911 interceptions please help

[john white]

A truther asked me this regarding why the air force didn't intercept the jets on 911

Why were they grounded (the air force jets) on 9-11? OH yeah they were playing war games on the same day four planes were supposed to have been hijacked. The hijackers must have has some inside information.


Can anyone help with the answer to this. As far as i know the jets were not grounded.

[Big Les]

Nope, not grounded. They tried their best under a system designed to intercept threats coming into the US, not originating from within it. The hijacked planes (naturally) switched off transponders, and with no primary radar and a sky full of aircraft, by the time fighters were anywhere near any of the jets, they were long gone, sad to say.

There are other reasons but that's the gist. 911myths.com has more (http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html) to start with.

[john white]

Thanks a lot :)

[gumboot]

A truther asked me this regarding why the air force didn't intercept the jets on 911

Can anyone help with the answer to this. As far as i know the jets were not grounded.


NORAD had four fighter aircraft (in pairs of two) available in the north east of the United States on the morning of 9/11. They were a pair of McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagles of the 102nd Fighter Wing, 1st Air Force, located at Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts and a pair of General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcons of the 119th Fighter Wing, 1st Air Force detached at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (the 119th itself was based at Hector International Airport, North Dakota).

This was their standard compliment for peace time operations, with a further ten fighters (in five pairs) located at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida (125th Fighter Wing, detached), Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida (148th Fighter Wing, detached), Portland International Airport, Oregon (142nd Fighter Wing), March Air Reserve Base, California (120th Fighter Wing, detached), and Ellington Field, Texas (147th Fighter Wing).

All four of NORAD's available fighters were scrambled on 9/11, in addition to an extra fighter from Langley and fighters from numerous non-alert sites such as Andrews and Selfridge.

There were no NORAD aircraft involved in any exercises on 9/11.

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

But didn't the twoofers prove all the pilots were ordered to go to Krispy Kreme and get two dozen donuts for Cheney, so they wouldn't be able to intercept the planes? At least that's what I heard.

[WildCat]

I'd also like to point out that even if fighter aircraft did locate the hijacked planes, it's doubtful they would have shot them down (except possibly UA93 since it was later). Such an act would be unprecedented for a hijacked aircraft.

[LastChild]

A truther asked me this regarding why the air force didn't intercept the jets on 911

Can anyone help with the answer to this. As far as i know the jets were not grounded.

Apparently a couple of them were sent out over the Atlantic. It's claimed here because of a confusing flight plan...

http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_9-11-timeline.html

I don't know if this had anything to do with the fighters jets over the Atlantic but USA Today did report the coast guard reported distress calls over the Atlantic.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm

One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.

[Reheat]

I'd also like to point out that even if fighter aircraft did locate the hijacked planes, it's doubtful they would have shot them down (except possibly UA93 since it was later). Such an act would be unprecedented for a hijacked aircraft.

Quite true. This is a VERY important point. Both AA11 and UA175 were not known to have been hostile until AFTER their attack on the WTC. The system was not designed to respond that rapidly to defend against an airliner full of American citizens being used as a missile. The premise that any of the aircraft should have been shot down with the exception of UA93 is an illogical exercise of 20/20 hindsight exemplified with typical troofer mentality.

[SDC]

But didn't the twoofers prove all the pilots were ordered to go to Krispy Kreme and get two dozen donuts for Cheney, so they wouldn't be able to intercept the planes? At least that's what I heard.

Disinfo! (He snarled.) It was a Dunkin Donuts.

Anyhow, Krispy Kreme would prove that Bill Clinton was in on it. Everyone knows that he set up his office on 125th St in Harlem right across the street from where a Krispy Kreme was being built. Coincidence? I think not!

[gumboot]

We don't need to speculate... the words of the lead pilot out of Otis:

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," he says. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down). We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," he says.

LastChild: the Langley fighters only flew the wrong way for eight minutes.

-Gumboot

[Par]

[T]he Langley fighters only flew the wrong way for eight minutes.

Wasn't it four (and then four back)?

[Brainster]

The Vanity Fair article on NORAD (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608) is terrific and highly recommended.

[Swing Dangler]

Nope, not grounded. They tried their best under a system designed to intercept threats coming into the US, not originating from within it.


This has been debunked by the NORAD historian, Dr. Thomas Fuller. You can listen to the conversation here: NORAD Historian (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204).

[TriskettheKid]

Really? It was designed to intercept planes from inside the US?

Why is it, then, that there are no Alert bases inside the US? Why are they all along the coast or border?

[CHF]

This has been debunked by the NORAD historian, Dr. Thomas Fuller. You can listen to the conversation here: NORAD Historian (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204).

So how many planes were intercepted over the US mainland in the decade before 9/11, Swing?

[Swing Dangler]

So how many planes were intercepted over the US mainland in the decade before 9/11, Swing?

I suggest you listen to the interview with the Historian. He will enlighten you much more than I could.

[lapman]

I suggest you listen to the interview with the Historian. He will enlighten you much more than I could.
That is if the phone call is real. The "Truth Movement" has no problem faking sounds on videos and making up things like "thermite cutter charges." This call, like the Jowenko call, should be considered suspicious at best.

So, answer the question. How many planes were intercepted over the US mainland in the decade before 9/11? Add to that, what was the average intercept time?

[TriskettheKid]

I'd also like to ask, again, where are the other alert bases?

If the system was designed to intercept over the US, why are there no alert bases inside the US, in places like Nebraska, or Kentucky? Why are they all located along a coast or a border?

[Reheat]

Wasn't it four (and then four back)?

It really didn't matter as based upon their launch time, they could not have intercepted AA77 anyway. The out over the ocean is a moot point in reality, but important only to troofers who want to support their fantasy.

Had NEADS known about AA77 earlier and launched them earlier it could have been important. As it was there would have been no chance for the F-16's to intercept AA77 regardless of which way they went.

If a troofer is inclined to quote speed and distance to counter this FACT, they need to calculate the speed of an F-16 with missiles and fuel drop tank on the wings. Even if the drop tanks were dropped, that needs to be considered in the speed calculations. Hint: It was impossible based upon their launch time.

[Swing Dangler]

That is if the phone call is real. The "Truth Movement" has no problem faking sounds on videos and making up things like "thermite cutter charges." This call, like the Jowenko call, should be considered suspicious at best.

So, answer the question. How many planes were intercepted over the US mainland in the decade before 9/11? Add to that, what was the average intercept time?

The good Dr. Thomas Fuller can answer that question for you. That way you won't consider my response suspicious or fake.

The link again is located here: NORAD Historian. (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204)

I would expect a good debunker to listen to the interview and its facts before little ol' me. ;)

[Reheat]

This has been debunked by the NORAD historian, Dr. Thomas Fuller. You can listen to the conversation here: NORAD Historian (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204).

Troofer BS! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[TriskettheKid]

Still waiting for a reply for posts 14 and 18, Swing.

[Brainster]

This has been debunked by the NORAD historian, Dr. Thomas Fuller. You can listen to the conversation here: NORAD Historian (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204).

He never says that Popular Mechanics was wrong, he only says that he does not know what their source was. The only specific incident he mentions is the Payne Stewart one, which of course took 81 minutes.

[lapman]

He never says that Popular Mechanics was wrong, he only says that he does not know what their source was. The only specific incident he mentions is the Payne Stewart one, which of course took 81 minutes.
Brainster, since I cannot listen to the video at work, in your opinion, is the phone call legit?

Swing, why are you avoiding my other questions?

[Brainster]

Brainster, since I cannot listen to the video at work, in your opinion, is the phone call legit?

Yes, I think it's probably legit, if only because if they were faking it, they would have had the guy saying "No, we intercept planes all the time over the continental United States." Instead, all he says is "I don't know what their source for that is," and "Again, I don't know where they got that from." It's hardly definitive. In addition, we join the call somewhere in midstream and it's clear that the guy has answered the question earlier, so it raises some question in my mind as to why we didn't hear all of the phone call.

[MikeW]

That's a misleading phone call. He tells the guy that "Popular Mechanics said there had only been one interception in the decade before 9/11" (they did not), then tries to press Fuller to say they were wrong. Which to his credit, he does not.

Then he mentions the issue of the continental US as though it's entirely separate, and it isn't. Then he says that intercepts over the US would obviously be possible, as though Popular Mechanics implied they wouldn't (wrong again). And we get the garbage about Dick Cheney taking control over NORAD, just for good measure. I think someone's been listening to a little too much Alex Jones...

[leftysergeant]

It was never before 9/11 a policy to shoot down hijacked aircraft. The order that Cheney was asked about in the bunker was one authorizing the shoot-down. Jeff is an idiot, just like his buddy Killtown.

There is, further, no inconsistancy between the facts and the B. Chertoff comments recorded at the end of the video.

The historian does not confirm a policy of shooting down hijacked aircraft and I did not hear anything in his comments to state that the interceptors should have been right on top of the aircraft in less time than was the case.

Nothing on the Pumpitout site is reliable information, nor is it ever presented in a manner acceptable for forensic purposes.


Jeff suffers from debilitating delusions of adequacy. I wonder, sometimes, whether he is aware that he is a monsterous pain in the butt, and whether he actually enjoys being a pain. I suspect he does.

At least I will give him credit for not being a white nationalist. He's just a sociopath.

[beachnut]

This has been debunked by the NORAD historian, Dr. Thomas Fuller. You can listen to the conversation here: NORAD Historian (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204).
You are so full of junk - Cheney is not in charge of NORAD. Swing you posted lies and junk. LC, brain dead junk on 9/11. Good job Swing, you are perfect at hearsay junk.

600 mph, this junk, hearsay special post, thanks

Do you ever get anything on 9/11 correct? Why are you unable to support any 9/11 truth conclusion.

[Sabrina]

In SD's defense (wow, there's three words I never thought I'd string together), according to this source (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm), NORAD's mission was as follows:

NORAD Mission and Structure. NORAD is a binational command established in 1958 between the United States and Canada. Its mission was, and is, to defend the airspace of North America and protect the continent. That mission does not distinguish between internal and external threats; but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks.

Also of interest:

The threat of Soviet bombers diminished significantly as the Cold War ended, and the number of NORAD alert sites was reduced from its Cold War high of 26. Some within the Pentagon argued in the 1990s that the alert sites should be eliminated entirely.

NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.

NORAD, at least according to this source, did have a mission of protecting CONUS from threats both foreign AND domestic, but due to the fact that a domestic attack was not really considered, it is understandable that it was not postured to do so readily.

And sources for all of that stuff listed there are given on this webpage (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm) if you're curious.

[lapman]

Ok, I sit corrected. The call was not a fake. So, SD, what about my other questions?

[nicepants]

Also see this thread (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18723) over at LCF

The majority belief among these twoofers is that jets at Andrews AFB should have been able to intercept AA77 faster than the fighters from Langley.

No one over there seems to understand the difference between "on alert" and having fighters at the base.

[Alt+F4]

This thread reminds me of the most well know pre-9/11 military intercept, the 1999 Payne Stewart Learjet crash. Not only did it take 80 minutes to get military planes to intercept, but when they finally did catch up with the plane no one seemed to exactly know what to do. Different military planes followed the flight for over two hours, again doing nothing. It was just good luck (only good luck that day) that when the plane did crash it was in an empty field. What would the military have done if it was headed for a crowded neighborhood? Would they have shot it down?

[CptColumbo]

This thread reminds me of the most well know pre-9/11 military intercept, the 1999 Payne Stewart Learjet crash. Not only did it take 80 minutes to get military planes to intercept, but when they finally did catch up with the plane no one seemed to exactly know what to do. Different military planes followed the flight for over two hours, again doing nothing. It was just good luck (only good luck that day) that when the plane did crash it was in an empty field. What would the military have done if it was headed for a crowded neighborhood? Would they have shot it down?There was a similar incident with a IIRC Greek airline in 2005 (IIRC). Where the military intercepted the flight, but could only watch as it ran out of fuel and crashed into a mountain.

ETA: here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

[Monza]

A truther asked me this regarding why the air force didn't intercept the jets on 911...


You should introduce this truther to other truthers who claim that UA 93 was shot down by military planes. The resulting chaos of unsupported claims would be fun.

By the way, good job gumboot with the actual facts. Thanks!

[Comsat Angel]

Still waiting for Swing to reply to posts 14, 18, 22, 24 & 30.

Gosh, that silence is loud, isn't it?

[Sabrina]

He's possibly still in a coma from the shock of me saying something marginally in his defense. ;)

[defaultdotxbe]

The link again is located here: NORAD Historian. (http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=norad&action=display&thread=1170407204)

the link to a forum post which in turn links to a youtube video just seems to be the epitome of truther philosophy towards research

im sorry if im the only one who finds this incredibly amusing

[TriskettheKid]

the link to a forum post which in turn links to a youtube video just seems to be the epitome of truther philosophy towards research

im sorry if im the only one who finds this incredibly amusing

I admit, I laughed pretty hard when I realized it was a forum post that linked to a YouTube video.

[CptColumbo]

Is a "NORAD historian" like a "UFOlogist?"

[Disbelief]

Also see this thread (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18723) over at LCF

The majority belief among these twoofers is that jets at Andrews AFB should have been able to intercept AA77 faster than the fighters from Langley.

No one over there seems to understand the difference between "on alert" and having fighters at the base.

The stupidity astounds me in that thread. They have absolutely no idea how the military works, specifically the AF in this case.

[defaultdotxbe]

The stupidity astounds me in that thread. They have absolutely no idea how the military works, specifically the AF in this case.
of course, their perception comes from hollywood, here any random military base has dozens of fighters fueled up, armed and waiting on the tarmac waiting for dozens of pilots to run towards them dramatically with explosions going off around them

[CptColumbo]

of course, their perception comes from hollywood, here any random military base has dozens of fighters fueled up, armed and waiting on the tarmac waiting for dozens of pilots to run towards them dramatically with explosions going off around themSo Independence Day isn't based on reality? :(

[defaultdotxbe]

So Independence Day isn't based on reality? :(
heh, i was going to put a "fly off to fight the aliens" bit in my post but couldnt work it in

[CptColumbo]

heh, i was going to put a "fly off to fight the aliens" bit in my post but couldnt work it inMaking connections to movies is what I do and how I think. :)

[JMarshall]

Is a "NORAD historian" like a "UFOlogist?"

Actually it isn't unheard of, for larger commands (Divisions, Corps, etc.) to have their own historians.

If you actually listen to his inflection and the manner of his words, you can hear that he wasn't exactly denying PM's claims, he's just stating the facts as he knows them, and saying he doesn't know who PM got their information from.

It comes down to a matter of simantics, and in the eyes of the truthers it means debunked.

[defaultdotxbe]

Making connections to movies is what I do and how I think. :)
well youre quite good at what you do (i was in fact thinking of the scene when the aliens were attacking area 51 while writing that post)

[Swing Dangler]

He never says that Popular Mechanics was wrong, he only says that he does not know what their source was. The only specific incident he mentions is the Payne Stewart one, which of course took 81 minutes.

I want to point something out now that I have some time to address some of your comments.

Pat, you are either one, uninformed, two lacking in research, or three, being dishonest via omission of facts. Since you apparently listened to the entire interview, I'm of the opinion that you are being dishonest via omission of facts. I won't address the Payne Stewart issue. But what I will address is the facts of the interview that should help any student of 9/11, be it debunker or truther, on this issue.

I'm still curious why a debunker would take this route with someone who needed help with the intercept issue. Pat why did you not help this individual the facts instead of omitting them?

Big Les-Nope, not grounded. They tried their best under a system designed to intercept threats coming into the US, not originating from within it. The system is designed to intercept any threat irregardless of origin.
Why didn't any debunker correct Big Les on this issue?

I'm going to post the answers and facts from the interview that no one cares to address or completely avoids.

The question was in regards to one interception in the last decade and NORAD's intercept capabilities.

Interviewer: You could say that they were wrong about that then? (in reference to Popular's insistence on 1 intercept in the last 10 years)
Dr. Fuller:I'm not sure what source they used. I'm not sure they had full information.
Interviewer: They (Popular Mechanics) were wrong when they said that then? That only 1 intercept in the 10 years before 9/11?
Dr. Fuller: I'm not sure what source they were using, no, I'm not familiar with that.
Interviewer: So that wouldn't be an accurate source to quote?
Dr. Fuller: I would quote the public affairs person before Popular Science and whatever.(Mechanics)
.....
Dr. Fuller: If we were alerted, we would be able to intercept.

Interviewer to Dr. Fuller, NORAD Historian: "If you were alerted, you could intercept anywhere, whether it be going over the Pacific ocean or going to Michigan or something like that?"

Dr. Fuller: That's correct.

Now Pat, why didn't you point this out in your response? And for the rest of you why didn't you point this out? I expect more from debunkers!
This point alone debunks Popular Mechanics about NORAD and intercepts being offshore only.

Beachnut welcome to ignore. You waste my time.

Lapman-So, answer the question. How many planes were intercepted over the US mainland in the decade before 9/11? Add to that, what was the average intercept time?
These are fair questions. However, when the public relations officer that Dr. Fuller refers to in the phone interview was asked in an earlier conversation she mentions several intercepts but the exact number is classified and I would assume the time to intercept would be as well. Not quite the kind of information you want enemies of America to be aware. I am still trying to locate that interview.

Gumboot We don't need to speculate... the words of the lead pilot out of Otis: "If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," he says. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down). We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," he says.
I would appreciate a source with that. There is a reason why they would have watched it crash.

Lets examine what Colonel Robert Marr, Commander of the North East Defense Sector states about this whole shoot down ordeal 'watching it crash' that Gum speaks of.

"Colonel Robert Marr was Commander of the North East Defence Sector and remembers the words that came over the secure phone "we will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground". ."

According to the article, there were only 4 planes and pilots available that day to defend the North East sector. The article blames the lack of a threat by hijackers, when in reality it was the training mission as to why there were only 4 aircraft available to defend the skies. The author of the article I suspect was unaware as to why there were only 4 and speculates the reason again because of the numerous war games going on that day.

And yes, they would have shot planes down that day. But they couldn't. Those 4 planes available were unarmed! This is of course is confirmed by the pilots that are interviewed in the article because they considered a mid-air collision to bring the flights down.
The BBC article can be read here: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2222205.stm)

MikeW-That's a misleading phone call.
You could post a transcript of the interview to prove your point, but I doubt you will. That is why I posted the relevant material. I'm sorry but you can't refute Dr. Fuller's statements about NORAD's intercept capabilities and locations of where those intercepts take place.

leftysergeant It was never before 9/11 a policy to shoot down hijacked aircraft.
One, can you source this?
You realize there is a difference between policy and procedures and protocols that are followed in the event of a hijacking?
You can read the procedure on how NORAD and the Air Force are to respond to hijackings and destruction of "derelict airborne objects" here from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf).

Sabrina-
NORAD, at least according to this source, did have a mission of protecting CONUS from threats both foreign AND domestic, but due to the fact that a domestic attack was not really considered, it is understandable that it was not postured to do so readily.
Thanks for the support, but now I have to debunk your comment. According to USA TODAY, located here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm), NORAD did consider an attack from 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. NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.
"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.
Of course where and how those airplanes crashed is not mentioned, but the specifics of 9/11, were not apparently drilled either.

So please in the future and for the credibility of debunkers, all of you make sure you have your facts straight as I do.

[TriskettheKid]

Still waiting for a response for posts 14 and 18, Swing.

[Sabrina]

You're forgetting this quote from the article, SD:

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

So in other words, NOT what happened on September 11th. I also notice that it was simply the IDEA that was included; NORAD did not say that they ran the drills in that manner. Just that the scriptwriters offered up the idea as a possible scenario. There's nothing in that article to indicate that NORAD actually practiced a scenario involving planes being flown into buildings anywhere. Also:

No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

How about you quit cherrypicking quotes, huh?

[PhantomWolf]

Apparently a couple of them were sent out over the Atlantic. It's claimed here because of a confusing flight plan...

They weren't "sent out over the ocean" they were scrambled without a target and so the pilots followed standard proceedure which was to fly to the staging area ready to head to the appropriate ADIZ. The reason they were not given a target was because they were scrambled in response to a phantom Flight 11 which no longer existed at that point. NEADS got a call from Boston telling them that Flight 11 was still in the air and heading for Washington, this was due to a misunderstanding on a conferrence call, and so NEADS scrambled the jets to go after 11. As soon as the situation was spotted they were directed to Boston and NEADS took over direct control of them, heading them up to Washington.

[fezzic]

A few things I noticed.

Dr. Fuller is probably quite correct that NORAD could intecept incoming and domestic aircraft anywhere. What is left out is how long it would take for fighters (especially if they had to be armed) to accomplish any intercept. Obviously, NORAD operated under the idea that incoming was more dangerous and deployed its lmited resources to deal with that threat. The CONUS was under the FAA and while NORAD could scramble aircraft on its own, any interceptors would be almost helpless to discern what of the multitude of airborne aircraft was the "hostile" without assistance from the FAA or realignment of radars and deployement of AWACS and such. Any military fighter launching into that wiithout a very good reason, such as the FAA asked for assistance, was going to cause a whole lot of trouble for some commanding officer.

So Dr. Fuller made a perfectly true statment, but without a qualification such as time needed, it was irrelevant in light of the events of 9/11. As far as I understand it, nobody has said that NORAD couldn't intercept over the CONUS only that they didn't do it routinely (I think).


Further, the implication you seemed to leave about the 4 fighters is that the (am I right?) ALERT fighters were unarmed. Would make a mockery of NORAD's mission to protect against hostile INCOMING aircraft if that were true. You sure they were unarmed? You talking about the Vanity Fair article? I just read it and clearly see that the 4 alert aircraft were armed. When NEADS got desperate, other bases offered up unarmed aircraft mostly on training missions.


BTW, a hijacked airliner is not a "derelict airbone object" so the implication that the military already had authorization to shoot down hijacked airliners is quite incorrect. They know the difference between the two.

[defaultdotxbe]

According to the article, there were only 4 planes and pilots available that day to defend the North East sector. The article blames the lack of a threat by hijackers, when in reality it was the training mission as to why there were only 4 aircraft available to defend the skies. The author of the article I suspect was unaware as to why there were only 4 and speculates the reason again because of the numerous war games going on that day.
considering you asked everyone you replied to for sources im sure you wont mind providing a source to indicate more than 4 fighters should have been available in the NE

[JimBenArm]

911 interceptions? Are we talking about Damon Huard and the Chiefs? If so, then yes, please help!

[Cylinder]

Further, the implication you seemed to leave about the 4 fighters is that the (am I right?) ALERT fighters were unarmed.

Alert aircraft can never be unarmed. If they are unarmed, they are no longer on alert status.

[CptColumbo]

well youre quite good at what you do (i was in fact thinking of the scene when the aliens were attacking area 51 while writing that post)I'm also psychic. One Million Dollars Please!

[MikeW]

You could post a transcript of the interview to prove your point, but I doubt you will. That is why I posted the relevant material. I'm sorry but you can't refute Dr. Fuller's statements about NORAD's intercept capabilities and locations of where those intercepts take place.
It's so plain I'm surprised you think that's necessary, however you've kindly done enough in your own post, so let's use that:

The question was in regards to one interception in the last decade and NORAD's intercept capabilities.

Interviewer: You could say that they were wrong about that then? (in reference to Popular's insistence on 1 intercept in the last 10 years)
Dr. Fuller:I'm not sure what source they used. I'm not sure they had full information.
Interviewer: They (Popular Mechanics) were wrong when they said that then? That only 1 intercept in the 10 years before 9/11?
Dr. Fuller: I'm not sure what source they were using, no, I'm not familiar with that.
Interviewer: So that wouldn't be an accurate source to quote?
Dr. Fuller: I would quote the public affairs person before Popular Science and whatever.(Mechanics)
.....
Dr. Fuller: If we were alerted, we would be able to intercept.

Interviewer to Dr. Fuller, NORAD Historian: "If you were alerted, you could intercept anywhere, whether it be going over the Pacific ocean or going to Michigan or something like that?"

Dr. Fuller: That's correct.

Now Pat, why didn't you point this out in your response? And for the rest of you why didn't you point this out? I expect more from debunkers!
This point alone debunks Popular Mechanics about NORAD and intercepts being offshore only.
It's the same emphasis here: "one interception in the last decade", "You could say that they were wrong about that then? (in reference to Popular's insistence on 1 intercept in the last 10 years)", "This point alone debunks Popular Mechanics about NORAD and intercepts being offshore". So let's see what Popular Mechanics actually said (my emphasis):

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Popular Mechanics never said there was only one interception in total over the last decade. In fact they specifically talk about "all other interceptions" were offshore ADIZ, and it would make no sense to say that if Payne Stewarts were the only one overall.

As for this:

Dr. Fuller: If we were alerted, we would be able to intercept.

Interviewer to Dr. Fuller, NORAD Historian: "If you were alerted, you could intercept anywhere, whether it be going over the Pacific ocean or going to Michigan or something like that?"

Dr. Fuller: That's correct.
Where does Popular Mechanics say you wouldn't be able to intercept if there was a domestic interception? Nowhere, in fact they specifically say it is possible as it happened with Stewart. The point they're making is that the system wasn't designed for this (which Fuller doesn't dispute) and that the response time for such an interception in his case was relatively poor (which Fuller doesn't dispute).

So, like I said, this is a misleading phone call.

[gumboot]

The system is designed to intercept any threat irregardless of origin.
Why didn't any debunker correct Big Les on this issue?


The key word here, of course, is threat. NORAD were set up to protect against threats, not to stop criminals (which, in fact, it would be illegal for them to do). Until 9/11 terrorists had always been treated as criminals.



Interviewer: You could say that they were wrong about that then? (in reference to Popular's insistence on 1 intercept in the last 10 years)
Dr. Fuller:I'm not sure what source they used. I'm not sure they had full information.
Interviewer: They (Popular Mechanics) were wrong when they said that then? That only 1 intercept in the 10 years before 9/11?
Dr. Fuller: I'm not sure what source they were using, no, I'm not familiar with that.
Interviewer: So that wouldn't be an accurate source to quote?
Dr. Fuller: I would quote the public affairs person before Popular Science and whatever.(Mechanics)


It's quite obvious Dr Fuller had never read the Popular Mechanics article, and the interviewer is grossly misrepresenting what the article said. You're right, it would be wrong to claim there was only one intercept in the 10 years prior to 9/11. There were hundreds. 67 in the 6 months prior, according to NORAD. But these all happened inside the ADIZ, outside American Airspace. There was only one intercept inside US airspace. Why conspiracy theorists cannot get their brains around this fundamental distinction, I do not know.


However, when the public relations officer that Dr. Fuller refers to in the phone interview was asked in an earlier conversation she mentions several intercepts but the exact number is classified and I would assume the time to intercept would be as well. Not quite the kind of information you want enemies of America to be aware.

What a nonsensical claim.

Not only can I tell you that between 1989 and 1992, NORAD fighters actively took part in 1,518 scrambles, but that 107 of them were intercepting drug smuggling aircraft.

How can I tell you that? Because it was published in May 1994. (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/gao/gao19.htm)

If you want some more recent revelations of their scrambling activities:

According to NORAD, alert fighters were scrambled roughly 125 times for assorted reasons in 2000. Since Noble Eagle began, there have been about 1,000 scrambles—a pace of nearly three times the pre-9/11 rate.

The new US air defense setup also depends heavily on combat air patrols, which have undergone dramatic changes.

In 2000, there were no CAPs over the United States. Since Noble Eagle began, however, fighters have not only flown a large number of CAPs but also have been diverted from CAP flights to check out possible problems roughly 1,500 times.

The number of diversions has not declined despite the elimination of nonstop air patrols. In the first 10 months of 2004, for instance, NORAD had diverted fighters from CAPs more than 450 times.

Source (http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2005/0205eagle.asp)

Doesn't seem overly secret to me...



I would appreciate a source with that. There is a reason why they would have watched it crash.

The Cape Cod Times, August 21, 2002 (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/capecodtimes082102_ithought.html)


Lets examine what Colonel Robert Marr, Commander of the North East Defense Sector states about this whole shoot down ordeal 'watching it crash' that Gum speaks of.

"Colonel Robert Marr was Commander of the North East Defence Sector and remembers the words that came over the secure phone "we will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground". ."


That was Cheney, passing on the Presidents authorisation to shoot down airliners. That was about 10:10 - quite some time after AA11 hit the WTC.


According to the article, there were only 4 planes and pilots available that day to defend the North East sector. The article blames the lack of a threat by hijackers, when in reality it was the training mission as to why there were only 4 aircraft available to defend the skies. The author of the article I suspect was unaware as to why there were only 4 and speculates the reason again because of the numerous war games going on that day.


No NORAD fighters were involved in exercises that day, and NORAD exercises, when they are undertaken, do not involve the Alert Units. Four fighters, for NEADS, was their standard compliment. If you want to claim otherwise, prove it.



And yes, they would have shot planes down that day. But they couldn't. Those 4 planes available were unarmed! This is of course is confirmed by the pilots that are interviewed in the article because they considered a mid-air collision to bring the flights down.


Oh. My. God. You're even more ignorant of this topic than I realised you were.

All four of the fighters located at Otis and Langley were armed. The pilots who discussed ramming an airliner were pilots from the 121st Fighter Squadron based at Andrews AFB. The 121st were not an Alert Unit, were not under NORAD command, and Andrews was not (and never has been) an alert site. After WTC2 was hit their commander predicted they'd be called on, and ordered the ground crews to start prepping weapons. However that took several hours, normally (live munitions are not left lying around the hangar). When the USSS contacted the 121st and told them to get fighters in the air over Washington DC, their fighters weren't armed yet, so two of their pilots took off anyway in unarmed F-16s. Unaware that NORAD's armed F-16s arrived over Washington about the same time as them, these pilots from the 121st discussed how they'd stop a civilian airliner. They figured if they rammed their fighters into the wing root they might rip a wing off and bring the airliner down.

Aviation Now did a detailed article on the 121st Fighter Squadron (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747496/posts).


You could post a transcript of the interview to prove your point, but I doubt you will. That is why I posted the relevant material. I'm sorry but you can't refute Dr. Fuller's statements about NORAD's intercept capabilities and locations of where those intercepts take place.



You can read the procedure on how NORAD and the Air Force are to respond to hijackings and destruction of "derelict airborne objects" here from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf).


I've read all of the military directives and all of the FAA protocols and all of the FAA regulations relating to intercepts and hijackings. Simply put, they unanimously support the official account, and unanimously refute your claims. The fact that you even post them in support of your claims suggest to me either you haven't even read them (and are just believing what others have told you they say) or you have read them and don't understand them. Either way, it doesn't help your cause.



So please in the future and for the credibility of debunkers, all of you make sure you have your facts straight as I do.


All you've managed to demonstrate is that you're woefully ignorant of NORAD and their role before, during, and after 9/11. It'd be laughable, if it wasn't so serious.

-Gumboot

[sleahead]

Just one thing left to point out here. Swing's link is to a post entitled "This is the entire phone call to Dr. Fuller"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9524473c3542651d9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9219)


This is clearly not the case, as the conversation is already under way when the YouTube clip goes to it. I've listened to a number of Jeff from Canada's phone conversation recordings and they have all been complete. You hear the ring tone, someone answers, Jeff states what he wants, the conversation ensues until Jeff rings off. As always with troofers, I have to ask what is missing from this recording and why? Note also that the original post was February 2007 and then, for some reason, required editing in November 2007.

[Swing Dangler]

The key word here, of course, is threat. NORAD were set up to protect against threats, not to stop criminals (which, in fact, it would be illegal for them to do). Until 9/11 terrorists had always been treated as criminals.
The key word here is confusion on your part. A hijacked airline is a threat. The hijackers are the criminals. There was absolutely no need to muddy the waters with this confusion. This comment is rejected. Now watch as you debunk yourself...

Not only can I tell you that between 1989 and 1992, NORAD fighters actively took part in 1,518 scrambles, but that 107 of them were intercepting drug smuggling aircraft. How can I tell you that? Because it was published in May 1994. (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/gao/gao19.htm)
If you want some more recent revelations of their scrambling activities:
You do realize that you just debunked your own comment at the start of your post? Unless of course your stating drug traffickers are not criminals. Gotcha.
You left out the time to intercept which was the other part of the discussion as well.:lolsign:

It's quite obvious Dr Fuller had never read the Popular Mechanics article, and the interviewer is grossly misrepresenting what the article said. You're right, it would be wrong to claim there was only one intercept in the 10 years prior to 9/11. There were hundreds. 67 in the 6 months prior, according to NORAD. But these all happened inside the ADIZ, outside American Airspace. There was only one intercept inside US airspace. Why conspiracy theorists cannot get their brains around this fundamental distinction, I do not know.

This isn't a matter of distinction. The absolute point of the interview, other than proving PM wrong, is that NORAD can intercept any threat no matter what the point of origin.
"Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).-Popular Mechanics." Again, proven wrong by Dr. Fuller and proving Gumboot wrong in his support of PM.

No NORAD fighters were involved in exercises that day, and NORAD exercises, when they are undertaken, do not involve the Alert Units. Four fighters, for NEADS, was their standard compliment. If you want to claim otherwise, prove it.
So much for your nonsense that there were no NORAD fighters were involved in exercises that day.
NORAD begins Operation Northern Vigilance. For this military operation, it deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Arctic and North Pacific Ocean, scheduled for September 10 to September 14. The Russian exercise involves its bombers staging a mock attack against NATO planes that are supposedly planning an assault on Russia. Source: Cooperative Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=NORAD&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go).


GumbootOh. My. God. You're even more ignorant of this topic than I realised you were.

All four of the fighters located at Otis and Langley were armed. The pilots who discussed ramming an airliner were pilots from the 121st Fighter Squadron based at Andrews AFB. The 121st were not an Alert Unit, were not under NORAD command, and Andrews was not (and never has been) an alert site. After WTC2 was hit their commander predicted they'd be called on, and ordered the ground crews to start prepping weapons. However that took several hours, normally (live munitions are not left lying around the hangar). When the USSS contacted the 121st and told them to get fighters in the air over Washington DC, their fighters weren't armed yet, so two of their pilots took off anyway in unarmed F-16s. Unaware that NORAD's armed F-16s arrived over Washington about the same time as them, these pilots from the 121st discussed how they'd stop a civilian airliner. They figured if they rammed their fighters into the wing root they might rip a wing off and bring the airliner down.

Aviation Now did a detailed article on the 121st Fighter Squadron (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747496/posts).

From the BBC Article Linked to below:
US military unprepared

[B]However, at the time of the attacks the US had just four fighter pilots on alert covering the north eastern United States.

Colonel Robert Marr-Commander of the North East Defense Sector
Colonel Marr: Too few planes to defend the US
US pilots were forced to take to the skies without any weapons and might have had to deliberately crash into a hijacked plane to prevent casualties on the ground.

"I had determined, of course, that with only four aircraft we cannot defend the whole north eastern United States," he said.

"Some of them would have just gotten in the air possibly without any armament onboard.

"If you had to stop an aircraft sometimes the only way to stop an aircraft is with your own aircraft if you don't have any weapons.

"It was very possible that they [the pilots] would have been asked to give their lives themselves to try to prevent further attacks if need be."

The difference in your source and mine is when the fighters were launched. Your's states after the Pentagon, mine states during the attacks. The pilots call signs are different as well and Colonel Marr is nowhere to be found in that document. I think you are confusing air bases here, Norad Ninja. You had better get your facts straight.

I've read all of the military directives and all of the FAA protocols and all of the FAA regulations relating to intercepts and hijackings. Simply put, they unanimously support the official account, and unanimously refute your claims.
That is comical as you debunked yourself about how NORAD deals with aerial threats.
Please explain how an inanimate object in place long before 9/11, such as published protocols and procedures, can support a story?
And please list my claims again as you seem to think protocols and regulations refute them?

ANDREWS AFB, MD. -- With Pentagon in flames and hijacked aircraft threatening Washington, White House scrambled fighters with little or no armament.
Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to "Get in the air now!"
Your source, Gum, bring up another question. Why after the Pentagon was attacked did the White House scramble jets? Why wouldn't those scramble orders be given after the second plane hit the tower? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.....



All you've managed to demonstrate is that you're woefully ignorant of NORAD and their role before, during, and after 9/11. It'd be laughable, if it wasn't so serious.

-Gumboot
I think you proved who was ignorant by
1. Debunking yourself with your own comments,
2. Ignorant or dishonest of the exercises that were in place that day that had NORAD jets participating in the drill as you state the exact opposite.
3.

[lapman]

2. Ignorant or dishonest of the exercises that were in place that day that had NORAD jets participating in the drill as you state the exact opposite.
Please provide your source that states that the NORAD aircraft that were supposed to be on station to protect the continental US from internal threats were away on exercises.

[~enigma~]

Snipped babble
Swing,

You can quote anything you feel necessary until your face turns blue for all i care but you are not changing the fact that in the decade prior to 9/11/2001 there was only 1 intercept over the continental US and that was Payne Stewart (81 minutes). There were however 67 intercepts in the 6 months prior to 9/11 in the Air Defense Intercept Zone ADIZ. If you really need a graphic showing the ADIZ vs. the CONUS, there is one on Gumboots blog as Calan 8. For that matter I strongly advise you to read his NORAD paper before you continue and make yourself look more ill informed.

[TriskettheKid]

Swing, I am STILL waiting for a response to posts 14 or 18.

I'd think the question asked would be easy to answer, if you were correct.

[defaultdotxbe]

Swing, I am STILL waiting for a response to posts 14 or 18.

I'd think the question asked would be easy to answer, if you were correct.
add 52 to that, id like to know his source that says fighters were taken off alert status to participate in training excercises

[Dave Rogers]

This isn't a matter of distinction. The absolute point of the interview, other than proving PM wrong, is that NORAD can intercept any threat no matter what the point of origin.
"Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).-Popular Mechanics." Again, proven wrong by Dr. Fuller and proving Gumboot wrong in his support of PM.

Sorry, Swing, I must be missing something. Could you re-post the bit from the transcript where Dr. Fuller states that there was more than one interception outside the offshore ADIZ? I'm aware that he says he doesn't know what PM's sources were and that he feels the public affairs person takes precedence, but does he actually say anything that contradicts PM's claim?


So much for your nonsense that there were no NORAD fighters were involved in exercises that day.

NORAD begins Operation Northern Vigilance. For this military operation, it deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Arctic and North Pacific Ocean, scheduled for September 10 to September 14. The Russian exercise involves its bombers staging a mock attack against NATO planes that are supposedly planning an assault on Russia. [BBC, 2001, pp. 161; NORAD, 9/9/2001; Washington Times, 9/11/2001]Source: Cooperative Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=NORAD&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go).


Note bolding. A military operation is not an exercise. The Russians were the ones carrying out an exercise; Northern Vigilance was a real world military operation to monitor that exercise, just in case, to keep the Russians honest. Nice try, but your pants are on fire on this one.

Dave

[gumboot]

The key word here is confusion on your part. A hijacked airline is a threat. The hijackers are the criminals. There was absolutely no need to muddy the waters with this confusion. This comment is rejected. Now watch as you debunk yourself...

You do realize that you just debunked your own comment at the start of your post? Unless of course your stating drug traffickers are not criminals. Gotcha.
You left out the time to intercept which was the other part of the discussion as well.


The drug-trafficking intercepts were aircraft illegally penetrating the ADIZ. That's what made them threats. A hijacked airliner in domestic airspace was not a threat.



This isn't a matter of distinction. The absolute point of the interview, other than proving PM wrong, is that NORAD can intercept any threat no matter what the point of origin.
"Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).-Popular Mechanics." Again, proven wrong by Dr. Fuller and proving Gumboot wrong in his support of PM.


All NORAD intercepts were limited to the ADIZ prior to 9/11. That doesn't mean NORAD couldn't intercept over CONUS, it just means they didn't.

Once again another distinction you seem incapable of making.

Prove me wrong. Name me one single example prior to 9/11 of NORAD alert fighters being scrambled to intercept an aircraft over CONUS. Just one. (And to forestall the obvious answer, Payne Stewart's learjet was not intercepted by NORAD).


So much for your nonsense that there were no NORAD fighters were involved in exercises that day.

NORAD begins Operation Northern Vigilance. For this military operation, it deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Arctic and North Pacific Ocean, scheduled for September 10 to September 14. The Russian exercise involves its bombers staging a mock attack against NATO planes that are supposedly planning an assault on Russia. Source: Cooperative Research.

Notice anything about the words I bolded?

Northern Vigilance wasn't an exercise



The difference in your source and mine is when the fighters were launched. Your's states after the Pentagon, mine states during the attacks. The pilots call signs are different as well and Colonel Marr is nowhere to be found in that document. I think you are confusing air bases here, Norad Ninja. You had better get your facts straight.


No, you're confusing bases. Colonel Marr had nothing to do with the 121st Fighter Squadron fighters. They were the pilots who discussed ramming airliners. Not the pilots of the four armed NORAD fighters. You don't know what you're talking about.



That is comical as you debunked yourself about how NORAD deals with aerial threats.

No I didn't.


Please explain how an inanimate object in place long before 9/11, such as published protocols and procedures, can support a story?

Because they reflect what the system was and wasn't designed to do.

A particular point from the regulation you posted sums it up perfectly, I think:

3. Procedures

a. General. Military personnel will provide the following types of
support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.
Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or
other similar activity. [B]This restriction would include the apprehension
of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter)
or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons
against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be
provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national
security or military preparedness.



Your source, Gum, bring up another question. Why after the Pentagon was attacked did the White House scramble jets? Why wouldn't those scramble orders be given after the second plane hit the tower? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.....


Not really. No one even knew there were more hijacked airliners at that point.



I think you proved who was ignorant by
1. Debunking yourself with your own comments,
2. Ignorant or dishonest of the exercises that were in place that day that had NORAD jets participating in the drill as you state the exact opposite.


I haven't debunked myself, and NORAD jets were not participating in any exercises. Seriously, bow out of this conversation before you embarrass yourself further.

-Gumboot

[ElMondoHummus]

The key word here, of course, is threat. NORAD were set up to protect against threats, not to stop criminals (which, in fact, it would be illegal for them to do). Until 9/11 terrorists had always been treated as criminals.

The key word here is confusion on your part. A hijacked airline is a threat. The hijackers are the criminals. There was absolutely no need to muddy the waters with this confusion. This comment is rejected. Now watch as you debunk yourself...

Not only can I tell you that between 1989 and 1992, NORAD fighters actively took part in 1,518 scrambles, but that 107 of them were intercepting drug smuggling aircraft. How can I tell you that? Because it was published in May 1994.
If you want some more recent revelations of their scrambling activities:

You do realize that you just debunked your own comment at the start of your post? Unless of course your stating drug traffickers are not criminals. Gotcha.

How is intercepting a specific class of criminal singled out by the "war on drugs" proof that NORAD's interception activity extends to any and all criminal penetration of US airspace? NORAD is not a resource used against any other type of criminal activity; drug courier interceptions are a specific addition to their mission. Look up the Defense Authorization Act of 1989; any story or source out there makes it pretty clear that this was a specific addition to NORAD's mission, and specific to the issue of drug smuggling on top of that. There was no general tasking to deal with criminal activity conducted while in the air:


c. DOD Support to Counterdrug Operations. In counterdrug operations, the
Department of Defense supports federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in
their effort to disrupt the transport and/or transfer of illegal drugs into the United
States. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1989 assigned three major
counterdrug responsibilities to the Department of Defense as follows...


(Source: http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_0rfd.pdf)


Only counterdrug operations. Unless you can find any language in the Act that states that NORAD has any responsibilities for criminal activities above and beyond drug trafficing, that is.

There's just no "Gotcha" there. There's nothing inconsistent with Gumboot's postings whatsoever. The only inconsistencies are with your assertion that NORAD intercepts any criminal activity and the actual fact that NORAD only deals with drug smuggling, not any airborne criminal act.

Man... that was just the first point in that post. Not even the first few sentences survive scrutiny...

[funk de fino]

Swingie gets the major smackdown again

[Swing Dangler]

How is intercepting a specific class of criminal singled out by the "war on drugs" proof that NORAD's interception activity extends to any and all criminal penetration of US airspace? NORAD is not a resource used against any other type of criminal activity; drug courier interceptions are a specific addition to their mission. Look up the Defense Authorization Act of 1989; any story or source out there makes it pretty clear that this was a specific addition to NORAD's mission, and specific to the issue of drug smuggling on top of that. There was no general tasking to deal with criminal activity conducted while in the air:
(Source: http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_0rfd.pdf)
You either missed or left out Gumboots original quote:
"Gumboot-The key word here, of course, is threat. NORAD were set up to protect against aerial threats, not to stop criminals (which, in fact, it would be illegal for them to do). Until 9/11 terrorists had always been treated as criminals."

1. According to you two geniuses, NORAD can't intercept a hijacked airline because a hijacker is a criminal, and NORAD doesn't stop criminals.

2. A hijacked airliner is a threat and a hijacking is a criminal activity. You are asking me to accept that hijackings are not criminal activities. That is simply ignorant.

4. The protocol in place prior to 9/11 was the FAA was to notify NORAD in the event of a hijacking.

5. NORAD scrambles and intercepts the threat. As you seem educated on the subject, then I'm assuming you would agree there are protocols do deal with a hijacking threat. But then again, your logic is asking me to believe that hijackers aren't criminals.

I linked to those protocols below. The sad part is you fell for it and tried to defend it. So in a sense, the gotcha goes to you for defending Gumbots assertion. I'm sad I had to waste my time pointing that out to you.

There's just no "Gotcha" there. There's nothing inconsistent with Gumboot's postings whatsoever. The only inconsistencies are with your assertion that NORAD intercepts any criminal activity and the actual fact that NORAD only deals with drug smuggling, not any airborne criminal act.

This is a reflection of your reading comprehension skills. As the only criminal I mentioned was that of a hijacker. By definition, he is a criminal who has violated Federal law, correct?

NORAD then does deal with this criminal and the plane he has hijacked, however, if you reexamine Gumbots original quote: "NORAD were set up to protect against threats, not to stop criminals" you will see that he is wrong. Now when the plane is forced down, then the FBI takes over and deals with the criminal or the criminal is killed by the interceptor jets via a shoot down order.
You are correct when you muddy the waters even further by mentioning the drug interdiction flight. But it was useless information to me because I was already aware of that aspect of NORAD's activities.

I made no assertion what so ever that NORAD intercepts any criminal activity and shame on you for stating it as such. Again, that reading comprehension thing or a dishonest statement to try to prove me wrong which failed miserably. I expect more from debunkers!

Man... that was just the first point in that post. Not even the first few sentences survive scrutiny...
Yes, and you failed at that and made yourself look foolish.

Enigma-You can quote anything you feel necessary until your face turns blue for all i care but you are not changing the fact that in the decade prior to 9/11/2001 there was only 1 intercept over the continental US and that was Payne Stewart (81 minutes). There were however 67 intercepts in the 6 months prior to 9/11 in the Air Defense Intercept Zone ADIZWP. If you really need a graphic showing the ADIZ vs. the CONUSWP, there is one on Gumboots blog as Calan 8. For that matter I strongly advise you to read his NORAD paper before you continue and make yourself look more ill informed.


I think you are confused. I'm not even debating the number of intercepts, I'm simply stating that NORAD can and does intercept any flight over the continental United States if alerted by the FAA to do so, not just flights originating from outside the U.S.

What you have done apparently is jumped in late to the conversation and tried to attempt to make me look ill informed. Had you read from beginning, you would have read this from Big Les...
Big Les:Nope, not grounded. They tried their best under a system designed to intercept threats coming into the US, not originating from within it.

That was the whole point I debunked which no debunker did. Imagine that..a truther acting as a debunker to debunk a debunker.

As we all know, NORAD's mission is to defend the skies of North America and the continental United States from all aerial threats. The origin of an aerial threat has no bearing on NORAD's purpose or capabilities which is why I had to debunk Big Les.

I also pointed out earlier that no debunker corrected Big Les. So please, before you accuse someone of being ill informed, perhaps you should inform yourself first.

In regards to the other question regarding fighters sent to Northern Vigilance
It is unknown from which bases NORAD sends fighters for Operation Northern Vigilance, and how many US military personnel are involved. However, in December 2000, it took similar action—called Operation Northern Denial—in response to a “smaller scale” Russian “long-range aviation activity in northern Russia and the Arctic.” More than 350 American and Canadian military personnel were involved on that occasion. [Canadian Chief of Defense Staff, 5/30/2001, pp. 6 pdf file; NORAD, 9/9/2001]

From Wiki:The other exercises that have an unknown number of fighters: the exercise Vigilant Warrior, in his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke claims there was a NORAD exercise ongoing called Vigilant Warrior.[9] The claim is based on a comment that Richard Myers made to Clarke via a video link on September 11, 2001. However, there is no other record of a NORAD exercise named Vigiliant Warrior. Myers was possibly referring to Vigilant Guardian (the aforementioned yearly NORAD exercise held in conjunction with Global Guardian) or Amalgam Warrior (a large-scale, live-fly, CINCNORAD sponsored exercise which is held twice annually)

The point being that there could have been more fighter's available but they were participating in the exercises and operations listed above. On the other hand Col. Marr doesn't give a reason for why they weren't available which is why I stated in speculation that it was the exercises/operations.
Colonel Marr said: "That was the sense of frustration, of I don't have the forces available to do anything about this, we've got everything up that we can get up and still can't do anything."
He doesn't address why they were not available. Hence my suggestion of the exercises, war games, and operations.
A fighter squadron doesn't have to be under NORAD command for their fighter's to be used in an emergency. In fact, an ANG unit offered its services to NORAD on that day which they declined.

funk de fino-Swingie gets the major smackdown again
I suspect you are like the WWE manager outside the wrestling ring who is crushed by two bad heels after being thrown over the top rope and into the tables. :newlolGo back to watching wrestling, as you apparently have reading comprehension problems as well.

[TriskettheKid]

Again, Swing, where is your response to posts 14 or 18?

[defaultdotxbe]

The point being that there could have been more fighter's available but they were participating in the exercises and operations listed above. On the other hand Col. Marr doesn't give a reason for why they weren't available which is why I stated in speculation that it was the exercises/operations.
Colonel Marr said: "That was the sense of frustration, of I don't have the forces available to do anything about this, we've got everything up that we can get up and still can't do anything."
He doesn't address why they were not available. Hence my suggestion of the exercises, war games, and operations.
bolding mine

so you really have no evidence any more fighters would have been available (and fueled, and armed, and have pilots ready) had it not been for the other operations and excercises sceduled for the day (the excercises were never carried out BTW, they were scheduled to begin at 9 and were canceled before even starting)

[Sabrina]

Question.

Can anyone in this thread please link or quote the law that hijackers break by hijacking aircraft? I'm not entirely positive there is one and would like to see it. Thank you.

[CptColumbo]

IIRC most fall under Piracy laws, then there is kidnapping and grand theft could also be thrown in.

[ElMondoHummus]

Question.

Can anyone in this thread please link or quote the law that hijackers break by hijacking aircraft? I'm not entirely positive there is one and would like to see it. Thank you.

Not easily. Had to do a quickie lookup. I started here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01403.htm

And ended up here:

http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/49_usc_46502.htm

I don't want to quote the whole thing, but you can easily see it yourself. This link, BTW, is for "Aircraft piracy within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States". There's a separate act - 49 U.S.C. § 46502(b) - for "Aircraft piracy outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States..." (I'm quoting the first link).

There's also a law for "Interference with flight crew members and attendants..." (49 U.S.C. § 46504). Looks like the government can nail you 5 different ways from Sunday for hijacking an airliner.

Anyway, that what you're after? :)

[Sabrina]

That's it; thanks. Just wanted to be able to lay eyes on the law itself instead of having everyone say it's against the law. *LOL*

[ElMondoHummus]

Ah! A better source than Google for the text of any US Federal law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

... although it's not as easy as using Google, I admit. Anyway, more info than you ever wanted or asked for! ;)

[gumboot]

1. According to you two geniuses, NORAD can't intercept a hijacked airline because a hijacker is a criminal, and NORAD doesn't stop criminals.


I never said they can't intercept a hijacked airliner. I said they can't stop it. which they can't.


2. A hijacked airliner is a threat and a hijacking is a criminal activity. You are asking me to accept that hijackings are not criminal activities. That is simply ignorant.

That doesn't even make sense. And I said pretty much the exact opposite. NORAD can't stop them because they're criminal activities.


4. The protocol in place prior to 9/11 was the FAA was to notify NORAD in the event of a hijacking.

Actually that's not the protocol at all. The FAA have absolutely no requirement to notify NORAD of hijacking whatsoever. The protocols were the process by which the FAA requested NORAD assistance if they decided they wanted it. They were under no obligation to involve the military at all.


5. NORAD scrambles and intercepts the threat. As you seem educated on the subject, then I'm assuming you would agree there are protocols do deal with a hijacking threat. But then again, your logic is asking me to believe that hijackers aren't criminals.

I linked to those protocols below. The sad part is you fell for it and tried to defend it. So in a sense, the gotcha goes to you for defending Gumbots assertion. I'm sad I had to waste my time pointing that out to you.


You actually didn't link to the protocols. You linked to the military orders relating to hijackings and destruction of derelict objects. The FAA initiates any hijacking escourt (which the order you linked to quite clearly states) and as such the protocols in question are the FAA's. I've given you the link to them before, but I'll do it again, just for fun:

FAA Protocol Order 7610.4J - Special Military Operations - Chapter 7: Escort of Hijacked Aircraft (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/FAA7610_4.htm)

The protocol is exceedingly clear (I've bolded some pertinent points):

7-1-1. PURPOSE

The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft to:

a. Assure positive flight following.

b. Report unusual observances.

c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through the appropriate SOCC/ROCC.


NORAD then does deal with this criminal and the plane he has hijacked

No, NORAD do not "deal" with him. The FBI "deal" with him. NORAD are not allowed to "deal" with him. What they do is "assure positive flight following, report unusual observances, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency".



you will see that he is wrong. Now when the plane is forced down, then the FBI takes over and deals with the criminal or the criminal is killed by the interceptor jets via a shoot down order.

Remember that military order which you cited?

"This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers."


Had you read from beginning, you would have read this from Big Les...

BNope, not grounded. They tried their best under a system designed to intercept threats coming into the US, not originating from within it.

That was the whole point I debunked which no debunker did. Imagine that..a truther acting as a debunker to debunk a debunker.

Except that demonstrating NORAD can do something, or even that NORAD have done something (which they haven't) doesn't prove they were designed to do it.


In regards to the other question regarding fighters sent to Northern Vigilance
It is unknown from which bases NORAD sends fighters for Operation Northern Vigilance, and how many US military personnel are involved. However, in December 2000, it took similar action—called Operation Northern Denial—in response to a “smaller scale” Russian “long-range aviation activity in northern Russia and the Arctic.” More than 350 American and Canadian military personnel were involved on that occasion. [Canadian Chief of Defense Staff, 5/30/2001, pp. 6 pdf file; NORAD, 9/9/2001]


You don't seem to appreciate that Operation Northern Vigilance is irrelevant, because it didn't affect the Alert Sites. NORAD has two missions. One is the peace time air defense mission, which is overseen by Air National Guard units of the 1st Air Force. It consisted of fourteen fighters from seven squadrons, at seven air bases (which I've identified).

The other part of NORAD's mission was coordinating the Air Sovereignty Mission, undertaken primarily by USAF units of various numbered air forces.

To take the example of Operation Northern Denial, which you cited, these units were provided from the USAF, not the Air National Guard, which does the Alert mission.

One such unit was the 54th Fighter Squadron (now the 12th Fighter Squadron) stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. They're part of the 11th Air Force.


From Wiki:The other exercises that have an unknown number of fighters: the exercise Vigilant Warrior, in his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke claims there was a NORAD exercise ongoing called Vigilant Warrior.[9] The claim is based on a comment that Richard Myers made to Clarke via a video link on September 11, 2001. However, there is no other record of a NORAD exercise named Vigiliant Warrior. Myers was possibly referring to Vigilant Guardian (the aforementioned yearly NORAD exercise held in conjunction with Global Guardian) or Amalgam Warrior (a large-scale, live-fly, CINCNORAD sponsored exercise which is held twice annually)

The point being that there could have been more fighter's available but they were participating in the exercises and operations listed above. On the other hand Col. Marr doesn't give a reason for why they weren't available which is why I stated in speculation that it was the exercises/operations.
Colonel Marr said: "That was the sense of frustration, of I don't have the forces available to do anything about this, we've got everything up that we can get up and still can't do anything."
He doesn't address why they were not available. Hence my suggestion of the exercises, war games, and operations.
A fighter squadron doesn't have to be under NORAD command for their fighter's to be used in an emergency. In fact, an ANG unit offered its services to NORAD on that day which they declined.


Okay, let's break this down, because there's a LOT of garbage in your posts.

First step. Marr's frustration was about not having enough assets. That was in reference to their normal assets. There was nothing unusual about having only four fighters.

NORAD has always maintained alert bases—sites where fighters sit fueled, armed, and ready to take off on short notice. During the early years of the Cold War, North America was ringed by alert bases ready to intercept approaching Soviet bombers. To many planners, however, the end of the Cold War meant the end of the threat. US air defenses were allowed to atrophy.

At the time the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, NORAD maintained 26 alert sites around the United States, said USAF Gen. Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former NORAD commander.

By Sept. 11, 2001, however, the number was down to seven.

“The threat was not perceived to be so evident, ... so forces were scaled down,” Myers told the 9/11 Commission. “Alert facilities, which are expensive to maintain, were closed, and we wound up with those seven sites.”

None of the seven were particularly close to al Qaeda’s targets on that September day. Fighters from Otis ANGB, Mass., responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York, while aircraft from Langley AFB, Va., were called to the capital’s airspace after the attack on the Pentagon.

Eberhart told the commission that, as a result of a major cost-benefit debate in the 1990s, “we came close to having zero airplanes on alert.” He said that the zero-alert option “almost went to the endgame.” Now, said Eberhart, no one questions the need to have air defense aircraft ready to scramble.

Air Force Magazine - Noble Eagle Without End (http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2005/0205eagle.asp)

At the time of the attacks, only seven locations-around the perimeter of the United States-were engaged in the air defense mission. Each was assigned a pair of Air National Guard fighter aircraft ready to scramble if US airspace were threatened.

These alert locations had F-15 or F-16 fighters on the runways, fueled, and ready to take off in fewer than 15 minutes.

It was, however, a greatly diminished presence, said Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., now retired, who was at the time the director of the Air National Guard. He said that, during the Cold War, the air defense force structure was much more robust. Fighters sat fueled and ready to take off, if directed by NORAD, at "well over 100 alert sites."

Weaver said the number of sites was reduced because it was widely believed the threat to the United States had essentially disappeared. Some questioned the need to maintain even the seven alert bases. "Based upon the threat, seven sites was [considered] adequate for the outward threat," he said. "Never did we believe the threat would come from within."

The seven air bases with aircraft on permanent alert Sept. 11 were arranged around the Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coastlines. This perimeter arrangement was a reflection of pre-attack thinking that was focused on external threats.

Air Force Magazine - The Return of Norad (http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2002/0202norad.asp)

Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced norad's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of norad's planes belong to neads and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan—the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.

Vanity Fair - 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=5)

The continental air defense evolved during the Cold War to detect and
intercept Soviet bombers attacking North America via the North Pole.
GAO concludes that such an air defense is no longer needed and could be
disbanded at an annual savings of as much as $370 million. Other
reserve and active units are well equipped to handle what has become the
defense force's current focus--intercepting drug smugglers. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that (1) the
continental air defense be performed by dual tasking active and reserve
general-purpose fighter and training squadrons in the Air Force, the
Navy, and the Marine Corps and (2) the number of Air National Guard
units assigned to this mission be sharply reduced or eliminated.

...

NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental
United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day
peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two
fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to
scramble within 5 minutes.

Report to Congressional Committees - Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed - May 1994 (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/gao/gao19.htm)

The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.

Active units pull similar duties outside the mainland. In fact last September, a two-ship flight of F-15 Eagles based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, stared down a pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers as they vectored toward the Alaskan coast. The bombers hightailed it home when the American Eagles closed within 90 miles.

“We don’t let other aircraft — zero — penetrate our air space without being monitored or escorted,” Herring said. “That’s why we have weapons on our jets. We need to be postured such that no one would dare threaten us ... and nobody better.”

Airman Magazine - "FANGs Bared" - December 1999 (http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm)

Get the picture yet?

Right. Second point.

Operations.

One operation ongoing at the time - Northern Vigilance. Using regular force units, not 1st Air Force units from the Air National Guard. Didn't affect the seven alert sites.

Even assuming these aircraft came from Continental US air bases (it's far more likely they came from Canada and Alaska, as with previous operations like Northern Denial), had they been back home in the US they would have been unarmed, flying regular training missions all across the USA. There were hundreds of fighters doing that in the US already, so NORAD had no shortage of unarmed fighters not on standby (indeed, by mid afternoon NORAD had over 300 armed fighters, supported by AWACS and tankers, flying CAPs over every single major US city).

Exercises:

Amalgam Warrior wasn't on at the time. It was held in June. That was a major field exercise (that is involving operational combat units) specifically addressing the threat of cruise missiles being launched from ships off the US coast. NORAD considered this the most likely threat from terrorists.

"Vigilant Warrior" doesn't exist. The name is at odds with NORAD's exercise terms and nicknames regulations. "Vigilant" is a term used to denote a NORAD-wide CPX, or command post exercise. This means it's an exercise involving command centres, but no operational units, which are simulated only.

However "Warrior" denotes a JSC-approved, CINC NORAD sponsored field exercise.

The correct pairing for a NORAD-wide "Warrior" type exercise is "Amalgam", hence we get the major NORAD field exercise "Amalgam Warrior" (held in June 2001).

The A JSC-approved, CINC NORAD sponsored Command Post Exercise is called "Overview" and that's what was running on 9/11 - a Vigilant Overview type exercise. It was a reoccurring exercise held every year, with the nickname "Guardian". Hence you get the name "Vigilant Guardian".

You don't have to believe me of course. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who approved the exercise) was asked about it, and gave a clear answer:

These are command post exercises; what that means is that all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled; so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response; otherwise, it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions, those battle stations, with the right staff officers.

(excerpt from Transcript of Representative Cynthia McKinney's Exchange with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas March 11th, 2005) (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml)

Finally, in case you want to jump onto the "fake blips" argument, I'll just quickly nip that in the bud:

For reliability and training purposes, the SOCC is equipped with two computer systems. While one system monitors sector airspace, operators can use the second system for training exercises, data analysis, testing and repair. Should the operational system malfunction, the second system is automatically switched to operational status with no mission interruption.

Source (http://www.united-publishers.com/TyndallGuide/tenant.html#sads)

-Gumboot

[funk de fino]

I suspect you are like the WWE manager outside the wrestling ring who is crushed by two bad heels after being thrown over the top rope and into the tables. :newlolGo back to watching wrestling, as you apparently have reading comprehension problems as well.


No mate, ex-airforce, 12 years, fastjet technician, QRA experience, Gulf war veteran and balkans conflict veteran and I know someone who does not have a clue about aircraft and the military when I see one.

I see Gumboot has layed one on you again

Give it up, its cringeworhty

[stilicho]

Am I following this right?

1. The Russians were staging an exercise.
2. NORAD responded with a planned military operation called Northern Vigilance.
3. There were less fighters in the NE bases than there would have been if the Russians were not staging an exercise.

So, #4 is: The Russians were in on it too?

That is, if we ignore the fact that the hijacked airliners would not have been considered a military threat.

[gumboot]

Am I following this right?

1. The Russians were staging an exercise.
2. NORAD responded with a planned military operation called Northern Vigilance.
3. There were less fighters in the NE bases than there would have been if the Russians were not staging an exercise.

So, #4 is: The Russians were in on it too?


Well yes. Even assuming #3 is true (which it isn't), it still leaves #4. Bringing Northern Vigilance into the mix merely expands the vast conspiracy from the realm of the improbable to the ludicrous.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

Am I following this right?

1. The Russians were staging an exercise.
2. NORAD responded with a planned military operation called Northern Vigilance.
3. There were less fighters in the NE bases than there would have been if the Russians were not staging an exercise.

So, #4 is: The Russians were in on it too?

Not necessarily. The date could have been chosen to coincide with a known planned Russian exercise so that fighters would have been expected to be absent. None of this is consistent with the fact that NORAD had such a superfluity of unarmed, not-combat-ready fighters on 9-11 that they actually turned some down, but at least it doesn't strictly require the Russian Air Force to have been complicit in 9-11. That would be silly.

Dave

[Big Les]

I have no idea why SD thinks he can use my comment as some sort of shield. It was brief, but pretty accurate I thought. The system was designed to intercept external threats, and this caused problems with the response to the internal threat of 9/11. Don't think that because I didn't reply that you've somehow got one over on us Swingy - Gumboot and the rest have torn you a proverbial new one here. You haven't a leg to stand on.

[stilicho]

[It] doesn't strictly require the Russian Air Force to have been complicit in 9-11. That would be silly.

Dave
Yeah, I guess that would have been silly. OK, I admit, the Russians weren't in on it. (A beleaguered nation experiences a collective sigh of relief half a world away).

[stilicho]

Double post :P

[Gravy]

Wow, yet another thread in which Swing Dangler has to be taken behind the woodshed because he refuses to understand simple concepts? How can it possibly be enjoyable to be wrong all the time?

[JimBenArm]

Wow, yet another thread in which Swing Dangler has to be taken behind the woodshed because he refuses to understand simple concepts? How can it possibly be enjoyable to be wrong all the time?
Who can understand masochism?

[Reheat]

Wow, yet another thread in which Swing Dangler has to be taken behind the woodshed because he refuses to understand simple concepts? How can it possibly be enjoyable to be wrong all the time?

Surely there is no one alive that can be dumb enough to use the arguments he's continuing to espouse. Wait a minute he is! It absolutely ceases to amaze me that humans can be so obtuse. There is more behind this than simple knowledge and learning. It has to be something mental that I don't quite understand yet.

[Lurker]

I got this from an active duty officer in the Air Force who I mentioned the LC thread to.

There are three levels of On Alert, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie. (There's a
Delta too but irrelevant for this discussion)

Alpha - The airframe in question has been pre-tripped and the pilot is
ready to fly in a nearby facility
Bravo - The airframe is ready and the pilot must be able to be airborne
in 3 hours
Charlie - The airframe and pilot must be able to get airborne in 14
hours (the pilot must be able to get 8 hours of crew rest and still
report for duty and take off.)

For a period of time after 9-11, Alpha came to mean that the planes were
actually in the air awaiting instructions.

Combat Readiness is an entirely different thing which normally refers to
units. For example, a communications squadron would have a combat
readiness rating. CR is based on a number of factors, for example,
training. Say a sq. has 200 personnel. If all of them are current
on their Nuclear/Biological/Chemical Warfare training then the unit is
considered combat ready with regard to that training. A unit's actual
"Combat Readiness" score is based on numerous inputs; training,
equipment maintenance, injuries and sickness, unfilled personnel billets
and so forth. These are sub-divided further. They also have job specific training that must be current. All these values are plugged into a formula to return a rating.

Obviously, On Alert and Combat Ready are not interchangeable. I can only
imagine what kind of drivel appears on the Loose Change forum.