What Happens When Superpower Air Defenses Really Fail

Eleven years ago yesterday the trial against Matthias Rust began in Moscow. A few months earlier, on May 28, 1987, the 19-year-old German had landed his single-engine Cessna about 100 meters from Red Square. There are still unanswered questions about how this amateur pilot was able to penetrate what Bill Keller of the New York Times called “the world’s most vaunted air defenses” (NYT, June 7, 1987).

There is no question, though, about the aftermath:

“With surprising speed and openness, Defense Minister Sergei L. Sokolov, 75, was retired. The commander of the air defense system, Marshal Aleksandr I. Koldunov, was sacked with a harsh rebuke from the ruling Politburo. Other senior military figures were expected to be removed more quietly.”

Tom LeCompte wrote in Air & Space Magazine, July 1, 2005:

“According to William E. Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and author of The Collapse of the Soviet Military, Rust’s flight damaged the reputation of the vast Soviet military and enabled Gorbachev to remove the staunchest opponents to his reforms. Within days of Rust’s landing, the Soviet defense minister and the Soviet air defense chief were sacked. In a matter of weeks, hundreds of other officers were fired or replaced—from the country’s most revered war heroes to scores of lesser officers. It was the biggest turnover in the Soviet military command since Stalin’s bloody purges of the 1930s.

“More important than the replacement of specific individuals, analyst John Pike says, was the change Rust’s flight precipitated in the public’s perception of the military. The myth of Soviet military superiority had been punctured, and with it the almost religious reverence the public had held for its armed forces.

“For decades, Soviet citizens had been led to believe “the West was poised to destroy them…that if they let their guard down for an instant that they would be obliterated,” says Pike. It was this thinking that helped perpetuate the cold war. Rust’s flight proved otherwise: The Soviet Union could suffer a breach without being destroyed by external forces. Ultimately, of course, it would be internal forces that would do the job.”

We need only compare this to what happened in the US after 9/11 to see the obvious. Even if 19 aeronautically challenged Arabs with box cutters directed by a cave-dweller (though a rich one) in Afghanistan were actually able to penetrate what is certainly at least the second “ world’s most vaunted air defenses,” not once but three times in two cities, striking the heart of the financial district and the military command and killing three thousand people (not to mention myriad other technological feats such as turning skyscrapers into dust, even without hitting them, and disintegrating upon impact with virtually no trace, never before witnessed in the history of the world) -- even if this actually did happen the way we are told, heads would have rolled, to put it mildly. But no heads rolled after 9/11. No one was fired, no one was rebuked. Instead we got the Patriot Acts, Homeland Security, torture, preemptive perpetual war on terror, etc.

Michael D. Morrissey
http://www.mdmorrissey.info/rust (see for links)

Excellent Points.

Well compared.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Turns out that the Soviet Citizens were right

after all, I don't see any Russian bases in Mexico or Canada . . . it wasn't the Russian/Soviet empire that used to say that the sun did not set on it . . . maybe that "Evil Empire" narrative was all just projection . . . like when Bush said that we would not tolerate "conspiracy theories" about what happened on 9/11.

the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.


Cui Bono? The 9/11 Promotions

By Arabesque

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

"But no heads rolled after 9/11. "

"No one was fired, no one was rebuked. "

I think this is actually one of the most powerful arguments supporting the false-flag thesis.

It still surprises me that many people apparently do not find that in the least surprising. I don't understand how it works.

At Least The Soviets Didn't Say They Weren't Looking "Inwards"

The issue behind the 9/11 attacks and our air defenses that day is that officials within the government continue to put out the lie that NORAD was directed "looking outward"! No such absurd statements were uttered by Soviet military/political officials in the 1987 incident. Since NORAD's founding in 1958 it's first mission has always been Air Sovereignty--surveillance and control of the territorial air space. One can read my three articles on NORAD's capabilities on 9/11 at www.DNotice.org or read the condensed version in the latest edition of the Rock Creek Free Press.

By the way, be careful in reading too much into the 1987 incident. There is more going on there than meets the eyes. Of course Soviet air defenses detected the aircraft, and Soviet intelligence knew the pilot's purpose before it took off.


"Of course Soviet air defenses detected the aircraft, and Soviet intelligence knew the pilot's purpose before it took off."

That sounds perfectly believable to me. But could you please provide some links on this topic? I would love to read some more about it.

Follow The Logic

The 1987 incident reeks of disinformation. Soviet air defenses not seeing the aircraft? Of course they did! One then asks the logical question: Why allow the German aircraft to "breach" Soviet air defenses and land, of all places, near Red Square! Can you think of an answer?

Another staged event?

I wonder whether the German plane really did fly across multiple borders as held by official Soviet theory. Perhaps it merely flew in from a nearby location, in a scheme by the Gorbachev faction to get purged some of his opponents in Soviet air defense.

Soviet Long-Term Strategy

That would involve the complicity of Finland.

No, the 1987 Red Square landing incident was a Soviet operation. The purpose: To inculcate in the minds of the West that the USSR was not so dangerous as previously thought. Several years later we have the "collapse" of the USSR. Funny thing, however, the Russian electorate (and the electorate in the other fourteen republics that made up the USSR) kept electing "former" communists back into power as thier President since the "collapse" in 1991, including the election of a "former" KGB officer by the name of Putin! Now why would a free Russian electorate ever do a silly thing like that? Hmmm.....

For those interested in Soviet long-term strategy, buy a copy of New Lies For Old by Anatoliy Golitsyn:


or The Perestroika Deception : Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency (by the same author):



Dean Jackson
Washington, DC

"Soviet air defenses not

"Soviet air defenses not seeing the aircraft? Of course they did!"

That's your source?

A small aircraft can avoid radar by flying low.

Are you making this up as you go?

"One then asks the logical question: Why allow the German aircraft to "breach" Soviet air defenses and land, of all places, near Red Square! Can you think of an answer?"

No one has established that they did see it.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Why Does Everyone Forget About Tracking Satellites?

Soviet air defenses have had infrared and radar satellites that track all airborne objects for decades now, as does the United States. Aircraft flying low to the ground is no different than Cruise missiles hugging the ground, which in 1987 both nations could track. As a matter of fact, infrared-tracking satellites can track cars traveling on the roads! NORAD and its Soviet counterpart tracked everything in the air in 1987.

Something afoot

The article by LeCompte I cited covers it pretty well: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/rust.html. Yes, clearly something was afoot, but that doesn't explain the lack of response to the colossal military defense failure on 9/11.

In Agreement

I agree.

A personal reminiscence

The day 9/11 happened -- unfortunately I was very busy at the time and only able to watch a little of the television coverage -- my greatest impression was how catastrophically and embarrassingly U.S. air defenses failed. As to the so-called collapse of the WTC, I just naively concluded that that's what happens when a load of jet fuel burns inside a skyscraper.

At the time, I imagined jet fuel was some ultra-hot burning stuff like rocket fuel -- not the easily contained kerosene of my childhood which my family used in lamps when we went camping. No, what really struck me was that three jetliners weren't intercepted before they hit their targets. (I'm no expert, but I knew that in the U.S. planes are supposed to be, and are, intercepted by ultra-fast fighter jets in under twelve minutes of going off course and losing air traffic contact. That three -- four, really -- jetliners could get through like this is about as preposterous as no fire trucks ever getting through to put out a fire at the Museum of Modern Art because every single fire truck in the city that day had a broken fan belt.)

Indeed, I was amazed that the skies of Manhattan, as shown in the coverage, weren't darkened with jetfighters. I figured this was the great scandal of our time, that Congressional hearings and investigations galore would be undertaken, and that many a head would roll, so to speak.

Imagine my surprise! The media and the politicians had nothing to say on the subject (except, occasionally, that more military defense spending is needed). No publicity as to who screwed up, indeed, what exactly transpired at the FAA and in the Air Force. Nada. It was all a mysterious black hole to me. All that mattered was the Five Minutes Hate directed against Osama bin Laden.

Why the difference between the Soviet Union and the U.S.? Obviously, it was who was dictating the agenda. The political and media establishments there wanted that situation exposed and the targeted officials purged. Here, those establishments wanted the failure of air defenses covered up and forgotten -- because they wanted 9/11 to happen and to work its psychological affect on the public.


Funny, originally I couldn't believe that the towers collapsed because they were hit by two airliners. I assumed the towers were built to withstand such trauma. As time elapsed, I thought no more of it.

Best evidence

I have always said that the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is the fact that it happened at all.

I also said at the end of my essay (but accidentally cut it off in the version posted here):

"How much denial is required not to see that this was not only an inside job but meant to be understood as such? (See “MITOP and the Double Bind.” ) Until we realize that it is 1984 + 24, we are not going to get anywhere but to 1984 + 25."

Maybe I left that out subconsciously because I didn't want to sound too cynical, but I feel if you sink to the bottom you at least have a chance to push up again. All I'm saying is that they want us to give up; that doesn't mean we have to. They want us in a mixed state of confusion (what happened?) and despair (they did it), but both of these states can be overcome.



Civilian Air Traffic Controller did NORAD's Job on 9/11

Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [New York Times, 10/16/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001] Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”

So did you hear the one about Civilian air traffic controllers being in charge of air defense/interceptions on 9/11? Apparently, only a traffic controller can bother to send up a plane to intercept an incoming object heading to the Capital to either attack the Pentagon, White House and other obvious targets while NORAD sat on their asses. Isn't it amazing how only a slow-moving C-130 cargo plane was able to apparently intercept a plane on 9/11 (well, 93 was shot down, but that's another story)? What happened to those fighters at Andrews airbase that were about 1 minute of flying time away again?

What was Dick Cheney saying during this time again?

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

MR. RUSSERT: The plane actually circled the White House?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...

Yes, that's right. Dick Cheney just admitted that the FAA and the secret service had "open lines". In other words, they knew what was happening with all suspected "hijackings". An FAA statement confirms this.

MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision you think he made during the course of the day?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

Yes, it was a very "tough" decision to follow standard protocol apparently. Thank god we had air traffic controllers sending a C-130 into the air to intercept instead of NORAD! This was obviously too hard a decision for NORAD to consider, so it's good thing civilian air traffic controllers did something to take action in response to an attack on America!

How much money does Department of "Defense" get again?


"Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. This was said by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Anatoli Kornukov. We had such facts too, - said the general straightforwardly. Kornukov did not specify what happened in Russia and when and to what extent it resembled the events in the US. He did not advise what was the end of air terrorists- attempts either.
But the fact the general said that means a lot. As it turns out the way the terrorists acted in America is not unique. The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction of the anti-missile defense, Kornukov said. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up, -said the general." - Pravda (09/12/01)
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

NORAD Initiated Calls To FAA Before 9/11 Concerning Aircraft

NORAD Air Guard radar operators don't just sit like wall flowers and stare at their monitors when they see an aircraft veer from its flight plan. NORAD radar operators before 9/11 actually had to initiate many phone calls to FAA ATC in order to identify possible errant aircraft. They could either check the logs they received every morning from the FAA or, if needed, they would actually call the FAA to inquire, eg., why an aircraft descended 5,000 feet. Usually the answer was that FAA ATC simply changed the altitude of the suspect aircraft. The logs that NORAD received every morning wouldn't, of course, have that 5,000 foot flight path alteration included.

I will be writing an article on this missing aspect of 9/11 research in an up coming article at DNotice.org.

Dean Jackson
Washington, DC