9/11 Suspects: General Ralph Eberhart by CorbettReport
TomT Fri, 09/09/2016 - 12:15pm
- 9/11
- airliners
- airspace
- CiC
- City Club of Portland
- Commander-in-Chief
- Corbett Report
- Crash
- defense
- FAA
- general
- hijacked
- Homeland Defense in the Global War on Terrorism
- Infocon
- interceptor
- Joint Chiefs of Staff
- NORAD
- North American Aerospace Defense Command
- plane
- Ralph Eberhart
- Richard Myers
- scramble
- September 11
- suspects
Published on Sep 9, 2016
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19707
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrhJA2QWrRU
The official story of 9/11 is a lie. But Eberhart's story is a lie within that lie, designed to absolve himself and other members of the US military charged with defending American airspace that morning from the most catastrophic failure in that mission in their history. And not only did Eberhart survive with his career intact, he was praised as a "9/11 hero" and moved into the private sector after leaving NORAD in 2004, as chairman and board member of a number of companies that directly benefited from the post-9/11 police state and the post-9/11 war on terror.
- TomT's blog
- Login to post comments
AFIO misunderstanding
There's a few errors in this video that I think should be pointed out.
First, James says NORAD did not have to wait "passively for FAA orders" to initiate a hijack response. He tries to prove this by linking to the regulations that say they have to do exactly that, wait for the FAA to contact them. Here's the quote:
"b. Escort missions are requested by the FAA or TC." It couldn't be more clear according to the regulation he links to that hijack escorts and intercepts requested of NORAD have to come through the FAA first.
The second mistake is him trying to claim that NORAD could've acted on their own by using what is known as Authorization for Interceptor Operations despite the fact that his own link says NORAD cannot use AFIO within the CONUS. Here's a quote from his link: "The FAA Authorization For Interceptor Operations (AFIO) is not used for intercept and airborne surveillance of hijacked aircraft within the CONUS." All four of the hijacked flights on 9/11 were within CONUS which is explicitly not allowed.
These errors are pretty egregious and need to be corrected.
Wanted to add
this part of the regulation from the directive James cites that I missed first time.
"(b) When the hijacked aircraft is within FAA radar coverage, escort aircraft is controlled by the appropriate FAA facility."
That is three separate rules that disallow NORAD from controlling the fighters on 9/11, directly contradicting Corbett's claim that they could have.
You should contact James.
You can contact him at CorbettReport.