Did Training Exercises Prevent Andrews Air Force Base From Responding to the 9/11 Attacks?

Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being
scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base] ... right next to the capital?

- Paul Hellyer, Canadian minister of national defense, 1963-1967

Many aircraft at a military base just outside Washington, DC, were taking part in training exercises around the time the terrorist attacks occurred on September 11, 2001, it has been revealed. But whether these exercises impaired the ability of the various units at the base to effectively respond to the attacks has never been properly investigated.

On September 11, FAA air traffic controller James Ampey was on duty in the control tower at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, near the District of Columbia border. He later told the 9/11 Commission that there was "an unusually high number of aircraft taking off and landing at Andrews that morning, because previously scheduled military exercises were under way." Ampey apparently did not tell the Commission what specific exercises these were, or the time period during which the aircraft were "taking off and landing" at the base. [1] However, other publicly available information offers minor clues about these exercises.

Journalist and author Dan Verton has described that, around the time of the Pentagon attack on 9/11 (9:37 a.m.), "civilian and military officials were boarding a militarized version of a Boeing 747, known as the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC), at an airfield outside of the nation's capital. They were preparing to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise." [2] The airfield Verton referred to could well have been Andrews Air Force Base, as this is located only 10 miles from Washington. [3] Indeed, according to Miles Kara, who was a professional staff member of the 9/11 Commission, primary source information reveals that an E-4B took off from Andrews that morning, and was airborne at 9:27 a.m. [4] The exercise Verton referred to was likely "Global Guardian," which was "in full swing" when the attacks began, and for which three E-4Bs were launched. Global Guardian was an annual exercise run by the U.S. Strategic Command, to test its ability to fight a nuclear war. [5] Whether other aircraft taking off or landing at Andrews were also participating in Global Guardian is unknown.

Another major exercise taking place on September 11 was "Vigilant Guardian." It seems less likely, however, that aircraft at Andrews would have participated in this.

The annual Vigilant Guardian exercise was being conducted by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), including its Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). [6] Vigilant Guardian has been described as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States," and was scheduled to include a simulated hijacking during the morning of September 11. [7] However, the DC Air National Guard (DCANG), which is based at Andrews, was not part of the NORAD air defense force. [8] Furthermore, members of the DCANG had just returned from a major training exercise in Nevada. With only a few pilots available, 9/11 was reportedly a "light flying day" for the unit, which would indicate that it would not have participated in Vigilant Guardian or any other major exercises that morning. [9] And since Andrews was not one of NORAD's seven "alert" sites around the U.S., it seems unlikely that any of the other military organizations there would have been involved in a NORAD exercise. [10]

While only limited information is available indicating what exercises the planes at Andrews were involved in, we know that numerous military organizations are located at the base, in addition to the DCANG, some of which may have had air defense capabilities. And some of them could well have been participating in the exercises Ampey referred to.

Among more than 60 separate organizations located at Andrews Air Force Base are units from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. [11] These include Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, which flies the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet, and Naval Air Facility, Washington, DC, which has numerous aircraft available, including the F/A-18 Hornet. [12] Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 at least appears to have had air defense capabilities that may have been able to provide protection against the attacks on September 11: At around 9:50 a.m. that morning, one of its officers called a friend who worked at NEADS, and said: "Dude, get us in the war. I've got wrench turners on our planes uploading weapons. What can we do?" [13]

Another unit at Andrews was the 1st Helicopter Squadron. Its primary mission was "to support [Department of Defense] contingency plans for transport of key government officials should a national emergency arise." It had around 200 members of staff, and possessed 19 twin-engine UH-1N "Huey" helicopters. Many of these helicopters reportedly flew throughout the day of September 11. [14] Whether the 1st Helicopter Squadron was involved in the training exercises that morning is unknown.

It is essential to investigate whether the training exercises impaired the organizations at Andrews in their ability to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Were any of them delayed or otherwise hindered as a result of their participation in an exercise? Were assets, such as aircraft and personnel, which could otherwise have been utilized in the response to the attacks, unavailable because they were being used in an exercise? Were military and civilian air traffic controllers in the Washington area perhaps confused about flights in their region because of the exercises taking place?

In a news report published on the day of 9/11, Knight Ridder stated, "Air defense around Washington, DC, is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base." [15] Indeed, the DC Air National Guard is known as the "Capital Guardians." [16] According to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, "Many planes were scrambled out of Andrews" throughout the day of September 11. [17] And yet the first fighter jet to take off from there in response to the attacks was an unarmed DCANG F-16, which took off at 10:38 a.m., more than 30 minutes after the attacks had come to an end. [18] Might fighter jets have been able to respond earlier on, only the emergency responses of units at Andrews were somehow delayed by the training exercises?

As mentioned above, it seems unlikely that the DC Air National Guard would have been involved in a major training exercise on September 11. However, other circumstances seem to have significantly reduced its ability to respond to the attacks.

Three days earlier, on September 8, members of the DCANG returned from a major exercise in Nevada, called "Red Flag." Most of its fighter pilots, who flew commercial planes in their civilian lives and were involved with the unit on only a part-time basis, were consequently away, either back at their airline jobs or on leave, according to different accounts. The unit reportedly had just seven pilots available on 9/11. [19] At least three of these were inexperienced, junior pilots. [20] And of the seven pilots, three had taken off shortly before the first attack in New York occurred, for a routine training mission around 200 miles away from base, over North Carolina. They did not arrive back at Andrews until after the attacks had ended. [21]

While discussing the 9/11 attacks, in 2004, Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian minister of national defense, posed the question, "Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base] … right next to the capital?" He said: "With a quick-reaction alert they should have been in the air in five minutes or 10 minutes. If not, as a minister of national defense, which in the United States would be the secretary of defense, I would want to say, 'Why not?'" [22]

His questions are as pertinent today as they were five years ago.

[1] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower." 9/11 Commission, July 28, 2003.
[2] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. Emeryville, CA: McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2003, pp. 143-144.
[3] "Andrews AFB, Maryland." GlobalSecurity.org, March 3, 2002.
[4] Miles Kara, "9/11: The Mystery Plane; Not so Mysterious." 9/11 Revisited, June 30, 2009.
[5] Joe Dejka, "Inside StratCom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist." Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002; Joe Dejka, "When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making." Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[6] William B. Scott, "Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks." Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[7] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 122; Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Vanity Fair, August 2006.
[8] William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93." Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 9, 2002; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 76.
[9] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major David McNulty, Chief of Intelligence, 121st Fighter Squadron, Air National Guard, Andrews Air Force Base." 9/11 Commission, March 11, 2004.
[10] Pat McKenna, "FANGs Bared." Airman, December 1999.
[11] "Andrews Air Force Base: Welcome." DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; "Andrews AFB, Maryland."
[12] "Andrews Air Force Base: Tenant Units." DCMilitary.com, February 9, 2001; "Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units." DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001.
[13] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 188.
[14] "Capital Flying." Air Force Magazine, January 2001; "Andrews Air Force Base: Andrews Units." DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower."
[15] Steve Goldstein, "Focus of Training for Terrorist Attacks has Been Chemical, Biological Warfare." Knight Ridder, September 11, 2001.
[16] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital." Washington Post, April 8, 2002; William B. Scott, "F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93."
[17] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower."
[18] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 44; Miles Kara, "Relevant Andrews Transmissions." 9/11 Commission, February 17-18, 2004; Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: A History. New York: Random House, 2007, p. 446.
[19] Steve Vogel, "Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Major Billy Hutchison, 113th Fighter Wing Air National Guard, Andrews Air Force Base." 9/11 Commission, February 27, 2004; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major David McNulty"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 156.
[20] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Major Billy Hutchison"; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 236-237. These pilots were Eric Haagenson, Lou Campbell, and Heather Penney Garcia.
[21] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower"; Miles Kara, "Relevant Andrews Transmissions"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Major John Daniel Caine, USAF, Supervisor of Flying at 121st Squadron, 113th Wing, Andrews Air Force Base on September 11, 2001." 9/11 Commission, March 8, 2004.
[22] "Paul Hellyer, Former Defence Minister of Canada Questions the Lack of Fighter Response on 9/11 and Comments on the Shallowness of the 9/11 Investigation." Connect the Dots, May 27, 2004.

Tired of Silly Articles on NORAD

The caption reads: Did Training Exercises Prevent Andrews Air Force Base From Responding to the 9/11 Attacks?
The answer: NO!

Training exercises are always accompanied with increased paranoia of attack, so intercept aircraft are on the tarmac ready to take off in such circumstances. Our military may lie about 9/11, but that doesn't mean they are imbeciles.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


What if instead it read: 'Was there something about the way in which training exercises were carried out on the morning of 9/11 which prevented Air Force interception of wayward aircraft?'

NORAD's Bi-Annual Exercises are Old News


training exercises are training exercises. They have nothing to do with NORAD being ready for hostile aircraft.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

You are saying the obvious

Brian, you are saying the obvious. Thank you.

What are your sources for these claims, Dean?

"Training exercises are always accompanied with increased paranoia of attack..."

"... so intercept aircraft are on the tarmac ready to take off in such circumstances."

Facts were distorted and omitted- I'm not ready to rule anything out, I'm interested in a “full and complete accounting”. Seems to me it's a legit question whether exercises were scheduled and conducted in such a manner that resources that could have been tasked were tied up, or whether exercises played some role in confusing/obfuscating what was going on to those in the military who were loyal to the US.

Who moved up the Global Guardian exercise so that it coincided w/ 9/11? That's a mighty big coinkydink.

There certainly was a lot of confusion that morning-
The F-16s That Failed to Protect Washington on 9/11: Was the Langley Jets' Emergency Response Sabotaged?

It's a fair question whether any of the confusion was intended. And as the Commission Report didn't mention that Vigilant Guardian included a hijack scenario, and buried the only mention of Vigilant Guardian in an endnote (only mentioning a Soviet bomber scenario), seems to me it deserves to be examined in greater depth.


Been There, Done That!

loose nuke,

NORAD's bi-annual exercises were nothing new on the week of 9/9/01. They took place every year.

NORAD computers would know which commercial aircraft are part of an exercise. If initial confussion on the part of NORAD should be long-lasting, that means NORAD's computers were tampered with.

'"One of the busiest times is during exercises," she said. "This room fills up. We have the battle-staff and CAT [Crisis Action Team] in here generals and admirals are running in and out. The phones are ringing off the hook, and I've got phones in each hand. It's different than the routine and I enjoy it.

"It gives me an idea what things would be like if something were to go down," said Knott, a native of Bartlesville, Okla. "If something actually did happen, we'd be ready for it. It's nice being part of a country that carries some muscle."' Pre-1997 -- http://web.archive.org/web/19970407010917/http://www.af.mil/news/airman/...

Now these bi-annual exercises lasted two weeks for each exercise. That's a total of four weeks a year. Are we to believe that the United States was wide open to attack by the USSR for four weeks every year during the so-called Cold War?

I wrote five articles on NORAD last year. In the first article I wrote, the above link was provided so all could read it.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

no support provided for Dean's claim

Dean- "Training exercises are always accompanied with increased paranoia of attack so intercept aircraft are on the tarmac ready to take off in such circumstances."

Dean says that exercises increase the military's paranoia that an actual attack will happen. And that in response, aircraft not included in the exercises, "are on the tarmac ready to take off in such circumstances."

I asked for support for these claims- instead Dean provided some citations which don't provide support for those claims.

Also, this statement, "Are we to believe that the United States was wide open to attack by the USSR for four weeks every year during the so-called Cold War?" is a non-sequitur - I did not claim that exercises leave the military open to attack, and neither did Shoestring. The military has plenty of resources to defend the US. The idea is that exercises might have been used as a cover, to tie up resources, to confuse personnel loyal to the US, or perhaps to engage personnel unwittingly in an operation. A full investigation is in order, too many questions are unanswered, and too many facts remain unaccounted for, unexplained.

Numerous personnel are on record wondering if the attacks were part of the exercise; reportedly, the situation was clarified and the transition made quickly- but still, there were no intercepts- so what happened? Fighters from Otis were scrambled and ordered into a holding pattern off Long Island, that could've been sent over Manhattan before 175 got there. Around the same time, fighter took off from Otis on a training mission, and weren't sent over Manhattan. The FAA knew 93 was hijacked and headed for DC shortly after 9:30 am- yet DCANG launched no fighters until 9:38 am. The Commission Report says, "At 10:03, the conference received reports of more missing aircraft, 2 possibly 3 aloft,” and learned of a combat air patrol over Washington." (36) Unless I missed it, it doesn't say what element these fighters were from- possibly Langley. And the Langley fighters were sent in response to a phantom AA 11- there was a proactive response to a false report, and while the available records show low-level personnel were doing their best to respond, there's no record showing officials at the FAA HQ and Command Center, NMCC/NORAD and the NSC were doing much of anything.

Too many questions remain unanswered, the official explanations don't add up. And the fact that the Commission Report omits the hijack scenario from Vigilant Guardian, and buries the only mention of it in an endnote, and omits mention of all the other exercises surrounding 9/11, seems significant.


Were fighters at Andrews or not?

Were fighters on alert at Andrews on the morning of 9/11 or were they diverted to NC as part of an exercise? As I understand there were fighters there, so the exercises didn't divert all the interceptors, correct?

Assets at Andrews

Shoestring documented that the Marines, Navy and DC Air National Guard had fighters at Andrews. Considering it was an Air Force base w/ an AF Reserve unit, you'd think there might have been AF fighters there as well- how many, what kind and in what state of readiness has not been made public, that i know of.

Of all these units that may have had assets that could've been tasked to defend DC (after orders were actually given, and after whatever prep was needed), DCANG is the only unit known to have maintained "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness", as, prior to 9/11, it was specifically tasked w/ defending the nation's capital. The Secret Service is credited with getting them scrambled on 9/11- starting at 10:38 am.

EDIT- the closest NORAD base was Langley AFB, outside of Hampton, VA see Shoestring's article http://www.911blogger.com/node/20204 for more info

EDIT 2- per Miles Kara, Team 8 staff member, "Before Panta 45 and 46 were scrambled three fighters from Andrews Air Force Base took off for scheduled training at Dare Range over eastern North Carolina, even though the Wing had just returned from an extended training mission in Nevada and was on a training stand down the day before." http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=67

Part of the reason there was only a belated response (by NORAD and others)0 may have been due to the June 1, 2001 change order http://911review.com/means/standdown.html


113th Wing (DCANG)

was at Andrews and they had F16s, right? And they were full partners with the active A.F. So even if Langley was the closest NORAD base, fighters could have still been called from Andrews it looks to me like-- esp. in this emergency to defend the capital.

So we have Dick Cheney tracking the plane coming at the Pentagon from at least 50 miles out. Andrews is about 11 miles away with F16s according to their website on that day, which could have intercepted Flight 77 presumably. Instead, F16s are scrambled from Langley AFB, which is 120 miles away at about 9:30 a.m.

And the page from the Andrews AFB website is removed on 9/12.
So we're left to believe that in 2001 the capital had no fighter jets nor did the Pentagon have any defense. Both the White House and the Pentagon were totally reliant upon someting coming from Langley to save them.

Thanks nuke,

Your 2nd edit above seems to cinch it. The 3 fighters from Andrews, being at Dare Range in NC, were farther away than Langley. So the exercises clearly did affect response for the Pentagon. Still it's fishy that Andrews would change their website the next day and pretend they didn't even have these fighters.
WTH? And fishy that Cheney would deny even having been in the PEOC at all during this time.

fishy for sure

I'm not an expert, but it seems that exercises would not be using assets that were supposed to be available for defense- however, if they were being used for training/exercises, they wouldn't necessarily be readily available, if an attack happened. It may have been thought by 9/11 planners that the exercises would cause more confusion than they actually did. Reportedly, Vigilant Guardian was a Command Post Exercise (CPX), not a Field Training Exercise (FTX), and while it involved a hijack scenario, it allegedly was not 'live-fly'- and according to Vanity Fair, it involved the use of 'injects' or 'inputs'. However, according to Gen. Myers testimony to Congress in 2005, there was a NORAD FTX happening on 9/11, and afaik, the name has never been revealed- this incl. notes by Nicholas Levis:
"But they were two CPXs" or command-post exercises (not involving actual planes), he hastened to add. A moment later, two exercises turned into three, then four: "There was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska..."

Also, considering that NORAD had drilled for planes being used as weapons:
Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York

And the US govt had been aware of actual incidents of planes being used as weapons- Gen. Myers himself mentioned the Kamikazes in testimony, which was well before this incident- and there were others after it:
"Also, in February 1974, a man named Samuel Byck attempted to commandeer a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with the intention of forcing the pilots to fly into Washington and crash into the White House to kill the president.The man was shot by police and then killed himself on the aircraft while it was still on the ground at the airport."

It's really hard to believe they just couldn't get it together- after a 'summer of threat', which included warnings of preparations for hijacking, operatives in the US and surveillance of federal buildings in NYC- according to the infamous Aug 6 PDB. All the coincidental confusion and failure to follow FAA/NMCC/NORAD SOP...

And then Cheney giving at least 2 versions of when he arrived in the PEOC, which were contradicted by Mineta, Clarke and White House photog David Bohrer...

and many, many more unanswered questions and disturbing facts, which point to a cover up and are explained most readily by an 'inside job' on some level...


Actually they

Actually they do......

Training exercises can prevent activation and action to an incident. The troops can be so involved in the training events that they are "intentionally" isolated from other events.

If a platoon is out doing manuevors they may be out of the loop long enough to not react to anything that happens.

This is direct knowledge from being a Vet.

NORAD Exercises Are Different


in the case of NORAD, radar operators would have momentary hesitation, but only to confirm what their computers are telling them. Any lag in response would be measured in seconds. Also, because jets are on the tarmac running hot, scramble would be faster than on non-exercise days. All in all, NORAD's response (interception) to a suspect aircraft during exercises would be faster.

Don't forget, NORAD even during exercises is also on a 24/7 war footing, while troops on exercise aren't.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Not true!

Your making a BIG assumption here!

I did training from a trailer in the field all the time, and the attitude is ("it's just training"). Unless they were SPECIFICALLY told that this is not a DRILL, then they would make the assumption that it was part of the training excercise.

Also....... Where are you getting your information ("Also, because jets are on the tarmac running hot, scramble would be faster than on non-exercise days")???? This ALSO is NOT TRUE!!!!! Would there be pilots on standy and ready? YES. But this is (SOP) standard operating procedure to begin with.

During my training we would be in the trailer, and our helicopters WOULD NOT be sitting there running while we ran our drills.

Also, your comment (Don't forget, NORAD even during exercises is also on a 24/7 war footing, while troops on exercise aren't.) is also incorrect...... The entire country is always on war footing!!!!! NORAD simply scans the skys for objects that are un-identified. To say that they are "on a 24/7 war footing" is playing their role up more than it is. Do they monitor the skies 24/7? YES. Do they scramble jets when they don't have any information on an object? YES. Where do you think that those planes come from???? They come from BASES that are always on a 24/7 alert status!!!!!

What is your military experience? Do you have any direct knowledge in what you are speaking about? The military does NOT keep planes on the tarmac burning fuel, ANYTIME! The only execption is when they have been alerted and are waiting for orders to intercept the object in question.

The Andrews AFB website incident...

One of the first things I recall that got me suspicious, re. the behavior of the air defenses was a story I read about the Andrews AFB website. Shortly after the attacks, I recall someone posting screenshots of the relevant page of the Andrews AFB website in which the Air Force described, with great pride I might add, that they had "jet fighters on permanent standby, 24/7, ready to defend the nations most sensitive installations and landmarks at a moment's notice". ... or words to that effect as I don't recall the wording, verbatim. By 9/12/2001, these pages had been excised from the Andrews AFB website. Does anyone remember this, or have any further information on it?

you're probly referring to: Guilty for 9/11

Missing Mission


DCANG's mission statement was removed between April 9 and September 13, 2001:


Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dean, thanks for that

Dean, thanks for that information. To pull such data in the wake of the attacks looks something between "oops, better get this stuff away from public scrutiny, lets hope it goes unnoticed". On the other hand, to pull this data *prior to the attack* looks decidedly suspect.. ie certain parties knew well in advance of the attacks that that the mission statement had to be removed, and ordered its removal. Considering the dates, the approximate probability that the mission statement was pulled prior to 9/11 is >98%

NORAD & Metro


the commander of the DCANG (and his wife) were killed on the Metro here in Washington, DC this summer. Metro still can't figure out (even with the assistance of the NTSB) what caused the Metro train he was riding on to slam into another train that was stopped on the track up ahead. For some reason the stop signal didn't work for his particular train?

I think his transportation routine was being monitored, and when they had him in the bullseye, unfortunately his wife just happened to be with him that day.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dean Jackson has NORAD nailed down...unmercifully!

Dean's research regarding NORAD's responsibilities and capabilities is as solid as any research anywhere in the 9/11TM.

As a former air traffic controller at Boston ARTCC [Air Route Traffic Control Center], I have worked as part of the nation's air defense system including an assist with a hijacking...part of the FAA ATC team handling an airliner that was alleged to have an altitude sensitive bomb on board...and scrambling a military aviation asset to successfully help a small aircraft suffering an "in-flight-emergency" to a safe landing.

For 11 years I routinely was part of these types of annual "War Games" excercises and often talked to what then was ADC...Air Defense Command...now known as NORAD or NEADS. Additionally, in my years at the FAA I also worked in what is called an "Area Office" which is basically airspace and procedures operations which had DEEP connections and coordination with the US Military...mostly the Air Force and Navy aviation elements.

I may subsequently call any element of the Pentagon, NORAD, NEADS and other military groups involved as being the "military"...because that's the reality as its THEIR game to protect the country.

I'm not into any internal finger pointing amongst the various military elements to explain their failures...failures of the world's richest, biggest, best and most modern military offensive and defensive systems.

Here is a rough breakdown about what the military failed to do on 9/11...its pretty simple and has been accurately explained in much further detail by David Ray Griffin in his various books.

The first acknowledged call to NEADS about AA11 was at 08:27-28 and it was made from ZBW... the Boston ARTCC...

Between then an 08:38 there were approximately 40 phone calls made to try and point out AA11 to NEADS...

At 08:38 ZBW directly requested help from NEADS to get interceptors airbourn to help with a possible hijacking. This is a direct request and its NORAD's responsibility to take orders from the FAA air traffic control facilities and supply what the FAA requested...immediately.

At 10:03 or 10:06 UA93 crashed?-was shot down?-whatever in Shanksville, PA...I think?

All the airliners...all the eventual targets...all the "hot interceptors"...and all the deviant behaviors executed by the four airliners...occurred in the airspace for which ONE MILITARY FACILITY was responsible for defending...NEADS. Check these words out:


If anything was going on, and anything was needed to defend the airspace in the northeast portion of the USofA...then it was the responsibility of ONE MILITARY FACILITY to accomplish this...NEADS.

For approximately 96 minutes...or one and one half hours...four airliners [that WERE known about by the military at one time or another]...

...were able to fly around the airspace overseen by ONE MILITARY FACILITY...

...that has ALL its air defense radar sectors and communications positions arranged together in ONE MAJOR OPERATIONS ROOM...

...without these stray airliners being successfully intercepted. [except possibly UA93 being shot down?]

All of the aviation events on 9/11 happened in ONE Military facility in Upstate NY...its all in there.

The two "hot interceptor bases" were Otis and Langley which had two interceptors each in their normal "ready" postures as called for by NORAD's responsibilities.

It is my knowledge, understanding and personal experiences when I was engaged in the FAA's roles in operating military War Games, that there is indeed HIGHTENED levels of the nation's defensive assets during War Games excercises. Dean Jackson is absolutely correct in this matter becaue the military certainly understands that during excercises "elsewhere", ther might be defensive weaknesses back at home bases etc.

Compare this to fire department training excercises...do they send ALL the trucks from ALL the firehouses off to one corner of the towns and cities leaving the vast majority of the towns and cities unready for an adequate response in case of a real fire? No, they don't...they may even ask neighboring towns and cities to make fire truck assets available to their down-manned firehouses.

This is no different for NEADS failing to reach out and use any and all military aviation assets, armed or unarmed, that were either on the ground or in the air INSIDE and nearby OUTSIDE the Northeast Sector.

That there was no positive reaction to protect the most vital geography within the USofA...NYC...WDC...The Pentagon with any and all military aviation assets first beginning at 08:27...then after being told to get interceptors airbourne at 08:38...and then further on after that time...is the "vastly underspoken point" about EVERYTHING that has to do with our national air defense system on 9/11.

At the very least, there should have been a national defense emergency established no later than when UA175 struck WTC2...if not immediately after AA11 struck WTC1...if not immediately after FAA personnel at ZBW made the point to the military that AA11 was turning south and heading towards NYC around 08:24-ish.

What in the hell is the entire operation of our national air defense structure designed for if not these exact scenarios...especially when being told to scramble interceptors by the FAA at 08:38.

All the "hijacking" scenario stuff should have been discontinued earlier than it was...and NEADS should have scrambled, or "recovered" any and all military aviation assets to create the defensive shields above and around NYC and WDC far, far sooner than they did.

And that the US Military didn't do this is the primary reason:

...that the military has created three different time lines of air defense reactions in attempts to cover their tails...

...that the 9/11 commission considered filing charges against the US Military through the judiciary...but this got Zelikow-ed...

...why John Farmer, lead counsel for the 9/11 Commission, has established [in his new book], HIS own gatekeeping parameters by claiming that at one point in time the government decided to not tell the truth about its role in the attacks on 9/11...and further...

...why John Farmer has had to claim that the 9/11 Commission is based upon lies, untruths, distortions and invalid testimonies...

The problem that we will continue to have at the Pentagon, and with NEADS-NORAD-FAA, is that the Pentagon and its intel agencies have control of all the evidence.

And in listening to the select audio tapes from NEADS released to the 9/11TM, I know that they were laid atop each other and thusly combined as disinfo in order to make sure that it sounded absolutely CRAZY...thus establishing some public excuses for their failures.

The way that transcripts are done is to break out each single voice channel...write out and identify all the singular converstations and their clock times spoken...and then to write them down, in chronological order and as a function of those specific times spoken...who was saying what to whom...and then crosscheck both ends of the individual conversations as each end of the conversation is being recorded by its own v oice recording.

This is an EXTREMELY difficult and time consuming task...but its the only way to get the true picture of how the events unfolded.

In short, its deliberately impossible to untangle the majority of the communications that have been released by the Military or intel agencies...released either volunatarily [used to distract us], or somewhat involuntarily [yeah right] via FOIA requests.

The military release data that will tell the story that they want or need to be told. Same with RADES radar data and the FDR for AA77?

Stating NEADS' failures in streetwords...

Some really bad stuff happened in NEADS' "hood" and they let it all happen right under their noses. They had the tips...they had the cops...they had the guns...they had enough time to stop the heist...but they didn't stop it!

Keep on truckin...this is complicated stuff...but we will sort it all out.

Great work gang...

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: Its a good time to read Mark Gaffney's book: The 9/11 Mystery Plane...it establishes some pretty good background about some of the aviation activity around WDC and high in the skies over the northeast sector. Additionally, Mark will be posting my affidavit in support of April Gallop's lawsuit against Cheney, Rumsfeld and Meters. This puts into play some radar and other aviation data analysis that I have not yet shared. Its quite interesting and hopefully provocative for deeper investigation. rdh

Exigent emergency


and all four aircraft were in-flight emergencies even before they were tagged as hijacked, which means the revised June 1, 2001 protocols on hijacked aircraft weren't applicable. The 1997 protocols were applicable, those protocols stating that in exigent emergency conditions NORAD commanders don't need to ask for permission to scramble. They can scramble immediately.

For those of you who knew this, but didn't have the time to do the research, here it all is (this research encompases one instruction and two directives):


J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A
DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001
References: See Enclosure D.

4. Policy.

a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”

Department of Defense

NUMBER 3025.15
February 18, 1997

SUBJECT: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save
lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently
serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent
emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed
that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request.
As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report
the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information
through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate
officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that
request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.


(g) DoD Directive 3025.1, "Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)," January 15,



Department of Defense
NUMBER 3025.1
January 15, 1993
SUBJECT: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

4.5. Immediate Response

4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or
attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials
of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property
damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from
higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD
Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that
may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to
requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as
"Immediate Response."


Dean M. Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

All were "in-flight-emergencies" FIRST...

...and should have been treated as such...BUT...weren't...

Again, Dean Jackson is absolutely correct in his analysis of the relationship between the FAA and NORAD/NEADS.

All the original War Games scheduled around 9/11, and those War Games moved up to the 9/11 time period DID play a role in the events of 9/11 in that it got all military parties to be thinking: "hijacking-hijacking-hijacking" instead of reacting normally to "in-flight-emergencies" that they were alerted about by the FAA.

This fact is the reason for the article "The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th " by Jeremy Baker...and...I made a video presentation in Vancouver, BC in 2007 that explains how CLEVERLY the military subtly used-switched the June change to affect the FAA...and it worked.

[I think that these can be found at: www.robinhordon.tk but this Canadian site may not be functioning...not sure. The Vancouver, BC 9/11 site should have the video also...and the article by Baker can be found via google.]

Besides...and again...after AA11 and UA175 struck...EVERYONE should have reacted immediately and all military assets should have been put into a defensive airbourne posture.

AA77? or whatever that airvehicle was that approached the Pentagon, should NEVER have come close...and should have met the same fate as what I THINK happened to UA93...and that is that it was shot down by an interceptor...as early raw accounts so state...

The Pentagon's-Military's failures to respond on 9/11 is the single most important item for the HI PERPS to cover-up on 9/11...perhaps other than the "Dancing Israelis" story.

[This story clearly establishes that Israel's mossad had enough concrete prior knowledge of the eventual nature of the attacks...AND...its anticipated visual damage so as to position mossad agents in place to record the events BEFORE they happened on 9/11. Obviously this is HUGE...and the Zionists will do anything that they can to stop this story from getting widely circulated. Wayne Madsen does very good work on this element of 9/11.]

Its good to remember that all four [or perhaps more] airliners were chosen to depart about the same time...and to strike targets at about the same time...approximately 30 or so minutes after their departures.

This would have made ALL actions happen in a rather brief period of time and would have allowed the HI PERPS better footing to defend their tardyness or inactions. However, AA77 departed about 15 minutes late, and the real kicker to the HI PERPS plans, UA93 departed some 40 minutes late throwing a big wrench in their palnning.

So, UA93, along with AA77? were airbourne for extended periods of time and thusly created the most troubling problems for the Penatgon/US Military to explain away and cover-up.

Its also why so much disinfo about UA93 and its eventual psy-op movie...UA93...have been planted out there.

Take their weaknesses and morph them into their strengths...classic psy-ops and disinfo...


9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

What individuals are the traitors


The VAST majority of NEADS, NORAD and FAA personnel were...

...simply doing their jobs as they had been trained and prepared for doing.

I think that there needed to be only a very few number of people at key locations performing certain things at certain times to manage the entire 9/11 event...and even at that, these people still may not have known that they were part of the attacks.

This is hard to believe...but once one understands what "comaprtmentalization" actually means, and further understands that War Games are highly, highly compartmentalized so that as few as only one person may know the full extent of a particular War Game functioning in silent parallel with, beside, inside or in opposition to some other War Games, then one can understand exactly how any specific War Game can be carried out with only one, or possibly NO individulas being aware of the War Game itself.

Actions described to participate in a certain War game may have coded language and messaging that has nothing to do with AA11, or NYC, or WDC...consequently, the operator/overseer/manager of this seemingly innocuous War Game, or portion of one, may be taking actions in one part of the world with one set of code words and identifiers which in the end, one way or another, end up being commands, instructions, or set-ups for portions of these War Games to happen in another part of the world. Its a "virtual world" during War Games and one can create and effectively hide whatever "virtuality" that one needs...YET...it all can become real events...in real time...in real locations...with real activities taking place...AND...these realities may be unbeknownst to the War Game operator/coordinator/overseer.

Conversely, on 9/11 I think that we see two instances where someone who is an actual functionary in a secret War Game...that I now comfortably call: "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario".

One is the "unidentified trooper" at NEADS described by Bronner in Vanity Fair. This "unidentified trooper" was instrumental in confusing the reports about AA11 hitting WTC1 making the point that it was alleged to be a small aircraft. This delayed reactions in NEADS and FAA personnel.

Please note that later on in the day there was yet another interesting contribution into the dialogue where it was stated by someone that AA11 was still airbourne. This comment was made by another "unkown" on a phone bank from some unidentified location or position. We recognize this as the "Phantom AA11" story and it plays a major role in NORAD trying to sell its third timeline.

Another is Cheney in the PEOC when he seemingly sustained orders-commands-instructions to keep the "stand-down" order intact. Please note: The stand down order had been PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED by someone, somewhere and for some important reason...perhaps as part of The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario?

So, its clear to me that there were but a very, very few people who knowingly played a role in the 9/11 attacks...and that "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" was very comprehensive, very compartmentalized and very well hidden...especially from regular personnel doing their normal jobs. This deadly scenario would have been developed to be precisely THAT sophisticated and obviously THAT secretive.

There were abundent military personnel at FAA facilities...there were unrecorded phone banks with contributors NOT identifying themselves when they added to the conversations...there were many, many opportunities for just a FEW people to manage the entire scenario without even being detected.

This is the NEADS-NORAD-FAA-Pentagon "onion of deceit" that we will eventually peel. Its complex and its well hidden...but I feel that there are some leaks in that dike too.

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: Regarding Dean Jackson's use of the term "hot" regarding interceptors on duty for defending North American airspce...I have always felt that he means the there were "hot bases"...which is slang for identifying the specific Air Force and other bases that housed the ready-to-launch interceptors. On 9/11/2001 Otis and Langley were the two "hot bases" in NEADS' airspace...while Andrews and other airports were NOT hot bases...but COULD HAVE eventually helped out with air defenses.

And it is a fact that in cold climates, the interceptors were always kept "hot" or very warm and ready to launch by a variety of means so that should they be called upon in a critical situation, they indeed would be warmed and highly functional...IE: ready to go. rdh

Best Laid Plans


when I say "hot" regarding interceptors I'm referring to David Ray Griffin's meaning, that is, during NORAD exercises jets are on the tarmac, armed and fueled, with pilots close by or actually in the cockpit.

Also during these bi-annual exercises NORAD personnel have more than just hijacking scenarios on their minds. They are also prepared for simulated in-flight emergencies that don't involve hijacking. Now, once NORAD computers confirmed that Flight 11 was not a simulation but a real threat (which would have taken seconds), then they would have followed SOP for in-flight emergencies and immediately have launched interceptors. With in-flight emergencies there is no need to go through the chain of command to get permission to scramble. In other words, the bastards who planned 9/11 forgot to also change the rules for in-flight emergencies!

Flight 93 landed at Cleveland before 9 am. It landed there by another flight number, which is why passengers on that flight didn't know they had gotten off Flight 93. After it landed at Cleveland it then changed its call number to Flight 93. However, someone goofed and told AP that Flight 93 had landed at Cleveland due to a bomb threat. They then had to divert another aircraft to Cleveland (Delta 1989) with the same excuse of a bomb on board in order to cover for the mistake in revealing Flight 93's landing there.

Unfortunately, Mayor White of Cleveland gave the game away at his press conference when he said the passengers had been evacuated. The passengers on Delta 1989 were evacuated at 12:30 pm, while the AP report of the Mayor's conference was written BEFORE 11:43 am! How do we know that Mayor White's conference took place before 11:43 am? Because that is the time WCPO posted the AP article of Mayor White's conference:

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Thanks for the clarification[s]...here is a bombshell FYI...


This is a helpful clarification about the readyness of interceptors during certain War Games...versus when on normal stand-by.

Regarding the curfluffel about "in-flight-emergencies" versus "hijackings"...I have some very important information to try and explain.

Had ZBW been successful at pointing out and identifying AA11 to NEADS in the early minutes of its "in-flight-emergency" just after 08:14 on 9/11/2001 and while still heading westbound, the normal "in-flight-emergency" protocols used between NORAD and the FAA would have been successful at an early scramble and intercept.

Background facts:

Between 08:27 and 08:38 ZBW had made over 40 phone calls to NEADS attempting to identify AA11 to NEADS in an airspace over New York State that has historically been successfully used to EASILY identify such targets betwen the two facilities...ZBW and NEADS...

There was an unexplained 24 second delay in the transfer of radar data to the NEADS facility on 9/11/2001 and NEADS was the only NORAD sector that suffered such a radar data delay on 9/11/2001...

Long Range Radar [LRR] that is used by the FAA and NORAD for observing radar targets, both primary radar targets and secondary radar targets [transponders], make a full 360 degree sweep around the horizon in just under, or approximately every twelve seconds...

NORAD radar collection and tracking computers function in a FULLY DIGITIZED ENVIORNMENT and have the capability of both...GENERATING "targets or inputs"...and ELIMINATING "targets or inputs" so that NORAD can create and run War Games excercises that appear 100% normal to ALL those who are participating in any War Games excercises...

NORAD operates in a digitized world and "inputs" are flight planned along certain routes and the INPUT TARGET is nothing more than a computer generated set of digitized data that accurately simulates and represents a REAL TARGET on NORAD's various radar displays...

This "input" radar data is IDENTICAL to REAL radar target data...

Without this sophisticated technology, [meaning that all "input" targets generated would appear realistic and indistinguishable from REAL TARGETS], the "enemy" targets in all War Games could be easily exposed as being "fake" which would compromise the War Game plans...

In War Games activities, there comes a time when the "inputs" have served their purpose and will need to be discontinued or eliminated and therefore, there needs to be a compter action that "eliminates" such DIGITIZED target "inputs" so that they are REMOVED from NORAD's sector radar displays...

These "input-elimination" computer actions affect ANY collection of digitized radar target data that is represented in the composition of the radar data streams sent to NORAD sector radar scopes.

This radar data stream consists of BOTH real radar targets and "input" radar targets programmed for and needed for War Games excercises...

The process of eliminating ANY radar target data stream must be the exact same computer action or there would be a "distinguishable" difference betwen radar target data...one real and one "input"...and this would compromise all War Games.

The above mentioned 24 second delay in the delivery of radar target data to NORAD's NEADS facility offers TWO 12 SECOND UPDATE/SWEEP OPPORTUNITIES TO ELIMINATE any specific radar TARGET data...REAL OR INPUT...BEFORE that radar data gets sent along its way to its final destination...in this case it would be the NEADS sector radar scopes...

Consequently, I claim that the radar target data representing AA11 was ELIMINATED from the radar data stream during this 24 second delay in the delivery of NORAD radar data somewhere and by some secretive computer "out-take" operation...and that the 24 second delay process was a deliberate action to allow this target elimination.

It is important to note that NEADS finally did observe the target of AA11 approximately 30-40 miles north of the WTCs.

It is also very important to note that the 84th RADES radar data collection facility was able to reconstruct the ENTIRE flight path of AA11 subsequent to 9/11/2001...which means...that ALL the radar data regarding AA11 was within the radar data streams utilized by NORAD on 9/11/2001 BEFORE this 24 second delay occurred.

In conclusion...this elimination of the radar target data of AA11 inhibited the FAAs- NORAD's historical normal immediate response times for interceptor activities regarding aircraft suffering "in-flight-emergencies".

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

training exercises - 9/11 war games

General Richard B Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, when asked by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney whether the Pentagon's war games on 9/11 had impaired the response to the attacks, assured the House Armed Services Committee in March 2005 that the war games "did not impair our response and in fact ... enhanced our ability to respond ... these were Command Post exercises (CPX) which means all the battle positions which are not normally filled are indeed filled so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation, it actually enhanced the response, otherwise it would take somewhere between 30 mins and a couple of hours to fill thoe positions, those battle spaces with the right staff officers" ... which *obviously* explains why there was NO air defense at all for an hour and a half after planes were hijacked on the morning of 9/11.



That makes complete sense as long as you lack any ability to reason an take the word of authority instead.


Agree ...

makes about as much sense as the rest of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory ...

Das Kapital


in other words, during the four weeks out of the year that NORAD conducts exercises, Americans and Canadians can sleep safely in the knowledge that when they wake up they won't find Soviet/Chinese Airborne troops patrolling the streets. As for the other 48 weeks out of the year, well, better keep a copy of Das Kapital handy! Just in case.

Dean M. Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

troops on the streets

...... Soviet/Chinese troops are probably the least of your worries...

Back in the USA

Mr D,

Google: Operation Trust. After that, read Anatoliy Golitsyn's first book, New Lies for Old and his subsequent book, The Perestroika Deception : Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency.


Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

9-11 Commission vs Pentagon

About a year ago, the 9-11 Commission staff continued to push the story that planes were not airborn until after flight 93 crashed, while Pentagon insists flight 93 was being chased down when it suddenly dropped from the sky. At about the same time, Northcomm's Victor Renuart basically tries to say that the US didn't have the capability to deal with 9-11, but now it has that ability.
Renuart: "Today we have created the apparatus that could allow us to engage one of those targets and, similar to, on 9-11, if we identify them soon enough and we know that they are a threat or we can determine they are a threat we have the aparatus that allows us to potentially shoot those aircraft down before they would have the effect of creating mass casualties as we saw in some other locations. In fact on 9-11 we were attempting to do that when flight 93 hit the ground in Pennsylvania as the result of some heroic efforts by the individuals on board, but we had launched airplanes, and we were chasing that aircraft down."