five hundred websites - many of them with an Arab or Muslim connection - crashed last Wednesday [i.e. Sept. 5] when an anti-terrorism taskforce raided InfoCom Corporation in Texas.

There was no mention of them still being offline.

So they sites seem to have been up again several days before 9/11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US pulls the plug on Muslim websites

Islamic groups have condemned a government crackdown on a Texan telecoms company as part of a "witch-hunt", writes Brian Whitaker

Five hundred websites - many of them with an Arab or Muslim connection - crashed last Wednesday when an anti-terrorism taskforce raided InfoCom Corporation in Texas.

The 80-strong taskforce that descended upon the IT company included FBI agents, Secret Service agents, Diplomatic Security agents, tax inspectors, immigration officials, customs officials, department of commerce officials and computer experts.

Three days later, they were still busy inside the building, reportedly copying every hard disc they could find. InfoCom hosts websites for numerous clients in the Middle East, including al-Jazeera (the satellite TV station), al-Sharq (a daily newspaper in Qatar), and Birzeit (the Palestinian university on the West Bank).

It also hosts sites for several Muslim organisations in the United States, among them the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

In addition, InfoCom is the registered owner of ".iq" - the internet country code for Iraq.

A coalition of American Muslim groups immediately denounced the raid as part of an "anti-Muslim witch-hunt" promoted by the Israeli lobby in the United States.

Mahdi Bray, political adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said: "We have deep concerns that this once again is an attempt to rush to judgment and to marginalise the American Muslim community. There is a pattern of bias that often permeates all of these types of investigations."

The FBI, meanwhile, insisted the search had nothing to do with religion or Middle East politics. "This is a criminal investigation, not a political investigation," a spokeswoman said. "We're hoping to find evidence of criminal activity."

Several Muslim groups have linked the raid to an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 13. Written by Daniel Pipes, director of the foreign policy research institute in Philadelphia, it called on the US to "support Israel in rolling back the forces of terror" by shutting down websites belonging to the Islamic Association for Palestine and the Holy Land Foundation.

"The federal authorities should use the tools it already has in closing down these websites and organisations," the article said.

Daniel Pipes appears regularly in the US media, where he is regarded as an authority on the Middle East. Arab-Americans, on the other hand, regard him as a Muslim-basher and a staunch supporter of Israel.

In one magazine article Pipes wrote: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

In 1995, after the Oklahoma bombing (for which former war hero Timothy McVeigh was eventually executed) Pipes wasted no time in pinning the blame on Muslim extremists. He told USA Today: "People need to understand that this is just the beginning. The fundamentalists are on the upsurge, and they make it very clear that they are targeting us. They are absolutely obsessed with us."

It is unlikely, however, that the FBI could have obtained a warrant to search InfoCom on the basis of Daniel Pipes's remarks in the Wall Street Journal. They would have to demonstrate "probable cause" to a judge, but in this case the reasons may never be known because the judge ordered the warrant to be sealed.

InfoCom's lawyer, Mark Enoch, said that whatever the company was suspected of, the FBI had "bad information"; InfoCom was innocent of any wrongdoing.

According to the New York Times, citing unnamed government officials, the purpose of the search was to discover whether InfoCom has any links to the militant Palestinian organisation, Hamas.

Under an anti-terrorism law introduced in 1996, it is illegal in the US to provide "material support" for Hamas or other organisations on the state department's banned list. Although Israeli sympathisers in the US have been clamouring for prosecutions, there have been no major cases so far and some lawyers question whether the 1996 law is constitutional.

Just across the road from InfoCom's offices, in Richardson on the outskirts of Dallas, is the headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Apart from their physical proximity, InfoCom and HLF are intimately connected through two brothers: Ghassan and Bayan Elashi. The Elashis are of Palestinian origin and of a religious disposition. Ghassan is chairman of HLF and vice-president (marketing) of InfoCom.

InfoCom is a small but apparently successful company with a global business in computers, networking, telecommunications and internet services. Established in 1982, it moved to the area of Texas known as "Telecom Corridor" nine years ago. Its business in the Middle East has been expanding largely because of its expertise in Arabic-language databases. It recently won a contract in Jordan for a website where people can buy and sell cars.

Asked about the company's ownership of ".iq", the Iraqi national internet address, Ghassan Elashi said: "We were one of the pioneers of the internet at a time when all the upper domain names were available for everyone. We searched the lists and found Iraq was available for registration."

To avoid any trouble over sanctions, InfoCom informed the state department that it had registered ".iq", Elashi said. The state department replied with a "ridiculous" list of restrictions which mean that the company has never been able to make use of the Iraqi domain.

He said he had no idea what the task force was looking for in raiding InfoCom's offices, though the staff were giving them full cooperation. He added: "Over the last four to five weeks we have experienced some unusual hacking - mostly by pro-Israeli hackers."

The HLF, on the other side of the street, is a tax-exempt charity established in 1989. Most of its efforts are focused on helping Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon and the occupied territories, but it has also sent humanitarian aid to Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya, as well as earthquake relief to Turkey and flood relief to Mozambique.

According to its website, the HLF has provided sponsorship for more than 1,800 Palestinian orphans and 450 families living in refugee camps. It has funded several medical projects, including Dar al-Salam hospital in Gaza, al-Razi hospital in Jenin, al-Ahli hospital in Hebron and a rehabilitation center for the handicapped located in Amman, Jordan. In Lebanon, it provided safe water supplies for 72,000 refugees in the Palestinian camps.

For several years the HLF has been the target of attacks by Israeli sympathisers. A letter sent to news organisations by New York senator Charles Schumer accused it of "raising millions of dollars for the Palestinian cause in the Middle East, some of which has been knowingly channelled to support the families of Hamas terrorists."

A more specific claim, mentioned on the website of a Jewish organisation, the Anti-Defamation League, is that it has provided "monthly stipends to the families of terrorist suicide bombers in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza".

The evidence against the HLF presented by the League in a 1998 press release was somewhat tenuous. It said that Israel had banned a Jerusalem-based organisation called the Holy Land Foundation (which it described as the "apparent counterpart" of the Texas charity) on the grounds that it was a front for Hamas.

Also, the League said, the Texas-based Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) had urged its members to send donations to the HLF. The League noted that the IAP had also "distributed official Hamas literature in the United States" and that its fundraising letter described the Palestinian struggle as "jihad" - "a term regularly used by Hamas".

More recently, HLF and several other Muslim charities have become the target of a $600m (£409m) lawsuit by the parents of David Boim, an Israeli-American student who was shot dead in the West Bank in 1996. Using the 1996 anti-terrorism law, the family are claiming compensation from the charities, alleging that they provided "material support" to Hamas and were therefore responsible for David's death.

Ghassan Elashi dismisses all these allegations. "The Holy Land Foundation is as clean as crystal water," he says. "We have never been bothered by any government agencies."

But to the alarm of America's Arab and Muslim minorities, there are signs that the climate may be changing. Assistant New York state attorney general Karen Goldman has recently been pressing for a tax audit of HLF to "enforce the laws applicable to exempt organisations". Another Muslim charity, the Islamic African Relief Agency, is engaged in a legal dispute with the state department after it revoked US aid grants worth $4.2m.

It is, of course, a duty of governments to ensure that charities maintain financial probity. The concern is that some charities may be getting singled out for discriminatory reasons.

The catch-all nature of the 1996 law against providing "material support" to banned organisations is also arousing controversy. "It makes any support whatever a crime," one Arab-American said last week. "Simply giving blankets to the wrong kind of hospital could be a violation of the law."

++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++

The APSA memo claimed that the process to rescind the rule began in July 2001 and was
scheduled to take effect in September
– around the time of the hijackings that saw terrorists commandeer flight decks and fly fully fueled airliners into both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

(911 happens and rule delayed until NOV)

But John Mazor, a spokesman for the
, told WND the FAA directive rescinding the armed-pilot rule was issued July 17, 2001 and took effect much later – on Nov. 14, 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US pulls the plug on Muslim websites

Islamic groups have condemned a government crackdown on a Texan telecoms company as part of a "witch-hunt", writes Brian Whitaker

Five hundred websites - many of them with an Arab or Muslim connection - crashed last Wednesday when an anti-terrorism taskforce raided InfoCom Corporation in Texas.

The 80-strong taskforce that descended upon the IT company included FBI agents, Secret Service agents, Diplomatic Security agents, tax inspectors, immigration officials, customs officials, department of commerce officials and computer experts.

Three days later, they were still busy inside the building, reportedly copying every hard disc they could find. InfoCom hosts websites for numerous clients in the Middle East, including al-Jazeera (the satellite TV station), al-Sharq (a daily newspaper in Qatar), and Birzeit (the Palestinian university on the West Bank).

Huh? Three days after Wednesday, Sept. 5 was Sat., Sept. 8, three days BEFORE 9/11.

The APSA memo claimed that the process to rescind the rule began in July 2001 and was
scheduled to take effect in September
– around the time of the hijackings that saw terrorists commandeer flight decks and fly fully fueled airliners into both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

(911 happens and rule delayed until NOV)

But John Mazor, a spokesman for the
, told WND the FAA directive rescinding the armed-pilot rule was issued July 17, 2001 and took effect much later – on Nov. 14, 2001.

One group supposedly said September the other November but this distinction is not relevant. Let's assume it had gone into effect Sept. 1, do really think 10 days would have been enough time for an airline to send in a proposal, have it OKed, and then to train and arm pilots? And even if you do % of pilots could have been trained in such a short period? That's not even considering the odds, if the airlines had shown no interest for 40 years what's the chance they suddenly would have decided to 10 days before 9/11, especially since they had know since July the rule was slated to be revoked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monday, September 2, 2002

Israeli Company Mum About WTC Pullout

WTC investigators should follow the money trail. It could provide critical information about the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Exclusive to American Free Press,

By Christopher Bollyn

WHILE an Israeli real estate magnate from Australia insured his 99-year lease on the retail space of the World Trade Center against terrorism, one of Israel's biggest companies pulled out of the north tower just days before Sept. 11.

AFP has learned from a reliable source in the shipping industry that Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. broke the lease when it vacated the rented offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center shortly before the Sept. 11 disaster.

According to the source, Zim's WTC office space had been leased until the end of the year and the company lost $50,000 when it suddenly pulled out in the beginning of September.

The parent company, Zim Israel Navigation Co., is nearly half-owned by the state of Israel, the other half held by Israel Corp. Zim is one of the world's largest container shipping companies, operating an international network of shipping lines.

AFP repeatedly contacted Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. at its new American headquarters in Norfolk, Va., to inquire about the company's pulling out of its WTC lease early.

AFP was told that the only person who could discuss the matter was the company president, Shaul Cohen-Mintz, who was said to be unavailable until Dec. 4.

AFP also contacted the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the original owner of the World Trade Center, and was told to contact Silverstein Properties, owner of the World Trade Center since July 24.

Silverstein passes all media related questions to the public relations company of Howard J. Rubenstein, which also represents the state of Israel.

Steve Solomon of Rubenstein told AFP that the company "had no information on the leases" and advised AFP to contact the tenant directly.

Calls to Ezra Bentob of Zim's legal department were not returned.

An Israeli businessman from Australia, Frank Lowy, had recently acquired the 99-year lease for the 425,000 square foot retail portion of World Trade Center before the WTC attacks of Sept. 11, reported The Jerusalem Post on Sept. 12.

Lowy is chairman and founder of Westfield Holdings, and the manager of Westfield America Trust, which has a 57 percent stake in Westfield America Inc. In April 2001, Westfield America agreed to pay $400 million for the lease on the complex though only $133 million was paid; the rest was to be made in ground lease payments.

Lowy is the second wealthiest man in Australia and was recently ranked as the 209th wealthiest man in the world by Forbes magazine. Westfield is the fourth-largest shopping mall owner, with operations in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Westfield was insured against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected.

In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange the retail chain said that "investment in the retail component of the World Trade Center is fully insured for both capital and loss of income," adding "the insurance coverage includes acts of terrorism.square.gif

Some related items on this website: pp.gif September 2001: Property magnate Larry Silverstein had just signed $3.2 billion deal on WTC towers pp.gifGerman insurance giants sue Twin Towers' Silverstein: Attack was one insurable event, not two Outlink: Were Israelis warned not to go to the WTC on 9-11?extlink.gifMysteries still Linger Six Months after September 11 | Investigative Report: Intelligence Agents or "Art Students"? | New York Post scoffs at Spy-Ring "Myth" | David Irving comments, in A Radical's Diary | Le Monde, Paris: "Vast Israeli Spy Network in the US" | Washington has quietly deported hundreds of Israeli "students" | Washington Post journalist suggests it is "a hoax" extlink.gif | Flashback: "Midnight Express": A Hebrew report on those five Israelis who cheered as WTC crashed | Abandoning company, their Israeli boss vanished without trace | Anti-war.com joins the dots | The Texas part of the Israeli spy ring [map] | WorldNetDaily: Friends think Flight 11 Israeli was "executed" |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As previously pointed out Bollyn is a discredited white nationalist who lied under oath during his trial and was fired by neo-Nazi American Free Press for "filing false stories". And this story is a classic example of the disinfo he spread.

http://911myths.com/index.php/ZIM_Shipping

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<a href="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090401zimamerican#a090401zimamerican" title="View in context">September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company. [Virginian-Pilot, 9/4/2001] Zim announced the move and its date six months earlier. [Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Jerusalem Post, 9/13/2001; Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001] The move leaves only one Israeli company, ClearForest, with 18 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. The four or five employees in the building at the time manage to escape. [Jerusalem Post, 9/13/2001] One year later, a Zim ship is impounded while attempting to ship Israeli military equipment to Iran; it is speculated that this is done with the knowledge of Israel. [Agence France-Presse, 3/29/2002

=================

August 28, 2002: Germans Seize US/Israeli Weapons Bound for Iran

German authorities seize a boat in the port of Hamburg containing a shipment of rubber parts—allegedly bound for Iran—that could be used to make tracks for tanks and US-made M-113 armored personnel carriers. The seized boat, the Zim Anvers, is owned by the Zim-American Israeli Shipping Company. An Israeli company, PAD, headed by Avihai Weinstein, 34, had been issued a German export license for the shipment. The license specifies Thailand as its final destination, but according to German customs, the shipment is really destined for Iran. According to the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, it was to be transferred in Hamburg to an Iranian cargo ship headed to the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. Weinstein claims he had no knowledge of the shipment’s actual destination. Raphael Eitan, an adviser on terrorism for several Israeli governments between 1978 and 1985, tells public radio the next day that it would have been impossible for Weinstein “not to know what the final destination of the shipment was. In this type of affair, there is no innocent contract. He knew the shipment was headed to Iran,” he says. Tehran denies any involvement with the boat. [Agence France-Presse, 3/29/2002]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COINCIDENCE ??

The Five Dancing Israelis

Arrested On 9-11

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

Police Seize Rental

Truck With TNT Traces

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/arrested_israelis2.html

AFP PODCAST: 9/11 Cop Who Arrested Dancing Israelis Speaks

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=974

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<a href="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090401zimamerican#a090401zimamerican" title="View in context">September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company. [Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001] The move leaves only one Israeli company, ClearForest, with 18 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. The four or five employees in the building at the time manage to escape. [Agence France-Presse, 3/29/2002

=================

The History Commons entry with the part Steve edited out bolded and underlined:

September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

edit.png

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company.
[
] Zim announced the move and its date six months earlier.
[
] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [
;
]

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=zim-american_israeli_shipping_co.

The version he posted was not found by Google:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%2249+percent+of+the+company.+%5BVirginian-Pilot%2C+4%2F3%2F2001%5D+More+than+200+workers+had%22&oq=%2249+percent+of+the+company.+%5BVirginian-Pilot%2C+4%2F3%2F2001%5D+More+than+200+workers+had%22&gs_l=hp.3...5126.8813.1.11028.2.2.0.0.0.0.812.1174.3-1j6-1.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.dP_qfAaW8rM&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU&fp=c35361a03eadf5c5&bpcl=40096503&biw=911&bih=412

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander

Submitted by RL McGee on Sat, 01/12/2013 - 1:49pm

http://digwithin.net...01/12/eberhart/

Posted on January 12, 2013

By Kevin Ryan

In a 2004 U.S. Senate hearing, Senator Mark Dayton remarked that “this country and its citizens were completely undefended” for “109 minutes” on 9/11.[1] Dayton went on to clarify that officials within the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had covered up the facts about the lack of air defenses by lying to the 9/11 Commission, to Congress and to the American people. And they were not held accountable.

eberhart_zpsd80a0f6b.jpg

One man was most responsible for both the air defense failures and the lying that covered it up. U.S. Air Force General Ralph Edward Eberhart had taken over command of NORAD from General Richard Myers in February 2000. The position included leadership of all air defense operations in North America and, also, the U.S. Space Command. Therefore, on 9/11, Eberhart was the man most responsible for failure to intercept the four hijacked aircraft over a period of nearly two hours.

NORAD is the joint U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for monitoring and defending the airspace over North America. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with airliners that have gone off-course or been hijacked, were not followed on 9/11. Each of the four flights involved in the 9/11 attacks should have been intercepted when they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.[2]

The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001. A 1994 government report stated — “Overall, during the past four 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 … 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.”[3]

On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened. Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony. And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.”[4]

Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day. This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely. Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse?

In order to better determine the facts, investigators should begin with at least three areas of inquiry: 1) the times at which NORAD was notified (or made aware) of the hijackings, 2) the times at which NORAD responded in the form of scrambling jets to intercept, and 3) the instructions given to the interceptor pilots in terms of speed and direction.

NORAD’s ever-changing story

The military’s explanations began with a short description of the response to the hijackings. Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers gave this account to the Senate Armed Services Committee, in an official hearing for his confirmation as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). He said that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was hit.[5]

Although Myers was not in command of NORAD on 9/11, he should have known two days later if normal procedures had been followed. As Acting CJCS on 9/11, and as Vice Chairman otherwise, his role was to ensure the president and secretary of defense were informed of critical military matters.

A second story was given a week after the attacks, when NORAD provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the responses that followed. General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6] This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded.

This timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full twenty minutes before it impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base (AFB) were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking. This allowed twice the time needed for the jets to reach New York City before Flight 175 crashed.

Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee (repeatedly) that this was a “documented notification.”[7] If true, interceptor jets from Andrews AFB, only ten miles from the Pentagon, could have easily reached the errant airliner given this lead time.

Although the military might now use the excuse that Andrews was not technically under the command of NORAD, the 9/11 Commissions says Eberhart’s statement was simply not true. In fact, both Commission counsel Dan Marcus and Team leader John Farmer were later very blunt about this being a false statement.[8] Therefore, it is clear that Eberhart should be brought up on a charge of contempt of Congress. It is illegal to make any materially false statement or representation in testimony to the Unites States Congress.[9] And that was not the only false statement that Eberhart apparently made to the senators.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott presented a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline. They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until 9:05, three minutes after the aircraft crashed into the south tower. This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there” (Flight 175), Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”[10]

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am. This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am. Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report, now supported by NORAD. In this explanation NORAD received “no advance notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11] Instead of 20 minutes of notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes notice on Flight 77, and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not notified about any of them until it was too late. The military was off the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notifications and response, which had constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown out the window. In place of these documents and testimonies, new explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]

The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair. [13] Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access to audio tapes that were not available to the public. Although the newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different timelines.

The changing stories given by NORAD led to placing more blame for the failed air defenses on the FAA. After NORAD’s 2003 timeline was issued, however, the FAA publicly stated that NORAD had in fact been informed throughout all the developments that morning. FAA official Laura Brown wrote a memo to the 9/11 Commission in which she stated that FAA shared “real-time information” with NORAD about “loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.”[14]

FAA leadership certainly did fail that morning and there are shocking questions to be answered in that regard.[15] Not the least of these questions is why evidence that might have helped was destroyed by an FAA official after the attacks.[16] But the multiple stories given by the military indicate that NORAD was at least as culpable as the FAA in the inexplicable lack of air defense. And the facts indicate that NORAD was in the loop earlier than its 2003 timeline suggested, meaning that there is no reasonable explanation for why NORAD-controlled jets did not intercept most, if not all, of the planes hijacked on 9/11.

When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Eberhart confirmed that if NORAD had been in the loop as the FAA said it was, his people would have been able “to shoot down all three aircraft — all four aircraft.”[17]

Reasons to suspect Eberhart

Investigation of NORAD and its commander Eberhart is warranted, apart from the evidence for lying to Congress. Additional reasons to focus on Eberhart include the following nine facts.

1. As Commander in Chief of the U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE), Eberhart was responsible for setting Infocon levels.[18] Infocon is an alert system that defends against attacks on communications networks within the Department of Defense (DOD). Just 12 hours before the 9/11 attacks, an order was given to lower Infocon to its least protective level.[19] Setting Infocon at a lower level made it easier for people to hack or compromise the DOD computer networks, including the air defense system.[20]

2. As both CINCSPACE and Commander in Chief of NORAD (CINCNORAD), Eberhart was in charge of many of the highly coincidental military exercises (i.e. war games) that were going on that morning.

3. Eberhart did nothing effective in response to the 9/11 hijackings, despite being present in the military’s teleconference as those hijackings were in progress. He did not order the scrambling of jets, he did not order an escort for Air Force One, and he did not provide leadership.

4. Eberhart also failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace until well after the attacks were over. Although it was his prerogative to do so, Eberhart did not implement SCATANA, the process of assuming military control over the U.S. airspace, until two hours after the second plane hit the WTC and one hour after the last plane had been destroyed. Eberhart later said that he had waited until it finally became “obvious” to him that a coordinated terrorist attack was underway.[21] He told the 9/11 Commission that, although people were telling him to take control of the airspace earlier, he didn’t feel that the military could “provide traffic deconfliction like the FAA has.”[22]

5. In the middle of the 9/11 attacks, Eberhart decided to drive between Peterson Air Force Base and NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC). Normally this 12-mile drive takes 30 minutes but it took Eberhart between 45 minutes and an hour to make the drive that morning. No reason was ever given (or requested) for why Eberhart did not fly directly to CMOC from Peterson, making use of the Cheyenne Mountain helicopter port. Eberhart made conflicting statements about his reasons for making this trip, saying that he stayed for a while at Peterson because he “did not want to lose communication.”[23] Nevertheless, Eberhart lost communication at the most important time by leaving at approximately 9:30 am, when two of the hijacked planes were still flying wildly off-course. His reason for doing this was that things had “quieted down.”[24]

6. While on his way to the CMOC he was in the U.S. military’s air threat call via cell phone. In this call, at 9:49 am, Eberhart “directed all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed.”[25] Although this might sound like decisive action, the command apparently grounded all interceptor jets that had not yet taken off due to the fact that “battle stations” is a grounded status. Other military leaders later gave orders to actually scramble the jets. And despite his involvement, Eberhart portrayed himself as being out of the loop entirely. For example, he told the 9/11 Commission that he had “no knowledge of the circumstances that initiated the scramble” of fighter jets from Langley AFB and that he had just “recently” been made aware that it happened (in March 2004).[26]

7. Eberhart failed to explain the multiple changes in the account of 9/11 that were given by NORAD. In fact, he seemed to tell his staff to change the NORAD timeline as much as was needed in order to prevent further questioning about the military’s performance.[27]

8. For whatever reasons, Eberhart also gave out false information about the NORAD response to others. General Richard Myers, acting CJCS that morning, said that Eberhart told him there were “several hijack codes in the system.” Yet none of the four planes had squawked the hijack code on 9/11 and therefore it is not clear how such codes could have been in the system.[28]

9. NORAD failed to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission. Even as late as March 2004, the Commission was struggling to get basic documents about 9/11 performance from Eberhart’s organization.[29] In some cases, such as with the after-action reports that follow all military actions, the Commission never received the NORAD documents.

Of all these concerns, it is the military exercises that NORAD was conducting on 9/11 that have drawn the most attention from concerned citizens. When questioned about them, Eberhart claimed that the impact of the 9/11 exercises on NORAD’s response was that they “at most cost us 30 seconds.”[30] That was clearly not the case.

NORAD’s coincidental exercises

After several government officials had made incorrect statements about the military’s preparation for hijackings and the use of planes as weapons, General Myers responded to a pointed question on the subject. He reported that NORAD had practiced “five exercise hijack events,” between November 1999 and October 2000, all of which “included a suicide crash into a high value target.”[31] Records since released show that NORAD practiced approximately 28 hijack exercise events in the 20 months leading up to 9/11. At least six of these were focused on hijackings located entirely within the Unites States, which puts to rest the excuse that NORAD was only looking for threats coming from outside of U.S. borders.[32]

One of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian in October 2000, practiced interception of an airliner hijacked for a suicide attack against the 39-story United Nations building in New York City, just a few blocks from the WTC.[33] Another air defense exercise, called Amalgam Virgo and practiced just three months before 9/11, was accompanied by a planning document that had a picture of Osama bin Laden on the cover.[34]

Many of the military exercises or war games that were occurring on the day of 9/11 were run under the control of CINCNORAD Eberhart. In fact, Eberhart was in command of the war games that had the greatest impact on the nation’s air defenses. Of course, he had help.

NORAD is divided into several large areas that cover the U.S. and Canada, one of which is the region of the continental U.S. called CONR, headed on 9/11 by General Larry Arnold. Within CONR there are three sectors. The 9/11 attacks took place in the airspace monitored by CONR’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). Personnel at NEADS were therefore primarily responsible for trying to coordinate the NORAD response to the hijackings. CMOC was also an important facility in the response that should have been effective but was not.

At NEADS, Colonel Robert Marr was in charge. Marr had been in the U.S. Air Force for over 20 years until 1994, at which time he spent a few months in Saudi Arabia as “director of combat operations.”[35] He then left the military to work two years for a private company called Phoenix Air. Coincidentally, Phoenix Air provided aircraft for the Amalgam Virgo exercises.[36] There is also reason to believe that Phoenix Air is associated with Huffman Aviation where the alleged 9/11 hijackers had trained.[37] After his stint at Phoenix Air, Marr returned to the military as the exercise coordinator at NEADS and, by 9/11, had risen to the position of commander of the facility.

There were several NORAD exercises planned for 9/11: Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Overview, both command post exercises (CPX), and Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior, which were field training (or FTX) exercises. All four of these exercises were CJCS approved and sponsored by CINCNORAD Eberhart.[38] Apollo Guardian was also running on 9/11. This was an exercise conducted by the U.S. Space Command, meaning Eberhart was in control of that too.

FTX exercises are sometimes what are referred to as SPADEs, meaning “a track is taken out of radar coverage and then re-introduced as an unknown track.”[39] This exercise feature is interesting given that Flight 77 was lost on radar for a period of time on 9/11 and then reappeared in a way that has not yet been explained.[40]

Amalgam Virgo 02, apparently only in the planning stages on 9/11, was a modification of Twin Star, a live-fly joint FAA/NORAD exercise conducted in 1995. This was described by NORAD exercise design manager Ken Merchant and Major Paul Goddard, the Canadian who was NORAD exercise chief.[41] According to Goddard, the plan was to have interceptor jets scramble and escort a hijacked airliner. During this exercise, “the fighters never got off on the appropriate heading, and it took them forever to catch up.”[42]

It is interesting to consider that Amalgam Virgo 02, which was in the planning stages on 9/11, might actually have been in play on 9/11. One reason to consider this is that, on 9/11, the fighters “never got off on the appropriate heading, and it took them forever to catch up.” Another reason is that 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste showed considerable interest in Amalgam Virgo 02, as did the 9/11 Commission staff in its request for documents.[43] According to Ben-Veniste, this was a case in which “NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States.”[44] The plan for Amalgam Virgo 02 was therefore similar to the 9/11 attacks, with multiple, simultaneous hijackings.

Another large-scale exercise being conducted on 9/11 was Global Guardian, a joint nuclear war simulation run by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom) in conjunction with NORAD. This was essentially a practice for Armageddon that involved live nuclear bombs and at least three airborne command and control airliners called E-4Bs.[45] The E-4B that was seen circling the White House during the 9/11 attacks might have been part of this exercise.[46]

The 9/11 Commission did not mention most of these exercises in its report. To the contrary, the report mentioned only Vigilant Guardian and then only one time, in a deceptively stated footnote that said “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the Soviet Union.”[47] This statement is false in several ways, not the least of which is that NORAD was scheduled to conduct at least five exercises on 9/11. And Vigilant Guardian was not simply an exercise involving one bomber from the former Soviet Union.

Vigilant Guardian (VG) had been in play for several days as of 9/11. On September 9, it included a scenario in which terrorists hijacked an airliner and planned to attack New York City. The exercise presented a number of other scenarios based around airliner hijackings and in one of these, the fictitious terrorists threatened to “Rain Terror from the Skies.”[48]

According to the VG planning documents, the 9/11 exercise was to be conducted “sim over live,” meaning the simulated hijackings were to be inserted into the live air control system. This was repeated in the instructions – “Ensure all tracks of interest (sim or live) are input on the live chart.”[49] Furthermore, the VG plan was that “All expansions will be Real World.” Although frequently misunderstood, the term “Real World” does not refer to an actual hijacking, it refers to the use of real aircraft in live-fly exercises.[50]

Due to these confusing circumstances, NEADS staff confused the actual hijackings on 9/11 with the exercises. As researcher Matthew Everett explained — “What is remarkable… is that at a time when it should have been obvious to them that the U.S. was in the middle of a major terrorist attack, these key personnel [at NEADS] were uncertain whether what was happening was real or simulated.”[51] The confusion caused much more than a “30 second” problem as Eberhart suggested, because NEADS personnel thought the exercises were continuing well after the attacks.

On 9/11, VG was scheduled to include a simulated hijacking at 9:40 am, within an hour of when Flight 11 struck the WTC. When they first learned that Flight 11 was hijacked, NEADS staff noted that the “exercise” appeared to be starting an hour early that morning. The evidence indicates that everyone at NEADS, including Colonel Marr, thought the actual hijackings were exercises. They even joked about it.[52] That might have been due to the VG plan stating that the NEADS building where Colonel Marr and company were located was a planned “exercise play area” and everyone there, knowingly or not, was “subject to exercise play.”[53]

NEADS radar scopes were displaying simulated information at least until the time of the Pentagon attack. The same problem was going on at CMOC, another exercise play area, with radar screens showing false tracks as late as 10:12 am. In fact, personnel at CMOC called NEADs in an attempt to stop the exercise inputs.[54] Because those inputs did not stop, it appeared that someone wanted the NEADS and CMOC radar scopes to continue showing false information until after the four planes had been destroyed.

Ken Merchant added that the National Military Command Center (NMCC), located at the Pentagon, regularly participated in NORAD exercises by interjecting emergency action messages (EAMs).[55] On 9/11 the performance of the NMCC, which plays a critical role in establishing the military chain of command and communicating orders, was remarkably poor. Officers there lacked any sense of urgency and were completely ineffective with regard to communications.[56]

The disruptive effect of the ongoing NORAD exercises that morning continued until after all the hijacked planes had crashed. One military newspaper said VG continued until 30 minutes after attacks.[57] Global Guardian was “formally terminated” at 10:44 am but certain actions taken after that time, including that CMOC blast doors were closed (a needless action in terms of hijacked airliners), suggested that the exercise continued.[58]

Investigating Eberhart

Investigation of Ralph Eberhart and his subordinates would almost certainly reveal more of what the public needs to know. Whether Eberhart or others were part of a conspiracy to attack the United States is not the only reason. The main purpose would be to understand how such an inexplicable failure to follow the long-standing and most critical procedures of the U.S. defense system could be followed by a string of lies about that inexplicable failure.

Eberhart was among the liars and he was in charge of NORAD at the time. Was he lying to make himself and his organization look bad, as the 9/11 Commission suggests? Or is he lying now, along with the 9/11 Commission, in order to remove NORAD’s responsibility and eliminate questioning about 9/11?

A year after 9/11, Eberhart was rewarded for his performance by being placed in charge of the new NORTHCOM organization. He has more recently been praised and honored for his great work on 9/11. Called a “9/11 hero” despite having been a disastrous failure on that day, he was honored by having the new NORTHCOM headquarters at Peterson AFB named after him.[59]

There is an intangible benefit to consider as well. Like a number of people who should be investigated for 9/11, Eberhart was a veteran of the only war in which the United States was defeated. He began his military career as a forward air controller stationed out of Pleiku Air Base in South Vietnam.

Coincidentally, Benedict Sliney, who was in charge of FAA operations on 9/11, was an air traffic controller stationed in Pleiku at about the same time. Fighting in related operations was Michael Canavan, the FAA’s missing hijack coordinator on 9/11, who was in the 5th Special Forces Group (SFG). Also in the 5th SFG were Brian Michael Jenkins, who as Deputy Chairman of Kroll designed the WTC security systems, and CJCS Hugh Shelton, who was yet another high-level leader missing on 9/11. Shelton’s temporary replacement that morning, Richard Myers, was a combat pilot in Vietnam.

Along with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who were high-level leaders in the Nixon administration at the time, all these men were undoubtedly devastated by the defeat in Vietnam. Cheney and Rumsfeld experienced the only other significant defeat of their careers when President Ford lost the 1976 election a few years later. Other people who played critical roles on 9/11 and also worked under the Ford Administration included L. Paul Bremer, Frank Carlucci, Rudy Giuliani, and DOD employees Richard Clarke, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Armitage.

The defeats in Vietnam and the 1976 presidential election made their mark on these men. Years later, the attacks of 9/11 brought all of them a late chance for redemption and victory. And it made them all heroes.

Eberhart benefited from the 9/11 attacks in more tangible ways as well. He continued on as head of NORAD and NORTHCOM through 2004. After that he went on to become the chairman for more than half a dozen stock or bond equity funds, and a board director for a similar number of companies profiting from increased military expenditures, oil and gas services, and “Homeland Security.”[60]

The bottom line is that NORAD officials working for Ralph Eberhart covered up the facts about the lack of air defense on 9/11 by lying to the American people and by failure to cooperate with the 9/11 investigations. For those reasons alone, Eberhart’s performance that day and the related statements should be thoroughly investigated. Considering the nine facts presented above about Eberhart’s activities on 9/11, and that Eberhart appears to have violated U.S. law by lying to Congress, that investigation should be performed with the utmost assertiveness including formal charges and the use of subpoenas.

[1] Nicholas Levis, Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11, 911Truth.org, gust 1, 2004, http://www.911truth....040731213239607

[2] Bob Arnot, What Was Needed to Halt the Attacks?: Cockpit security, quick response not in evidence Tuesday, MSNBC, September 12, 2001, http://s3.amazonaws....snbc091201.html

[3] United States General Accounting Office, Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed, May 3, 1994, http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

[4] Nicholas Levis, Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11

[5] Senate Armed Services Committee, General Myers Confirmation Hearing, September 13, 2001, http://emperors-clot...ckups/mycon.htm

[6] Transcript of Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, October 25, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office

[7] Transcript of Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, October 25, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office

[8] See memo from Dan Marcus to the Inspector General of both the DOD and Department of Transportation, dated July 29, 2004. See also email response from John Farmer to 9/11 Commisison staff (dated 1/19/2004) and associated messages. See also memorandum from John Farmer and Philip Zelikow to the 9/11 Commissioners in which they state that “Team 8 has unearthed evidence strongly suggesting the possibility that a USAF officer,

and possibly others at the USAF and FAA, must have known that the official story was false, yet persisted in telling it or did not correct the record.”

[9] United States Code, 18 USC § 1001, http://www.law.corne...de/text/18/1001 This law is otherwise known as “making false statements”, http://en.wikipedia....alse_statements

[10] The NORAD notification of Flight 175’s hijacking at 8:42 am was listed in an email from NORADJ3 to Eberhart. It was also listed in the NORAD timeline given by Eberhart to the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2001.

[11] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Report, p 31

[12] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales, first published at 911Truth.org, December 13, 2005, http://www.globalres...ible-tales/1478

[13] Michael Bronner, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes”, Vanity Fair, September 2006, 262-285 http://www.vanityfai..._Force_9-11.pdf

[14] Kyle F. Hence, UQ Wire: Statement from FAA Contradicts 911 Report, Unanswered Questions Wire, August 2, 2004, http://www.scoop.co....0408/S00013.htm

[15] Kevin R. Ryan, FAA Failures on 9/11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator, DgWithin.net, April 2011, http://digwithin.net...pecial-ops-h...

[16] Matthew L. Wald, F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers’ Statements, The New York Times, May 6, 2004, http://www.nytimes.c...06CND-TAPE.html

[17] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Transcript of twelfth public hearing, June 17,2004, http://govinfo.libra...mission_Hear...

[18] On 1 October 1999, the Commander, USSPACECOM (USCINCSPACE), assumed command of a brand new mission area, DoD-Computer Network Defense (CND). Also effective the same date, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) delegated to USCINCSPACE the authority to declare DoD Infocon levels.

[19] 1st Fighter Wing History Excerpt, July through December 2001, p 61, http://www.scribd.co...es-Fdr-1st-F... The Infocon level was raised again during the morning of September 11, immediately after the second attack on the World Trade Center.

[20] The Infocon alert system was developed in response to a coordinated hacking called Solar Sunrise that occurred in 1998 and started at Andrews Air Force Base. For more on Solar Sunrise, see Kevin Poulsen, Video: Solar Sunrise, the Best FBI-Produced Hacker Flick Ever, Wired, September 23, 2008, . http://www.wired.com...ideo-solar-sun/

[21] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart, prepared by Geoffrey Brown,, March 1, 2004, http://media.nara.go...11MFR-00788.pdf

[22] Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearings for June 17, 2004, published at The Washington Post, June 17, 2004

[23] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[24] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[25] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Report, p 38

[26] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[27] Eberhart told the Commission that the “newest NORAD time line [delivered to Commission staff on February 23,2004] was likely the result of his ‘standing order’ to correct the record of events whenever possible.” 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[28] Matthew Everett, The Actions and Inactions of the Commander in Charge of the U.S. Air Defense Failure on 9/11, Shoestring 911, June 18, 2010, http://shoestring911...ons-of-comma...

[29] See memorandum from 9/11 Commission Team 8 re: DOD Document Production, dated October 29, 2003

[30] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Transcript of twelfth public hearing, June 17,2004, http://govinfo.libra...mission_Hear...

[31] Transcript of Hearing Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, August 16 and 17, 2004, http://www.gpo.gov/f...08shrg24495.htm

[32] A NORAD Exercises Hijack Summary, released by the 9/11 Commission, lists 28 exercise events involving hijackings between October 1998 and September 10, 2001. This does not include the Amalgam Virgo exercises, http://www.scribd.co...-Hijack-Summary

[33] Matthew Everett, NORAD Exercise a Year Before 9/11 Simulated a Pilot Trying to Crash a Plane into a New York Skyscraper–The UN Headquarters, Shoestring 911, July 27, 2010, http://shoestring911...r-before-911...

[34] SEADS Concept Proposal: Amalgam Virgo 01, accessed at www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/AmalgumVirgo.pdf

[35] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Colonel Robert Marr, prepared by Geoffrey Brown,, January 23, 2004

[36] SEADS Concept Proposal: Amalgam Virgo 01

[37] Daniel Hopsicker, Will secret deal bring old management back to Venice Airport FBO?, Mad Cow Morning News, January 5, 2010, http://www.madcowprod.com/01052010.htm

[38] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant and Paul Goddard, prepared by Geoffrey Brown,, March 4, 2004

[39] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant and Paul Goddard

[40] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Context of ’9:05 am (and After) September 11, 2001: Flight 77 Reappears on Radar, but Flight Controllers Do Not Notice’, http://www.historyco...m=a905reappears

[41] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant and Paul Goddard

[42] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Profile: Twin Star, http://www.historyco...ity=twin_star_1

[43] For example, see 9/11 Commission “DOD Document Request No. 18.”

[44] Transcript of 9/11 Commission Hearing of May 23, 2003, http://govinfo.libra...ission_Heari...

[45] Joe Dejka, Inside StratCom on September 11 Offutt exercise took real-life twist, The Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002

[46] Mark H. Gaffney, Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?, The Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2007. See also the update several months later: http://www.journalof...t2007Letter.pdf

[47] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Report, Notes to Chapter 1, footnote 116

[48] Vigilant Guardian 01-02 planning document, http://www.scribd.co...r-Entire-Con...

[49] Vigilant Guardian 01-02 planning document

[50] Matthew Everett, ‘Real-World or Exercise’: Did the U.S. Military Mistake the 9/11 Attacks for a Training Scenario?, Shoestring 911, March 22, 2012, http://shoestring911...cise-did-us-...

[51] Matthew Everett, ‘Real-World or Exercise’

[52] Matthew Everett, ‘Real-World or Exercise’

[53] Vigilant Guardian 01-02 planning document

[54] Matthew Everett, ‘Let’s Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim’: How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks, Shoestring 911, August 12, 2010, http://shoestring911...is-goddamn-s...

[55] Matthew Everett, On 9/11, the U.S. Military Was Preparing for a Simulated Nuclear War, Shoestring 911, November 23, 2011, http://shoestring911...-was-prepari...

[56] Matthew Everett, The Repeatedly Delayed Responses of the Pentagon Command Center on 9/11, Shoestring 911, November 7, 2010, http://shoestring911...-responses-o...

[57] Matthew Everett, ‘Let’s Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim’

[58] Matthew Everett, On 9/11, the U.S. Military Was Preparing for a Simulated Nuclear War

[59] NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs, NORAD and USNORTHCOM honour 9/11 heroes, October. 15, 2012, http://www.rcaf-arc....ng.asp?id=13272

[60] See Bloomberg Businessweek profile for Ralph Eberhart. He has been a director at Triumph Group (military aviation), Jacobs Engineering (Oil & gas services), VSE Corp.(DOD equipment support), Rockwell Collins (military aviation), The Spectrum Group (Homeland security), Eid Passport (Homeland security),Standard Aero Holdings (military aviation), ObjectVideo (Homeland Security), and ICx Technologies (Homeland security).

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander

Submitted by RL McGee on Sat, 01/12/2013 - 1:49pm

http://digwithin.net...01/12/eberhart/

Posted on January 12, 2013

By Kevin Ryan

Nothing really new here. Ryan claimed that “Each of the four flights involved in the 9/11 attacks should have been intercepted when they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders” and cited an MSNBC article by Bob Arnot. But Arnot simply said they “had the capability and the training” to do so. And he is a TV personality and MD who specializes in nutrition. His only claim expertise in aviation is that he was a private pilot's license. Just like 'truthers' the only interception he cited was Payne Stewart's but that took nearly an hour and a half.

Ryan also wrote. “Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am.” but did not cite a source and is certainly false since the plane was not hijacked the 9:28.

He also babbled:

In the middle of the 9/11 attacks, Eberhart decided to drive between Peterson Air Force Base and NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC). Normally this 12-mile drive takes 30 minutes but it took Eberhart between 45 minutes and an hour to make the drive that morning. No reason was ever given (or requested) for why Eberhart did not fly directly to CMOC from Peterson, making use of the Cheyenne Mountain helicopter port.
..Eberhart lost communication at the most important time by leaving at approximately 9:30 am (EST), when two of the hijacked planes were still flying wildly off-course.

But his cited source said nothing about how the NORAD commander went from one base to the other, let alone how long it took him. Nor was there any indication helicopters were available or could have gotten him to CMOC faster, aircraft are not like cars that you can jump into and go when you want. And of course if he'd failed to have gone there before the hijacking were over truthers would have said that proved conspiracy as well and just about any period before it was confirmed there were no more suspect planes in the air could have be deemed “important”. The only indication of the time he went from one base to the other was “He believes he moved his operations to Cheyenne Mountain at approximately 9:30EMT. He believes that as he was traveling while both Delta 1989 and United Airlines Flight 93 (UAL 93) were ongoing events. He believes he reported to Cheyenne Mountain as UAL 93 was ongoing” There is no reliable indication the military were aware of the problems with flights 77 and 93 at 9:30

Nor did “Waterboy” explain why Eberhart's absence would have been a problem. The actual job of vectoring fighters in response to the attacks was being handled by NEADS a subordonate comand center in upstate NY, and his cited source said “Eberhart had trust in the commanders of the sectors and the authority at CONR, and thus had no involvement with vectoring the fighters. He did note that if he heard (while monitoring the decisions of his commanders) an order he did not agree with, he would counter the order; but for most incidents he has confidence in his commanders. He noted that in cross-border operations he takes more of an active role.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<a href="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090401zimamerican#a090401zimamerican" title="View in context">September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company. [Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001] The move leaves only one Israeli company, ClearForest, with 18 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. The four or five employees in the building at the time manage to escape. [Agence France-Presse, 3/29/2002

=================

The History Commons entry with the part Steve edited out bolded and underlined:

September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

edit.png

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company.
[Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001]

http://www.historyco...li_shipping_co.

The version he posted was not found by Google:

http://www.google.co...biw=911&bih=412

In the article Gaal recently posted Ryan complains that various things are not yet 'explained'. In this thread Gaal has yet to 'explain' his 'creative' editing noted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

911 BLOG

ptech in basement of faa

for two years prior to 9/11 said jp morgan chase senior risk analyst indira singh. she called ptech a cia front/

http://www.corbettre...e-911-software/

wouldn't they have been in position to change response protocols???

Submitted by thymesup on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 12:11pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Huffman Aviation and the Venice Airport

I found the reference in Kevin's article to Huffman Aviation--in relation to the exercise Amalgam Virgo--interesting: The airport in Venice, Florida, where Huffman Aviation was located, was one of the scenes for the Amalgam Virgo exercise held in June 2002 (but which was being planned as early as July 2001). See: http://www.heraldtri.../NEWS/206070331. An interesting "coincidence," therefore, that a NORAD training exercise was held at a tiny airport where three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers had flying lessons!

Submitted by Shoestring on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 11:01am.

COINCIDENCE ????????

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the best work in your

This is the best work in your "airdefense"-series of articles! A lot of new information. Thank you.

As shoestring, I would like to add an information regarding Col. Marr, "Phoenix air" at Venice Airport:

According to Marrs interview with the 9/11 Commission ...

"Shortly thereafter he separated from active duty, and was hired on Phoenix Air, a defense contractor. He was captain for Lear 35s and 36s. Marr worked full-time with Phoenix for about twenty months." (source)

... and in jets of Phoenix Air were sitting three Al-Qaida pilots, learning how to fly? COINCIDENCE ??

"The company "Phoenix air" provides a complex spectrum of military services - for example service for "electronical warfare." (source) According to the 911 commission, when Col. Marr returned from Phoenix air to the military, he went directly to NEADS ...

"The CVX position opened at NEADS, and Commander Scott recruited Marr. Marr built exercises (...), but was not involved in crew exercises. (...) From the CVX position Marr became Vice Commander for the base." (source)

It is known, that the operational floor at NEADS were trying unsuccessfully to identify Flight 11 in their radar screens (source) and were irritated by simulated, exercise inputs present in their radar screens during the 911-attacks (source).

The sources can be found here:

Interesting background information of former NEADS-chief Col. Marr

http://911blogger.co...-information...

Comment:

With all these information, it is hard to imagine, that Atta and the other 2 pilots studied flying at Venice just by chance. COINCIDENCE ?? (see below)

In Hopsickers book stands, that Attas US-girlfriend once saw a lot of different identification card in different languages in Attas wallet. Perhaps Atte and the other two pilots were double-agents? No idea, but something stinks terrible here.

#####################################

Rudi Dekkers Behind Bars for Drug Trafficking

Submitted by remo on Fri, 12/14/2012 - 7:44pm

The long run of Rudi Dekkers, 56, the Dutch national who first passed out bunks to Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi when they arrived in the United States to enroll at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, ended last week when he was arrested for drug trafficking in Houston.

http://www.madcowpro...hind-bars-fo...

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911 BLOG

ptech in basement of faa

for two years prior to 9/11 said jp morgan chase senior risk analyst indira singh. she called ptech a cia front/

http://www.corbettre...e-911-software/

Singh has been pimping such claims since at least April 2005 but even after nearly 8 years neither she nor any other “truthers” have produced any evidence the company was “a cia [sic] front”. The company's business relationship with the FAA and other gov't agencies was hardly news in 2005 it had been widely reported by the MSM in 2002.

wouldn't they have been in position to change response protocols???

Submitted by thymesup on Tue, 01/15/2013 – 12:11pm

No since the ATCs at facilities [AFAIK we have no evidence used Ptech software] notified Otis and NEADS via telephone.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Huffman Aviation and the Venice Airport

I found the reference in Kevin's article to Huffman Aviation--in relation to the exercise Amalgam Virgo--interesting: The airport in Venice, Florida, where Huffman Aviation was located, was one of the scenes for the Amalgam Virgo exercise held in June 2002 (but which was being planned as early as July 2001). See: http://www.heraldtri.../NEWS/206070331. An interesting "coincidence," therefore, that a NORAD training exercise was held at a tiny airport where three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers had flying lessons!

Submitted by Shoestring on Tue, 01/15/2013 – 11:01am.

And? How does this fit into a CT scenario? It is not even clear if Venice was originally planned to be part of the exercise.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the best work in your

This is the best work in your "airdefense"-series of articles! A lot of new information. Thank you.

As shoestring, I would like to add an information regarding Col. Marr, "Phoenix air" at Venice Airport:

According to Marrs interview with the 9/11 Commission ...

"Shortly thereafter he separated from active duty, and was hired on Phoenix Air, a defense contractor. He was captain for Lear 35s and 36s. Marr worked full-time with Phoenix for about twenty months." (source)

... and in jets of Phoenix Air were sitting three Al-Qaida pilots, learning how to fly?

The only evidence that the 2 (not 3) hijackers who trained at Huffman used “jets of Phoenix Air” was a page from Hopsicker's website which claimed, without citation, that Huffman's former co-owner “got all those Jetstreams” from Phoenix. I not aware of any evidence Huffman used Jetstreams for its training business (it was primarily a charter company) let alone that Atta or Al-Shehhi flew them.

"The company "Phoenix air" provides a complex spectrum of military services - for example service for "electronical warfare." (source) According to the 911 commission, when Col. Marr returned from Phoenix air to the military, he went directly to NEADS ...

"The CVX position opened at NEADS, and Commander Scott recruited Marr. Marr built exercises (...), but was not involved in crew exercises. (...) From the CVX position Marr became Vice Commander for the base." (source)

It is known, that the operational floor at NEADS were trying unsuccessfully to identify Flight 11 in their radar screens (source) and were irritated by simulated, exercise inputs present in their radar screens during the 911-attacks (source).

The sources can be found here:

Interesting background information of former NEADS-chief Col. Marr

http://911blogger.co...-information..

Yet there is still no evidence the blips interfered with the attempts to identify the hijacked planes and there were no blips on the FAA screens. Moot in anycase since AA11 well before it could have beeb intercepted and even if it had been intercepted there was little the AF pilot(s) could have done.

Comment:

With all these information, it is hard to imagine, that Atta and the other 2 pilots studied flying at Venice just by chance. In Hopsickers book stands, that Attas US-girlfriend once saw a lot of different identification card in different languages in Attas wallet. Perhaps Atte and the other two pilots were double-agents? No idea, but something stinks terrible here.

Amanda Keller recanted her story and her own mother said it was BS. She claimed her boyfriend was from Lebanon, the son of a pilot, studied at the American High School in Beirut and later moved to France. Atta by contrast was the son of a lawyer from Cairo who is never know to have visited let alone lived in Lebanon or France. On the other hand Mohammed Arakji who says he was he boyfriend at the time “ was from Lebanon, the son of a pilot, studied at the American High School in Beirut and later moved to France.”

#####################################

Rudi Dekkers Behind Bars for Drug Trafficking

Submitted by remo on Fri, 12/14/2012 - 7:44pm

The long run of Rudi Dekkers, 56, the Dutch national who first passed out bunks to Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi when they arrived in the United States to enroll at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, ended last week when he was arrested for drug trafficking in Houston.

http://www.madcowpro...hind-bars-fo...

And?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<a href="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090401zimamerican#a090401zimamerican" title="View in context">September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company. [Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001] The move leaves only one Israeli company, ClearForest, with 18 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. The four or five employees in the building at the time manage to escape. [Agence France-Presse, 3/29/2002

=================

The History Commons entry with the part Steve edited out bolded and underlined:

September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

edit.png

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company.
[Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001]

http://www.historyco...li_shipping_co.

The version he posted was not found by Google:

http://www.google.co...biw=911&bih=412

In the article Gaal recently posted Ryan complains that various things are not yet 'explained'. In this thread Gaal has yet to 'explain' his 'creative' editing noted above.

Still waiting Mr. Gaal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/2001] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [Journal of Commerce, 10/18/2001]

=====================================

Oh ! Escaped .(?) ....big pullout of people before.......FOREKNOWLEDGE ???????????? Edit or not all, pro me on argument side .... ESCAPED .......pro my truther side

###################################################

Phoenix Air ?????????????????

Aircraft Linked to CIA Extraordinary Rendition Flights

Below is a comprehensive list of planes that are suspected of being in use by the CIA for extraordinary rendition. If you have further information about these planes or can identify other planes used for rendition please contact us at shannonwatch@gmail.com.

Entries in bold have landed at Shannon.

http://www.shannonwatch.org/content/aircraft-linked-cia-extraordinary-rendition-flights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×