NORAD Tapes

[T.A.M.]

I've been playing the tape "DRM1 DAT2 Channel 8 ID2 TK"in the background on my computer for the last 1h. At the 57:09 mark there is some interesting stuff about the phantom AA11, but how can you tell when (what time on 9/11) it was said. Is this tape supposedly unaltered, and if so, is there anyway to obtain a timestamp?

TAM:)

[twinstead]

I played the tape backwards and was instructed to give my life to Satan.

[Reheat]

It is my understanding that all of the tapes begin at 8:30 EST.

[T.A.M.]

I played the tape backwards and was instructed to give my life to Satan.

So have you decided? (to give your life to Satan)

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

It is my understanding that all of the tapes begin at 8:30 EST.

Which would make the comment I heard take place at about 9:27AM...sounds about right....I think.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

So have you decided? (to give your life to Satan)


Hey. This is NORAD. It's not like it's Sony or something. It's all about Satan now, dude!

[T.A.M.]

DRM1 DAT2 Channel 8 ID2 TK
-----------------------------

In first 1 hour and 10 minutes, only two convos of interest.

0:57:09 - brief discussion about the Phantom AA11.
1:09:03 - brief report of a possible hijack - Delta Flight 1989

TAM:)

[gumboot]

I've been playing the tape "DRM1 DAT2 Channel 8 ID2 TK"in the background on my computer for the last 1h. At the 57:09 mark there is some interesting stuff about the phantom AA11, but how can you tell when (what time on 9/11) it was said. Is this tape supposedly unaltered, and if so, is there anyway to obtain a timestamp?

TAM:)


The tapes are time stamped at the beginning with a tone and then computer generated voice reading the time. The lead-in time stamps are given every five seconds (one of them goes on for aaaaaages). They all begin around 12:30 Zulu (or UTC, which is 08:30 EDT).

However I've noticed some breaks in the tapes because I've been synching them to the starting time stamp and two tapes both capture a conversation later on but are not in synch any more.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Well if there are breaks in the tapes, then trying to assign conversations with actual times is probably pointless, as we do not know the duration of the breaks.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Well if there are breaks in the tapes, then trying to assign conversations with actual times is probably pointless, as we do not know the duration of the breaks.

TAM:)


Actually on second listening, the conversations happen at the same time, you just get a slight echo effect due to the very slight delay between the speakers and the two microphones (which are obviously in different places). It's just enough to be noticeable.

I haven't synched all the tracks or listened right through so I don't know if there's issues in other places or not.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

well, i think one would have to get info on whether the tapes are unaltered, uninterupted or not from the horse's mouth.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

gumboot:

When you have all of the tapes synched up, are you planning to compile them as one master *.wav? If so, I think having a copy, or providing MikeW with one would be a great idea.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

First 2 hours (would correspond to 830AM to 1030AM on 9/11/2001) for the following tape recording:

DRM1 DAT2 Channel 8 ID2 TK
----------------------------
0:57:09
1:09:03
1:12:28
1:14:06
1:14:56
1:20:11
1:25:26
1:33:50
1:41:50
1:45:28
1:50:55
1:51:34
1:55:14
1:57:46

The times (times into the tape *.wav file) are the only areas of significance/worth listening to. I have not tried to transcribe them yet, but for those that do not wish to waste all of their time, these area the areas to go to to listen.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

gumboot:

When you have all of the tapes synched up, are you planning to compile them as one master *.wav? If so, I think having a copy, or providing MikeW with one would be a great idea.

TAM:)


That's the ultimate goal. Whether that's actually possible or not may depend on how often you get simultaneous conversations on multiple tracks - for example in the minutes after 0837 when the call first came in from Boston ARTCC the tapes are unsurprisingly noisy with conversations on every track. Crushing them together onto a single stereo track would make it impossible to hear anything.

What I'll probably aim to do is create a multi-track export, and possibly do a stereo mix "edit" that only covers the most interesting and relevant bits of conversation.

We'll see how it goes. It's a very long slow process, and this particular task very much gets a back seat to my Dr Griffin work, a NORAD/FAA re-work, my writing, developing some film projects, and planning my summer/New Years holiday... :)

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

well, definitely do not let it interfere with "Auld Lang Syne".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

For the first two hours of tape, labeled:

DRM3 DAT2 Channel 24 Emerg AICC
--------------------------------
0 : 13 : 36
0:15:38
0:33:48
0:36:49
0:40:34
0:42:15
0:42:57
1:22:10
1:45:22
1:49:56
1:51:00 to 1:55:00

Not much, even at the points listed. Mainly authentications etc...

TAM:)

[gumboot]

well, definitely do not let it interfere with "Auld Lang Syne".

TAM:)


We kiwis have our own traditional New Years song... :)

W45ePa5P-4Q

1999, Taupo Bay, down on the beach at midnight with 10,000 teenagers and twenty-somethings all singing it at the top of their lungs. Awesome. :D

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Seems like a tonne of fun. Couldn't make out the song though...don't guess it matters to much if you are there, and you know it off by heart...lol

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Seems like a tonne of fun. Couldn't make out the song though...don't guess it matters to much if you are there, and you know it off by heart...lol

TAM:)


Here's a more user-friendly version...

rwaD4GFjSjY

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

The tape labeled: DRM2 DAT1 Channel 20 SD2 TK has some great stuff on it from the 1:17:24 Mark onward. Very exciting, and at the same time frustrating, to hear them try and scramble jets up to get one of the hijacked planes...based on the time, I would say it had to be Flight 93 (or Delta 1989).

Definitely worth a listen. .Wav Files available at MikeW 9/11myths

Brian Negal and Col Paplinski ( not sure of spelling of either) are featured predominantly.

TAM:)

Edit: at the 1:38:28 Mark (if the tape started at 830AM EST, that would make it 10:08:28 EST) someone in the background says "We've got an aircraft reported over the white house".

[T.A.M.]

At 1:41:10 (10:11:10 EST)

"United 9 3 , [inaudible] Somewhere near Pittsburgh."

Harrowing.

TAM:)

Edit:

At 1:41:38 (10:11:38 EST)

"United 93 [inaudible] negative clearancy to shoot."

[T.A.M.]

Can someone tell me what the abbreviations mean?

DRM1 DAT2 Channel 24 AICC for example.

Thanks

TAM:)

[beachnut]

3 things I heard on the stream that caught my attention.
Something about being "stepped on" ((http://www.911blogger.com/node/10978))
I was laughing at people who think "stepped on" could mean something so sinister the MIB have done the unspeakable.

Turns out "stepped on" means you talked over someone else! Radio communications in air traffic control, "stepped on" means you talked while someone else talked, if you said something important it is time to say it again! Wake up 9/11 truth movement and have them get an education before they make up stupid ideas and lies. What a bunch of idiots; 9/11 truth.

I think I was banned from 911 blogger for answering questions.

[Calcas]

I was laughing at people who think "stepped on" could mean something so sinister the MIB have done the unspeakable.

Turns out "stepped on" means you talked over someone else! Radio communications in air traffic control, "stepped on" means you talked while someone else talked, if you said something important it is time to say it again! Wake up 9/11 truth movement and have them get an education before they make up stupid ideas and lies. What a bunch of idiots; 9/11 truth.

I think I was banned from 911 blogger for answering questions.

As an ex-ATC I can confirm your definition of "stepped on" in regards to meaning speaking over someone else.

I'm surprised you pilots weren't up on that term!

BTW, they DRILL us with saying "correction" anytime we say anything incorrect and then go on to give the correct instructions.

I'm sure you've heard that many times from ATC, right?

[Boone 870]

Here's something that you might be interested in T.A.M.

http://www.stage6.com/user/Ashoka_lc/video/1801281/9/11:-Rades-data-(Pentagon-area)-with-NEADS-audio

I don't think this has been posted on the site before.

[rwguinn]

As an ex-ATC I can confirm your definition of "stepped on" in regards to meaning speaking over someone else.

I'm surprised you pilots weren't up on that term!

BTW, they DRILL us with saying "correction" anytime we say anything incorrect and then go on to give the correct instructions.

I'm sure you've heard that many times from ATC, right?

Gahwd!
You mean there are people who don't understand the term "Stepped On" as it pertains to radio communications?

Obviously they have never used a CB**, as getting Stepped on was a very common occurance in high-traffic areas.


** For you non USA folks, and kids under 35, Citizen's Band (CB) radio was used aq lot in the 70's and 80's by the motorists (Mostly truckers up until then) to get information on roaqd conditions, and really used for finding where "Smokey" and other "Bears" were hiding, to aid in avoidance of speeding tickets...("Smokey" because of the big hat State Troopers in some states wear looked like the "Smokey Bear" hat)
I personally did the 395 miles from Hobbs, NM, to Ft. Worth Texas in 4:25 with the aid of such when I was young and foolish...

[beachnut]

As an ex-ATC I can confirm your definition of "stepped on" in regards to meaning speaking over someone else.

I'm surprised you pilots weren't up on that term!

BTW, they DRILL us with saying "correction" anytime we say anything incorrect and then go on to give the correct instructions.

I'm sure you've heard that many times from ATC, right?
I hate to "step on" people, it makes you look inexperienced.
My favorite clearance from ATC was usually from GUAM Center. "You are cleared to wonder aimlessly across the Pacific", after making a request for Celestial Navigation.

I am afraid to look deeper for other terms 9/11 truth will turn into a deep CT smoking gun.

[gumboot]

Can someone tell me what the abbreviations mean?

DRM1 DAT2 Channel 24 AICC for example.

Thanks

TAM:)


I have a pretty good idea of some of them. "DAT" means "Digital Audio Tape" and is a standard 2 or 4 channel audio recording format. I would imagine the beginning of the file "DRM[x] DAT[x] Channel [x]" is a reference to which recording it is, which tape it was recorded on, and via which recorder.

Having done a bit of hunting, I can offer up the following:

MCC - Mission Crew Commander - officer in charge of the Ops Floor
ID - Identification - the ID Techs are responsible for communicating with the FAA and gathering intel about the flight.
ACWO - Aircraft Control and Warning Officer - the commander of the "Weapons Team" who handle the fighters
TT - Tracking Technician
AICC - Air Intercept Control Common (I've dug up a few variations, but basically it relates to a common command channel for communication with the interceptors)
AST - Air Surveillance Technician
SD - Senior Director (no idea what they do)

I don't know what the difference between "TK" and "Ops" are, but most of the tracks have matching pairs of TK and Ops.

-Gumboot

A few amendments are needed... this PDF (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/usaf/socv3.pdf) is useful:

5.2.4. Aircraft Control and Warning Officer (ACWO) (13B). The ACWO is responsible to the BC (Battle Commander)
through the DO (Director of Operations). The ACWO will advise the BC on assigned sensor assets and function as the Sector's
Ground Environment Resources Manager. The ACWO ensures the Sector's operations and contingency
plans are carried out by ground environment units and provides BS E-3 employment recommendations.

5.3.1. MCC/Mission Crew Command Technician (MCCT) (13B/1C5X1). The MCC is the on-duty
representative for the Sector Commander and is responsible for the conduct of all air sovereignty/air
defense operations, training and emergency actions within the Sector during the duty shift. The MCC
will communicate directly with the CONUS RAOC ADD regarding operations IAW SAOC Operating
Instructions (OIs). The MCC will exercise sound judgment, ensuring the safe and expeditious handling
of all air sovereignty/air defense related events within the Sector. The MCC works for the SAOC
Director administratively and is operationally responsive to the Sector Commander/DO in peacetime and
BC/DO during increased alert status and exercises. The MCCT assists the MCC in supervising the
conduct of air sovereignty/air defense operations and training.

5.3.3.1. Senior Director (SD)/Senior Director Technician (SDT) (13B/1C5X1). The SD is responsible
to the MCC for battle management and the use of the fighter forces in the assigned AOR. The SD will
supervise the Weapons Director (WD) employment of resources during both daily training and
wartime/peacetime missions. The SD will coordinate with other SDs) and the MCC to ensure effective
battle management. The SDT assists the SD with the supervision of the weapons team.

5.3.4. Identification (1C5X1). The Identification Technician (IDT) is responsible to the MCC for the
identification of all traffic IAW governing regulations. The IDT monitors all tracks of special interest to
ensure they conform to the approved route/altitude of flight or reports deviations to the MCC for
appropriate action. The IDT coordinates as necessary with the appropriate air traffic control facility
regarding the identification of aircraft with the SAOC's AOR.

5.3.5.2. Air Surveillance Technician (AST) (1C5X1). The AST is responsible to the ASO for the
maintenance of an optimal air picture within the Sector's AOR. The AST is responsible for the
management of all air surveillance functions and personnel within their section.

5.3.5.5. Tracking Technician (TT) (1C5X1). The TT is responsible to the AST for performing tracking
(active and passive); height checks, if required; and manual track telling duties as assigned. The TT is
responsible for an assigned AOR.

The file also has some interesting information on NORAD proceedures (the document is for Alaska Region but I would imagine they are similar if not identical for other sectors) and also a comprehensive glossary at the end.

[gumboot]

For anyone who has interested, in listening to the NORAD tapes I've cleared up some confusion about what happened with the Otis fighters. Here's the sequence:

0825 - Boston ARTCC first suspects AA11 is a hijacking after three suspicious transmissions.

0828 - The FAA's ATCSCC (National ATC Command Center) receives word of the suspected hijack.

0832 - FAA HQ receives word of the suspected hijack.

0834 - Boston ARTCC contacts Cape Cod TRACON and asks them to request a scramble from Otis ANGB. The Director of Operations, Lt Col Duffy takes the call from Cape Cod, but is also scheduled as an alert pilot that day, so passes it on to the Squadron Commander while he and the other scramble pilot - Maj Nash - suit up.

0837 - Boston ARTCC contact NEADS and request a scramble.

0838 - NEADS order Otis to Battle Stations. The two pilots are already half way to their aircraft when the order is received, the Squadron Commander having told them to head to their aircraft while he sorts out what is going on. Although Nash is the scheduled lead pilot, Duffy takes that role as he has had previous hijack escort experience with a Lufthansa flight in 1993.

0841 - Otis achieves Battle Stations.

0842 - AA11 drops below primary radar coverage about 8nmi northwest of JFK.

0844 - NEADS decide to scramble Otis despite not having a fix on AA11.

0846 - A Scramble Order is issued for the Otis fighters and they are allocated call sign Panther 4-5 (Duffy) and Panther 4-6 (Nash). They are directed to a Z-point which is AA11's last confirmed radar contact point, about 39 mi north northeast of the WTC.

0846 - AA11 hits WTC1.

0851 - NEADS receive word that an aircraft has hit the WTC. Although Boston ARTCC are not willing to confirm it, they agree with NEADS that it is probably AA11.

0852 - The Otis fighters are airborne. They are directed to the Z-point which is 170mi away (18 mins at a cruise speed of 570MPH). However Duffy decides to fly as fast as they can (Mach 1.4 or about 900 MPH) as he has a bad feeling about the situation.

(NOTE: the Max speed of the F-15 is about 1600MPH however that is for a new aircraft in "slick" configuration (no payload), on Afterburner. The Otis fighters are old aircraft carrying weapons and three external fuel tanks which drastically lower their maximum speed. Also, with afterburner, the jets would exhaust their fuel in about 12mins)

0853 - The NEADS Senior Director (head of Weapons Team) and Mission Crew Commander decide they still want the Otis fighters down by New York until such time as the fate of AA11 is confirmed. Realising that the FAA will not allow the fighters to hold directly over the city, the SD directs them to fly down through military training airspace and hold about 10mi south of JFK just beyond Lower New York Bay - less than 20mi from the WTC.

0904 - NEADS direct a currently airborne KC10 tanker (MAYDAY 5) on a training flight in Military Training Area Whiskey 105 to position itself in the W of W-105 to support the Otis fighters.

0905 - New York Center refuse the Otis fighters entry into their airspace which is where there holding position is. This is because New York Center has just declared ATC Zero after the impact of UA175. Under ATC Zero conditions no aircraft are allowed to enter New York airspace. The FAA want the fighters to hold where they are in W-105 - 100mi + from the WTC. Their refusal may also be because the holding point for the fighters is directly in the middle of the key departure air route from JFK.

0909 - Langley are put on Battle Stations. The MCC tells the SD that he needs to put the Otis fighters over Manhattan. Presumably the FAA allows this to happen as they are over Manhattan by 0925.

0913 - A pair of KC-10 tankers (TEAM 2-2 and TEAM 2-3) are directed to W-107 to hold as support for the Langley fighters.

0921 - NEADS receive word from Boston ARTCC that AA11 is still airborne headed for Washington DC.

0924 - The fighters from Langley (Quit 2-5 and Quit 2-6) are scrambled, while the Otis fighters are on standby to chase down AA11 if a radar contact is made.

0925 - the Otis fighters - over Manhattan - are told to maintain a CAP over Washington DC and intercept any suspect contacts.

Firstly, the movement of the Otis fighters becomes much clearer, and the motivation for putting them where they go (both from the NORAD and FAA's POV) begins to make sense.

It makes sense initially to scramble them to AA11's last known position.
It makes sense once AA11 has crashed to move them to a holding position near NYC.
It makes sense that NY ARTCC refused entry for the fighters as they had just declared ATC Zero.
It makes sense that with no where else to go they hold in W-105 (where their tanker is).

What also makes sense is the flying times. According to the pilots, they flew at about Mach 1.4 which was the fastest speed they could get out of their aircraft without using afterburner. According to NEADS they were carrying a weapons load of "0 by 2 by 2 by Guns, 3 Tanks" (0x AIM-7 Sparrow, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder, 2x AIM-120 AMRAAM, 940 rounds 20mm, 3x 610gal external fuel drop tanks). These weapons loads would slow the F-15's top speed dramatically, as would the age of the airframe and engine. Typically, Air National Guard aircraft are older, and they have tighter maintenance budgets. Mach 1.4 is about 900MPH at altitude, and the travel times for the Otis fighters agree with this air speed.

A final thing of interest is that during the bustle of conversation at about 09:16 someone in the background mentions that the Air Force Search and Rescue Center at Langley AFB has deployed helicopters on a Search and Rescue Mission. This Search And Rescue mission is of course for AA77.

[Cylinder]

Thanks for the information of the tanker scrambles - I was looking for that.

[gumboot]

For anyone that is interested, I think I also cracked the mystery of the Langley fighters being sent east instead of north as well.

Firstly, when Langley were put on Battle Stations, they were calling into NEADS to ask for the specific wording of why they were putting on Battle Stations. Major Nasypany's response was "Are you watching the TV? That's why."

When the Langley Sergeant pushed with it, they said "National Defense". This is the first step in the wayward fighters. They didn't know they were being scrambled for an airliner escort - and indeed they weren't. It was an Active Air Defense Mission for National Security. Now in any other case, a scramble for that is East. So Langley weren't sure where they were going.

But here's where the SNAFU occurs.

The focus for NEADS between 0900 and 0930 was very much getting tanker aircraft into position to support fighters. There were at least four tankers involved by the time Langley was scrambled - TEAM 2-2 and TEAM 2-3 launched from McGwyer AFB put into W-107 to support Langley, TEAM 2-1 already airborne, also sent to W-107 to support Langley, and MAYDAY 5, also already airborne, sent to W-105 to support Otis.

Now, with three tankers converging on W-105, NEADS decided to send one of them to W-386 instead. They chose TEAM 2-2.

The training areas are controlled by a Navy facility called Fleet Air Control And Surveillance Facility Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES) call sign "Giant Killer".

But you also had the fighters coming out of Langley with call signs QUIT 2-5 and QUIT 2-6. At the exact time that Langley were taking off, Giant Killer was being told to take TEAM 2-2 down to W-386. Then abruptly at 0932 NEADS notice that QUIT 2-5 are being handed off from Washington Center to Giant Killer, and are being directed to W-386.

Now let's bear in mind, by this stage several ATC sectors are declaring ATC Zero. Already the Otis fighters have been refused entry by New York ARTCC. I'm guessing hand off from Langley's TRACON to Washington ARTCC went wrong, QUIT 2-5 got handed to Giant Killer instead, and Giant Killer mixed the call signs up, sending QUIT 2-5 to W-386. Hearing that NEADS had ordered Giant Killer to take them to W-386, QUIT 2-5 would have immediately reverted to their 60-90 default departure, and because they weren't sure where or why they were being scrambled, they would have gone with Giant Killer's direction.

This explains the total confusion in the Giant Killer ATC's voice when he said "you now want them to go to Baltimore?" Because as far as he's aware he was told by the same person - literally 2 minutes earlier - take them to W-386. Of course he wasn't, he was told to move TEAM 2-2 there, not QUIT 2-5.

One last thing to add, is the key function of delay. What I'm finding repeatedly is that NEADS are actually receiving and deciding stuff much faster than any timelines indicated. But that's because it takes time for things to happen. For example, Nasypany ordered Langley scrambled at 0921, pretty much as soon as word of AA11 still airborne was received. But just giving the orders for each pair of fighters takes a minute. Then Weapons have to issue the Scramble Order with call signs and authentication. That's another minute or two. Then Langley want to confirm scramble destination. That's another 2 minutes. Next thing you know Langley aren't being scrambled until 0924.

What strikes me is the speed with which NEADS moves. Scrambling a fighter, or moving a tanker into position, is not a simple case of saying "you go there". The technical aspects, just from listening to the tapes, are multitude. Call signs need to be confirmed. Beacon codes have to be confirmed. Radio frequencies have to be confirmed. Radios crackle and people are asked to repeat themselves. People request clarification. If you tell person X to do something, you then have to let people A, B and C know that X is doing that.

And so on. It all adds up.

Essentially, hearing what is actually involved in scrambling fighters and intercepting an airliner, I feel sorry for the people in NEADS. They just didn't have a chance.

[Reheat]

Gumboot, Excellent information and this fills in some gaps that existed. Very good job.

I have a couple of questions and suggestions for you to consider.

Are you sure about the "Mayday" call sign for the Tankers? Surely, that must be a typo as "Mayday" is an International Distress word.

The comments on the age of the Otis F-15s may be overplayed and unnecessary in emphasizing why they flew at the speed they did. While it may be true (if you've verified it) the weapons and fuel tanks alone would be enough to limit their speed. In the past the ANG has had older "hand me down" aircraft, but not necessarily anymore. They have some newer aircraft, as well. Also, while their budget might be more limited than the Active Force, their actual level of maintenance quality is frequently better. They have more experienced and motivated personnel. If someone does not perform well in the Active Force it is a difficult and lengthy process to get rid of them. In the ANG, however, if they don't perform they are gone. It was my experience in working with several units that ANG maintenance is top notch, a step above the quality of Active Force maintenance.

The spelling the large AF Depot in NJ is McGuire, not McGwyer.

Again, you've provided excellent "fill in the details" information which is now quite thorough. Thanks again....

[jaydeehess]

Sorry to butt in with a question that is a bit of a derail. I looked through the thread and the forum as best I could and cannot find an answer.

It is reported that the last radar contact with Flight 11 ( I assume primary radar rather than transponder) had it 8 miles east of JFK. Does anyone know a better location for it? 8 miles east if taken literally would mean it was about 20 miles from the towers, right?

[gumboot]

Gumboot, Excellent information and this fills in some gaps that existed. Very good job.

I have a couple of questions and suggestions for you to consider.

Are you sure about the "Mayday" call sign for the Tankers? Surely, that must be a typo as "Mayday" is an International Distress word.[/QUOTE]


Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. It's seemed like a really odd call sign. But It comes up repeatedly on the tapes and it sounds like "Mayday 5". I'm trying to think of what else it could be that sounds similar, but haven't come up with anything yet.

I was also wondering that it's a word with a single number, while all of the other aircraft were a word with two numbers. My first guess was it's actually MAY X-5, but I can't think of a number that sounds like "day".


The comments on the age of the Otis F-15s may be overplayed and unnecessary in emphasizing why they flew at the speed they did. While it may be true (if you've verified it) the weapons and fuel tanks alone would be enough to limit their speed.

That's very true. I only mentioned the age thing because in an article one of the pilots mentioned something about the aircraft being old airframes. But I'd tend to agree that the load out alone would reduce the speed.

In the past the ANG has had older "hand me down" aircraft, but not necessarily anymore. They have some newer aircraft, as well. Also, while their budget might be more limited than the Active Force, their actual level of maintenance quality is frequently better. They have more experienced and motivated personnel. If someone does not perform well in the Active Force it is a difficult and lengthy process to get rid of them. In the ANG, however, if they don't perform they are gone. It was my experience in working with several units that ANG maintenance is top notch, a step above the quality of Active Force maintenance.

Thanks for that input. That aspect was again just based on a single comment in an article that prior to 9/11 ANG squadrons often ran out of money before the end of the financial year and had to stop flying.


The spelling the large AF Depot in NJ is McGuire, not McGwyer.

Thanks. I was pretty sure I'd spelled that wrong. :D It was just too late at night to look it up.

Again, you've provided excellent "fill in the details" information which is now quite thorough. Thanks again....

It's surprising, once you get the hang of all the chatter in the recordings, just how much you pick up. For example they were supposedly told about UA175 as it crashed, but I think they were actually told about a minute before that.

Also when they heard word about AA77 they at that time thought they had three hijacks:
-AA11 still airborne
-Unknown into WTC1
-UA175 into WTC2

And as they thought AA77 was the unknown hijack hence why they didn't get overly concerned about locating it - they thought it had crashed into the WTC (probably helped by the fact that they had heard Langley were deploying SAR birds for it).

[gumboot]

Sorry to butt in with a question that is a bit of a derail. I looked through the thread and the forum as best I could and cannot find an answer.

It is reported that the last radar contact with Flight 11 ( I assume primary radar rather than transponder) had it 8 miles east of JFK. Does anyone know a better location for it? 8 miles east if taken literally would mean it was about 20 miles from the towers, right?


This is one of the most confusing things on the tapes. Boston ARTCC continually refer to AA11 being EAST of JFK, but it didn't come in east of JFK, it came in NORTH of JFK. On occasion they do say "north".

As I understand it the last primary return on AA11 was about 8 nautical miles North West of JFK at 0842EDT.

However I'm wondering if maybe the direction references are to the JFK beacon rather than the airport itself. That's something maybe Cheap Shot will pop in and answer some time.

I do know that often on the NEADS tapes you hear "east of JFK" which just doesn't make any sense as AA11 was never over there.

8nmi NW of JFK would put the aircraft just south of the southern end of Central Park.

[sleahead]

My first guess was it's actually MAY X-5, but I can't think of a number that sounds like "day".

* Some American accent* "eight" more like "aid". Mayaid 5?

[gumboot]

* Some American accent* "eight" more like "aid". Mayaid 5?


Actually that might be it... I'll have to review the tapes and see if it fits.

[Reheat]

* Some American accent* "eight" more like "aid". Mayaid 5?

I think you mean May 85? Correct?

[Reheat]

I was also wondering that it's a word with a single number, while all of the other aircraft were a word with two numbers. My first guess was it's actually MAY X-5, but I can't think of a number that sounds like "day".

Yes, I agree. Those are computer generated call signs and they are always two numbers as far as I know.

Thanks for that input. That aspect was again just based on a single comment in an article that prior to 9/11 ANG squadrons often ran out of money before the end of the financial year and had to stop flying.

I think that would be referring to Operational Funds, not Logistics. Those are separate budget items.

[beachnut]

Actually that might be it... I'll have to review the tapes and see if it fits.
Let me listen to the tape, I can mess it up.

Mate 85 - what unit

Get an ATC wizard to say MATE 85 real quick. Mate85 sounds like maydayfife

[sleahead]

Correct, Reheat, though I like Beachnut's better than mine, especially if were pronounced
Made 85.

[beachnut]

Correct, Reheat, though I like Beachnut's better than mine, especially if were pronounced
Made 85.
Can be funny when you have new copilot and your call sign is Mate85, and when the co hears maydayfife, the co really thinks there is a Mayday5 out there as you have to reply to the copilots missed call! Yes center Mate85 climbing to 250. Co wake up~!

Context helps, but there is not much time wasted saying Mate85; you better know what your name sounds like or suffer the penalty box.

[gumboot]

Thanks guys, the mystery is solved! I should have asked Beachnut all along.

So we have the following, for anyone wanting to listen to the tapes:

Panther 4-5 - F-15C Eagle from Otis ANGB flown by Lt Col Timothy Duffy
Panther 4-6 - F-15C Eagle from Otis ANGB flown by Maj Daniel Nash

Mate 8-5 - KC10 Extender on exercise in Warning Area 105

Team 2-1 - KC10 Extender on exercise in Warning Area 107

Team 2-2 - KC10 Extender deployed from McGuire AFB
Team 2-3 - KC10 Extender deployed from McGuire AFB

Quit 2-5 - F-16A Fighting Falcon from Langley AFB flown by Maj. Dean Eckmann
Quit 2-6 - F-16A Fighting Falcon from Langley AFB flown by Capt. Craig Borgstrom
Quit 2-7 - F-16A Fighting Falcon from Langley AFB flown by Maj. Brad Derrig (UNARMED)

[beachnut]

Thanks guys, the mystery is solved! I should have asked Beachnut all along.

So we have the following, for anyone wanting to listen to the tapes:

Panther 4-5 - F-15C Eagle from Otis ANGB flown by Lt Col Timothy Duffy
Panther 4-6 - F-15C Eagle from Otis ANGB flown by Maj Daniel Nash

Mate 8-5 - KC10 Extender on exercise in Warning Area 105

Team 2-1 - KC10 Extender on exercise in Warning Area 107

Team 2-2 - KC10 Extender deployed from McGuire AFB
Team 2-3 - KC10 Extender deployed from McGuire AFB

Quit 2-5 - F-16A Fighting Falcon from Langley AFB flown by Maj. Dean Eckmann
Quit 2-6 - F-16A Fighting Falcon from Langley AFB flown by Capt. Craig Borgstrom
Quit 2-7 - F-16A Fighting Falcon from Langley AFB flown by Maj. Brad Derrig (UNARMED)
I was happy with mayday5 but it did sound kind of funny based on the day, and reheat is right. Rare to have a single digit for a tanker. And a computer has generated the names, unless you get a static call sign. But the name is not important. The information is. Reheat is the one who had the key, I was happy to sit and listen. And as it should be, you can correct the minor stuff later.

But did the tape really sound like it was Mate85?

[gumboot]

[COLOR=black]But did the tape really sound like it was Mate85?


Well it sounded to me like "Mayday Five" but the tape quality is not fantastic and there's always lots of cross chatter going on. And of course you know how fast those people talk! Not to mention when the aircraft itself calls in it's even more broken with static.

"Made Aid Five" would probably be the closest to what is heard on the tapes. Softening "t" to a "d" is pretty common, so that would give you "Mate Eight Five". Otherwise another candidate would be "Made Eight Five".

When I have the time I will have to flick through the AICC channel again and listen with those alternatives in mind, and see what fits. It's a pity no one was deaf and needed it spelled out - Mike Alpha Tango Echo Eight Five - like the MCC had to do at one point for the Langley fighters.

[Cheap Shot]

This is one of the most confusing things on the tapes. Boston ARTCC continually refer to AA11 being EAST of JFK, but it didn't come in east of JFK, it came in NORTH of JFK. On occasion they do say "north".

As I understand it the last primary return on AA11 was about 8 nautical miles North West of JFK at 0842EDT.

However I'm wondering if maybe the direction references are to the JFK beacon rather than the airport itself. That's something maybe Cheap Shot will pop in and answer some time.

I do know that often on the NEADS tapes you hear "east of JFK" which just doesn't make any sense as AA11 was never over there.

8nmi NW of JFK would put the aircraft just south of the southern end of Central Park.

We were using the VOR but I beleive it is near the airport. We don't actually use the VOR, on our maps we show airways but the airways stops five miles from the VOR, so what you end up is a general idea where the VOR is with a 10 miles area with nothing in it. I would have based my visual identification on that. I do remember the aircraft coming in the from the north. I think I remember saying Northeast at one point, I also had a TMU specialist reading from the scope at that point. I wasn't in front of a scope. The only time I was, was when I gave NEADS the exact lat/long 30 miles north of JFK. Also we use magnetic don't know if that makes a difference or not, straight up on our scope is actually 020 degrees. Straight down is 200 degrees. Our maps are shifted 20 degrees to the left. So an aircraft coming straight down on our scope was heading 200, but kind of coming from the northeast.

[gumboot]

We were using the VOR but I beleive it is near the airport. We don't actually use the VOR, on our maps we show airways but the airways stops five miles from the VOR, so what you end up is a general idea where the VOR is with a 10 miles area with nothing in it. I would have based my visual identification on that. I do remember the aircraft coming in the from the north. I think I remember saying Northeast at one point, I also had a TMU specialist reading from the scope at that point. I wasn't in front of a scope. The only time I was, was when I gave NEADS the exact lat/long 30 miles north of JFK. Also we use magnetic don't know if that makes a difference or not, straight up on our scope is actually 020 degrees. Straight down is 200 degrees. Our maps are shifted 20 degrees to the left. So an aircraft coming straight down on our scope was heading 200, but kind of coming from the northeast.

Thanks for that.

There was definitely at least once that someone from Boston said "north" and for whatever reason whoever was listening at NEADS said "east", so I think a lot of the time that was the mistake that was happening. I think even the tapes - despite how chaotic they sound - probably don't capture just how noisy and chaotic it was in NEADS that morning.

[jaydeehess]

This is one of the most confusing things on the tapes. Boston ARTCC continually refer to AA11 being EAST of JFK, but it didn't come in east of JFK, it came in NORTH of JFK. On occasion they do say "north".

As I understand it the last primary return on AA11 was about 8 nautical miles North West of JFK at 0842EDT.

However I'm wondering if maybe the direction references are to the JFK beacon rather than the airport itself. That's something maybe Cheap Shot will pop in and answer some time.

I do know that often on the NEADS tapes you hear "east of JFK" which just doesn't make any sense as AA11 was never over there.

8nmi NW of JFK would put the aircraft just south of the southern end of Central Park.


That would put it about 4-5 miles away from the towers if my map reading is correct.

The CT's bugaboo is that the plane had reduced velocity to 300 knots at that time yet NIST claims it hit at 500MPH, a difference of about 160 MPH

I pointed out that this aircraft manages to acellerate to take off speed in less than that distance and that if it was desending it would have no problem increasing its speed by that amount in the time available.

Now of course I have stated to him that if it is east of JFK then it is even further from the towers.
Given that this report must be wrong, either the primary that ATC was tracking was not Flt 11, or the speaker is incorrect in stating 'east', I don't know why the CT's haven't noticed this 'anomaly'.

[beachnut]

That would put it about 4-5 miles away from the towers if my map reading is correct.

The CT's bugaboo is that the plane had reduced velocity to 300 knots at that time yet NIST claims it hit at 500MPH, a difference of about 160 MPH

I pointed out that this aircraft manages to acellerate to take off speed in less than that distance and that if it was desending it would have no problem increasing its speed by that amount in the time available.

Now of course I have stated to him that if it is east of JFK then it is even further from the towers.
Given that this report must be wrong, either the primary that ATC was tracking was not Flt 11, or the speaker is incorrect in stating 'east', I don't know why the CT's haven't noticed this 'anomaly'.If you are talking about 11 or 175 going from 300 to 470 to 590 mph. They only over speed for 10 to 20 seconds and with full throttle it would only take 20 seconds to gain a lot of speed.

In 49 seconds Flight 77 went from 300 KIAS to 463 KIAS. 77 had been at 300 knots, or close, in the big turn to get down and line up with the Pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

In 49 seconds Flight 77 went from 300 KIAS to 463 KIAS. 77 had been at 300 knots, or close, in the big turn to get down and line up with the Pentagon.


So what's that, about 1.75 g forward acelleration?

What's rotation speed of a 757 when taking off?

[Reheat]

So what's that, about 1.75 g forward acelleration?

What's rotation speed of a 757 when taking off?

It's going to vary a little with gross weight, but a full up B-757 rotates ~140 130 KIAS if I'm interpreting the chart correctly.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0088.shtml

[jaydeehess]

Thanks Reheat. So assuming a 4000 foot roll from zero velocity......
140knot/hr = 236 ft/s

4000=(0.5)at2
236=at

4000=(0.5)236t
t= 4000/118 = 34 seconds
and that is an acelleration of about 1/5th g

So we know for sure that the plane can gain speed quickly.

At 500 mph the plane would be doing 733 ft/s and would travel 4.7 miles in 34 seconds.

We know for certain that the plane had at least this far to go from the point where radar contact is lost to the impact.

Seems very easy to see that the plane could have been at 300 knots at last radar return and at 435 knots when it impacted the tower.

Another CT 'question' answered then?

[jaydeehess]

Another NORAD question then.
Where can I find NORAD's mission statement PRIOR to 9/11/01. Today's mission is easily found, its what they were tasked with at the time that I am interested in.

[Reheat]

Another NORAD question then.
Where can I find NORAD's mission statement PRIOR to 9/11/01. Today's mission is easily found, its what they were tasked with at the time that I am interested in.

I don't know, off hand. However, I don't think it changed anyway. They updated their equipment and changed around some Alert Bases, but as far as I know the mission statement didn't change.

ETA: This is from a CT Site and appears that they are representing it as the Pre-9/11 Mission Statement. The validity is ?.

NORAD Mission Statement

NORAD continuously provides worldwide detection, validation and warning of an aerospace attack on North America and maintains continental aerospace control, to include peacetime air sovereignty alert and appropriate aerospace defense measures in response to hostile actions against North America

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

This is Norad's Current Mission Statement:

NORAD Mission In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

http://www.norad.mil/about/vision.html

[jaydeehess]

Maddingly I believe that I read their mission statement prior to 9/11 and it was clear that they were looking outwrads from the USA and Canada and were relatively unconcerned about activities within the lower 48.

I just cannot find reference to that now, and I don't trust a CT site to have it and referenced properly. Nor do I see that the reference that the serindipity site uses is a pre-911 mission statement. They imply it but do not actually come out and claim that it is from pre-911. In fact the link they provide for the statemnet they use is one from Homeland Security. Correct me if I am incorrect but Homeland Security did not even exist prior to 9/11/01. Furthermore I simply cannot find that statement on the site they link to.

[Reheat]

Maddingly I believe that I read their mission statement prior to 9/11 and it was clear that they were looking outwrads from the USA and Canada and were relatively unconcerned about activities within the lower 48.

Well, you are half right. They have always had responsibility for the Continental Defense of North America, but they were, in fact, primarily looking outward based on a "Cold War" mindset. That mindset is just not reflected in their mission statement. One of the first things they did AFTER 9/11 was update their Radars to provide better coverage over the land mass. Their Radars were terribly out of date, but they were able to perform their mission out over the water where there is little traffic.

Their mission over the NA Land Mass is closely tied to a close relationship with the FAA and it is not simple to understand or explain, but it is one with overlapping and intertwined responsibilities. Gumboot does a nice job of explaining it in his forthcoming paper. That paper should be ready for prime time soon.

I just cannot find reference to that now, and I don't trust a CT site to have it and referenced properly.

Agreed. It a sad crying shame that any search for 9/11 subjects brings up 5 or more CT sites to 1 legitimate one. I pity the uninformed trying to do real research on the subject.

[Swing Dangler]

Well, you are half right. They have always had responsibility for the Continental Defense of North America, but they were, in fact, primarily looking outward based on a "Cold War" mindset. That mindset is just not reflected in their mission statement. One of the first things they did AFTER 9/11 was update their Radars to provide better coverage over the land mass. Their Radars were terribly out of date, but they were able to perform their mission out over the water where there is little traffic.

Their mission over the NA Land Mass is closely tied to a close relationship with the FAA and it is not simple to understand or explain, but it is one with overlapping and intertwined responsibilities. Gumboot does a nice job of explaining it in his forthcoming paper. That paper should be ready for prime time soon.



Agreed. It a sad crying shame that any search for 9/11 subjects bring up 5 or more CT sites to 1 legitimate one. I pity the uninformed trying to do real research on the subject.

1. True or False-AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

2.True or False-UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

3. True or False- AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.

4.True or False- UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.

True or False-Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats. The statement that NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them is completely false. NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage – its their job.

True or False-Is this radar coverage map from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron Hill AFB, UT accurate?

If true, is a large portion of the Northeastern Sector covered by NORAD?

[beachnut]

1. True or False-AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

2.True or False-UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

3. True or False- AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.

4.True or False- UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.

True or False-Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats. The statement that NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them is completely false. NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage – its their job.

True or False-Is this radar coverage map from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron Hill AFB, UT accurate?

If true, is a large portion of the Northeastern Sector covered by NORAD?
You have no point. Sorry, I was looking for some meaning to your non point.

[jaydeehess]

1. True or False-AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

2.True or False-UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

3. True or False- AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.

4.True or False- UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.

True or False-Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats. The statement that NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them is completely false. NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage – its their job.

True or False-Is this radar coverage map from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron Hill AFB, UT accurate?

If true, is a large portion of the Northeastern Sector covered by NORAD?

1) It is probably correct that the first two flights were within NORAD radar coverage. Let's start with Flt 11 though. NORAD had no reason to be specifically tracking this flight prior to being informed that it was a probable hijacking - true or false?

...1a) NORAD had no reason to specifically track any of the other aircraft involved in the attacks prior to them going nordo and ATC reporting them as such. true or false?

2) All 4 aircraft were lost to ATC before NORAD was notified - true or false?

3) At some later point the 11 and 175 aircraft were identified on primary radar but at that point they were obviously much neaer to their targets, the towers - true or false?

4) After the attacks we get to know which of the hundreds of aircraft over the continental USA/Canada were hijacked, when the aircraft were hijacked, what the paths of the aircraft were, what the targets were and that they were indeed on suicide attacks - true or false?

5) In reference to #4; prior to deducing that each aircraft was being hijacked none of these specifics was at all knowable - true or false?

6) My point from above; NORAD had little actual concern about domestic flights prior to 9/11/01 true or false?

7) There are no examples of a scramble of a fighter intercept for any other domestic flights in the last several decades - true or false?

[PhantomWolf]

2) All 4 aircraft were lost to ATC before NORAD was notified - true or false?

3) At some later point the 11 and 175 aircraft were identified on primary radar but at that point they were obviously much neaer to their targets, the towers - true or false?

I believe that 2 is false, ATC had them on Radar right to the point they dropped below it. The issue was that ATC radar is high looking, it only see planes and objects at a high altitude. NORADs radar is low looking, it sees everything including ground clutter, that means they have a lot of other things on the screen to deal with over land, hence that area is usually ignored and they're watching the areas out over the sea where the radar is clear. On 9/11 they had to move back into the cluttered area and locate one blip amongst hundreds.

[Cheap Shot]

Ground clutter was NEADS biggest problem we have something in the FAA called MTI it removes ground clutter automatically, on a bad hot weather day with an inversion, our ground clutter may increase so we can ask them to manually increase the MTI and reduce the ground clutter. On the military side of the house on 9/11 the military wants to see all of that ground clutter. But they are also trying to look out to sea more so than domestically, there is limited ground clutter over the ocean obviously. We shared the same sites, so we were not neccesarily looking high on the FAA end, most long range radar sites are set aorund 2.5 or 3.0 degrees.

[PhantomWolf]

Ahh, thanks for that CS, helps clear things up a little.

[jaydeehess]

I believe that 2 is false, ATC had them on Radar right to the point they dropped below it. The issue was that ATC radar is high looking, it only see planes and objects at a high altitude. NORADs radar is low looking, it sees everything including ground clutter, that means they have a lot of other things on the screen to deal with over land, hence that area is usually ignored and they're watching the areas out over the sea where the radar is clear. On 9/11 they had to move back into the cluttered area and locate one blip amongst hundreds.


Ok, I am familiar with 'ground clutter'.

Let me re-phrase ' 2) ' then;
Concerning each of the 4 aircraft, did ATC, at any time before the aircraft fell below their radar coverage, not know which return on primary was that errant aircraft?

[jaydeehess]

Ground clutter was NEADS biggest problem we have something in the FAA called MTI it removes ground clutter automatically, on a bad hot weather day with an inversion, our ground clutter may increase so we can ask them to manually increase the MTI and reduce the ground clutter. On the military side of the house on 9/11 the military wants to see all of that ground clutter. But they are also trying to look out to sea more so than domestically, there is limited ground clutter over the ocean obviously. We shared the same sites, so we were not neccesarily looking high on the FAA end, most long range radar sites are set aorund 2.5 or 3.0 degrees.

So even at only 10 miles away a plane at 2500 feet (1000+ feet higher than the twin towers) would be below that slope.

At 40 miles its 10,000 feet.

height = horz.distance(sine 2.5o)

[Swing Dangler]

1) It is probably correct that the first two flights were within NORAD radar coverage. Let's start with Flt 11 though. NORAD had no reason to be specifically tracking this flight prior to being informed that it was a probable hijacking - true or false?


6) My point from above; NORAD had little actual concern about domestic flights prior to 9/11/01 true or false?

7) There are no examples of a scramble of a fighter intercept for any other domestic flights in the last several decades - true or false?

Since number 6 covers the above points I will address that. And thanks for only addressing point 1 from my post. I think you would have understood that I agree with point 6 of your post based upon my quote here:
Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats. The statement that NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them is completely false. NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage – its their job.

7)This is false. If you examine the Government's Accounting Office, Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter
Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76) Table I.1 you will discover the actual number of scramble orders. Intercepts are routinely practiced of course. The motivation of the pilot has no consequence be a drug smuggler, a hijacker, or a pilot off course.

Cheapshot: Just a couple of questions that maybe you can or can not answer.
1. Why do you think the military stopped “using common reference points"?

2. Why wouldn't you and your departments been informed of this?

3. Have you been able to identify who issued the false alarm that had you and your crew evacuating your building in this moment of crisis?

You have stated in the past that there was no stand down order. I agree. I don't think sending out a memo to 1000 plus people is a realistic expectation of a 'conspiracy'.

However do you agree that a de facto stand down could be accomplished by the following methods:

1. The use NORAD’s radar system to create deliberate confusion due to deliberate non-fixing of incompatibility with FAA radar.

2. Deliberate non-fixing of an inability to remove “ground clutter”.

3. The insertion of false blips either as part of exercises or not.

4. That hijacking protocol, had you followed only rather than calling NEADS directly, would have caused even more delay correct?

5. The decision not to have scramble-ready planes at Andrews Air Force Base, of all places.

6. Are you aware if NEADS radar is able to separate planes without their transponder being active from weather patterns? A filter in other words to remove weather patterns from the scope.


7. Is it possible to remove real blips or dashes from NEADS radar screens?

8. Is ground clutter a reasonable hindrance to the search of planes if the military can filter out the clutter since you share the same sites and considering they are responsible for air defense?

Thank you for your service and your time answering these questions.

[Gravy]

7)This is false. If you examine the Government's Accounting Office, Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter
Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76) Table I.1 you will discover the actual number of scramble orders. Intercepts are routinely practiced of course. The motivation of the pilot has no consequence be a drug smuggler, a hijacker, or a pilot off course. Please provide the data with which you ascertained that those 1989-1992 scrambles were in response to threats originating in the United States.

[Spins]

7)This is false. If you examine the Government's Accounting Office, Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter
Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76) Table I.1 you will discover the actual number of scramble orders. Intercepts are routinely practiced of course. The motivation of the pilot has no consequence be a drug smuggler, a hijacker, or a pilot off course.
I've just checked the locations of all those AFB's, listed in the table you mentioned above, and funnily enough every single one is located near the coast or near the Canadian or Mexican border.

Prior to 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ, period. Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3) found this out years ago after they spoke with the FAA spokesman Bill Schumann.

It never ceases to amaze me how conspiracy theorists will convince themselves of something they have very little information or knowledge about despite being told the exact opposite by people in know.

Why would the FAA and NORAD lie about something that could so easily be shown as false if they are trying to hide something?

[Swing Dangler]

I've just checked the locations of all those AFB's, listed in the table you mentioned above, and funnily enough every single one is located near the coast or near the Canadian or Mexican border.

Prior to 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ, period. Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3) found this out years ago after they spoke with the FAA spokesman Bill Schumann.

It never ceases to amaze me how conspiracy theorists will convince themselves of something they have very little information or knowledge about despite being told the exact opposite by people in know.

Why would the FAA and NORAD lie about this Swing?

1. Location of airbase excuses it from intercepts and drills over the continental U.S. Rejected! LOL
2. FAA spokesman instead of the historical record of NORAD's own comments? Rejected.
3. Historical record? Accepted.
From the GAO-Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.
Please explain how you can design a plane that is never “in distress” except when it’s inside an ADIZ.

Gravy-Please provide the data with which you ascertained that those 1989-1992 scrambles were in response to threats originating in the United States.
"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:

intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

tracking hijacked aircraft;

assisting aircraft in distress;

escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and
peacetime military intercepts. "

What leads you to interpret the statistics and NORAD's definition of air sovereignty and territorial airspace as NOT including the interior of the continent? There is absolutely nothing in that document that states that NORAD's operations were only limited to incoming foreign aircraft from outside the continent. There is nothing in the statistics that say the intercepts were only from the coast. The only intelligent assessment is that the stats are a combination of both continental intercepts and outside the continent. Anything else would be inaccurate based upon the definition of air sovereignty. Please do not try to falsely limit NORAD's responsibility or try to change their definition of territorial airspace and do try to use your ability to reason a bit more than what you are.
The minimum number of intercepts of course would be 1, the maximum number iis unknown.

Furthermore, the DOD defines territorial airspace as:
(DOD) Airspace above land territory, internal waters, archipelagic waters, and territorial seas. "Territorial airspace of the U.S." means the airspace over the United States, its territories and possessions, and the airspace overlying the territorial waters between the U.S. coast and twelve (12) nautical miles from the U.S. coast.Source: Here (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html)

I'm sure you are aware that the details of these SOPS have not been released to the public. Ever wonder why? I can guess.
These standard procedures were activated on 67 occasions in the period from September 2000 to June 2001 (see, FAA news release, 8/9/02; AP, 8/13/02); and in 129 cases in the year 2000 (see, Calgary Herald, 10/13/01).

Have you placed me back on ignore yet?

[Spins]

1. Location of airbase excuses it from intercepts and drills over the continental U.S. Rejected! LOL
Really, then why does that table not contain a single AFB located deep within the continental US if NORAD, prior to 9/11, did indeed routinely handle intercepts within the continental US?

Simple, because prior to 9/11 NORAD intercepts were limited to the offshore ADIZ...

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ADIZ.gif


From the GAO-Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.
Please explain how you can design a plane that is never “in distress” except when it’s inside an ADIZ.
The FAA handled all domestic traffic within the continental US (or CONUS), it was the FAA who contacted NORAD for assistance when Payne Stewart's Learjet veered of course and stopped responding.

[Spins]

2. FAA spokesman instead of the historical record of NORAD's own comments? Rejected.
So the FAA spokesman is lying or mistaken?


3. Historical record? Accepted.
The intercepts must have been near to the corresponding AFB, right? Since all those AFB's (in your table) are located near to the coast or border that would mean near to the offshore ADIZ, right?

If you think they didn't occur in the ADIZ prove it.

Please explain how you can design a plane that is never “in distress” except when it’s inside an ADIZ.So basically what you are saying is that prior to 9/11 if a plane was "in distress" within the continental US an F16 or F15 was scrambled? That sounds like a news story to me, ala Payne Stewart, so shouldn't be too hard to find right?

[jaydeehess]

Please provide the data with which you ascertained that those 1989-1992 scrambles were in response to threats originating in the United States.

Gravy beats me to it,

In fact so far no one has ever been able to show me that an interceptor has ever been scrambled against a US domestic flight let alone been on station with the errant flight within 20 -30 minutes.

Of course the only deliberate shoot down of a modern airliner by a sophisticated air force would be the shoot down of KAL 007 by the Soviet air force. I'd have to look up just how quickly the Soviet fighters took to get to that 747 but I suspect it was more than 30 minutes from the time the scramble alert went out, and that was an incursion into Soviet airspace by a foreign aircraft, not a domestic USSR flight.

Even then the pilot does not shoot for some time, then fires cannon accross the path of the 747 before later dropping back and firing a missile so the KAL flight travelled 25 miles (25 miles would be 5 minutes at 300 MPH) or more with the fighters on station before a shootdown was ordered and carried out by one of them.

[Cheap Shot]

Just a couple of questions that maybe you can or can not answer.
1. Why do you think the military stopped “using common reference points"?

2. Why wouldn't you and your departments been informed of this?

1. I don't really know, some of it was becasue the FAA was deleting TACANS that were associated with some of the VOR's. They were replacing them with DME's. TACANS are driectional as well as distance measuring. Civil aircraft only use the measuring equipment. So the FAA could save money. The military response or at least one of them was if all of there TACANS were going to disapear then they should use some other form identification for common reference points. There were always going to be some VORTACS left. I did not know they went completely away from common reference points on 9/11. I have a Letter of Agreement with NEADS that lists 24 common reference points from 1997.

2. Why were we not informed I don't know, things slip by sometimes even out of those 24 common reference points some of those have been decomissioned. The main point of this LOA was not common reference points, it is scheduling and activating airspace, procedures on to transfer of aircraft back and forth, it is still in effect but is in the process of being rewritten. I have been told that they could actually do common reference points back then, but they just didn't I don't know why. There new system can handle both, I haven't seen it, they still prefer Lat/Longs. More later

[jaydeehess]

Since number 6 covers the above points I will address that. And thanks for only addressing point 1 from my post. I think you would have understood that I agree with point 6 of your post based upon my quote here:


7)This is false. If you examine the Government's Accounting Office, Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter
Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76) Table I.1 you will discover the actual number of scramble orders. Intercepts are routinely practiced of course. The motivation of the pilot has no consequence be a drug smuggler, a hijacker, or a pilot off course.

Actually I addressed all 4 aircraft Swing so I don't know what your beef is.



However do you agree that a de facto stand down could be accomplished by the following methods:

1. The use NORAD’s radar system to create deliberate confusion due to deliberate non-fixing of incompatibility with FAA radar.

2. Deliberate non-fixing of an inability to remove “ground clutter”.

You have never worked in a large corporate enviroment have you?
Myopic planning and disregard for other departments happens all the time. I see it in my own job where another department makes decisions and then when I hear of it I have to scramble (no puns intended) to make my concerns or desires known in regards to those decisons. Rarely does anyone think to include the department where I work, in on things occuring elsewhere along the chain. Recently it was decided to install a fiber link to a building I am responsible for. This was to provide one way communications. No one asked me if a second fiber would be useful because it was not immediately obvious to the fiber group that it might be. I had to then quickly request that the work order include the splicing in of a second fiber for the 3 or 4 times that I will require two way communication to that site. It will also double as a spare for the original signal if the first fiber goes dark.

It would not be immediately obvious that FAA and military radar should be the same so no the item either slips through the cracks or is shelved because of cost and wrangling over which dept will pick up that cost, who will decide on specific technical details etc.

Remove 'ground clutter? Yes ground clutter does get removed from radar scopes. The problem would be including the clutter in order to try and see something in that clutter that is moving fast.
The only way to actually remove ground clutter would be to bulldoze the landscape flat and have everyone live underground. Discerning changes in the ground clutter (ie something moving) is not big on the agenda of ATC.


8. Is ground clutter a reasonable hindrance to the search of planes if the military can filter out the clutter since you share the same sites and considering they are responsible for air defense?



The reason fighter aircraft hug the ground in attack missions is so that it is difficult for radar to detect them. The military response to that was to build AWACS systems.

[PhantomWolf]

Of course the only deliberate shoot down of a modern airliner by a sophisticated air force would be the shoot down of KAL 007 by the Soviet air force. I'd have to look up just how quickly the Soviet fighters took to get to that 747 but I suspect it was more than 30 minutes from the time the scramble alert went out, and that was an incursion into Soviet airspace by a foreign aircraft, not a domestic USSR flight.

Not actually true, depending on how you define things. KAL-902 was a 707, a modern airliner for its time and similar in age to the 747. It was shot down by the Soviets in 1978.

[PhantomWolf]

3. The insertion of false blips either as part of exercises or not.

It's been noted several times that the insertion of false blips into live data is impossible.

[PhantomWolf]

What leads you to interpret the statistics and NORAD's definition of air sovereignty and territorial airspace as NOT including the interior of the continent? There is absolutely nothing in that document that states that NORAD's operations were only limited to incoming foreign aircraft from outside the continent. There is nothing in the statistics that say the intercepts were only from the coast. The only intelligent assessment is that the stats are a combination of both continental intercepts and outside the continent. Anything else would be inaccurate based upon the definition of air sovereignty. Please do not try to falsely limit NORAD's responsibility or try to change their definition of territorial airspace and do try to use your ability to reason a bit more than what you are.
The minimum number of intercepts of course would be 1, the maximum number iis unknown.

Actually NORAD themselves have stated it. You're welcome to prove them wrong by showing all of the intercepts that were conducted over the Continental US. All you have done so far is express your disbelief of their statement.

Here's a question. If NORAD knows that all of its intercepts were in the ADIZs, why would they need to say it in a report?

[Cheap Shot]

3. Have you been able to identify who issued the false alarm that had you and your crew evacuating your building in this moment of crisis?

I know who did, I won't mention any names here. I can tell you what happened, and how much it upset some of us in the building. On the other end as we ran with things like DAL1989, I can see how this got out of hand and ended up in the evacuation of our building.

After the second crash UAL175, some time after that we started receiving false hijackings all over the place, and unknown aircraft reports. One of the unknown aircraft reports was an aircraft approximately 65 miles southeast of Nantucket, at about 25,000 ft. The heading of this aircraft put it on a trajectory towards Nantucket, Boston or even Nashua, where the center was located. You had many possibilities. I checked with FACSFAC VACAPES (Giant Killer) to see if they knew who the aircraft was. Not a big deal it is common for Navy P-3's or Coast Guard aircraft to come in this way and they eventually contact us. I don't remember who or how, but we ended up identifying the aircraft as a Coast Guard. Probably within 4 or 5 minutes. Well probably 15 minutes later we hear that a our facility was coming under attack, and that impact was imminent. Our controllers were already landing aircraft, so as each sector cleared the sky the controllers left the building.

I found out later that the aircraft they thought was going to hit our facility was the Coast Guard aircraft. Pissed is not the word, but I was out of the building between 15 and 20 minutes where I could have been helping other facilities and NEADS.

[Cheap Shot]

You have stated in the past that there was no stand down order. I agree. I don't think sending out a memo to 1000 plus people is a realistic expectation of a 'conspiracy'.

However do you agree that a de facto stand down could be accomplished by the following methods:

1. The use NORAD’s radar system to create deliberate confusion due to deliberate non-fixing of incompatibility with FAA radar.

2. Deliberate non-fixing of an inability to remove “ground clutter”.

3. The insertion of false blips either as part of exercises or not.

1. Not sure what you are asking here, we use the same radar source, it all travels through the center than to NEADS.

2. I don't know if NEADS had the ability to remove ground clutter, but by thier own mission they were required to look at all targets even if it meant looking at ground clutter. They needed to be able to see slow moving aircraft coming in through the ADIZ.

3. It is very common for NEADS to use SIM targets, even regualr scheduled exercises usually have some type of SIM backup just in case weather or maintenance break down prevents some participants they can SIM the operation. I have never seen an exercise from NEADS end so I can't tell you how it exactly works. I don't know when they conduct an exercise, are they using there Real World ID Scopes or are they using scopes that are reserved for exercises. I can't tell you, I can assure you on the FAA end we cannot mix false targets with live traffic. If someone had entered false blips that were not shceduled, soemone would know about it. I jsut can't see anyone doing this on the level I worked at that day, if there was a stand down I didn't see it that day from the people I delat with at NEADS that day, it would have had to been at a much higher level than that. I don't beleive that theory.

[Cheap Shot]

4. That hijacking protocol, had you followed only rather than calling NEADS directly, would have caused even more delay correct?

5. The decision not to have scramble-ready planes at Andrews Air Force Base, of all places.

4. Definitely, especially that day. The protocol is there to get the appropriate Command Level that you need for decision making; however, that protocl is for them, not the controller. Though I got questioned a ton by the Justice Department on the protocol procedures and why didn't I follow them, I said I did. It wasn't my job to personally call the NMCC. I told my boss, who told the Region who told FAA HQ, and so on down the line. My rule was contained in FAAO 7610.4, escort hijacked aircraft, it didn't tell me how to go about it. I called NEADS and we got it started. I kind of figured all of those other people would eventually catch up.

5. Don't agree with you here either. Most of the intercepts that occur on the east coast happen in the northeast. Everyone who flys overseas uses the great circle routes. no body flys around the 30th parallel to get to Europe, they go North. What would be the purpose. Our threat for years were from the Russians they were not going to attack us from the east, it was going to come over the top. In addition Langley had fighters for the other alert base. I don't agree with the reduction years before to go to those two bases only, but thats just my opinion. Prior to 9-11 there just were not very many scrambles I see all of these reports of about how many scrambles there were, other than exercise scrambles I don't remember any after the Korean Air incident. The games between the countries ended rather quickly after that incident.

[Cheap Shot]

6. Are you aware if NEADS radar is able to separate planes without their transponder being active from weather patterns? A filter in other words to remove weather patterns from the scope.


Planes yes ground clutter probably not. You can tell a primary radar blip from weather, as long as the blip has some movement to it. If it is really slow moving, or if it is ground clutter, would be harder. You have to remember though that ground clutter though a problem exists near the radar site only, outside of 25 or 40 miles ground clutter is minimal. There are filters not sure about NEADS scopes at the time but you can dim your weather, of course on 9-11 weather was non-existent. Weather is based on preciptation only.

[jaydeehess]

Not actually true, depending on how you define things. KAL-902 was a 707, a modern airliner for its time and similar in age to the 747. It was shot down by the Soviets in 1978.


Duly noted. I had forgotten about that one. :footinmou

Still its not a NORAD shootdown of a domestic American flight.

I see that Swing is claiming that if the task was to ensure air sovereingty and intercepts were performed then some of those intercepts must have been scrambles and some of those must have been of domestic flights within the confines of the US borders.

Now my own memory is shown to have missed one shoot down of a civilian aircraft so it cannot be trusted to recall a scramble of interceptors against a civilian domestic flight but surely someone here would remember this.

Here's a thought; what was the response that had a couple of F-106 fighters trailing the 727 hijacked by "D.B.Cooper"? Was this a scramble? Was it initiated by NORAD or by ATC requesting a fighter escort? How long from the time "Cooper" told the crew he had a bomb and allowed them to communicate this to ATC, to the time the fighters were on the tail of the 727?

"Cooper" had asked for several chutes leading to the thought that he was going to have the entire crew and himself jump. That would have put the plane on a uncontrolled and possibly dangerous path. Was shootdown ever considered?

SwingD, how about it? Answers to my questions would possibly go a long way to bolstering your contentions.

Of course this did occur 37 years ago and surely there is some other incident that is more recent. Should you find one, do let us know.

[beachnut]

how can swing get everything wrong? Is there a class at LCF for messing up 9/11 information?

[Cheap Shot]

7. Is it possible to remove real blips or dashes from NEADS radar screens?

8. Is ground clutter a reasonable hindrance to the search of planes if the military can filter out the clutter since you share the same sites and considering they are responsible for air defense?

7. I don't think so, doubt it.

8. On 9-11 I beleive it was a huge hinderance, I know we gave at least 6 locations on AAL11 and they could never find it. At times AAL11 was grounding 600 knots, that's "cookin". We had no problem tracking AAL11, we had a hard time keeping our data block on the target, but that is common with primary targets. I am confident with the system they have today, I haven't seen it yet, but I have talked with thier techs and I can't wait to see it.

[Swing Dangler]

Really, then why does that table not contain a single AFB located deep within the continental US if NORAD, prior to 9/11, did indeed routinely handle intercepts within the continental US?

Simple, because prior to 9/11 NORAD intercepts were limited to the offshore ADIZ...
Again, read the GAO report closely and NORAD's mission. Plane in distress over the continental U.S. Check. Hijacked plane over the U.S.? Check. Intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects. Geez who does that if it is over the continental United States? Why NORAD does! Flying objects that are unidentified over the continental U.S.? Check! Who is responsible? NORAD. Something from space entering U.S. airspace in the continental U.S. Check! Its all there.
Please don't "limit" NORAD intercepts through deception and stop ignoring the simple fact of NORAD's purpose. NORAD isn't limited to its own designated fighter bases. They have the ability to scramble from any airbase. See this list for the list of USAF bases in the CONUS. (http://www.globemaster.de/cgi-bin/bases/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&so=ascend&keyword=zzz33&submit=Search)

So the FAA spokesman is lying or mistaken?
See Cheapshots comments about NEADS and then you can figure it out. Being an FAA operator doesn't make you a spokesman for NEADS or NORAD nor does iit make you an expert on their technology.

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ADIZ.gif
The FAA handled all domestic traffic within the continental US (or CONUS), it was the FAA who contacted NORAD for assistance when Payne Stewart's Learjet veered of course and stopped responding.
What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

PhatomwolfActually NORAD themselves have stated it. You're welcome to prove them wrong by showing all of the intercepts that were conducted over the Continental US. All you have done so far is express your disbelief of their statement.

Yes they 'said' that. Do I need to bring up Senator Dayton's comments about NORAD lying and their ever changing story. So you understand why I'm hesitant to believe what they say despite their mission statement and definition of air sovereignty. Second, as a student of the official story you know very well that the exact details of intercepts are unavailable to the public i.e. classified. Being a famous golfer is one reason that event was made public and the fact that it crashed within the continent.

I see that Swing is claiming that if the task was to ensure air sovereingty and intercepts were performed then some of those intercepts must have been scrambles and some of those must have been of domestic flights within the confines of the US borders.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:
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.Source: USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm) The last time I checked Utah and Washington are within the continental U.S. Of course they are going to drill within the continental U.S. as that is their region of air superiority.

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:
The Battle Management Center, in operation only since early 1998, is staffed by three people under ordinary circumstances. In the event of an increased alert status, this room full of office cubicles would be filled with personnel from all branches of the military.
One ongoing mission of the Battle Management Center is to coordinate "air sovereignty" efforts, monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace -- some 2.5 million a year. NORAD is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders. Source: CNN[ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.cheyenne/)/QUOTE]
Notice something missing like the phrase: "Only aircraft originating outside the United States." Notice something else? Air Sovereignty. Do you remember what air sovereignty means from my post below?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. That idea completely contradicts NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:
intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and
intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. That is strawman.

I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

Cheapshot, thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.
Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?

[beachnut]

Swing, your post are so obtuse. There was no stand down. To even make up such an idea, makes for a dumb post. You debunk things that were not even said, you make up ideas never implied. Your post is junk. And you refuse to learn.

As you quibble over bs, you miss the whole point. But then you are making the false idea point, for 9/11 truth liars and false idea merchants.

If you would take the time to learn, you would not be imply the stupid ideas in your posts. But research is never a trait of 9/11 truth false information believers, is it?

Operation Northwoods - the red flag used to identify pure bs posts.

[funk de fino]

Second, as a student of the official story you know very well that the exact details of intercepts are unavailable to the public i.e. classified. Being a famous golfer is one reason that event was made public and the fact that it crashed within the continent.

That is a bare faced lie

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E3DC1E39F932A25752C1A9659C8B 63

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3258857.stm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E2DF133FF932A15755C0A9649C8B 63

retract stupid lie please

[Swing Dangler]

Double post.

[Swing Dangler]

Really, then why does that table not contain a single AFB located deep within the continental US if NORAD, prior to 9/11, did indeed routinely handle intercepts within the continental US?

Simple, because prior to 9/11 NORAD intercepts were limited to the offshore ADIZ...
Again, read the GAO report closely and NORAD's mission. Plane in distress over the continental U.S. Check. Hijacked plane over the U.S.? Check. Intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects. Geez who does that if it is over the continental United States? Why NORAD does! Flying objects that are unidentified over the continental U.S.? Check! Who is responsible? NORAD. Something from space entering U.S. airspace in the continental U.S. Check! Its all there.
Please don't "limit" NORAD intercepts through deception and stop ignoring the simple fact of NORAD's purpose. NORAD isn't limited to its own designated fighter bases. They have the ability to scramble from any airbase. See this list for the list of USAF bases in the CONUS. (http://www.globemaster.de/cgi-bin/bases/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&so=ascend&keyword=zzz33&submit=Search)

So the FAA spokesman is lying or mistaken?
See Cheapshots comments about NEADS and then you can figure it out. Being an FAA operator doesn't make you a spokesman for NEADS or NORAD nor does iit make you an expert on their technology.

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ADIZ.gif
The FAA handled all domestic traffic within the continental US (or CONUS), it was the FAA who contacted NORAD for assistance when Payne Stewart's Learjet veered of course and stopped responding.
What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

PhatomwolfActually NORAD themselves have stated it. You're welcome to prove them wrong by showing all of the intercepts that were conducted over the Continental US. All you have done so far is express your disbelief of their statement.

Yes they 'said' that. Do I need to bring up Senator Dayton's comments about NORAD lying and their ever changing story. So you understand why I'm hesitant to believe what they say despite their mission statement and definition of air sovereignty. Second, as a student of the official story you know very well that the exact details of intercepts are unavailable to the public i.e. classified. Being a famous golfer is one reason that event was made public and the fact that it crashed within the continent.

I see that Swing is claiming that if the task was to ensure air sovereingty and intercepts were performed then some of those intercepts must have been scrambles and some of those must have been of domestic flights within the confines of the US borders.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:
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.Source: USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm) The last time I checked Utah and Washington are within the continental U.S. Of course they are going to drill within the continental U.S. as that is their region of air superiority.

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:
The Battle Management Center, in operation only since early 1998, is staffed by three people under ordinary circumstances. In the event of an increased alert status, this room full of office cubicles would be filled with personnel from all branches of the military.
One ongoing mission of the Battle Management Center is to coordinate "air sovereignty" efforts, monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace -- some 2.5 million a year. NORAD is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders. Source: CNN[ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.cheyenne/)/QUOTE]
Notice something missing like the phrase: "Only aircraft originating outside the United States." Notice something else? Air Sovereignty. Do you remember what air sovereignty means from my post below?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. That idea completely contradicts NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:
intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and
intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. That is strawman.

I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

Cheapshot, thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.
Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?

[beachnut]

What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

Yes they 'said' that. Do I need to bring up Senator Dayton's comments about NORAD lying and their ever changing story. So you understand why I'm hesitant to believe what they say despite their mission statement and definition of air sovereignty. Second, as a student of the official story you know very well that the exact details of intercepts are unavailable to the public i.e. classified. Being a famous golfer is one reason that event was made public and the fact that it crashed within the continent.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:
The last time I checked Utah and Washington are within the continental U.S. Of course they are going to drill within the continental U.S. as that is their region of air superiority.

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:
Source: CNN[ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.cheyenne/)/QUOTE]
Notice something missing like the phrase: "Only aircraft originating outside the United States." Notice something else? Air Sovereignty. Do you remember what air sovereignty means from my post below?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. That idea completely contradicts NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:
intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and
intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. That is strawman.

I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.
Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?
You have not made a point or any sensible arguments for anything. How can you post so much stuff, and not even make a point? Twice?

Northwoods again? It defeats the weak CT implications clouded by the weak attack on your own failed ideas of what NORAD does. After reading the repeated post, I still can not see your point.

You make such a poor attempt at making up a CT. Why not come out with some facts instead of playing around with talk? Your post actually shows your ignorance on NORAD and 9/11. Trying to push a weak CT idea in the mess of repeated posted junk. Hopefully your obstipated ideas can be extricated by someone. Good luck

[jaydeehess]

Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

Odd that you would take that tact when you later state
"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes:
intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER.

Which is it Swing? Is the Payne Stewart example a strawman because it is a domestic flight or is NORAD's task to , among other things, "providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:......assisting aircraft in distress..."?

Perhaps its only a strawman because it illustrates so very well that NORAD relied on ATC to alert them of trouble with domestic aircraft and that they did not have aircraft ready to scramble against aircraft within the lower 48 states.

This flight was not a hijacking but did ATC or NORAD know that for a fact? It was nordo and acting strangly.
On the other hand has there been a hijacking of a domestic US or Canadian flight in the couple of decades prior to sept. 2001? I don't believe so.
If there was then by all means illuminate me.
If there has been an interceptor scramble alert against any domestic US or Canadian flight in those same two deacdes feel free to let us know about them.


That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:
The last time I checked Utah and Washington are within the continental U.S. Of course they are going to drill within the continental U.S. as that is their region of air superiority.

Replace my using the phrase "that if" with "given that". My statement was to illustrate that with a task as described you have assumed that intercepts over the contiguous USA have occured yet you are unable to illustrate that such is the case. Instead you attempt to make lack of evidence into evidence.

As for that drill which had interceptors from Washington and Utah, you might note where the intercepted aircraft were escorted to where Swing? British Columbia and Alaska are both very much NOT within the contiguous USA. So in that case where did the errant aircraft originate? The article does not say but we do get this; ""We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.""

Everyone, absolutely everyone, agrees that NORAD was looking outward, in this case north, from the US border.

So its another Swing and a miss for,,,,, well,,,, Swing Dangler.



A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:
Source: CNN[ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.cheyenne/)/QUOTE]
Notice something missing like the phrase: "Only aircraft originating outside the United States." Notice something else? Air Sovereignty. Do you remember what air sovereignty means from my post below?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. ....
I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Most people have come around to the idea that NORAD actually had not claimed to be tasked with only threats coming towards the contiguous USA from without the borders.
Fact of the matter is that NORAD was not looking inward and relied on ATC to ask for assistance, if needed, for a domestic flight in trouble or in the case of a hijacking. In other cases they assisted other agencies such as the DEA when assistance was requested. How many drug smuggling planes would be coming in via the northeast? Maybe the northwest from British Columbia, and of course over Fla. or Tx. From over the NE coast, what are they smuggling, Newfoundland Screech?

It still remains for you to show that in the decades prior to 9/11 they were particularily concerned with domestic surveillance. A police force has jurisdiction over local parking bylaws but the detectives in the homicide division are very very unlikely to write up a parking ticket. But they could if they wanted to.


Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

Once again creating evidence from a lack of evidence.
One thing that always amazes me is that so many CT's will on one hand shout about the stretching of intel that the Bush administration did to whip up support for an Iraq war and then turn around and stretch information in ways so very grossly similar.
Swing Dangler and Cheney up in a tree....

[jaydeehess]

Here's an interesting read;http://forums.jetcareers.com/technical-talk/19065-flight-of-the-unintentional-uav.html

Doing Swing's work for him.

[dudalb]

Swing is a good example of why I have come to have an automatic dislike for anybody using the freaking Guy Fawkes mask from "V For Vendetta" as an avatar. It is almost a sure sign that conspiracy kookiness is on it's way.
And it lost whatever "coolness" factor it has a long time ago.

[Spins]

What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition off territorial airspace below.
I drew it with my NWO issued crayons, I apologize I'm not very good at drawing things to scale ... no seriously it's from the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 5, Section 6 – National Security and Interception Procedures.

No it's not a strawman, the FAA handle all domestic traffic within the continental US and when Payne Stewart's Learjet stopped responding and veered off course they contacted NORAD for assistance. NORAD weren't already tracking and monitoring the errant plane. The same thing happened on 9/11 when Boston ATC broke standard protocol and contacted NEADS directly in Rome, New York about the hijacking of Flight 11. NEADS replied "Is this real-world or exercise?" because they had no idea what had been happening on board Flight 11, why, because they do not handle domestic air traffic within the continental US. Do you understand?

The planes that were hijacked on 9/11 were all domestic flights that originated from within the continental US. If the planes were hijacked over the Atlantic and had their transponders switched off etc then I guarantee they would have been intercepted by NORAD, as per the "Interception Procedures" outlined in the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, as they approached the ADIZ. Why, because that's exactly the kind of incursion the fighter pilots had trained for and what NORAD had been setup to counter.

Anyways I believe you need to contact NORAD and inform them that there was a serious security risk during the Cold War. They hadn't accounted for the fact that the Soviet Union could launch their fighters and bombers from within the continental US. :boggled:

Swing is the new A-Train!

[Corsair 115]

Swing is the new A-Train!But who's the new Malcolm Kirkman? :D

[jaydeehess]

But who's the new Malcolm Kirkman? :D
A Train
Malcolm Kirkman
Swing Dangler

:eek:

all three with two names.................think about it...........;)

[Spins]

But who's the new Malcolm Kirkman? :D
Hmmm, that's a difficult one because Malcolm Kirkman was the pinnacle of stupidity, the über-truther (so to speak), it's like he was built in a laboratory from the combined stupid of lesser truthers.

[jaydeehess]

Hmmm, that's a difficult one because Malcolm Kirkman was the pinnacle of stupidity, the über-truther (so to speak), it's like he was built in a laboratory from the combined stupid of lesser truthers.

Be careful with that label there Spins. I could vey easily show you links to several threads on another forum where no less than 4 posters each make Malcolm look like the penultimate rational thinker.

[gumboot]

1. True or False-AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

True.


2.True or False-UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.

UA175 crashed into WTC2, but otherwise, true.


3. True or False- AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.

I would say more than that. There's actually a JSS site just south of the Pentagon. It's hard to judge its inland range at high altitude though because of the Appalachians.


4.True or False- UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.

As with AA77, it could be more - it's hard to judge the high altitude coverage of the JSS sites covering that area due to the Appalachians.


True or False-Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats. The statement that NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them is completely false. NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage – its their job.

You are three separate statements here.

Flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats - true.

The statement that NORAD wasn't prepared to track them is completely false - actually your statement is completely false. Although it wasn't so much that NORAD wasn't prepared to track them - it was that NORAD wasn't able to track them.

NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage - it's their job - false.


True or False-Is this radar coverage map from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron Hill AFB, UT accurate?

I would presume so.


If true, is a large portion of the Northeastern Sector covered by NORAD?

No, the overwhelming majority of NEADS airspace is not covered by JSS radars.

[gumboot]

I wouldn't bother discussing anything with Swing Dangler. He is impervious to logic or reason.

For what it's worth, discussion on the quality of NORAD Vs FAA Radar is a complete and utter misunderstanding. Both the FAA and NORAD use the exact same radars (except of course NORAD only takes feeds from the perimeter ARSR-4 JSS sites whereas the FAA also takes feeds from the internal ARSR-1, ARSR-2, and ARSR-3 sites).

The vital step in the process is the radar data processor which determines what data from the radars is displayed on the controller's scope. Just because a given radar covers a given area does not mean it appears on the scope, and does not mean it can be easily identified on a scope even if it does appear.

If you do not understand the differences in how the FAA processes radar data versus how NORAD processes radar data you cannot understand what happened on 9/11. It is my opinion that this is the single most important reason for NORAD's failure to intercept the flights on 9/11. Even had every other aspect been rearranged to enable intercept (lots of armed fighters already in the air, authorisation to shoot...) due to the way NORAD processes data coming off the JSS sites, an intercept was virtually impossible.

And finally, once you understand the differences in radar data processing, it is vital to understand why those differences existed. (Because those differences were primarily a result of NORAD and the FAA having different jobs).

[gumboot]

What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?


It's from the FAR. If you'd prefer a more accurate definition of the Continguous USA ADIZ it is:

Sec. 99.43
Continguous U.S. ADIZ.

The area bounded by a line from 43°15'N, 65°55'W; 44°21'N; 67°16'W; 43°10'N; 69°40'W; 41°05'N; 69°40'W; 40°32'N; 72°15'W; 39°55'N; 73°00'W; 39°38'N; 73°00'W; 39°36'N; 73°40'W; 37°00'N; 75°30'W; 36°10'N; 75°10'W; 35°10'N; 75°10'W; 32°00'N; 80°30'W; 30°30'N; 81°00'W; 26°40'N; 79°40'W; 25°00'N; 80°05'W; 24°25'N; 81°15'W; 24°20'N; 81°45'W; 24°30'N; 82°06'W; 24°41'N; 82°06'W; 24°43'N; 82°00'W; 25°00'N; 81°30'W; 25°10'N; 81°23'W; 25°35'N; 81°30'W; 26°15'N 82°20'W; 27°50'N; 83°05'W; 28°55'N; 83°30'W; 29°42'N; 84°00'W; 29°20'N; 85°00'W; 30°00'N; 87°10'W; 30°00'N; 88°30'W; 28°45'N; 88°55'W; 28°45'N; 90°00'W; 29°25'N; 94°00'W; 28°20'N; 96°00'W; 27°30'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 25°58'N; 97°07'W; westward along the U.S./Mexico border to 32°32'03"N, 117°07'25"W; 32°30'N; 117°25'W; 32°35'N; 118°30'W; 33°05'N; 119°45'W; 33°55'N; 120°40'W; 34°50'N; 121°10'W; 38°50'N; 124°00'W; 40°00'N; 124°35'W; 40°25'N; 124°40'W; 42°50'N; 124°50'W; 46°15'N; 124°30'W; 48°30'N; 125°00'W; 48°20'N; 128°00'W; 48°20'N; 132°00'W; 37°42'N; 130°40'W; 29°00'N; 124°00'W; 30°45'N; 120°50'W; 32°00'N; 118°24'W; 32°30'N; 117°20'W; 32°32'03"N; 117°07'25"W; eastward along the U.S./Mexico border to 25°58'N, 97°07'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 95°00'W; 26°30'N; 95°00'W; then via 26°30'N; parallel to 26°30'N; 84°00'W; 24°00'N; 83°00'W; then Via 24°00'N; parallel to 24°00'N; 79°25'W; 25°40'N; 79°25'W; 27°30'N; 78°50'W; 30°45'N; 74°00'W; 39°30'N; 63°45'W; 43°00'N; 65°48'W; to point of beginning.

Does that clear things up for you?

[Cheap Shot]

1. Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it.

2. Thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.

3. Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?

1. I don't know how I confrimed a defacto stand down could occur? I don't beleive I did. I really don't think any one, two or three people could pull this off.

2. If people ask I will let them know what I know, but if someone is a jerk I can be one right back. I beleive in keeping it civil.

3. I still work in the FAA, when I bring information to this site most of what I bring has already been published somewhere or is public knowledge. It wouldn't serve any purpose to bring forward names of people who thought they were doing the right thing but actually made mistakes. I don't have a problem shedding light on the mistakes I made that day, but I wouldn't want someone else blabbering about them. So need to name names.

[Cheap Shot]

I am not that computer savy, but what Gumboot says is correct about the radar processing, something about it being processed in 2000 bits to NEADS, and 7,000 bits to the FAA, don't really know all of that stuff. I know it enters our facility with both bits of information we send the 2,000 bits of info on to NEADS. In the FAA even though a radar site may see out 200 or 250 NM, you can't see it if you don't have the sort boxes adapted. That is why we couldn't see UAL93, the aircraft was out of our adaptation range. Don't know what NEADS does with there data.

[Reheat]

Even had every other aspect been rearranged to enable intercept (lots of armed fighters already in the air, authorisation to shoot...) due to the way NORAD processes data coming off the JSS sites, an intercept was virtually impossible.

Don't you think you're stretching this a bit and looking at it from strictly a controller's viewpoint?

Bear in mind that the Fighters have very good air-to-air radar and they also have eyeballs, so, as long as they're pointed in the right direction there's a good chance they could execute successfully. Of course, in a busy sky there is always a chance of initially intercepting the wrong target. Beyond visual range (BVR) shots would never be authorized over the NA Continent anyway (as long as there is civilian traffic), so I don't think it was quite as dismal as you surmise.

You do need to expand a bit on these comments about NORAD radar. There is no reason to give the "troofers" additional fodder that could easily be misinterpreted.

[gumboot]

Don't you think you're stretching this a bit and looking at it from strictly a controller's viewpoint?

Bear in mind that the Fighters have very good air-to-air radar and they also have eyeballs, so, as long as they're pointed in the right direction there's a good chance they could execute successfully. Of course, in a busy sky there is always a chance of initially intercepting the wrong target. Beyond visual range (BVR) shots would never be authorized over the NA Continent anyway (as long as there is civilian traffic), so I don't think it was quite as dismal as you surmise.

You do need to expand a bit on these comments about NORAD radar. There is no reason to give the "troofers" additional fodder that could easily be misinterpreted.

Well I suppose if you had actually established ROEs that said "shoot down anything suspect", and if you had enough fighters to intercept all airliners in the sky, yeah it could be successful despite NORAD's radar. Of course in that scenario I'd almost guarantee you that a lot of non-hijacked airliners would be shot down, and there's a good chance your end death toll would be in excess of 3,000.

The main point with radar, far as I can surmise, is ground clutter. Ground clutter on NORAD scopes made finding the hijacked aircraft virtually impossible. But that ground clutter was a side effect of turning up the radar sensitivity to ensure that NORAD could see everything. Otherwise a cruise missile or a Russian bomber would slip by them.

The FAA, of course, didn't have to worry about bombers or cruise missiles, but they did have to manage dense air traffic at high altitude over cluttered urban landscapes. So it's in their interests to clear all of that ground clutter out of the way.

Anyone who wants a very technical but easy to follow explanation of how radar data processing works, I recommend this (http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/rtudslide00.html) presentation by Tom Lusch.

[ElMondoHummus]

Anyone who wants a very technical but easy to follow explanation of how radar data processing works, I recommend this (http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/rtudslide00.html) presentation by Tom Lusch.

I'm already going "Wow!" :eek: over that first slide about the near miss:


I verified that it wasn't on my radar scope before then by immediately turning my "history" control for a full presentation of the last 5 radar hits (roughly one minute's worth of radar data). It was at that point that I was absolutely positive the other aircraft hadn't been displayed till that very moment.


I realize 1984 was a long time ago, and that things must have changed since then, but still... Thanks for the link!

[gumboot]

I'm already going "Wow!" :eek: over that first slide about the near miss:



I realize 1984 was a long time ago, and that things must have changed since then, but still... Thanks for the link!


It's worth noting that the original presentation was given in 1991, and the website was established in 2000. Finally, as of 2007 the author was still calling for the changes he demands at the end of the presentation. I find it hard to believe he would still be pressing for changes to address a problem if that problem no longer existed.

In fact if the continual reduction in primary coverage capabilities is true (which the evidence suggests it is) the issue has become only more serious over time.

[ElMondoHummus]

It's worth noting that the original presentation was given in 1991, and the website was established in 2000. Finally, as of 2007 the author was still calling for the changes he demands at the end of the presentation. I find it hard to believe he would still be pressing for changes to address a problem if that problem no longer existed.

In fact if the continual reduction in primary coverage capabilities is true (which the evidence suggests it is) the issue has become only more serious over time.


Yes, I'm on slide 13, and I'm beginning to really get the idea of what he's trying to get across.

I'll get through the presentation as soon as I can, and I'm hoping to see a reason why the UCR was closed without the problem being addressed. I may not agree with the reason, but I'd like to think the FAA (that's who'd deal with this, right?) would at least have considered the issue. If this has simply been blackholed, then I'm going to be severely disappointed in that agency.

Now this is the sort of real issue that truly needs an investigation. Not the stupid conspiracy fantasy.

ETA: Oh, yes, you're right. Very quick lookups suggest the problem may not have been taken care of yet. Wonder if CHEAP SHOT is willing to comment on this. Sounds like the very sort of thing he'd have personal professional knowledge on.

[Reheat]

Well I suppose if you had actually established ROEs that said "shoot down anything suspect", and if you had enough fighters to intercept all airliners in the sky, yeah it could be successful despite NORAD's radar. Of course in that scenario I'd almost guarantee you that a lot of non-hijacked airliners would be shot down, and there's a good chance your end death toll would be in excess of 3,000.


Whoa! That was the whole point of including the comment about no BVR. It would never be authorized even if the radar at NORAD were the best there is available. While I may be dumb, generally NORAD pilots aren't, so they aren't going to shoot down an airliner without positive identification even if there is shootdown authority and an intercept vector from the ground. This issue would be particularly sensitive without a good vector from the ground.

BTW, BVR shots are an extreme rarity even in war time. Without BVR authorization the pilot must VISUALLY identify the target, period.

From what I've heard I totally agree about ground clutter on their radars. It's worth stating again that is the reason we can say that NORAD was looking outward not inward. This equipment deficiency over land is an excellent testament to that.

[gumboot]

Whoa! That was the whole point of including the comment about no BVR. It would never be authorized even if the radar at NORAD were the best there is available. While I may be dumb, generally NORAD pilots aren't, so they aren't going to shoot down an airliner without positive identification even if there is shootdown authority and an intercept vector from the ground. This issue would be particularly sensitive without a good vector from the ground.

Yes I'm aware of all of the above, and I don't consider you dumb. :)

Even with visual identification, with open ROEs I think an accidental shoot down would have almost been a certainty.

You have to remember there's at least three different identities through which a flight is identified - the aircraft's serial number, the flight number, and its beacon code.

There's a reason NORAD never passed on the shoot down authorisation to pilots. The idea was for an intercept to occur, identity of the flight to be identified, and shoot down ordered through NORAD if required.

I doubt NORAD would have permitted a shoot down unless they were sure it was the right aircraft, and I can't see that happening unless they could see the aircraft on their scopes - regardless of what the pilots could see.

[ElMondoHummus]

Wow, what a read. Thanks, Gumboot!

Anyone know if CHEAP SHOT's got an opinion on that whole issue?

[Reheat]

I doubt NORAD would have permitted a shoot down unless they were sure it was the right aircraft, and I can't see that happening unless they could see the aircraft on their scopes - regardless of what the pilots could see.

Perhaps, your right, I dunno. It's all speculation anyway as there has never been one before (intentional), by US aircraft.

[Corsair 115]

True or False-Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats.If you judge this question by the degree of security checks required to board such flights, then no, they were not considered threats.

Even boarding international flights between the U.S. and Canada prior to 9/11 did not require much in the way of security checks. Only two pieces of ID were required, one with a photo. In practice a driver's license and a birth certificate were enough to board a flight between Canada and the United States, regardless of which country the flight originated in.

Nowadays, of course, a passport is required for such flights.

[Cheap Shot]

Interesting stuff, first I read the through the files on radar. As much as I see Tom's logic, in some cases we are going the other way. I didn't see him mention anything on single site. Single Site in the center involes us bringing in ASR from an approach controls. We have several in Boston Center. So where Tom's concerns seems we throw away radar data which we do, in the single site environment it allows center controllers to use 3 NM seperation instead of our normal required 5 NM. We can use it up to FL230 I beleive and then we adapt the mosaic above it for that sort box. The Center ATC can use 3 NM up to 40 NM in single site. There are certain patches here as well, under original single site we would have to lose every 5th or 6th hit. ASR's operate on a 4.8 second sweep or something close to it. Our HOST computer will update on so many hits but then it eventually kicks one out.

So here we are wanting to use a single site to increase our ability to run planes closer together. There are requests as well to decrease a degrees divergence as well which will help the Center controller. But then we are not even using the Center ARSR radar at all.

Tom's page goes into the mosaic part very well, I have seen some test systems without going into to much detail, that feed numerous types of radar and other sources of tracking information, then applies an algorithm and gives you best choice of where the aircraft is, some real whiz bang stuff. Doubt we will ever get there but pretty neat stuff.

On to NORAD intercepts on 9-11, if we had got the planes off early and lets say they found the target, the first one AAL11 would have only been escorted. The fighters would gone in behind and stayed there and never would have made visual contact with who ever was flying the plane. A question for Reheat here, when do you think fighters would have known the intention that the aircraft was going to hit the Tower? My guess not soon enough to do anything about it.

After AAL11 has hit the Tower, the fighters have witnessed the whole thing now they find out about UAL175, but he isn't flying down the Hudson like
AAL11 was. He is over the city, almost collides with a Delta Airlines jet. Lets say the fighters now intercept this aircraft. I think they treat this aircraft differently they actually intercpet this aircraft one pulls up next to the cockpit. On a day as clear as 9-11 they can see in the cockpit. They can tell who is flying the plane. So one aircraft is next to it using international hand signals, or trying to contact the plane. the other fighter is in back, my guess he is locked on maybe not I didn't know ROE then. Or they allowed to even lock on I don't know. Even if they do and they know the intention, I don't think there is a safe place to put this aircraft down. However just the visual of the fighters may be enough for the hijacker to lose control of the aircraft or miss its target. That is my guess.

As far as the others if they would have been intercepted, prior to reaching there targets there were places to put those aircraft down. Does NORAD make that decison without executive approval I don't know.

But to answer the question did NORAD have the radar capabilities to find and identify these aircraft on 9-11, I thought they did and I assume a lot of other people thought that as well. But now I would have to guess not.

That's not to say that with the help of ATC, and airborne radar, and everything clicked our way I think we still could have done more than we did.

A very hard lesson learned for every government agency.

[Reheat]

Interesting post, Cheap Shot. We never seem to have enough $$ to upgrade the system to make it more efficient until after an accident or two. Something will need to be done in the coming years as the system is near at capacity now, particularly in the busier terminal areas. More efficient and safe sequencing perhaps could relieve some of that.

You know as well as I do that the airlines are NOT going to voluntarily adjust their schedules to help, so either the Govt will need to force that or upgrade the system.

A question for Reheat here, when do you think fighters would have known the intention that the aircraft was going to hit the Tower? My guess not soon enough to do anything about it.

Well, once the airliner passed JFK, still descending it probably would have been obvious that they weren't going to land there, but I seriously doubt they would have fired at EITHER aircraft. Those kinds of decisions are not taken lightly and since it was not decided beforehand (as it is now) there would have been no action at all other than observation or harassment.

Where an shot down aircraft goes once it's it engaged with missiles or guns is uncontrollable. Obviously, the pilots know the entire area is heavily populated and that is one of the additional issues that complicates a shoot down decision. I can not imagine anyone taking that lightly without lengthy deliberation.

What the jihadists would have done with a fighter visible on their wing is anyone's guess. I have the suspicion that it would have made no difference.

As I've stated several times previously, arguing minutia about the Otis fighters is a moot point as I believe they would not have shot down either aircraft under pre-9/11 conditions. It was not obvious to anyone that we were under attack until after UA175 hit. Had the Fighters actually witnessed AA11 hit, I still doubt that they would have assumed and gotten a decision soon enough to prevent UA175 from hitting as well.

[gumboot]

Something that also isn't often mentioned is that shooting down an airliner isn't as simple as simply ripping off a missile at it.

Airliners are much bigger than fighter aircraft, and their engines are located externally on the wing, rather than in the fuselage like with a fighter. As such they're not as vulnerable to heat-seeking weapons as a fighter. Both the 767 and 757 can comfortably continue flying with only one engine running.

The alternative is to use a radar guided missile, but then the problem becomes "Where on the airliner do you aim for?"

On 9/11 NORAD staff were debating where to hit the airliner very early on. It may have taken quite a few missiles to take down an airliner. Acquiring a lock for each missile, launching, gaining another lock, launching again... takes time.

[gumboot]

Well, once the airliner passed JFK, still descending it probably would have been obvious that they weren't going to land there, but I seriously doubt they would have fired at EITHER aircraft.

Just a nitpick, but AA11 never passed JFK. It came from the north, and JFK is east and south of the WTC.


Where an shot down aircraft goes once it's it engaged with missiles or guns is uncontrollable. Obviously, the pilots know the entire area is heavily populated and that is one of the additional issues that complicates a shoot down decision. I can not imagine anyone taking that lightly without lengthy deliberation.

You might have had a chance with UA175 on its final approach because it was over water, but we're talking an envelope of a matter of seconds here.


As I've stated several times previously, arguing minutia about the Otis fighters is a moot point as I believe they would not have shot down either aircraft under pre-9/11 conditions. It was not obvious to anyone that we were under attack until after UA175 hit. Had the Fighters actually witnessed AA11 hit, I still doubt that they would have assumed and gotten a decision soon enough to prevent UA175 from hitting as well.

To be honest I really can't see any scenario in which NORAD could have intercepted any of the flights.

It's easy to claim "if X was different" but X wasn't different, and in most cases there was a very good reason X wasn't different. If we take the example of radar ground clutter - which I think played a key part in the failure to intercept AA11 (the only flight NEADS had even a remote chance of intercepting) - it wasn't a result of a poor quality radar system - it was a result of a radar system tailored to suit NORAD's needs. Between when CheapShot told NEADS about AA11 and it dropped below FAA radar coverage (in other words, into the ground clutter) only 5 minutes passed, and the aircraft dropped from 29,000ft to whatever altitude the ground clutter filter kicked in.

So even if NORAD had a system in place to quickly and easily filter ground clutter on or off, they still only had 5 minutes to find the aircraft and get a radar lock on it before it went into the ground clutter anyway. (only 3 minutes if you allow the ~2 minutes it took for Major Nasypany to be paged on the PA system and get from the bathroom to the Ops Floor).

Bottom line, though, is that even if the Otis fighters had been airborne the instant NEADS were told about AA11, even if they had flown directly to the WTC at full afterburner, carrying no fuel tanks and no missiles, they would have failed to perform an intercept in time... why? Because they would have run out of fuel before they reached their destination. And with the extra fuel they would have been slowed down too much, and probably still would have run out of fuel before they got there.

[Reheat]

Just a nitpick, but AA11 never passed JFK. It came from the north, and JFK is east and south of the WTC.

Yes, I know. I was based there in one of my previous lives. Perhaps I should have worded it as not proceeding to JFK as opposed to saying it passed JFK.

Bottom line, though, is that even if the Otis fighters had been airborne the instant NEADS were told about AA11, even if they had flown directly to the WTC at full afterburner, carrying no fuel tanks and no missiles, they would have failed to perform an intercept in time... why? Because they would have run out of fuel before they reached their destination. And with the extra fuel they would have been slowed down too much, and probably still would have run out of fuel before they got there.

Very good point.

[gumboot]

Yes, I know. I was based there in one of my previous lives. Perhaps I should have worded it as not proceeding to JFK as opposed to saying it passed JFK.



Very good point.


The importance of the fuel thing didn't really register with me until I was listening to the NORAD recordings and realised how much importance they put on getting tankers in the air early on.

Once I did the calculations for fuel consumption, I understood why they were so concerned.

[Swing Dangler]

Something that also isn't often mentioned is that shooting down an airliner isn't as simple as simply ripping off a missile at it.

Airliners are much bigger than fighter aircraft, and their engines are located externally on the wing, rather than in the fuselage like with a fighter. As such they're not as vulnerable to heat-seeking weapons as a fighter. Both the 767 and 757 can comfortably continue flying with only one engine running.

The alternative is to use a radar guided missile, but then the problem becomes "Where on the airliner do you aim for?"

On 9/11 NORAD staff were debating where to hit the airliner very early on. It may have taken quite a few missiles to take down an airliner. Acquiring a lock for each missile, launching, gaining another lock, launching again... takes time.

Shooting down an airliner is as easy as ripping a missile into it. See Korean Air LInes Flight 007: The lead aircraft of two Su-15 Flagon interceptors scrambled from Dolinsk-Sokol airbase fired two air to air missiles around 18:26 GMT,[7] and shot down KAL 007. Source: here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_007) Nice assumption though until the facts are brought to bear on you.

[peteweaver]

Swing, given that not one, not two, but three kamikaze attacks had occured that day, had a USAF fighter plane shot down Flight 93, then its pilot would have been a national hero.

[Reheat]

Shooting down an airliner is as easy as ripping a missile into it. See Korean Air LInes Flight 007: Nice assumption though until the facts are brought to bear on you.

Typical obstufication of what he actually said SD. He didn't say it was impossible, only that it was more difficult. Your example indicates that as they had to use TWO MISSILES instead of one. Try again "bungler".

[Swing Dangler]

I drew it with my NWO issued crayons, I apologize I'm not very good at drawing things to scale ... no seriously it's from the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 5, Section 6 – National Security and Interception Procedures.

No it's not a strawman, the FAA handle all domestic traffic within the continental US and when Payne Stewart's Learjet stopped responding and veered off course they contacted NORAD for assistance. NORAD weren't already tracking and monitoring the errant plane. The same thing happened on 9/11 when Boston ATC broke standard protocol and contacted NEADS directly in Rome, New York about the hijacking of Flight 11. NEADS replied "Is this real-world or exercise?" because they had no idea what had been happening on board Flight 11, why, because they do not handle domestic air traffic within the continental US. Do you understand?

The planes that were hijacked on 9/11 were all domestic flights that originated from within the continental US. If the planes were hijacked over the Atlantic and had their transponders switched off etc then I guarantee they would have been intercepted by NORAD, as per the "Interception Procedures" outlined in the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, as they approached the ADIZ. Why, because that's exactly the kind of incursion the fighter pilots had trained for and what NORAD had been setup to counter.

Anyways I believe you need to contact NORAD and inform them that there was a serious security risk during the Cold War. They hadn't accounted for the fact that the Soviet Union could launch their fighters and bombers from within the continental US. :boggled:

Swing is the new A-Train!
Thanks for the source of the map.l

Straw straw straw-Why didn't NORAD track Payne Stewart? That aircraft was not a threat. Remember the post I listed below about air superiority. A suspected hijacking is a threat.

Second, your leaving out the training that NORAD was planning to conduct on intercepting domestic flights. "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.Source: USAToday."

You can read for the umpteenth time about NORAD's air superiority mission and the definition of NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. The point of origin of said aircraft does not matter. Nice try though. Keep up the bad work.

Lets not confuse the early 1990's (See GAO Report) with the mid 60's "Russian Bomber/Fighter midset. Tsk tsk.
I think you need to study up on NORAD's mission, responsibility, and historical record and stop trying to apologize for that which did not occur.

REHEAT-Typical obstufication of what he actually said SD. He didn't say it was impossible, only that it was more difficult. Your example indicates that as they had to use TWO MISSILES instead of one. Try again "bungler".
There is no need to lie about what I said. I NEVER said it was impossible as you are asserting. Nice try though. There is no need to lie to defend your pal. I countered him by saying that it would be easy to down any one of those especially while escorting the plane as it was with regards to Korean Air 007. So in fact you are obfuscating the issue with your comment.


peteweaver- Swing, given that not one, not two, but three kamikaze attacks had occured that day, had a USAF fighter plane shot down Flight 93, then its pilot would have been a national hero.
Correction, 4 kamikazes. Lets get the facts straight.

[Gravy]

Straw straw straw-Why didn't NORAD track Payne Stewart? That aircraft was not a threat.
Oh? They knew where it was going to crash?

[Reheat]

REHEAT-Typical obstufication of what he actually said SD. He didn't say it was impossible, only that it was more difficult. Your example indicates that as they had to use TWO MISSILES instead of one. Try again "bungler".

There is no need to lie about what I said. I NEVER said it was impossible as you are asserting. Nice try though. There is no need to lie to defend your pal. I countered him by saying that it would be easy to down any one of those especially while escorting the plane as it was with regards to Korean Air 007. So in fact you are obfuscating the issue with your comment.

Poor try, SD. You gave an example to show gumboot was wrong about what he said, but instead your example showed he was correct. This is very typical BS from you. Note that I didn't say YOU said it was impossible, yet you accuse me of lying. You're intellectually dishonest spin artist.


Correction, 4 kamikazes. Lets get the facts straight.

Speaking of facts, that 4th kamikaze diverted into a field in PA made Allah proud I'm sure. You are an example of intellectual dishonesty at it's finest SD.

[jaydeehess]

Second, your leaving out the training that NORAD was planning to conduct on intercepting domestic flights. "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.Source: USAToday."

You can read for the umpteenth time about NORAD's air superiority mission and the definition of NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. The point of origin of said aircraft does not matter.

,,,, and you conveiniently ignore the fact thathese drills involved supposed hijackings that were not originating in the lower 48 states were they SwingD? I cannot understand why a hijacked plane originating in the lower 48 would be escorted accross the Canadian border or to Alaska!

Now as for Korean Air 007, kindly tell us how long it took the Soviets to get a fighter to that 747, tell us how long they trailed the aircraft before shooting at it, tell us who gave the OK to shoot. Now tell us that the Soviet protocols were the same as NORAD's.

[Spins]

That aircraft was not a threat.
What a ridiculous statement made in hindsight.


You can read for the umpteenth time about NORAD's air superiority mission and the definition of NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. "
Yes, and?

If you bothered to read all the threads in which we talked about what happened on 9/11 with regards to the hijackings, the confusion (fog of war), and time to intercept (etc) you'd understand why a shoot down was not possible. Well you did read the threads actually, you were probably involved in a few, but unfortunately you (like Sizzler) are blinkered, you made your mind up long ago about what happened without even knowing all the facts.

[Spins]

Swing, based on the evidence you have uncovered can you please tell us which of the hijacked flights on 9/11 you think should have been intercepted (and or shot down) and why?

[jaydeehess]

Straw straw straw-Why didn't NORAD track Payne Stewart? That aircraft was not a threat. Remember the post I listed below about air superiority. A suspected hijacking is a threat.


When did each of the planes involved in 9/11 become threats then SwingD? Not until they were identified as hijacked by ATC, and then ATC informed NORAD, and then NORAD started looking for each plane.

Exactly what, again, was your point?

Payne Stewart's plane became a threat to aviation as soon as it was not communicating with ATC nor following ATC instructions. In hindsight we know that it was not being hijacked or under the control of a deranged pilot, but on that day that was not clear.

Regardless of whether or not the Stewart plane was tracked by NORAD it still took an hour and a half for an unarmed fighter test flight to be directed there after the request from ATC.

[gumboot]

Shooting down an airliner is as easy as ripping a missile into it. See Korean Air LInes Flight 007: Nice assumption though until the facts are brought to bear on you.


I took two missiles to bring down KAL007, and because the last 5 miles of the descent are not on the CVR or FDR we don't know if the pilots regained control before crashing or not.

KAL902 was hit by two missiles and still airworthy enough for the pilot to make a controlled landing on a frozen lake.

You fail.

[gumboot]

Second, your leaving out the training that NORAD was planning to conduct on intercepting domestic flights. "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.Source: USAToday."


Um... since you're such a genius, how do you miss the fact that these hijackings were to be escorted by NORAD aircraft based in Alaska and Canada? They were to be intercepting a flight coming from outside their airspace.

If the flights were to be originating in Alaska and Canada you might have a point. But they weren't, so you don't.

And for the uncountable time... a suspected hijacking is not an air sovereignty threat.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes they 'said' that. Do I need to bring up Senator Dayton's comments about NORAD lying and their ever changing story. So you understand why I'm hesitant to believe what they say despite their mission statement and definition of air sovereignty.

Yes their story did change, and you know the funny thing? When the details were sorted up by using the tapes of the event, NORAD's timeline and thoughts on what had happened were show not just wrong, but it showed they did a way better job than they were saying they had. Now why would they lie about something and make themselves look worse then the real situation? Hmmm? Perhaps it might be that since no one had bothered checking the tapes due to being busy setting up a bunch of new systems that they all relied on memory and failed to describe what happened accurately. But I guess that can't be right because in Truther world if anyone gets something wrong they are lying, unless of course it's the Truther.

Second, as a student of the official story you know very well that the exact details of intercepts are unavailable to the public i.e. classified. Being a famous golfer is one reason that event was made public and the fact that it crashed within the continent.

Well if they are classified and not available, how do you know that they didn't all happen in the ADIZs? It's no good claiming that they happened over the continental US unless you can prove it, if you can't, then you have no evidence to back you up. Merely claiming that some must have is no good. It'd like me claiming that some Zebra must have spots rather then stripes.

Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:
The last time I checked Utah and Washington are within the continental U.S. Of course they are going to drill within the continental U.S. as that is their region of air superiority.

Yes let's examine it shall we. What does the article say in the paragraphs right before your quote?

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

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.
Hmmmm… Why didn't you quote that bit? You know, one should really read their sources first Swing, it’s a crying shame when they disagree with you.
I'd also note that since the "hijacked" aircraft were escorted to British Columbia and Alaska, they seem to have been flights that started in the US and were outbound to destinations overseas, not simulations of internal US flights. If they had been internal flights, they would have been escorted to continental US Airports, not Canada and Alaska.

[PhantomWolf]

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:

The Battle Management Center, in operation only since early 1998, is staffed by three people under ordinary circumstances. In the event of an increased alert status, this room full of office cubicles would be filled with personnel from all branches of the military.
One ongoing mission of the Battle Management Center is to coordinate "air sovereignty" efforts, monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace -- some 2.5 million a year. NORAD is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders.
Source: CNN[ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.cheyenne/)
Notice something missing like the phrase: "Only aircraft originating outside the United States." Notice something else? Air Sovereignty. Do you remember what air sovereignty means from my post below?

While I didn't notice the phase... "Only aircraft originating outside the United States" I did notice the phase ... "monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace" How does a plane enter US Airspace Swing? Oh, that's right, it has to start OUTSIDE US Airspace and come in. gee, so here you have quoted a passage that stated that NORAD was monitoring all aircraft coming into US Airspace from outside and directly questioning those that haven't filed a flight plan. Thanks for again showing us you can't read your sources accurately and that you are then willing to post quotes that prove you wrong. Well done.

[LTC8K6]

Swing, based on the evidence you have uncovered can you please tell us which of the hijacked flights on 9/11 you think should have been intercepted (and or shot down) and why?

And who the debris would have landed on and how many people the debris would have killed?

[funk de fino]

Swingie

post # 336

Stop playing dodgeball on me

retract the false statement, be a man

[Corsair 115]

KAL902 was hit by two missiles and still airworthy enough for the pilot to make a controlled landing on a frozen lake.Another example:

An Airbus A300 cargo jet operated by DHL was hit by a shoulder-fired SAM over Baghdad in Nov. of 2003.

The missile struck the near the tip of the left wing, shredding the back part of the wing and starting a fire as well as severing the hydraulic lines causing the jet to lose all hydraulics. The crew flew the aircraft using engine power adjustments only to maneuver it, and in an exemplary example of flying skill, managed to land the jet back at the airport.

Wikipedia account of the incident here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_shootdown_incident_in_Baghdad).

[jaydeehess]

SD is up to bat - claims Payne Stewart example is a strawman but contradicts himself in posting that NORAD's mission clearly states that they are to assist aircraft in trouble and deal with dangers to air traffic. So that one sails foul, strike one

SD puts out an example of a NORAD exercise,,,, ooooh its actually an exercise in which the hijacked plane is outside the lower 48 states, that'll be strike two

SD takes aim at missile fire at a large jetliner and ,,,,,,,,,,, aaah its another Swing and a miss. that'll be strike three

Thanks for playing............

[gumboot]

I noticed Major James Fox appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93_%28film%29) in the film United 93, portraying himself. Shawna Fox also appears in the film as herself- "Staff Sgt. Shawna Fox."


I just noticed this...

I'm not sure that Shawna Fox is a real person. In the film United 93 Shawna Fox plays the lead ID Tech but the head of the ID team at NEADS was Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley and the two ID Techs were Senior Airman Stacia Rountree and Technical Sergeant Shelley Watson. Shawna Fox in the film does not sound like any of those three, is too young to be Dooley or Watson, and doesn't look like Rountree or Dooley.

[gumboot]

By the way, anyone who is interested, I'm transcribing the NORAD tapes, starting with coverage up to 10:28EDT (collapse of WTC1). I'm about half way through the first track I'm doing which is one of the ID channels.

I'll post any interesting findings as I finish each track and the finished product will be available as an excel spreadsheet.

Listening to the tapes is really clearing up some things and I'm now pretty confident that the report that AA11 had not hit WTC1 but was still airborne and headed to Washington DC was actually a report that AA77 had not crashed but was another suspected hijack heading east into Washington airspace.

[zorro99]

What do the tapes reveal about the war games that were planned for the same day - did these games cause confusion that delayed NORAD's response?

I'm not asking whether Cheney/somebody intentionally ordered war games in order to cause confusion - I'm asking whether they did or not.

[gumboot]

What do the tapes reveal about the war games that were planned for the same day - did these games cause confusion that delayed NORAD's response?

I'm not asking whether Cheney/somebody intentionally ordered war games in order to cause confusion - I'm asking whether they did or not.


No, they didn't.

[zorro99]

No, they didn't.

This is from page 2 of the Vanity Fair article - NORAD is not sure if the hijacked planes were real or part of a test.

"08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we
have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New
York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s
or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

"Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly
verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops
floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost
everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the
simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into
play for the day's training exercise."

_____

Given the above quote, what makes you sure that the exercises did not cause confusion?

Acknowledging that the exercises caused confusion is not the same as acknowledging that there was a conspiracy.

[boloboffin]

This is from page 2 of the Vanity Fair article - NORAD is not sure if the hijacked planes were real or part of a test.

"08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we
have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New
York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s
or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

"Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly
verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops
floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost
everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the
simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into
play for the day's training exercise."

_____

Given the above quote, what makes you sure that the exercises did not cause confusion?

Acknowledging that the exercises caused confusion is not the same as acknowledging that there was a conspiracy.

The extent of the "confusion" is right there in the transcript you quoted. "Is this real-world or exercise?" "Real-world." End of confusion.

Feel free to bring back a single moment more of "confusion" related to the wargames. The tapes are extant.

In fact, the wargames ensured that everyone was on the system and alert. It let the military respond quicker than it would normally. And they STILL didn't stop any of the 9/11 planes.

[Reheat]

"Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the
simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into
play for the day's training exercise."

_____

Given the above quote, what makes you sure that the exercises did not cause confusion?

Acknowledging that the exercises caused confusion is not the same as acknowledging that there was a conspiracy.

All elements of DoD as well as other agencies with a war time or defense related mission hold exercises throughout the year. It's called training. It is ongoing and continuous throughout the year.

There was a COMMAND POST (CPX) exercise planned for the week of 9/11. It was due to begin at 9:00 on 9/11, but was canceled. For participants to ask the question "Is this real world or exercise" is as common as bacon and eggs for breakfast. Most agencies in training still have a REAL WORLD mission while they are training. For NEADS personnel to ask this question is not at all unusual, nor did/does it indicate or cause confusion. In fact, this question is indicative that the people asking are very aware of their REAL WORLD mission and quite experienced. Otherwise, they might have assumed one or the other and that would likely have caused confusion. This is a non issue, period.

Because there was an exercise planned means that they were fully staffed and better able to handle real world contingencies simply because such things as the usual dental appointments and other personal activities were curtailed, just as Gen. Myers told the 9/11 Commission. Consequently, the planned exercises made NORAD better able to deal with their real world mission rather than detracted from it.

Next trooferism?

[gumboot]

This is from page 2 of the Vanity Fair article - NORAD is not sure if the hijacked planes were real or part of a test.

"08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we
have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New
York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s
or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

"Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly
verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops
floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost
everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the
simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into
play for the day's training exercise."

_____

Given the above quote, what makes you sure that the exercises did not cause confusion?

Acknowledging that the exercises caused confusion is not the same as acknowledging that there was a conspiracy.


The clue is in the recording...

Play (http://www.vanityfair.com/mp3/politics/083752.mp3).

There's no surprise or confusion in Jeremy Powell's voice when he asks "Is this real world, or exercise?". I would imagine that such a question is standard protocol when fielding a report, particularly on a day that exercises are scheduled.

Asking the question itself "is this real world or exercise" does not constitute confusion. Confusion would only arise if the response to this question was unclear or not forthcoming, or if the information was not passed on down the chain.

It is quite clear to me, listening to hours of recordings from NEADS, that no one on that Operations Floor had any doubt that actual aircraft were being hijacked and flown into buildings.

[gumboot]

I've just realised something (kind of obvious admittedly).

None of the NORAD tapes I've got actually have the phone call from Boston ARTCC to NEADS at 0937 which we know exists because it appears in the Vanity Fair article. This means two things:

A) There's more recordings
(This is evident in the fact that the tracks are numbered 1 - 24 but miss channels 1, 6, 22 and 23)
B) At least one of these tracks (with the original phone call) has previously been released via FOIA to Vanity Fair, suggesting others could obtain this same track.

Another alternative is that the tracks have been edited and key segments blacked out for security reasons. This is certainly feasible, and aspects of the recordings certainly suggest this. However it doesn't make sense that a particular segment (the original phone call) would be retained for one FOIA release (the Vanity Fair one) and blocked out for another (the release to the Loose Change guys).

Perhaps, MikeW, you have some guidance on this matter? My understanding is you put in a FOIA request for these tracks also?

ETA. On close reading it looks like Michael Bronner may have been given 4 to 5 tracks (he says it amounts to "some thirty hours" and "six and a half hours real time") so I wonder if in fact he was given precisely the four (or more?) tracks that we don't have?

[aggle-rithm]

Given the above quote, what makes you sure that the exercises did not cause confusion?

Acknowledging that the exercises caused confusion is not the same as acknowledging that there was a conspiracy.

I don't think it matters whether it's real-world or exercise with respect to reaction times. Most drills are performed with the expectation that you will treat it as if it were real...otherwise, there's no point in doing a drill at all.

I remember when I was outside a building at IBM that was having a fire drill. I was wondering if we should go inside, and my co-worker said, "Sure we can. There ain't no fire."

Unfortunately, a firefighter walked out of the building at that very moment and became incensed. "DON'T YOU HEAR THE ALARM?!" he yelled. "OF COURSE THERE'S A FIRE!!!"

There was no fire. It was a drill. But people who put their lives on the line treat drills like the real thing, and expect people around them to do the same.

[MikeW]

Perhaps, MikeW, you have some guidance on this matter? My understanding is you put in a FOIA request for these tracks also?
Nope (to the guidance), sorry! I put in FOIA requests long ago but perhaps too early when they were keeping them, and got bounced around from agency to agency until I gave up.

We do know there's not just one definitive set of recordings, though, because that release from a few months ago had 2 or 3 extra channels that weren't in Avery's initial group. I guess you've downloaded and listened to those...? Perhaps there are still others to be found.

I don't have time to check this right now, but does the Commission Report give the tape channel number in their footnotes? They do for most things. Search for "NEADS audio file".

[gumboot]

I don't think it matters whether it's real-world or exercise with respect to reaction times. Most drills are performed with the expectation that you will treat it as if it were real...otherwise, there's no point in doing a drill at all.

I remember when I was outside a building at IBM that was having a fire drill. I was wondering if we should go inside, and my co-worker said, "Sure we can. There ain't no fire."

Unfortunately, a firefighter walked out of the building at that very moment and became incensed. "DON'T YOU HEAR THE ALARM?!" he yelled. "OF COURSE THERE'S A FIRE!!!"

There was no fire. It was a drill. But people who put their lives on the line treat drills like the real thing, and expect people around them to do the same.


I have been in a hijacking/hostage drill and I can confirm that these guys do not play soft, ever. (I'm talking about the Counter Terrorism guys, not the "hijackers")

[zorro99]

The clue is in the recording...

There's no surprise or confusion in Jeremy Powell's voice when he asks "Is this real world, or exercise?". I would imagine that such a question is standard protocol when fielding a report, particularly on a day that exercises are scheduled.

Asking the question itself "is this real world or exercise" does not constitute confusion. Confusion would only arise if the response to this question was unclear or not forthcoming, or if the information was not passed on down the chain.

It is quite clear to me, listening to hours of recordings from NEADS, that no one on that Operations Floor had any doubt that actual aircraft were being hijacked and flown into buildings.

Okay. Thanks!

[gumboot]

Nope (to the guidance), sorry! I put in FOIA requests long ago but perhaps too early when they were keeping them, and got bounced around from agency to agency until I gave up.

We do know there's not just one definitive set of recordings, though, because that release from a few months ago had 2 or 3 extra channels that weren't in Avery's initial group. I guess you've downloaded and listened to those...? Perhaps there are still others to be found.

I don't have time to check this right now, but does the Commission Report give the tape channel number in their footnotes? They do for most things. Search for "NEADS audio file".


Thanks for that. A search of the 9/11 Commission Report only brings up more questions. Firstly, the initial phone call footnote makes no mention of where this transcript is referenced from, so that's not very useful.

Secondly, the 9/11 Commission's track labelling is different to what we have, with different positions relating to different channel numbers.

For example it cites channel 14 as being a Weapons Director Technician position when our recordings cite 14 as a Tracking Technician position.

Further, the Commission claims there are no recordings available for the Senior Weapons Director or Weapons Director Technician responsible for handling the Otis scramble, due to a technical fault.

However both the Weapons Director and Weapons Director Technician are (as far as I can tell) single-person jobs, so there would not be multiple stations, and they have already cited a WDT position as channel 14.

Later they cite Mission Crew Commander as channel 2 (same as ours) but then cite Weapons Director position as recorder 1 channel 2. This raises questions about the number of channels on a given recorder (only one other reference in the 9/11 Commission specifies a recorder) but also raises the question that there was no recordings for the Weapons Director.

(The actual roles are Senior Director, Senior Director Technician, Weapons Director, and Weapons Director Technician).

[Cheap Shot]

When I made my calls to NEADS that day I was calling four different DSN Numbers. I beleive two of them were recorded. Those two numbers could also be used as STU III phones, the reason they were recorded is my guess. So probably close to half of my calls were not recorded, but the other ones may show up on different tracks depending on which number I called. Might explain why you don't have the 9:37 call.

[gumboot]

When I made my calls to NEADS that day I was calling four different DSN Numbers. I beleive two of them were recorded. Those two numbers could also be used as STU III phones, the reason they were recorded is my guess. So probably close to half of my calls were not recorded, but the other ones may show up on different tracks depending on which number I called. Might explain why you don't have the 9:37 call.



Thanks. My point I guess is that Vanity Fair do have the 08:37 call which suggests to me they got released tracks that the Loose Change boys didn't.