Air Force Directive In Effect On 9/11 For American Air Defense Included Monitoring American Air Space
Despite what The 9/11 Commission Report claims, NORAD at no point in its existence "define[d] its job as defending against external attacks" only. As the 1 April 2000 Air Force Instruction 13-1AD, Volumn 3 on Air Defense Command and Control Operations states in Chapter 3.1, under Mission, "The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack."
All three missions tasked NORAD in 1958 were fully operational on September 11, 2001 as affirmed in Chapter 3.2.4. of the 1 April 2000 Air Force instruction, "Operational control of the three SAOCs and all forces available for air sovereignty, air defense and atmospheric attack warning."
Amongst other instructions to be followed, the Air Force instruction outlines procedures to be followed by units/elements of the Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Defense System (ADS) of the United States, and was current on September 11, 2001. The instruction remains current to date.
Read More At: www.DNotice.org
- brian78046's blog
- Login to post comments
Yes... and maybe.
I just read all the articles on Norad. The research is excellent. Most people know Norad is always there ready to send up fighter jets. Only the most head up their own ass "debunkers" cling to such silly arguments about the "outward looking" "posture."
That said, you then venture into speculation about "Norad controllers," those unspecified, unquoted people in a dark mountain somewhere, and you theorize about what they saw and when. That is where the argument is a little weak.
In its favor, we have something you never mentioned: turning off the transponders. While we can't be sure that Norad's flight monitors would notice deviations from course right away, they should have noticed the transponders turned off. The reason is that once the transponder is turned off, the "friend or foe" systems come into play, because a previously identified radar blip is suddenly not indentifiable at all.
This situation would certainly be sticky. The problem is that low level flight tracking people can be ordered to shut up. Also, they can be fed the official narrative about confusion and delays with the FAA, etc.
What didn't get mentioned is that the FAA did notify the proper channels in a timely manner, and they set up "phone bridges" to give real time data to the military, well in advance of the Pentagon strike.
Still, no one gave orders to defend Washington.
What part did all those war games play (up to 15 simultaneous?)?
What part did Rumsfeld's lack of "approval" to launch interceptors play?
Why were planes sent out over the ocean instead of toward the errant aircraft?
Why was no one held accountable, and why were the people most responsible promoted after the worst performance of an air defense system since Hitler took Poland?
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
What Speculation?
johndoraemi says, "That said, you then venture into speculation about "Norad controllers," those unspecified, unquoted people in a dark mountain somewhere, and you theorize about what they saw and when. That is where the argument is a little weak."
No speculation there. The article I cite for what NORAD radar operators see and when is based on the article "NORAD: Air National Guard manning stations across the country"
(National Guard Association of the United States Sep 1997):
"Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand.
Flight plans from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are compiled in logs and have to be manually searched to identify aircraft."
Those four errant aircraft were identified long before they deviated violently from their assigned flight plans (With the possible exception of Flight 11. However, Flight 11 would have been long classified as "unfriendly" by NORAD by the time it crossed back over its original flight path, heading southward for NYC. See link below for the filed flight plans of all four aircraft and the actual flight paths they made.). When they deviated from their flight plans NORAD radar operators saw that and just don't sit like zombies staring into their monitors. NORAD radar operators were tasked with "initiating" contact with civilian Air Traffic Control when they saw something askew on their monitors:
"Unlike current operating procedures, the new system will mean fewer manual inquiries and phone contact with FAA officials about commercial aircraft. The FAA flight plan is now hooked up via computer with the new R/SAOCs so operators can easily track friendly aircraft through our air space without having to get someone on the phone or thumb through written log books of flight plans."
As you can see from the above quote, NORAD radar operators were supposed to initiate contact with ATC, not wait for up to forty-four minutes to be informed of an aircraft's wild gyrations in the air.
Flight paths are like roads in the skies. When an aircraft deviates from a flight path, it is immediately seen by NORAD and FAA.
johndoraemi says,"In its favor, we have something you never mentioned: turning off the transponders. While we can't be sure that Norad's flight monitors would notice deviations from course right away, they should have noticed the transponders turned off. The reason is that once the transponder is turned off, the "friend or foe" systems come into play, because a previously identified radar blip is suddenly not indentifiable at all."
NORAD radar, as eluded in the National Guard Association article, used primary radar not secondary radar to locate/monitor aircraft. Secondary radar uses an aircraft's transponder, which on 9/11 NORAD was not equipped to monitor with. FAA used both primary and secondary radar to monitor aircraft on 9/11.
johndoraemi says, "What didn't get mentioned is that the FAA did notify the proper channels in a timely manner, and they set up "phone bridges" to give real time data to the military, well in advance of the Pentagon strike."
My articles on NORAD are confined to NORAD's monitoring capabilities on 9/11.
In regards to the "phone bridge", the 9/11 Commission Report says, "The White House video conference was not connected into the area of the NMCC where the crisis was being managed. Thus the director of the operations team—who was on the phone with NORAD—did not have the benefit of information being shared on the video teleconference." Page 463.
The link below re-creates the violent flight deviations from established flight paths by all four 9/11 aircraft. NORAD and FAA radar operators know by heart what is a flight path from one that isn't. However, one doesn't need to be a NORAD/FAA radar operator to know that something is very wrong with these flight routes:
http://www.kerman94.com/911-Flights.HTM
Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Accountable - Say Court Martial Please
"Why was no one held accountable, and why were the people most responsible promoted after the worst performance of an air defense system since Hitler took Poland?"
Please use the correct term - accountable isn't strong enough. The military is supposed to police itself with court martials. Over and over on this blog I see a failure of bloggers to appreciate this. After 9/11, there should have been immediate court martials. There was no need for a 9/11 commission in this area - failure to defend the air space.
Court martial
That is actually an excellent point because military discipline is commonly used for much less serious breaches of duty. Cyberfossil
Not Only Court Martials
NORAD's ongoing mission to monitor and control American air space on 9/11 is not a hypothesis, but historical fact, and therefore proof that 9/11 was an inside job. As such NORAD is the Achilles’ heel of the official 9/11 narrative that can lead to not only the Court Martials of those in the military involved in the 9/11 attacks, but also prison time for those civilians in the American government involved in the attacks.
Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC
What I know about NORAD
Here is what I understand about NORAD and their radar techs regarding "watching" the skies over the USofA...
All of the responsibilities noted in the NORAD PAPERS seem exactly what I was taught decades ago...and they have not changed since...only the Pentagon- NORAD guys tried to fudge it all. Only equipment has changed, and in the 1970s, the hijacking scramble protocols were added to the standard high speed scramble protocols.
NORAD indeed looks outward, inward and upward for intruders...and they can do this ONLY by being able to find out who is FRIENDLY...and who is UNFRIENDLY. This is called IFF...Identification, Friend or Foe...
This is not easy to do and it is why NOARD is broken down first into large regions of responsibility, such as NEADS and SEADS and then into much, much smaller areas of responsibility that an individual NORAD radar tech can competently oversee. Over the years there were other geographical alignments but that is not relevant now because throughout all of it, NORAD's mission and responsibility have remained EXACTLY the same...for over 50 years nothing has ever really changed
IFF...is a process used by NORAD radar techs to OBSERVE targets and IDENTIFY or DECIDE if they are friendlies or unfriendlies. Its an ongoing process 24/7/365 in which NORAD radar techs have to basically "see" ALL air traffic in order to find the unfiendly ones...and this is where much confusion comes in the equation.
NORAD has all airports and airways in their data and they also have a very good "sense" of what traffic flows and patterns are used not only in small local airports, but at larger and more complex airports, or clusters of airports surrounding large metro areas such as surrounding NYC...which is the world's busiest and most complex airspace.
So, for all the little airports here and there, its fairly easy to asses what is normal versus what is not normal. For example. If right around a known little airport there is alotta traffic both squawking VFR codes, and some targets which are primary targets, just flitting around the general area, or if a few aircraft plod slowly along seemingly headed for a cross country flight, the NORAD techs are trained to observe these targets, not have to know the ID of each one, but have to decide if EACH target that it sees is most likely friendly, or possibly an unfriendly. Examples:
The NORAD techs have a set of "problematic flight characteristics" that if a particular target "shows", then they will look a bit closer to see if its an unfriendly. If the targets that are observed seem to fit expected flight behaviors, transponder codes, or usual routes of flight as noted above, then the NORAD radar tech can asume that the aircraft being observed is "friendly"...and may or may not start a "friendly track" identifying it as such. Or, if the tech decides its a small aircraft doing touch and goes at a local airport, or if its performing some airbourne manuevers that are part of training programs, then its propably a civilian pilot practicing flying etc...and its a friendly.
However, if a primary target were to "pop up" where there is no airport...OR... fly across the region at very high speed, well this would be quite unusual and draw suspicion...and it may draw an "unfriendly track" to be ssigned to it. This draws attention to more than just that radar tech.
Now, IF that primary target were near a military manuevering area, or near a civilian test flight area, the NORAD tech could reach out to either of those organizations and ask if they have any knowledge of such a flight...and if they do, then it can be considered a friendly. If not, even MORE research about this flight takes place and now MORE eyes would be watching, and a deeper search would develop.
So, one can see in the above examples what a NORAD radar tech does for ALL aircrft in their jurisdiction. This is why all the blathering about NEADS radar techs seeing THOUSANDS of targets and "needles in the haystack" noted in Vanity Fair is a TOTAL psy-ops designed to cover NORAD's butts....techs are assiged a small parcel of airspace to monitor SPECIFICALLY SO THAT they are NOT swamped with targets. Why create a workload that gurantees the the NORAD radar tech CANNOT keep up with the traffic involved?
More...there is some confusion here about shared flight plans, routes of flight and what information NORAD "knows, sees and reacts to"...and this gets a tad more complicated...especially regarding aircraft being "on course", or, "off course". The FAA does share flight plan data with NORAD but its mosty aircraft type, basic routes of flight, requested altitudes, speeds and transponder codes.
Remembering that NORAD radar techs just "decide" whether or not a target if a "friendly" or not...[IFF]...and then assigns a track to it as such if need be, the data shared by the FAA can be helpful in quickly establishing that a target is "friendly"...most noteably, the transponder code.
TARGETS,,,NORAD can see primary radar targets, FAA transponders-Mode3...and IFF transponders-Mode 2 and Mode 4 in certain circumstances. The FAA radar systems only show primary and FAA, or civilian transponders...and CANNOT see the military transponder codes. This is due to the IFF responsibilities as well as to be able to run War Games without the FAA being abke to see what's going on IN those War Games.
For example in the case of scheduled airliners like AA11 which leaves Boston for the west coast about 8:00AM every day, the NORAD radar techs can observe the flow of departure traffic from Boston and can, because of the shared flight plan data...mostly the transponder codes, identify all the airliners departing Boston...and they may track them as "friendly"...HOWEVER...here is what is mis-understood.
NORAD does not monitor the exact routings of these airlners after they are declared to be "friendy"...they just have the flight plan in their system so that no more IFF work needs to be done on that flight. The NORAD radar techs instead, search the skies for other flights and "unfriendlies".
Still, their eyes will sweep the scopes for some changes and indeed WOULD notice when a "friendly" airlinerr's transponder shuts off...and they SHOULD make at least a mental note of it...not really as an "unfriendly", but simply because this is so unusual. Occasionally, if the NORAD radar tech has any doubts then they indeed will reach out to the appropriate FAA ATC working the aircraft and ask a few questions. This has happened to me in my career a half a dozen times or so. But its not a top priority here...just a alert NORAD radar tech...perhaps being evaluated at the time.
However, making this type of event not too unusual is the fact that sometimes the aircraft take some time to change transponder codes during the times that the NORAD radar system sweeps the aircraft and thusly, the NORAD radar system "misses" that transponder and "sees" a primary target instead.
Usually, the radar techs will wait for another "refresh" or two to see what the target squawks, or if it doesn't squawk...and eventually, the NORAD radar techs MAY...I say again MAY...as noted above, reach out to the FAA to see what's up. I would have suspected this to happen surounding AA11 for sure simply because of the length of time that the transponder was off.
However...its NOT USUALLY NORAD's responsibility to reach out to the FAA when they see a target going "off course" because NORAD doesn't actually know...or really CARE...what the real "course" for each aircraft under FAA control is because NORAD is primarily in the business of performing IFF.
The reason that NORAD does not "know" if an aircraft is on or off course is because the particular flight may have requested and beeen assigned a brand new route of flight and that new data is not really updated in NORAD's data base...again, NORAD is really only interested in the TARGET regarding IFF.
Another way to consider this is to take a picture of what would happen if a majority of FAA air traffic were to be rerouted around a line of thundrstorms and the like...or...if airliners were to go into holding patterns for a half hour or so prior to landing. All of these aircaft would be technically "rerouted" all over the place...and again, not too important to NORAD because they see the transponder codes and they have already decided that all these targets are "friendly". Once a target is determined to be friendly, most of the NORAD tech's time is spent elsewhere earching for other targets...
The fact is that its the FAA ATCs who are responsible to connect the aircraft target, the airplane, the route of flight, and the transponder codes...and then further, to make sure that aircraft under their control do not collide. They do this by constantly watching for potential collisions and then using their radios to give appropriate instructions.
Usually, NORAD radar techs do not even have radios unless they are working military assets involved in War Games, and then that's an entirely different kettle of fish needing many more blog hours to discuss.
Now, in the reverse of the responsibilities that have been mis-interpreted in the reading of the NORAD PAPERS...IF an FAA ATC looses the transponder of an aircraft that they are working, OR, looses radio contact and sees the aircraft go off course from the routing "assigned" by ATC...aka...an unauthorized turn off course...what they can, and should, and are bound by protocol to do amongst other duties, is to reach out to NORAD to see IF NORAD "sees" the target in question, and to see IF NORAD might have seen anything that will be helpful to the FAA.
This reachout serves TWO functions...
...first, it allows the FAA ATC to perhaps get some info about that aircraft that he or she does not have at that moment, but more importantly...
....second, it serves as the FIRST step, or WARNING to NORAD that there may be some trouble in the skies, and to be prepared to take the next step if needed...the next step...
...SCRAMBLING MILITARY AVIATION ASSETS TO HELP OUT...if this determination is made...BY THE FAA ATC...its not NORAD's call...
So, to repeat, the FAA ATC is the "player" who has the responsibility to initiate actions when aircraft under their control are seen behaving erraticaly. The FAA and ATCs are the first responders and call in the military for help if need be...its a Posse Comatatus issue..
This is almost always true UNLESS...a civilian aircraft is getting too close to a HOT military area or airspace...and THEN NORAD, or the appropriate military facility may reach out to the FAA and take some action.
So, I hope that this is helpful.
What troubles me most about this blog and the NORAD PAPERS seen on the website noted is that there is another round of lies by the HI PERPS reinforced because dilligent research has not been accomplished regarding the time of FIRST CONTACT WITH NORAD...
The first time of notification to the Military...NEADS...Otis...is NOT 08:38...ie...the NORAD TAPES time. Performing simple work such as reading David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking shows that the first notiofication to the Military...NEADS...Otis has been established as being 08:27-28...if not sooner.
Several calls to NEADS to point out AA11 in the vicinity of Albany, NY had already taken place by the Military Liasson on duty before Scoggins took over BEFORE 08:30. Additionally, Dawn Deskins at NEADS first reported her first call at around 08:30-31. And Scoggins reports trying to "point-out" AA11 to NEADS personnel when AA11 was passing near Albany, NY...and that was around 08:28-29.
So, please do some more research here because the HI PERPS have created several different time lines to cover their tails...the FBI has not released many, many records of conversations at ZBW and at other ATC facilities...and you are parrotting disinformation about the 08:38 time being the "first call" to NORAD.
This is not accurate nor is it acceptable to continue to make this error.
Also, for more information about the NORAD response, or lack thereof on 9/11, go to www.911civilinfo.blogspot.com, find my name which leads to a website that my Candian friends established for me...and in that site you can find and play an hour long [and rather boring but informative] presentation that I made in Vancouver, BC covering my understandings regarding where NORAD "was", or "was not" on 9/11. There is a good historical overview of NORAD and their responsibilities, and my explanation of how they were able to cleverly stand down their interceptors on 9/11 until it was too late...exept for UA93.
So, you have MOST of it correct...but not all of it.
Love, Peace and Progress...
Robin Hordon
NORAD & Flight Plans
Robin Hordon says, "The FAA does share flight plan data with NORAD but its mosty aircraft type, basic routes of flight, requested altitudes, speeds and transponder codes."
Whatever the nature of the flight plan data provided to NORAD by the FAA, by 1998 it was sufficient to identify aircraft as documented in the 1997 National Guard Association article, "Flight plans from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are compiled in logs and have to be manually searched to identify aircraft."
Robin Hordon says, "However...its NOT USUALLY NORAD's responsibility to reach out to the FAA when they see a target going "off course" because NORAD doesn't actually know...or really CARE...what the real "course" for each aircraft under FAA control is because NORAD is primarily in the business of performing IFF.
The reason that NORAD does not "know" if an aircraft is on or off course is because the particular flight may have requested and been assigned a brand new route of flight and that new data is not really updated in NORAD's data base...again, NORAD is really only interested in the TARGET regarding IFF."
Again, by 1998 (according to the 1997 National Guard Association article), "There will be a learning curve for Air Guard operators, but the system [which never saw fruition] that Litton touts as faster and better will ultimately make their job easier. Unlike current operating procedures, the new system will mean fewer manual inquiries and phone contact with FAA officials about commercial aircraft. The FAA flight plan is now hooked up via computer with the new R/SAOCs so operators can easily track friendly aircraft through our air space without having to get someone on the phone or thumb through written log books of flight plans."
In other words, under the NORAD tracking system in operation in 1997 (and on 9/11), if a friendly aircraft was granted by FAA ATC a new route (which wouldn't be in the FAA log book of flight plans sent to NORAD every morning), the NORAD operator would contact FAA ATC to inquire what was up with the aircraft.
Robin Hordon says, "So, please do some more research here because the HI PERPS have created several different time lines to cover their tails...the FBI has not released many, many records of conversations at ZBW and at other ATC facilities...and you are parrotting disinformation about the 08:38 time being the "first call" to NORAD."
I agree that the initial 08:38 FAA ATC call to NORAD is a lie. The FAA obviously called NORAD soon after 08:20, if standard operating procedure was followed for Flight 11 (and I have no doubt it was, of course!). However, The NORAD Papers are not concerned with when the FAA contacted NORAD. The NORAD Papers are concerned with when NORAD initiated contact with the FAA once they observed deviations from flight plans.
Robin Hordon says, "...SCRAMBLING MILITARY AVIATION ASSETS TO HELP OUT...if this determination is made...BY THE FAA ATC...its not NORAD's call..."
That is correct. The NORAD Papers only discuss NORAD radar operators initiating contact with FAA ATC, not initiating a scramble.
Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC
NORAD is not interested in routes of flight...
You are expanding the meaning of computer interface and /or computer updating between the FAA and NORAD beyond its design and need.
I used to have to answer NORAD's calls about which target was which and had to update that data manually with them and its good that its computerized now. NORAD didn't then, or do they now "care much" about each particular route of flight. They care about the call sign, the transponder code, the altitude, the aircraft type [only sometimes if they have hot airspace full of military assets nearby], and its general direction of flight.
Their own radar systems and computers have tracking systems that search for certain transponder codes and they keep the tracks attached/updated to that target...IF they even assign a track at all because sometimes the target too well "known" of a flight to be worthy of the computer load.
Just by scanning their radar scopes NORAD radar techs can glean a lot of IFF information from a Mode 3 [FAA] transponder code showing an altitude readout.
first...its a civilian aircraft...
...second...since it is AT an assigned altitude CONTROLLED by an FAA air traffic controller [such as FL 340, FL390, FL360 etc], its most likely under control of the FAA...
...third, the flight seemingly "fits" the expected aviation activity profiles for that airspace [airspace and aviation ops that happen every day]...
Consequently, just by "seeing" this radar target as it is, NORAD radar techs can make an assessment that its a "friendly"...
Contrast this to a high speed primary target not squawking any transponder code and not showing ANY altitude readout screaming across the skies headed to a military or other importtant target or area...
NOW THIS PROFILE is more like an intruder...an unfriendly...and it will draw hundreds of times the attention that the usual airliner crossing the country would...including a call to the FAA controller in charge of those airspaces...
Finally, the majority of aviation activites in the skies are NOT on a formerly filed flight plan...but NORAD STILL has to do its job with ALL aircraft....so, they need to look at things without a flight plan too.
The responsibility for monitoring and taking appropriate actions regarding these four airliners showing signs of "in flight emergencies" was with the FAA air traffic controllers on 9/11. The only discussion is when it happened...which we have debunked the Pentagon's times about, and then what happened after that..ie: why the interceptors were not on these airliner's tails within 15 minutes...at MOST!
FYI...
There is some strong evidence that the 24 second delay in the radar data feed to NEADS in comparison to ALL other radar data feeds across the country to other NORAD sectors may have played a HUGE hand in why NEADS could not see the "primary target" of AA11 on 9/11.
Long range radar [LRR] sweeps once every 12 seconds making this radar data delay cover two full sweeps.
NORAD radar and computer systems have ability to create "inputs", or fake flights, so that they can perform War Games and the associated performance tests of all the elements within the National Air defense System...literally THOUSANDS of individual components.
AND...conversely, NORAD radar computers need to have the ability to create "out-takes" [my word] of radar targets for the exact same...but opposite reason...ie: IF the fake intruder is "killed" it has to be removed from the radar dispaly...or, if the end of the War Game is called, then all of the "inputs" have to removed from the system. Also...the "inputs" need to be displayed SO REALISTICALLY that these "inputs" cannot be distnguished from any REAL targets...primary or with transponder. The reason for this should be obvious.
Usually "out-takes" are accomplished right after the defender has "simulated" a take-out or kill, and there is no NEED for a 24 second delay in any of this activity. The defender simply is tasked with addressing yet another "intruder"...aka...another "input" someplace else which is also part of the War Game.
So, in the REAL WORLD of the FAKE WORLD...as seen in War Games "inputs" and out-takes"...there is no need for a 24 second delay in the delivery of the radar data to the NEADS radar scopes. THIS is why this 24 second delay has been accepted as "unexplainable" by the HI PERPS at NORAD and at the Pentagon ...and it is in the Commission report as such.
So, bringing all of the above around to the events on 9/11, the 24 second delay in the delivery of radar data to NEADS seems to have allowed a radar tech [perhaps located somewhere along the radar feed line sequence] TWO FULL RADAR SWEEP OPPORTUNITIES to find and "out-take" any chosen target from the radar data. If this "out-take" was accomplished, then the "doctored" radar data will be sent en masse along its way to the NEADS radar and computer systems...and eventually to the radar tech's radr displays.
The delayed radar data will now show everything BUT the particular target that is subject of the "out-take".
PLEASE NOTE: Such a radar tech may be totally innocent of ANY complicity in 9/11 as he or she may have been following a certain typical script written out for other War Games, or portions thereof. The radar target may have been presented to him or her as being over Anchorage, Alaska...and any number of reasons or instructions could be created making these "out-take" actions seem like just another day at NEADS during War Games.
This is called 'compartmentalization"...and such separations are multi-leveled and numurous during War Games. If they weren't, then proper evaluations of responses could not be made because the information could be leaked out to participants ahead of time.
So, expanding this thought just a bit, its pretty easy to see that Cheney could have been performing some critical roles operating a critical segment of a compartmentalized "script" buried inside The War Game Scenario on 9/11 down in the PEOC.
And only he an a very small number of people would have to know about it...if ANY person outside Cheney at all?
...continuing with "out-takes"...
Regarding the "out-takes"...all us civilians have to do is think of how the video "shoot-down games" work at local arcades to be able to get a picture of what I'm saying here. Slew the cursor over the target, hit enter, POOF...the target is eliminated from the screen that you are palying on. Its pretty easy to understand how a NORAD radar tech can do the same.
FYI...to this day, Colin Scoggins [the Military Liasson Officer at Boston Center] cannot reconcile WHY NEADS could not "see" AA11 on 9/11 even though he made 40 phone calls and repeatedly tried to point out this HUGE AIRLINER...A HUGE FAT airliner which was BROADSIDE to the radar antennae in a geographical location where in years past, Scoggins was ALWAYS able to successfully point out such traffic to NEADS. He cannot explain it...but perhaps he hasn't read our research.
So, there are alotta other bits and pieces floating all around the radar-NORAD-Pentagon-FAA behaviors on 9/11 that need to be researched. And there are some interesting people doing interesting research regarding all sorts of radar data irregularities on 9/11...including me...
Mark Gaffney's book..."The 9/11 Mystery Plane" is a very good beginning at understanding some radar issues, and it allows one to see some of the results of this ongoing research.
In the end, you understand NORAD's responsibilities almost perfectly...and NORAD did NOT do their job on 9/11 in any event. The HI PERPS fully know this and have been covering up every which way possible since.
It is VERY GOOD that you have done this research and have exposed NORAD's responsibilities along with some of the "inner workings" of NORAD. Its a major key to understanding the events of 9/11...and Truthers need to know.
Your NORAD PAPERS are a good primer for NORAD's responsibilities.
Love, Peace and Progress...
Robin Hordon
Strange Gyrations
Robin Hordon says, "Consequently, just by "seeing" this radar target as it is, NORAD radar techs can make an assessment that its a "friendly"..."
True. NORAD radar operators know by heart if an aircraft is friendly or if the aircraft is "unfriendly" (or is posing a concern) just by looking at the position of the aircraft on the radar monitor, which makes me wonder why after the strange deviations in flight paths by the 9/11 aircraft, those gyrations didn't strike any of the NORAD radar operators as unusual (see link below for some really strange maneuvers made by the four 9/11 aircraft).
http://www.kerman94.com/911-Flights.HTM
Not only is Flight 11's flight path strange (moving up then down after it veers from its assigned FAA flight plan), but Flight 11's flight path took it over Indian Point Nuclear Facility (see link below for Google Map of distance between NYC and Indian Point Nuclear Facility). As Flight 11 neared Indian Point, then certainly NORAD radar operators would have been calling FAA ATC inquiring about Flight 11's flight path. FAA ATC would have confirmed that Flight 11 had deviated from flight plan, and considering the distance from Indian Point to NYC, there would have been plenty of time for interception by military jets.
http://explorer.altopix.com/gmap/refjlb/1/2/Indian_Point_Nuclear_Plant.h...
Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Too complex
Robin,
I trust that you have the best understanding of these issues, than anyone else in the truth movement I've read so far.
But, it's too complicated and prone to speculation.
What are the hard facts you can prove, 1, 2 3, etc. with source material and relevant citations?
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Mea Culpa
John.
That NORAD monitored and controlled American and Canadian airspace is historical fact, which proves the official narrative for NORAD on 9/11 is a lie. I will have to agree with your earlier critique of me, however, where I admittedly do speculate concerning what and when NORAD noticed something askew on their radar monitors (Robin cleared that issue up for me).
You were also correct about NORAD's inaction when transponders were disappearing.
Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC
It took me a loooong time...
Look, you are damned right that its so complex. It took me 3-5 YEARS before I got my arms around all of this...and I graduated at the head of my class and was the youngest fully qualified ATC EVER at ZBW...
AND...if you do research on me, I actually was WRITING some joint procedures between the FAA and the Military, as well as authoring other advanced procedures and airspace designs...so I was no slouch.
i know full well that in order for the Truhers, let alone the public, to get to understand the relationship between NORAD, the FAA, the controllers, the "hot bases", and normal versus abnormal aviation activities, that it was going to take some time...to say the VERY LEAST!
THIS is why I'm so happy that Dean Jackson has put together the work about the NORAD PAPERS...it takes an entire loooooong training session off my back...
But make absolutely NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT...
NORAD failed on 9/11/2001...and they were helped in that failure from some really BAD elements on the inside that most of them, to this day, have nary a clue about who it might be...
Certainly Bush is a puppet and he was NEVER even given the keyes to the car...at the very BEST Cheney had them, and actually, I think in the end you will come to understand that those who have the REAL keyes to our country wear military uniforms...
Many people think its all the bankers and big oil...but banks get robbed by guys with guns and its the military that protects big oils supply lines...and the bigger the guns, the more convincing the robberies and the more efective the oil flows...
...and when was the last time a politician bought off anyone in the Military Industrial Complex?...
So those little pupetted dweebs in WDC are well out of the REAL leadership/control positions in THIS game...
Ike was absolutely RIGHT!!!
Love, Peace and Progress...
Robin Hordon
This needs to be spread around
Would you Robin and brian78046 consider working together on an article for 911truth.org or a paper for the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Something that distils bullet points which the 'average Joe' can latch onto, backed by the authority of your experience and research.
Good Idea
I'm game. Exposing what NORAD's capabilities were on 9/11 is simple thanks to the pre-2001 written record on the subject.
I can be reached via my website at DNotice.
Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Suggest that you check out...
...my presentation up in Vancouver, BC before you think about putting more stuff together...
... www.v911truth.org [I think]...or just google me and find the website etc.
...this may be informtive for many...because its all so complex....
...and of course, we have NORAD making up stories...
...the FBI, FAA and ATCs being mum....
...and the congress and WH blocking whatever they can whenever thay can...
...no dust to analyze...no laws of science...no good videos...to bolster the case...
...only inside information and data...most of which has remained inside and with the FBI...
Again, the good news is that most citizens can understand that our nation's air defenses failed on 9/11. So, that's a good thing to build upon...and that process is ongoing.
After all, the White House, the Pentagon and WDC was the world's most proteceted airspace...
It just takes time and eduation to keep leading the conversation with citizens "upwards" and this is slowly happening every day...
And of course, I'd be glad to help...
Robin Hordon
Contacting you
Robin,
I have an article that I would like you to vet for accuracy. I couldn't find an email address on your blog.
It's about "the orders" mentioned by Mineta.
Are you interested?
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
yup...
robinhordon@juno.com