Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum The NORAD Response Revisited

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 10th December 2006, 06:50 AM #1 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 The NORAD Response Revisited As many of you know, I have created a NORAD document which, I humbly feel, pretty much buries any "NORAD stand down" argument. However, the document is somewhat out of date and fails to make some important points. It also doesn't use the resources effectively (listing links at the end instead of quoting relevant pieces throughout the document). As such I have created a new pdf which I feel is much better. For the sake of posterity, I am also entering the document as a couple of entries here. Anyone who wants to host the pdf, let me know. MarkyX, I assume you'll want to update your one. I will not include the NORAD timeline in this particular thread as I already have it here and the timeline itself has not changed. -Gumboot __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 10th December 2006, 08:08 AM #3 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 NORAD’s MISSION AND INTERCEPT PROCEEDURES North America is surrounded by an area called the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is jointly administered by the United States (US) and Canada. This area, which is almost exclusively over water, serves as a national defence boundary for air traffic, as a sort of "buffer zone". Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defence Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ. The pilot must have a transponder and a two-way radio while approaching and crossing the ADIZ. In the US, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) handles these requests; Transport Canada handles Canadian requests. Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as enemy military aircraft. The continguous US ADIZ is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43: Quote: Sec. 99.43 Continguous U.S. ADIZ. The area bounded by a line from 43°15'N, 65°55'W; 44°21'N; 67°16'W; 43°10'N; 69°40'W; 41°05'N; 69°40'W; 40°32'N; 72°15'W; 39°55'N; 73°00'W; 39°38'N; 73°00'W; 39°36'N; 73°40'W; 37°00'N; 75°30'W; 36°10'N; 75°10'W; 35°10'N; 75°10'W; 32°00'N; 80°30'W; 30°30'N; 81°00'W; 26°40'N; 79°40'W; 25°00'N; 80°05'W; 24°25'N; 81°15'W; 24°20'N; 81°45'W; 24°30'N; 82°06'W; 24°41'N; 82°06'W; 24°43'N; 82°00'W; 25°00'N; 81°30'W; 25°10'N; 81°23'W; 25°35'N; 81°30'W; 26°15'N 82°20'W; 27°50'N; 83°05'W; 28°55'N; 83°30'W; 29°42'N; 84°00'W; 29°20'N; 85°00'W; 30°00'N; 87°10'W; 30°00'N; 88°30'W; 28°45'N; 88°55'W; 28°45'N; 90°00'W; 29°25'N; 94°00'W; 28°20'N; 96°00'W; 27°30'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 25°58'N; 97°07'W; westward along the U.S./Mexico border to 32°32'03"N, 117°07'25"W; 32°30'N; 117°25'W; 32°35'N; 118°30'W; 33°05'N; 119°45'W; 33°55'N; 120°40'W; 34°50'N; 121°10'W; 38°50'N; 124°00'W; 40°00'N; 124°35'W; 40°25'N; 124°40'W; 42°50'N; 124°50'W; 46°15'N; 124°30'W; 48°30'N; 125°00'W; 48°20'N; 128°00'W; 48°20'N; 132°00'W; 37°42'N; 130°40'W; 29°00'N; 124°00'W; 30°45'N; 120°50'W; 32°00'N; 118°24'W; 32°30'N; 117°20'W; 32°32'03"N; 117°07'25"W; eastward along the U.S./Mexico border to 25°58'N, 97°07'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 95°00'W; 26°30'N; 95°00'W; then via 26°30'N; parallel to 26°30'N; 84°00'W; 24°00'N; 83°00'W; then Via 24°00'N; parallel to 24°00'N; 79°25'W; 25°40'N; 79°25'W; 27°30'N; 78°50'W; 30°45'N; 74°00'W; 39°30'N; 63°45'W; 43°00'N; 65°48'W; to point of beginning. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is responsible for the intercept of aircraft inside the ADIZ. However, as it is the FAA and Transport Canada that handle the ADIZ clearances, a request for intercept from one of these agencies precedes any action by NORAD against civilian aircraft. NORAD do not, and never have, directly monitored air traffic inside the ADIZ themselves. NORAD areas of responsibility are divided into three regions – Alaska, Continental USA (CONUS), and Canada. Each region is further divided into Air Defense Sectors, with a number of fighter interceptor aircraft always on alert for rapid deployment. At the height of the Cold War fighters were located at over 100 alert sites across the NORAD Continental United States Region, however after the fall of the Soviet Union there was not considered to be a significant threat, and the number of alert bases was slashed repeatedly. In February 1993 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that the dedicated alert stations be entirely eliminated. Quote: In February 1993, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that (1) the continental air defense mission be performed by dual tasking existing 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 dedicated to this mission be sharply reduced or eliminated. In a 3 May 1994 Report to Congressional Committees entitled Continental Air Defense – A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed it was announced that NORAD would reduce the continental US force to 28 aircraft located in 14 alert stations, on 5 minute response time, 24 hours a day: Quote: 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. By 2001 this had dropped to 14 aircraft at 7 alert bases located on the perimeter of the continental USA, with a 15 minute response time. Quote: 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. (from Air Force Magazine article: The Return Of NORAD, February, 2002) The hijackings on September 11 occurred within the North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS). The NEADS mission normally had four interceptor aircraft on duty at any given time – 2 at Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB) in Massachusetts, and 2 at Langley Air Force Base (AFB), Virginia. None of the aircraft hijacked on September 11 entered the ADIZ. Prior to September 11, there was no formal system in place for military intercepts of civilian aircraft outside the ADIZ. In the 10 years prior to September 2001 there was only one instance in which military aircraft were involved in an intercept of a civilian aircraft outside the ADIZ. This was the intercept of Payne Stewart’s Learjet 35, registration N47BA, which lost cabin pressure and flew across several states before crashing on October 25, 1999. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the incident, communication with the aircraft was lost at 0933 EDT. The Jacksonville Air Radar Traffic Control Centre (ARTCC) directly requested an intercept from the USAF. A test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, reached the Learjet at 0954 CDT – a full 81 minutes* after initial communication was lost. (* note change in time zone from Eastern to Central daylight time) In comparison, for the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 the duration from first sign of distress to flight termination was: $ \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline FLIGHT & HIJACKING & CRASH & DURATION \\ \hline AA11 & 0813 & 0846 & 33 minutes\\ \hline UA175 & 0847 & 0903 & 16 minutes\\ \hline AA77 & 0856 & 0937 & 41 minutes\\ \hline UA93 & 0928 & 1003 & 35 minutes\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center}$ All times are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) The intercept of Stewart’s Learjet took twice as long as the longest hijack duration on 9/11 – American Airlines Flight 77. Unlike Stewart’s Learjet, all four aircraft hijacked on September 11 had their transponders turned off. The transponder broadcasts vital information including the flight identification. Only transponder contacts appear on the secondary radar screen. Without transponder information, aircraft had to be located on the primary radar screen which shows a radar signal from every single aircraft in the air – none of them labelled. In order to identify the hijacked aircraft, Air Traffic Controllers had to first cross-reference all of the aircraft appearing on the secondary radar screen with their correlating reading on the primary screen. AA 77, for example, was only located on the primary radar screen five minutes before it crashed into The Pentagon. To truly appreciate the enormity of the task before ATC on 9/11, here is an animation that depicts air traffic across the USA on a typical day. From the information gathered we can conclude the following facts:NORAD's area of responsibility is inside the ADIZ The Hijackings occurred outside the ADIZ There was no standard procedure for hijackings outside the ADIZ on 9/11 From 1991 to 2001 only one military intercept occurred over CONUS airspace. It took 81 minutes and the aircraft transponder remained on at all times. Incident-specific conditions on 9/11 did not favour a successful intercept, based on previous experience. In addition, standard FAA procedure for a hijacking is to hand over all details to the FBI; there is no procedure for involving the military in incidents outside the ADIZ. This is primarily because a hijacking inside the USA is a Federal crime rather than a threat to National Security, thus is under the jurisdiction of the FBI. As such there were delays between the first signs of hijacking, and NEADS being notified. This delay is critical. A delay in notification restricts the “window” of time in which NEADS has to execute a successful intercept. As you can see from the NORAD timeline, the times from NEADS notification to aircraft destruction are as follows: $ \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline FLIGHT & HIJACKING & NEADS NOTIFIED & CRASH & INTERCEPT WINDOW\\ \hline AA11 & 0813 & 0837 & 0846 & +9 minutes\\ \hline UA175 & 0852 & 0903 & 0903 & 0 minutes\\ \hline AA77 & 0856 & 0935 & 0937 & +2 minutes\\ \hline UA93 & 0939 & 1007 & 1003 & -4 minutes\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center}$ All times are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) So from the outset a successful intercept by NORAD on 9/11 was to be difficult. Indeed, an intercept of UA175 or UA93 would be quite simply chronologically impossible. The longest window NEADS would get was 9 minutes. How did the wargames factor into this? __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 10th December 2006, 09:42 AM #6 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072 Gumboot and NORAD sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G Seriously, great work there, Andrew. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
 10th December 2006, 10:15 AM #7 Firestone Proud Award Award recipient     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,068
 10th December 2006, 10:17 AM #8 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 Originally Posted by Gravy Gumboot and NORAD sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G Seriously, great work there, Andrew. Well I am the NORAD ninja... -Gumboot __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 10th December 2006, 11:37 AM #9 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,286 When CT guys use Paine Stewarts intercept and learn about time zones, it is a classic, hot potatoe fade to black, where did the CT guy go (intercept took longer then all of 9/11 crashes) good job
 1st January 2007, 10:33 AM #10 Hornit Scholar   Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 96 Would you have a link to that that I may use this document somewhere else?? Thanks. Hornit
 1st January 2007, 10:45 AM #11 ~enigma~ Banned   Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,923 Originally Posted by beachnut When CT guys use Paine Stewarts intercept and learn about time zones, it is a classic, hot potatoe fade to black, where did the CT guy go (intercept took longer then all of 9/11 crashes) good job I saw an idiot on myspace correctly say that Payne Stewert "started" at 9:33 eDT (that was when the ATC lost radio contact. NORAD was notified about 5 minutes later) and intercept was 10:00 CDT and he still said that was 27 minutes. When EDT/CDT was pointed out, he asked where the time machine that lost minutes when crossing time zones was hidden. When shown a flight that leaves Tallahasee at 6:35 EDT and arrives in Houston at 7:44 CDT I assume he thinks that the flight was 9 minutes. Woowoo logic at it's best
 1st January 2007, 10:49 AM #12 Alt+F4 diabolical globalist     Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 9,997 Originally Posted by beachnut When CT guys use Paine Stewarts intercept and learn about time zones, it is a classic, hot potatoe fade to black, where did the CT guy go (intercept took longer then all of 9/11 crashes) good job Great work gummy! The Paine Stewart crash also shows how slow and confused the military can become when faced with an unknown situation. Fighter jets followed Stewart's plane for several hours and all those big military brains still had no idea what to do about it. __________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
 1st January 2007, 12:44 PM #13 ConspiRaider Writer of Nothingnesses   Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11,156 Terrific data, Gumboot, excellent work. I'll be linking this thread from other message boards if the opportunity arises. What we can surmise - what we constantly see from those who embrace conspiracy theorism - is that they have no idea how things work out there in the big bad mean old world. They are, as Ron calls them, fantasists.
 1st January 2007, 01:04 PM #14 beachnut Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,286 Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Great work gummy! The Paine Stewart crash also shows how slow and confused the military can become when faced with an unknown situation. Fighter jets followed Stewart's plane for several hours and all those big military brains still had no idea what to do about it. The military does not do anything to civilian airplanes over the United States. If you want action you better get with your neighbors and decide what you want to do! We decide what our military does, not the military. Big military brains work for you, not the other way around. What would the big brains want? (I served 28 years in the Air Force; we could tilt his wings but then the plane could land after it runs out of gas and if someone had not died yet they would live; But would you tilt the wings and have the plane sprial into the ground; it did that anyway and the people had died of lack of oxygen. The big brains of the military are under you control; exercise it!
 26th March 2007, 02:22 PM #15 INRM Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,505 According to the Payne Stewart incident... the intercept was launched and occured over no area shown to be in the ADIZ... and in 21 minutes. INRM
 26th March 2007, 02:27 PM #16 Firestone Proud Award Award recipient     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,068 Originally Posted by INRM According to the Payne Stewart incident... the intercept was launched and occured over no area shown to be in the ADIZ... and in 21 minutes. Please reade the NTSB-report on this interception. Hint: they have different time zones in the USA. __________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
 26th March 2007, 02:29 PM #17 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 Originally Posted by INRM According to the Payne Stewart incident... the intercept was launched and occured over no area shown to be in the ADIZ... and in 21 minutes. The intercept took 81 minutes. It also wasn't NORAD doing the intercepting. N47BA crossed from Eastern to Central Daylight Time during the flight. -Gumboot __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 26th March 2007, 02:35 PM #18 DarkMagician Graduate Poster     Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,529 Originally Posted by INRM According to the Payne Stewart incident... the intercept was launched and occured over no area shown to be in the ADIZ... and in 21 minutes. INRM God, I can't stand Turing Troothers. Which is better, an orange? __________________ Sometimes going by "Nyke" | "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" | "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts | Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed | I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.
 17th June 2009, 05:34 PM #19 Justin39640 Illuminator     Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 4,199 Originally Posted by INRM According to the Payne Stewart incident... the intercept was launched and occured over no area shown to be in the ADIZ... and in 21 minutes. INRM payne stewarts pilot didnt shut off his transponder or deviate from the last know heading apples and oranges and it was an hour 20 (you forgot about the time zones) "Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with an F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, about an hour and twenty minutes (9:33 EDT to 9:52 CDT) after ground controllers lost contact." __________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
 17th June 2009, 05:39 PM #20 T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795 Originally Posted by Justin39640 payne stewarts pilot didnt shut off his transponder or deviate from the last know heading apples and oranges and it was an hour 20 (you forgot about the time zones) "Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with an F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, about an hour and twenty minutes (9:33 EDT to 9:52 CDT) after ground controllers lost contact." did you choke on the dust you blew off this old book? TAM
 17th June 2009, 05:42 PM #21 Justin39640 Illuminator     Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 4,199 Originally Posted by T.A.M. did you choke on the dust you blew off this old book? TAM (cough cough) 10 years later you think someone would do a little reading other than what other "truth"ers post on moronic websites __________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
 12th August 2009, 02:28 AM #22 progge Thinker   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 170 Um, yes, I have a tendency to ressurect old threads. For anyone not knowing (like me until yerterday), former 9/11 Commissioner Miles Kara is running a blog since June 2009, and he links this thread in his article on wargames. It´s a useful blog. Kara provides concise explanations of the mystery plane and the role of TSD tracking of planes on 9/11. Following Shenons book, Miles Kara was one of the few guys from John Farmers team who didn´t think of NORAD as a bunch of liars.
 12th August 2009, 03:21 AM #23 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072 Excellent, progge. Lots of interesting info there! Be sure to PM this to gumboot, who will be muchly interested. ETA: On the homepage, 911myths gets a nod as one of the top three sites to visit when investigating this stuff. I'll give Mike a shout about that. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 12th August 2009 at 03:30 AM.
 12th August 2009, 03:55 AM #24 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072 Just finished reading the "Transponders and Ghosts" entry. Fascinating. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
 12th August 2009, 06:47 AM #25 ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,271 Yes, it is fascinating. Definitely. The post that caught my eye is the "Chaos theory" meta-analysis, which lays out Kara's thoughts on how the situation went from straightforward to hell-in-a-handbasket like it did. Quote: The theory of chaos has it that feedback, itself, is a contributor to chaos. Percival tells us that “oscillating systems become chaotic because they possess an element of ‘feedback.’” That element “generates complex dynamics in simple systems.” Hall, herself, broadens our understanding. Her summation is that “Chaos also seems to be responsible for maintaining order in the natural world. Feedback mechanisms not only introduce flexibility into living systems, sustaining delicate dynamical balances, but also promote nature’s propensity for self-organization.” And it is, metaphorically, precisely on this point of self-organization that events of 9-11 turned, there was little feedback and some of that which did exist was counter-productive, for example the circular reporting of the crash of AA 77. (My Bolding) This is one hell of a read. On the other hand, I think I owe pogge some revenge for giving me yet another timesuck to kill my hours with. __________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
 13th August 2009, 12:00 AM #27 Magenta Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,305 Originally Posted by progge Um, yes, I have a tendency to ressurect old threads. For anyone not knowing (like me until yerterday), former 9/11 Commissioner Miles Kara is running a blog since June 2009, and he links this thread in his article on wargames. It´s a useful blog. Kara provides concise explanations of the mystery plane and the role of TSD tracking of planes on 9/11. Following Shenons book, Miles Kara was one of the few guys from John Farmers team who didn´t think of NORAD as a bunch of liars. Interesting, thank you progge. Originally Posted by Gravy Excellent, progge. Lots of interesting info there! Be sure to PM this to gumboot, who will be muchly interested. Couple more mentions of Gumboot by Kara in the comments to the war games article: Quote: Finally, concerning Clarke, he conflates terms. See my link to Andrew Burfeld’s work, posting as Gumboot. He explains quite thoroughly and accurately what was ongoing. Quote: Andrew Burfeld’s rundown (he is Gumboot in the blog world) is accurate and the best existing source on the web. I link to it in my article. I understand from my cousin who follows the blog world that the fact that I happened to reference a JREF posting is suspect. I only did that because Burfeld’s posting is the most available version of his work. Consider him the source, not JREF. Interesting that someone posting from the other side of the world from the US (i.e. Gumboot) can figure this stuff out, but truthers are still dazed and confused nearly 8 years later.
 13th August 2009, 04:03 PM #28 George 152 Philosopher   Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012 Thank you for the research Gumboot. Though you realise that the kooks will ignore it all repeating their tired old nonsense immediately.
 13th August 2009, 06:11 PM #29 njslim Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,075 Posted link to it on ABOVE TOP SECRET - stir up the yahoos and crazies there... Very informative
 15th August 2009, 01:27 AM #30 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 Hopefully the fact that my true name is revealed will not result in crazies knocking at my door... __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 15th August 2009, 01:31 AM #31 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 By the way I am very glad that my work continues to be helpful to people. That's really all that matters. __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 16th August 2009, 12:43 AM #32 Caustic Logic Illuminator   Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494 Hey Gumboot, I just wanted to pop into this thread with a thought. What you've done here is really impressive, obviously. But the thread is strangely quiet. For my part at least, you should think of the quiet here as a manifestation of awe. But now that I've broken my silence and am in here yakking - I'm Seriously not trying to JAQ off here, these are my best questions freely offered to be killed for good. As someone who once believed in NORAD not-quite-stand-down-but-something-askew theories, I always did find the war games occuring that day as rather odd coincidences. VG and IIIRC Global Guardian at least are known to be happening, perhaps Northern Vigilance too. The level of suspicion I invested was out of whack, but in your opinion of wargame scheduling, is this unusual to have that many on a given day and how unusual? Are we way crazy for ever thinking that odd, and what are the odds? (on any given day...) Also, on ADIZ and domestic response over continental airspace, I never did figure out what lead pilot Duff meant about suiting up to scramble when he heard a trans-continental flight was hijacked. Most agree there was no normal protocol for such a scramble, only if incoming off the oceans. So did he just misremember for dramatic effect or what? Last edited by Caustic Logic; 16th August 2009 at 12:44 AM.
 16th August 2009, 02:25 AM #34 Caustic Logic Illuminator   Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494 Quote: I think on first blush it's reasonable to arch the eyebrows at several major air defense exercises occurring right when 9/11 was happening. But there's a few factors to take into account. Obviously factors, but thanks for just admitting it can easily look odd. That's all the vindication I seek. On the factors: Northern Guardian has been stated, by me among others, as drawing attention and/or fighters north. I don't think I've ever seen any evidence of this however. Quote: That does, however, still leave two major exercises, occurring at the same time, and that might raise suspicion, but if you look a bit closer, you'll see why it's a non issue. The clue is in the name, and there's a third exercise that's seldom mentioned, called Apollo Guardian, and that should give away the clue. They're all called Guardian. That's because they're all part of the same exercise. Guardian is a multi-agency "doomsday" exercise. In the event of a major nuclear attack multiple US DOD agencies have to cooperate to protect the US, and so they exercise together, and of course each have their own nicknames for their part of the exercise. So, with regards the Guardian exercises, "Vigilant" was NORAD, "Global" was US Strategic Command, and "Apollo" was US Space Command. In that regard it was not suspicious or noteworthy that these exercises occurred together, but both normal and necessary. Superb. I never heard of the Apollo one, nor that these were all connected. Clearly this takes the odds and tweaks them to just one coincidence, being that Guardian cluster being set for that day (or days rather including 9/11). As much as I try to avoid using it as a crutch, coincidences do happen. Plus I recall this stuff is usually done around that time of year. On Duffy: Scramble-ready -> suited-up = pretty damn obvious in hindsight. Seriously, what the hell was I thinking? I think perhaps it is time to close my old blog forever. Anything good that's left will be worth salvaging when it seems to be so. Maybe not tonight. But soon, and fr the rest of my life... lol ETA: Then I caught the next par. Quote: Also to clarify, there was a standard protocol for a trans-continental hijacking scramble, but it was slow and ungainly, and it wasn't successful on 9/11 because the key link in the chain was missing (hijack coordinator at FAA headquarters). Another missing link at FAA I didn't even know about? With a verifiable effect on defenses? Dangit man, are you trying to sabotage my site destruction plans? Is this a prank joke? Last edited by Caustic Logic; 16th August 2009 at 02:30 AM.
 16th August 2009, 03:55 AM #35 gumboot lorcutus.tolere     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327 Originally Posted by Caustic Logic Another missing link at FAA I didn't even know about? With a verifiable effect on defenses? Dangit man, are you trying to sabotage my site destruction plans? Is this a prank joke? It's perhaps the one aspect of 9/11 that bugs me the most, and the only remotely compelling argument for LIHOP. Having said that, when the FBI interviewed FAA staff at HQ they found that virtually no one there had any clue what anyone was supposed to do during a hijacking. The "hijack coordinator" was not a specific role, but rather one of the many duties that the head of security had. The result being, if no one in the building realises that the head of security is supposed to handle a hijacking, when the head of security goes on holiday no one is going to step up to fill that role. So when a hijacking occurs, nothing happens. On another note, the person who was head of security at the FAA on 9/11 quietly left that job soon after. I can't help but wonder if some people in fact did lose their jobs after 9/11, just without much of a fanfare reaching the public. __________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
 12th September 2009, 10:55 PM #36 ex_king_john New Blood   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1 I am having a discussion with a truther and a point he made was about radar inserts to be used as part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. He commented that these would have confused FAA Controllers while they were looking for the lost aircraft. Two things occurred to me. 1.) If the scenarios were designed to simulate a hijack to 'cuba' would they use inserts with no IFF tags? In the NEADS Tapes anyone discussing trying to find the aircraft seems perplexed by this action as if they were not expecting it. And if the exercise was in fact in operation inserts with IFF tags would have no effect on the activity. The radar ops were trying to find blips without tags that did not have a corresponding blip on the tagged screen. 2) I didn't actually read anywhere that the exercise would include inserts of any kind on FAA radar screens. Especially not working ATC screens in all the control areas in the North East. Certainly none of the reports I have seen suggest that FAA controllers saw any radar targets with or without IFF tags for any aircraft that didn't exist. Am I right? Anywhere I can point to supporting this? Last edited by ex_king_john; 12th September 2009 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Spelling
 12th September 2009, 11:01 PM #37 Caustic Logic Illuminator   Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,494 IIRC radar inserts were involved in a different exercise, perhaps Northern Vigilance. I'm not going to dig it up, but I recall these were removed and/or the exercise canceled as the attack became known. I also think these inserts would probably not have affected anything, whole different sets of screens in different locations were probably at work. Gumboot of course could give a better answer.
 13th September 2009, 01:19 AM #39 Reheat Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 3,664 Originally Posted by ex_king_john 2) I didn't actually read anywhere that the exercise would include inserts of any kind on FAA radar screens. Especially not working ATC screens in all the control areas in the North East. Certainly none of the reports I have seen suggest that FAA controllers saw any radar targets with or without IFF tags for any aircraft that didn't exist. Am I right? Anywhere I can point to supporting this? I do not recall any reports of false targets of any type on either NORAD or FAA screens. You're asking for negative reports, which likely don't exist. NORAD can not insert false blips on FAA Radar. The exercise was cancled, so there were no false inserts on NEADS screens either. In fact, I don't believe anyone can insert false inputs on FAA Radars, period, however Cheap Shot will verify this when he sees the question. __________________ [Noc]

International Skeptics Forum