Some have indicated that there is tension between David Ray Griffin's position and understandings regarding "why" scambles were so delayed on 9/11/2001, and mine. I see none...I only see a difference between the "written world" and the "operational world", when written procedures are interpreted into operational behaviors enacted by employees.

In order to understand these events from my perspective, both as a pilot of 1600 hours and as an air traffic controller with experiences "scrambling" military asssets, handling hijackings/bomb threats, working in FAA management establishing joint FAA-Military ATC procedures, and having many experiences in breaking down radar and audio tapes for ATC-aviation "incidents", one must be able to "get" the following joke that is usually presented in cartoon form.

The joke that I speak of is where there are passengers seated in an airliner's seats and we see the Captain walking into the cockpit with a large book under his arm...and that book is titled: "How To Fly"...and further...the passengers eyes are popping out with questioning, worry and anxiety. The point here is that as well as any procedures are written and thought out, it STILL requires an operational understanding and ensuing set of training and experiences of how things "actually work" on the streets, or how they function in the real world before a "system" works. Book learning is the first step...adapting such learning into operational reality is the final step.

In fact, his detailed analysis of the "exact wording" of many of the various scrambling procedures and internal flows of responsibilities serve to support my views.

It took me a while to understand how the HI PERPS were able to slow down the usual immediate scrambles of military aviation assets that are on duty to handle in flight emergencies such as that suffered by AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93 on 9/11.

I have concluded that that the one thing that the HI PERPS simply "had to get, and had to keep" is that the entire 9/11/2001 aviation scenario HAD to be shifted into operating within the cumbersome "Hijacking Procedures". Stating it differently, the HI PERPS simply HAD to avoid having the four flights considered as, and handled as the "In Flight Emergencies" that they actually were because they would never reach their intended targets.

The HI PERPS also needed NOT to leave any "trails of words" which would lead researchers to be able to make the conclusions that the Pentagon had deliberately rewritten procedures three months before the attacks on 9/11 so as to "facilitate" such attacks. To many of us old timers, we remember the concept of "plausible deniability" which gives the criminals a way out from under scrutiny. And clearly, if a researcher is looking for the "holy grail" of verbal or written instructions that could be used to PROVE that the HI PERPS deliberately stood down NORAD, its probably going to be someplace other than something as public as the June change.

Consequently, in my view, the red herring that was thrown out there was the June 2001 change in the Joint Chief's of Staff Order CJCSI 3610.01A which reorganized some hijacking protocols and other procedural references. It seems to me that many researchers looked at this June change and quickly stated: "Here it is...here is the stand-down of NORAD...its the holy grail...". However, when looking closely at the June change, one sees that there were virtually NO REAL CHANGES in the scramble and hijacking wordings, procedures and responsibilities.

The HI PERPS won that one...for the most part anyway. As David Ray Griffin points out in his books, in certain circumstances the Pentagon gang STILL had responsibilities to react as though there were an emergency going on...aka...expediciously. Now into MY reality based world in conducting hundreds of briefings to governmental personnel...these critical words and instructions are buried in the midst of a long paragraph or two and thusly, can easily be ignored. And, they are in position to be easily under emphasized.

To those who are getting into this for the first time...the only real change was that FAA Order 7610.4 SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS was moved into the aforementioned CJCSJ 3610.01 Order as a "reference", and therefore, the implication is that the FAA Order 7610.4 was now "under the umbrella", and tacit influence/control of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before that it was standing more alone in the FAA-Pentgon procedural operations.

This "positioning" had NEVER been needed for the thousands of smooth FAA-NORAD operations for many decades before this change.

The questions that I finally asked were:

Why was this change made in June 2001 in the first place???..because the joint FAA-Pentagon scrambling relationship had been functioning EXTREMELY well for decades and decades before that time?

And, how would that change be explained or "brought into operational reality" on the control sectors at FAA ATC facilities and into NORAD's faciities and procedures.

Regarding the first question...I see absolutely NO need for this change...

Regarding the second question...any organizational-communication changes that may be the result of this change would be brought into fruition by a series of "briefings" from the Joint Chiefs of Staff [read: Pentagon/Military] on down to whatever levels of operational conduct found in the "streets" of ATC-NORAD aviation activities.

Its this last point where its my opinion that the net "reality changes" in procedures were made...and it was done by emphasizing Pentagon organizational changes and underemphasizing, or ignoring some of the long standing procedures contained within the protocols themselves. I view the briefings as being focused upon a new relationship between the Pentagon and the FAA regarding "scramble procedures" that from that time on would focus more on "Hijacking Procedures".

In other words, as far as the lower levels of personnel awere concerend, the Penatgon had just made some "house cleaning" moves or internal organizational change. Its my opinion that in the end, it was emphasized that ALL scrambles were now to be treated as needing Pentagon approvals before they could depart...the "hijacking protocols". Its good to remember that Rumsfeld had been talking about "saving some money", and making the military smaller and more flexible. So, there is pretext to such a change...ie:...lets stop scrambling so many interceptors because there were so few "real emergencies" out there. And we can save some money. Who knows, but Rumsfeld was making such noises.

I have used other people's research regarding the history of "scrambles" leading up to the June change...and some of that information shows that there were 67 scrambles reported before June, 2001. This reflects the anticipated number scrambles for that time period as there had been a history of 1500 scrambles in the previous ten years which averages out to approximately12-15 scrambles per month with more scarmbles anticipated during the busier "summertime" months. So, 67 is about right from January 1st, 2001 through the end of May, of 2001. Furthermore, this information noted that there were NO scrambles from June 2001 until 9/11/2001. But, John Judge does not state this clearly in ZERO as he seems to spread the 67 scrambles out up until 9/11/2001 so, I am not sure of the original "source" of the 67 scrambles, nor their associated dates of scrambling in 2001.

However, this makes no real difference to me because NONE of the scrambles in the previous ten years were scrambles for a HIJACKING...and...coincidentally enough...on 9/11/2001 there were some hijackings...allegedly? Had there been a series of "in flight emergency" scrambles between June and September 10, 2001, then, the records of these actions would show that they were still working well...OR...that they had been slowed down from the "new" organizational changes that came about as a result of the June change...IE..getting Pentagon approvals first.

Either way, the Pentagon ends up with another black eye. I suggest that if there are records showing no such scrambles between June and September, that this is because they will expose that the June change indeed HAD such an effect....and if there were an anticipated number of scrambles for "in flight emergencies" during the summer months of 2001, then WHERE WERE THEY ON 9/11? Consequently, the HI PERPS are most likely doing their usual...stonewalling...because they loose out either way!

When looking through FAA [and Pentagon] procedures it is not very clearly laid out that there are two separate methodologies, procedures, communications and "action" scramble protocols...one for emergency scrambles...a fast one, and one for hijacking scrambles...a slow one...but it is in there and needs to be assembled in "real world operational understandings".

Below are some paragraphs that can be googled, and they will hopefully show that the "in flight emergency scrambles" are designed to be immediate...and the hijacking scrambles are designed to be slower, pre planned and more CONTEMPLATIVE with communication and approvals taking many, many more steps, mostly through the military buraucracy, before any interceptors are even allowed off the ground.

So, since there were two separate scramble protocols leading up to 9/11/2001, one fast and one slow, the the HI PERPS needed to get the focus upon the "slow scramble protocols" only. They did this by making a "change that wasn't a change", except that this activity now has a relationship to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon where it had never been needed before, nor even in existence before June, 2001.

As Dr. Bob Bowman has stated time and again, [not an exact quote here] "...if the US Government had made "no changes at all" [in June], the airliners would have been intercepted and thousands of lives would have been saved...." But, a "slight of hand" change was made in June, 2001.

Adding to this scenario is a very, very important fact that is not considered as much as it should be. The initial "idea" that there were "hijackings" going on came from the FAA ATCs "hearing" what they considered to be troubling arabic voices talking over the radio.

It has always been "presumed" that these radio transmissions came from the "Arab hijackers" on board these airliners. However, there is absolutely no way to prove that these radio transmissions actually came from the airliners because its also understood that ANY aircraft operating at high altitudes within hundreds of miles of the specific ATC radio antennae could have made these transmissions. Again, it is impossible to track the source of these radio transmissions so if one wanted to "plant such thoughts", it could easily be accomplished through an airbourne Cammand and Control platform such as the E4Bs that were airbourne on 9/11. [Mark Gaffney will be releasing a book exposing more of this potential "E4B" information fairly soon.]

Without any doubt, the FAA does indeed deserve some criticism because well before any thoughts of hijackings had surfaced, these airliners showed signs of being in flight emergencies and should have been scrambled upon far earlier...most noteably, AA11.

Consequently, it is partially understandable that once there was the "possibility" that the airliners may be being hijacked, that an argument can be made that this would "shift" the protocols into the slower-Pentagon "approved" scramble protocols. It appears that this [switching and keeping everything "hijacking"]may be one of the internal goals of a possible "9/11 Attack War Game Scenario"...if there was one.

However, a closer look at some FAA procedures will show that once an FAA "facility" [the ATCs] had declared an emergency situation, the military must scramble appropriate aviation assets immediately, and in this case, the interceptors would now have the "highest priority" for handling instead of high priority only for "departure sequencing" as outlined in the hijacking protocols. This is a key point...once the need for an intercept is declared by the FAA, such activity keeps its emergency based status...but apparently not so on 9/11 as the military kept it all hijacking, all the time.

NORAD's own tapes shows a conversation where Boston Center's Collin Scoggins, the Military Liason Officer, had made a direct request for help from NEADS [ 08:38 or so] and that he wanted interceptors to be scrambled AT THAT TIME!

NEADS did nothing about this direct order, and ostensibly moved ahead making note and mention only of "hijacking protocols" that were to be considered. [...its in the Vanity Fair article...] At that point, after Scoggins made this request, it does not matter IF its a hijacking or if its a "whatever reason" fpr the emrgency. A definite and positive response was needed for interceptors as instructed by the FAA and the Otis interceptors should have been scrambled immediately. This is what NORAD and the Pentagon are working so hard to obfuscate...refusal to obey the direct orders of an FAA facility.

I postulate that because "thoughts of hijackings were present" in NEADS' minds due to the training for the upcoming War Game scenarios going on during that time period, the NEADS-NORAD-FAA-Pentagon-NMCC slow paced circular communication was allowed to continue and the "emergency" aspect of the airliners was ignored. This is not accidental...this is part of the plan...this is plausible deniability!

Here are some thumbnail thoughts and readings:

The "military" was first alerted about troubles in the skies [AT LEAST] just before 08:30AM...
[and perhaps much earlier...a full analysis of ALL the FAA tapes might establish this...]

NEADS was told directly by Scoggins that interceptors were needed at 08:38 and thusly, that means that emergency handling was required from that point on...

UA93 "crashed-was shot down" at 10:03-06AM...

This is a LOOOONG time in aviation, emergency and "nation under attack" events, and there is absoutely no viable defense for our vaunted Defense Department. They are flat out guilty of helping and allowing the attacks on 9/11 to happen.

Google the following:

CJCSI 3610.01A

...note that the only change affecting 9/11 was that FAA Order 7610.4 J [?] was included as a reference...

FAA Order 7110.65

...and check out...

10-1-3. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE ...this explains who calls the shots in emergencies...the FAA talks, the military should listen and DO what they are requested to do...

10-2-5 a 2. ...emergencies can be declared by an FAA faciity...Scoggins did this at 08:38...

10-2-5. 3 f. ...an emergency exists IF intercept or escort aircraft are required...again Scoggins did this at 08:38...but it was ignored and replaced by the slower hijacking protocols...

10-2-6. ...HIJACKED AIRCRAFT...this instructs FAA ATCs that hijackings call for "special handling" and immediately leads to FAA Order 7610.4J [?] SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS. This effectively "switches the protocols" from an "in flight emergency" into a hijacking protocol once a hijacking is being considered...but this does not overule emergency operations...but it did on 9/11...

10-4-4 e. COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE...its my understanding that this is part of the "new" scrambling and, or hijack procedures put into place AFTER 9/11/2001. It heightens the "terrorism" concerns and protocol actions for ANY aircraft showing signs of what used to be just signs of "in flight emergencies"...

FAA Order 7610.4J [?]

7-1-1 c. ...note that the words "in the event of an emergency"...meaning that these Special Military Procedures did NOT consider a hijacking an "emergency". Please note that there is a difference between the FAA's 7110.65 10-2-5. 3 f. and this instruction...

7-1-3. ...HANDLING PRIORITY...note that the ONLY portion of a "hijacking scramble" that is given "priority handling" is during the departure phase.

This is why the interceptors from Otis were released AND WERE READY to depart at 08:46 but didn't actually depart until 08:52...no departure priority was requested. AND, this partially explains why ZNY [New York Center] refused to accept the interceptors into their airspce...THERE WAS NO PRIORITY, and why Scoggins at ZBW [Boston Center] at least moved the interceptors to a closer holding position just southeast of Manhattan. This is a point where the FAA and ZNY personnel may be culpable for errors in their performances. Again, being able to analyze ALL the FAA tapes is required.

7-2-2. b. ...PILOT NOTIFICATION...check out the "armament check" wording.

This supports what both Gore Vidal and I state about an interceptor pilot's responsibilities, protocols, and duties to protect this country when called upon to do so. They are given weapons to use and, under certain circumstances, they are responsible to use them WITHOUT any direct orders from above.

Its my view that ALL of the yapping about "shoot down orders" are designed to accomplish two different things.

First, its to obfuscate all our research and considerations about the above noted responsibilities and the DUTY of military interceptor pilots. If the pilots were there, trailing the airliners as they approached Manhattan, they would be responsible to shoot the airliners down without any approvals from superiors.

Second, such "yapping" is also designed to make it look like Bush was involved in his own presidency of our country. He's a hapless "patsie" put into place by the "machine", and who has NEVER been given the keyes to the car. Cheney and those working closely with him have all the keys and this is just "presidential imagery building" .

A few other notes:

Regarding the anti-aircraft missle systems surrounding the Pentagon and WDC, I do not have first hand knowledge about this system, nor am I an expert and operate only under generally acknowledged information. Indeed, this point was made to the folks at ZERO before or during the filming but they did not show this information. And, I wish only to acknowledge that, as noted above, I do depend upon other's research, and John Judge and Barbara Honegger's work is surely fine for me and what they say matches every piece of information that I have collected about P56 in my aviation career.

However, I am fully aware of the IFF...aka...the military transponder technologies because I have been engaged in such "usages" in my career as an ATC when performing my roles in the many War Games scenarios in which I participated. Additionally, as a very young pilot I wandered too close to P56 and was agressively handled by the FAA to get outta there while using the FAA's VFR flight following services. It was very hazy that night in the BWI-WDC metro area as I travelled down the coast to Florida on my major cross country flight for commercial pilot certification. I was NOT scrambled upon...but I goofed up, and it was quickly handled.

In conclusion, my inside contacts at ZBW inform me that the ZBW ATCs were, fully aware of what was going on the morning of 9/11/2001, and, not only were they doing their jobs and following the various protocols required, but they were even creating some of their own protocols in attempts to "get around" the Pentagon's refusal to release the interceptors. When Collin Scoggins notes that he made some 40 calls to NEADS about AA11...the facts are that EACH call should have been considered as a full blown ALARM. So, something really BIG was happeneing as far as the FAA was concerned, and NEADS did amazingly little to respond accordingly.

However, it is still not fully known if, or why, Zalewski did, or did not reach out to NEADS regarding the desperate "in flight emergency" situation that AA11 was indicating it was suffering beginning around 08:14-20 AM. Earlier notification of NORAD/NEADS is clearly the expected behaviors for an FAA ATC under their handling of "in flight emergency" responsibilities. It is clear that "some" adjoining sectors and "some" abutting ATC facilities were informed and warned about AA11's activities. If and why NEADS would not have been contacted around 08:20-ish may be contained in an analysis of ALL the FAA tapes now held by the FBI. This includes ALL the affected facilities and not just Boston Center.

Love, Peace and Progress with:

PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY

...just for starters...

Robin Hordon

PS: I hope that there is much more research and many more questions about this FAA-NORAD-Pentagon thread. Most of the evidence is being witheld from our analysis and we just do not have "dust" or science to help us through this portion of the events on 9/11. A great deal of the power behind ZERO is that it has been created by a foriegn entity and thusly, will carry a stronger objective validity to many people in this country and around the world. rdh

and the justification for going to war in Iraq is built on a series of outrageous lies.

I ordered my copy and it was fast service. This is an excellent film to use with new people. It captures attention and is fast paced with great credibility, but it is easy to digest.