Where Was NORAD on 9/11?

[mhatrw]

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/47221431/where-was-norad-on-9-11

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, “I can’t answer the hypothetical. It’s more - it’s the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward.” As we will see below NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked with more than merely “looking outward”. I found General Myers’ testimony on the capabilities of NORAD on 9/11 to be surprising, since it was long assumed that NORAD’s mission was more than “looking outward”. However, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been negligent in producing any documents that would confirm their suspicion that NORAD was tasked with watching over and intercepting errant aircraft in American skies before 9/11; that NORAD’s mission was more robust than “looking outward”. The following pre-9/11 citations conclusively documents the true capabilities of NORAD on the morning of 9/11. ...

How important is the “air sovereignty” mission to the Air Force? Colonel Dan Navin, special assistant to the commander of 1st Air Force in 1997 speaks to this question when he commented,”…many say is the most important job of the Air Force, and that is air sovereignty.”

In point of fact, not only was NORAD postured to look inward on the morning of 9/11, but not long after the ‘collapse’ of the USSR NORAD’s inward mission-air sovereignty-was to become the raison d’être for its continued existence. A NORAD strategy review emphasized a new justification for its core forces soon after the ‘demise’ of the USSR-that of peacetime air sovereignty: “The dramatically changed threat and . . . development of post-Cold War defense policies suggest real possibilities for shifting NORAD’s focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations by maintaining air sovereignty . . . . The size of the core force would equate to that required to perform the peacetime Air Sovereignty mission.”

By the mid-1990s the shift in NORAD’s focus was complete according to the GAO: “According to the Chairman , the air defense force was structured to intercept the former Soviet Union’s long-range bomber force if it attacked over the North Pole. Since that threat has largely disappeared, the United States no longer needs a dedicated continental air defense force, and the force has refocused its activity on the air sovereignty mission…” We learn that by 1995 NORAD had changed its priorities. NORAD’s main mission of defending the continent against a massive nuclear attack would now take a back seat to the less glamorous inward mission of air sovereignty. ...

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Touching History, by Lynn Spencer has all the answers you seek.

A copy is probably available at your local library.

[LARED]

2. You mean read a book to get information about 9/11?

I thought all truth worth reading was on the Internet. :sarcasm:

[whatchamacallit]

6. Here's an interesting review from Amazon.com

9/11 radar data disputes author on key points, July 15, 2008
By Mark H. Gaffney (Chiloquin, OR USA) - See all my reviews

I have been studying Lynn Spencer's book through the lens of the RADES radar data from 9/11, now freely available thanks to a FOIA release in 2007. The radar data is an equal opportunity employer. It has no agenda and does not discriminate. For this reason it is a powerful tool and could have been used as a "fact check" to confirm the testimony of Spencer's witnesses. Unfortunately, it seems the author did not make use of it.

It is well known that as time passes, memory fades. There is a tendency for eyewitnesses to embellish or exaggerate what happened, and 9/11 is no different. I exchanged several emails with the author, all of them cordial. I was interested to learn if Spencer had interviewed Laura Brown, the FAA official who in 2003 told the 9/11 Commission that the FAA set up phone bridges to the Department of Defense shortly after the first WTC impact.The Brown memo flatly refutes the official story that the DoD was out of the loop. The memo was even read into the official record, but it never appeared in the 9/11 Commission Report. Spencer replied that she did NOT interview Brown. Then she volunteered the following editorial comments: "it seems that two years after the fact, she remembered the bits and pieces but not in a cohesive way. Sometimes in such circumstances, they blend (like Mineta's inadventant comments regarding AAL 77 - he was actually referring to UAL 93)."

In short, Spencer discounted the testimony of Brown and Mineta for the reasons I cited above. All of this is ironic, because Spencer conducted her own interviews with the pilots and NEADS staffers in 2006, that is, FIVE YEARS AFTER 9/11. She informed me of this in an email.

Well, what does the radar data show? It shows that Spencer's own witnesses embellished and/or confused the facts---the very thing she accused Brown and Mineta of doing. From the 9/11 radar data it is possible to calculate the flight speed of the NORAD fighters. The radar data shows that the flight speed of the Langley F-16s was NOT 700 mph as they approached Washington, as Spencer states in her book (p. 182), but only 400 mph. The reader gets the impression that the fighters were burning leather, but in fact they were poking along. In another case, Spencer writes that one of the Otis pilots broke the sound barrier en route to NY (p. 43). But the radar data proves otherwise. We must conclude that parts of Spencer's book are just as much fable as the 9/11 Commission Report. Spencer needs to listen to her own counsel. By her own reasoning the testimony of Laura Brown and Norman Mineta, given only two years after 9/11, is more credible than the testimony she collected five years down the road.

Spencer's book has even more serious problems, but space here is short. For a full critique of Touching History see my forthcoming book, THE 9/11 MYSTERY PLANE, to be released this September. Among other disclosures, the book will feature the first published analysis of the radar data from 9/11.

[truedelphi]

16. Thank you for posting this.

On the other hand, Lynn Spencer cannot be blamed in a stand alone type of way.

Having sat and watched at least six or seven hours of the original 9/11 testimony, Spencer may have relied on the testimony that Jane Garvey originally provided. This testimony was pathetic in the lack of clarity Garvey provided. So pathetic that watching it at home on C-Span, I found it unbelievable.

When Garvey was asked about the second plane, that hit the WTC at 9:05Am, and and whether or not NORAD was connected at the time, Garvey dissembled and said words to the effect that the FAA contacted NORAD at 8:35Am about the second hit.

This was on its face preposterous, as at 8:35, it would not have been possible to know that the second hit would come at 9:05.

The question was put to Garvey several more times and she continued to dissemble. Kept mentioning 8:35 Am as being the moment that NORAD would have been contacted about the second hit.

It was later, (on the evening of the day that Garvey had been questioned), that she or one of her assistants provided a WRITTEN statement to the Commission that what Garvey had meant to indicate (by her 8:35Am timeline report) to the Commission was that the FAA had created an open channel to the people at NORAD at 8:35 Am so that NORAD could seamlessly take in whatever transmission were coming in to the various air traffic controllers from the hijackers of the various planes.

However NORAD people always fail to acknowledge this open channel and its 8:35Am creation..

[mhatrw]

7. LOL! n/t

[hack89]

3. So there must be numerous documented cases of intercepts

over the continental US? Good - I have been asking for that a long time. Why do you think Mr Jackson neglected to document any in his article?

[mhatrw]

8. What is it they say about the absence of evidence?

So your "defense" of NORAD's failure to secure the United States' air sovereignty on 9/11 is that they had never secured the United States' air sovereignty before 9/11?

[hack89]

9. There is no evidence of intercepts over land

it is a fact - which points to the assumption that the Air Force was not trained or organized for intercepts over land. The fact that no overland AIZ was established until after 911 would seem to confirm this fact.

Perhaps the air sovereignty mission doesn't mean in practice what you seem to think it does. Can you find any practical examples that support your argument?

[Andre II]

11. Please clarify

There have been several intercpts prior to 9/11.
But please clarify:
with "intercepts over land"
do you mean
that the plane that was intercepted had been declared an emergency when flying over land
or
that the plane was only intercepted when over land (including therefore intruders who were declared intruders before flying over land and which only were intercepted when flying over land).

[Andre II]

10. There are n/t

There are several prioir to 9/11.

[hack89]

13. Care to share a link or two? nt

[Andre II]

14. Sure but please clarify first what you call

an intercept over land.

[hack89]

15. Is there any evidence that

dedicated interceptors have intercepted non-cooperative targets (ie no-IFF) over the continental US. In other words - a 911 scenario.

[Andre II]

17. Besides Payne Stewart

this for example:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1980/1980-2.htm

[hack89]

18. Details are lacking - it was also a cooperative target

If, for example it was an interception similar to Payne Stewart, then it proves my point.

This plane had IFF - it was easy to track and find. It was not like 911.

Some details I would like to see:

1. How long did it take before the intercept.

2. Were dedicated strip alert interceptors used.

3. Was NORAD in the decision making process or was this a local decision whereby ATC diverting a military flight in the area.

Truthers seem to think that NORAD and the Air Force should have acted a certain way to stop 911. They believe that not only was everything in place to intercept unknown and un located planes over the continental US, but it was routinely done. I would like to see details that support that. So far, everything I have seen indicates that intercepts over land are very rare and are usually ad hoc in nature - Payne Stewart is the best example of that. If I am correct, then it is no surprise that NORAD failed miserably on 911.

[Andre II]

19. Easy to track

"This plane had IFF - it was easy to track and find. It was not like 911."

Why weren't AA 11, UA 175 and UA 93 easy to track on 9/11?

Your general statement:
"There is no evidence of intercepts over land"
is clearly wrong.

You demand many details about the intercepts. I'd be happy to provide you with them if you can show me where I can find in general details of NORAD intercepts. The details you ask for aren't covered in the few article in the press.

Btw there are other intercepts prior to 9/11:
eg Larry Morris in 1988.
Thomas Root

And how do you explain this:
"Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

[SDuderstadt]

20. "Why weren't AA 11, UA 175 and UA 93 easy to track on 9/11?"

Jesus, we've answered this over and over. Because the hijackers turned the transponders off. It amazes me that the so-called "truth movement" is so ignorant of basic facts, yet still think they know more than everyone else.

[Andre II]

21. Basic facts

And United Airlines managed to track UA 93 till the crash, why?
And Cleveland ATC Stacey Taylor did track UA 93, why?
And quote from 9/11 timeline:
"Flight controllers never lose sight of the flight (AA11), though they can no longer determine altitude once the transponder is turned off"
Yes, basic facts.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Andre....

do you remotely understand how the ATC system works?

[Andre II]

23. Yes, do you?

Were AA 11, UA 175 and UA 93 tracked?
Yes or No.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Do you understand the different ways flights are tracked and why?

That's the key. Somehow, I don't think you do.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/air-traffic-control.htm

[Andre II]

25. Can you please answer the simple question I've raised?

Was AA 11, UA 175 and UA 93 tracked?

[SDuderstadt]

26. Yes, up until a point....

okay? I have no idea where you're going with this or what you're trying to prove. If you have a point, make it.

[Andre II]

27. until a point?

So these three flights weren't tracked until the crash?
According to you until when were they tracked and why weren't they tracked until the crash (as it should be clear I'm not talking about the exact altitude of the plane but about its location)?

[hack89]

28. Without transponders on

ATC were not able to distinguish the planes from other unidentified planes - they lost track of where they were.

[Andre II]

29. So what do you make of post 21 then? n/t

[hack89]

30. I don't know - some links with details would be handy. nt

[Andre II]

31. Here you go

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a846changessignal#a846changessignal

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a936uawatches#a936uawatches

to start with.

[Andre II]

32. So, as you didn't hesitate to make fun of my lack of basic facts

maybe you care to back up your claim that AA 11, UA 175 and UA 93 weren't tracked until they crashed?!

[SDuderstadt]

33. As noted before....

you're really not worth engaging, Andre. No hard feelings.

[Andre II]

34. As usual SDuderstadt

every time when I simply challenge your statements you back off and are unable of even presenting the smallest piece of evidence.
Whil I'm still patiently waiting for your examples of other ways of positively identifying the alleged hijackers besides matching the DNA .... here you say thatthe planes were tracked until to a certain point. But you're unable to say to which point (and why by consequence the plane wasn't tracked afterwards) and why the hack several pieces of evidence show that the three of the four planes were tracked till the crash.
I don't have hard feelings. Just, disappointing that you're unable to back up your claims and you're even unable to acknowledge it.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Because you ask the same goofy questions over and over....

and ignore all the other evidence that undermines your premise. A classic tactic of conspiracists is to seize upon any anomaly they find and then claim it can only prove their hypothesis, ignoring the myriad of evidence that disproves it. I just watched an interview of Phillip Shenon by RFK, Jr. and it's evident that neither one believe in the 9/11 CT's. So, here's my question. Why can't the so-called "truth movement" attract people like them? Hint: it's because the theories are beyond goofy. No offense, Andre.

[Andre II]

35. So, hack, what do you make of it? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

4. NORAD was in Colorado Springs on 9/11 (and other locations)....

does that answer your question?

How many times do we have to debunk this before you catch on?

[LARED]

5. I think the magic number is

never

[MinM]

12. To paraphrase Alexander Haig -- Cheney & the PROMISkeepers, were in...

'Control', from here in the White House (Bunker):

“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11