ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , neads , norad , standdown

Reply
Old 10th December 2006, 06:50 AM   #1
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
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However, the document is somewhat out of date and fails to make some important points.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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 06:54 AM   #2
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Introduction

THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11
Compiled by Andrew Burfield



FIRST A BRIEF BACKGROUND

One of the more common 9/11 Conspiracy claims is that there was some form of "stand-down" of military forces on 9/11, in particular the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), responsible for protecting North American airspace. The nature of this "stand-down" varies considerably, however the most common is that a number of wargames were scheduled for 9/11 that replicated the attacks, added false radar blips, and essentially distracted and confused the military so they could not respond.

I believe the nature of this theory lies in the incredible faith Americans have in their military. The United States armed forces are amongst the most professional, well trained, well equipped, dedicated, and advanced military forces on the planet. This is all true. But that does not mean they are invulnerable.

I decided to look into the claims of a stand down. More importantly, I was interested in what did happen inside the military bunkers on 9/11.

When Vanity Fair received recordings of what happened inside the North East Air Defence Sector (NEADS) command centre, they wrote an article on the NORAD response entitled 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes. Finally I could find out what really went on, and address the NORAD "stand-down" theory for good.

At the heart of the Conspiracy Theories are the wargames. The claims by Conspiracy Theorists are far ranging. I have heard claims of "dozens" of live-fly wargames on 9/11. Obviously it is impossible to provide evidence that something didn't happen. All we have are the rare occasions on which officials are asked directly about the wargames.

As such, I have addressed only wargame claims that are supported by collaborating sources such as the media, government officials, and so forth. The primary wargames claimed are:

• Northern Vigilance
• Vigilant Guardian
• Vigilant Warrior

There are a range of other exercises claimed to involve a host of other agencies. However as none of these has any direct relationship to NORAD, I have not addressed them.

My research covers two basic areas:

• The NORAD Mission and Intercept Procedures on 9/11
• NORAD Wargames

In addition I have constructed a minute by minute timeline of NORAD's response to the 9/11 attacks.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 08:08 AM   #3
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
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:

<br />
\begin{center}<br />
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}<br />
\hline<br />
FLIGHT & HIJACKING & CRASH & DURATION \\<br />
\hline<br />
AA11 & 0813 & 0846 & 33 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
UA175 & 0847 & 0903 & 16 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
AA77 & 0856 & 0937 & 41 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
UA93 & 0928 & 1003 & 35 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
\end{tabular}<br />
\end{center}<br />
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:
  1. NORAD's area of responsibility is inside the ADIZ
  2. The Hijackings occurred outside the ADIZ
  3. There was no standard procedure for hijackings outside the ADIZ on 9/11
  4. 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.
  5. 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:

<br />
\begin{center}<br />
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}<br />
\hline<br />
FLIGHT & HIJACKING & NEADS NOTIFIED & CRASH & INTERCEPT WINDOW\\<br />
\hline<br />
AA11 & 0813 & 0837 & 0846 & +9 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
UA175 & 0852 & 0903 & 0903 & 0 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
AA77 & 0856 & 0935 & 0937 & +2 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
UA93 & 0939 & 1007 & 1003 & -4 minutes\\<br />
\hline<br />
\end{tabular}<br />
\end{center}<br />
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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 08:37 AM   #4
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
THE WARGAMES

NORAD exercise terms are named in accordance with regulation 11-33 Code Words, Nicknames, and Exercise Names. Names consist of two words – the first designating the agency and the second designating the type of exercise.

Agencies within the Department of Defense are allocated an alphabetical block of letters which denote the first two letters of the first word of any exercise name. At the time of September 11 this allocation was dictated by Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM) 3150.29A (this was replaced by CJCSM 3150.29B on 11 February 2002).

For exercises NORAD has allocated first words to specific agencies:
  • HQ NORAD - Amalgam (FIX) or Vigilant (CPX)
  • Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR) - Fencing
  • CONUS NORAD Region - Falcon
  • CONUS Southeast Sector (SEADS) - Federal
  • CONUS Southwest Sector (SWADS) - Falling
  • CONUS Northeast Sector (NEADS) - Fertile
  • CONUS Northwest Sector (NWADS) - Felix
  • Canadian NORAD Region (CNR) - Fabric
  • Canadian NORAD Sector East - Factor
  • Canadian NORAD Sector West - Faculty
  • Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base - Amazon


In addition, NORAD has identified certain second word nicknames for specific exercise types:
  • ANGEL - Sector-coordinated Unit Level FIX (ROCC/SOCC Controlled Intercepts)
  • ARIZONA - Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base Internal System Training Mission (STM)
  • BRAVE - Region-sponsored System FIX
  • CHIEF - JCS-approved, CINCNORAD-sponsored FIX
  • DOLLY - HQ NORAD Battle Staff Exercise
  • GAIN - Region/sector-sponsored Internal ROCC/SOCC CPX
  • GOLD - Sector-coordinated Unit Level FIX (autonomous intercept procedures)
  • INDIAN - Region-sponsored System CPX
  • KEYNOTE - Region-coordinated, Sector-sponsored FIX
  • LEADER - Recall of Airborne Forces (FIX)
  • LIBEL - Region-coordinated, Sector-sponsored System CPX
  • MUTE - NORAD IG Evaluation
  • OVERVIEW - JCS-approved, CINCNORAD-sponsored CPX
  • PIPE - Region-sponsored Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) Warning and Reporting System (WRS) Training Exercise
  • RICE - SOCC-sponsored Internal CPX (Battle Staff/BSSC/Crew training)
  • SPADE - Region/sector No-Notice AST
  • UNION - Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base SPACC Training
  • VANTAGE - Sector-coordinated/scheduled Interoperability FIX with US Navy Units
  • VIRGO - Special Exercise or Test (FIX)
  • WARRIOR - JCS-approved, CINCNORAD-sponsored FIX
  • YELL - FE14A Exercise

There were two NORAD activities happening on September 11. The first was Operation Northern Vigilance.

Throughout the Cold War, when major USA/NORAD/NATO or USSR exercises occurred, the other side would deploy forces to “shadow” the exercise in case it was a cover for an attack. This practice has continued to the present day.

Operation Northern Vigilance was one of these situations. The Russian Federation was holding its largest air deployment since 1993 with a major exercise in Siberia. In response NORAD commenced the operation, deploying units to Canada and Alaska. It is important to note that this was not an exercise, but a real-world operation.

Quote:
Sept. 9, 2001

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AFS, Colo. – The North American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean…

… NORAD-allocated forces will remain in place until the end of the Russian exercise.

(From NORAD press release: NORAD Maintains Northern Vigilance, September 2001)
As the NORAD press release indicates, Operation Northern Vigilance commenced on 9 September, and was scheduled to continue until the Russian exercise ended. However, in light of the September 11 attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin notified the White House that he would call off the exercise, allowing the NORAD aircraft to return home.

Also on 9/11, NORAD was involved in a major annual exercise called Vigilant Guardian. As we can tell from the name “Vigilant”, this exercise is NORAD HQ sponsored. It is what is referred to as a “Vigilant Overview” type exercise.

In accordance with NORAD regulation 11-33, the first name “Vigilant” tells us that the exercise involves all NORAD commands. The second name “Overview” tells us the exercise is a Joint Chiefs of Staff approved, Commander-in-chief NORAD sponsored CPX (or Command Post Exercise).

The name “Guardian” denotes the unique exercise name, as this is an annual event. It is usually held in conjunction with two other CPXs – “Global Guardian” (US Strategic Command) and “Apollo Guardian” (US Space Command). US Space Command are not directly involved in NORAD defense operations.

As confirmed by Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) in an exchange with Cynthia McKinney on March 11, 2005 NORAD was involved in two CPXs on September 11:

Quote:
31:25
CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska.

The two CPXs are Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian.

The Department of Justice exercise referred to by Richard Myers was Tripod II – a joint Department of Justice/FEMA bio-emergency exercise scheduled to take place in New York commencing on 12 September.

The “actual operation” Myers refers to is Operation Northern Vigilance, as previously mentioned.

In addition there was a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) exercise being conducted at their headquarters in Chantilly, Virginia.

Lastly, Richard Clarke, who was counter-terrorism advisor on the National Security Council during the September 11 attacks, claims, in his book Against All Enemies, that an additional exercise named “Vigilant Warrior” was occurring on that day. Clarke attributes the reference to a direct quote by Richard Meyers:

Quote:
"Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but ... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert.”
According to NORAD regulations, “Warrior” is a JCS approved, Commander-in-Chief NORAD Sponsored Field Exercise – that is “Live Fly” or involving operational units.

However “Vigilant” is the name reserved for NORAD HQ CPXs, while “Amalgam” is the name used for NORAD HQ FIXs (Field Exercises). Hence such an exercise would be named “Amalgam Warrior”, not “Vigilant Warrior”. “Vigilant Warrior” was in fact the name of an Operation that occurred in the Persian Gulf region in 1994, in response to a movement of Iraqi ground forces towards the Kuwait border. The following year Iraq again tested the UN by moving forces towards Kuwait, resulting in Operation Vigilant Warrior II. Amalgam Warrior is held twice a year, in the spring for western sectors and in the fall for eastern sectors. The fall exercise is traditionally held in October, thus was most likely cancelled in 2001 due to the enormous strain of Operation Noble Eagle – the massive NORAD operation to maintain Combat Air Patrols over major US cities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The NORAD recordings of 9/11 include a desperate search by NEADS personnel to locate additional aircraft to supplement the four allocated to them. This clearly indicates they did not have aircraft involved in a field exercise at the time.

In summary, the exercises occurring on September 11 that involved NORAD were “Vigilant Guardian” and “Global Guardian”. According to Myers, these exercise increased the speed with which NORAD responded to the attacks:

Quote:
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.

The specific details of the exercises vary from year to year, but the overall objective is to test North America’s ability to respond effectively to a nuclear attack.

According to the 9/11 commission:

Quote:
On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eber-hart,"it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004.We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).

(from The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes To Chapter 1”, pg.458)
Ordinarily those participating in Vigilant Guardian would not know in advance what particular events were scheduled. As such, when the first reports of a hijacking reached NEADS at 0837 EDT, a rapid clarification was made with the words “is this real-world or exercise?”

However, as the recordings from NEADS show, once this clarification had been made, the exercises posed no further hindrance to NORAD’s response.

(Note: the exercise was not scheduled to commence until 0900hrs)
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 08:42 AM   #5
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
RESOURCES:

The following is a detailed list of resources used to produce this document.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf - NTSB investigation of Payne Stewart’s Learjet crash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADIZ - wikipedia article on the ADIZ

http://www.norad.mil/about_us.htm - NORAD official website including information about the three NORAD regions and their individual air defense sectors

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/norad/reg11003.htm
- NORAD regulation 11-33 CODE WORDS, NICKNAMES, AND EXERCISE TERMS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ines_Flight_11 - information on AA 11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 - information on UA 175
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ines_Flight_77 - information on AA 77
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 - information on UA 93

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/...tml#skC334ROBE – Map showing ADIZ areas (from Aeronautical Information Manual Chapter Five, Section Six; National Security and Interception Procedures)

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
– Gateway to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...A?OpenDocument – FAR 99.43 (US ADIZ)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../gao/gao19.htm - Report to Congressional Committees, 3 May 1994, CONTINENTAL AIR DEFENSE - A
DEDICATED FORCE IS NO LONGER NEEDED

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2002/0202norad.pdf - Air Force Magazine Article – THE RETURN OF NORAD – February 2002

http://www.norad.mil/newsroom/news_r...001/090901.htm - NORAD press release on Operation Northern Vigilance

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm - 9/11 Commission Report index

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...l-guardian.htm - Global Security entry on Global Guardian
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t-guardian.htm - Global Security entry on Vigilant Guardian
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nt_warrior.htm - Global Security entry on Operation Vigilant Warrior
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...es/usspace.htm - Global Security entry on US Space Command

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Strategic_Command - Wikipedia entry on US Strategic Command and US Space Command (now merged)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...anscript.shtml - 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

Vanity Fair article “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...08/norad200608

Please feel free to contact me if you have additional information that can enhance the accuracy of this work.

Andrew Burfield
calan8@hotmail.com
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 09:42 AM   #6
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
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
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 10:15 AM   #7
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 10:17 AM   #8
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2006, 11:37 AM   #9
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
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
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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
Hornit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2007, 10:45 AM   #11
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2007, 10:49 AM   #12
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2007, 01:04 PM   #14
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,286
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
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!
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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
INRM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2007, 02:27 PM   #16
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
Originally Posted by INRM View Post
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
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2007, 02:29 PM   #17
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by INRM View Post
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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2007, 02:35 PM   #18
DarkMagician
Graduate Poster
 
DarkMagician's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,529
Originally Posted by INRM View Post
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.
DarkMagician is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2009, 05:34 PM   #19
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by INRM View Post
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
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2009, 05:39 PM   #20
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
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
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2009, 05:42 PM   #21
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
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
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
progge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2009, 03:21 AM   #23
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
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.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2009, 03:55 AM   #24
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
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
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2009, 06:47 AM   #25
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
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."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2009, 11:26 AM   #26
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 400
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
As many of you know, I have created a NORAD document which, I humbly feel, pretty much buries any "NORAD stand down" argument.
Gumboot,

I had not seen that before. Very nicely done. Those of us who have indeed spent time in the military and who know the fog and uncertainty that accompanies events of this magnitude will appreciate your work.

The ignorance of the Troothers with regards to this event is highlighted by their belief in the "All Perfect and All Knowing Military", where every single layer of a military organization has the most perfect intelligence, the most timely information, the most prescient knowledge of everything involved and there exists not a shred of uncertainty or ambiguity about any and all events of the day.

I don't know how many times I had to go head to head with an idiot who would try to talk about how many military bases were within flying distance of the 9/11 airliners that day. Pointing out how many of these bases were equipment depots, logistical bases, army, navy or AF reserve bases with no operational aircraft present, or even a base like my own at Oceana in Virginia Beach which had over a hundred F-14s and F-18s, but not a one ready to be re-tasked as an alert NORAD-type interceptor, was always an exercise in futility. Seeing Griffin and others repeat these ignorant canards just adds fuel to the hilarious fire that is the Troother movement.

Again, nice job.
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown
Pinch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2009, 12:00 AM   #27
Magenta
Graduate Poster
 
Magenta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by progge View Post
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 View Post
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.
Magenta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2009, 06:11 PM   #29
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,075
Posted link to it on ABOVE TOP SECRET - stir up the yahoos and crazies there...


Very informative
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2009, 01:27 AM   #30
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2009, 01:31 AM   #31
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2009, 01:58 AM   #33
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
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.
Thanks for the questions, it has been a while since anyone has offered anything to think about.


Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
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...)
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.

Firstly, to address one, Northern Vigilance was an operation, not an exercise, and was the standard response to such Russian activities. The press release NORAD issued for the operation commented that NORAD had conducted a smaller operation recently in response to a different Russian exercise.

In addition, Northern Vigilance occurred within Alaska and Canada NORAD Regions, which are of course equipped with their own fighter squadrons (off the top of my head I think the US has about eight and Canada has two up there). As such the operation was never going to involve continental Region fighters, let alone the alert fighters. Perhaps some AWACS and other support units may have deployed northward from CONR, but they were not in play on 9/11 anyway.

This protocol, where one nation would conduct an exercise and the other would "shadow" it with an operation was standard throughout the Cold War, and continues to this day. Aside from the excellent opportunity that it offers, it's also just sensible - an "exercise" would be the perfect cover to forward deploy units for a surprise attack. By countering that exercise with a real world deployment of your own, you encourage the other nation to think twice about attempting anything.

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.

To explain, most people refer to the military operations of the Persian Gulf War as "Desert Storm", but that was only the name for the US contingent - every other nation had its own nickname. Operation Granby was the UK contingent, Operation Friction was the Canadian contingent, Opération Daguet was the French contingent, Operation Damask was the Australian contingent, and so forth.

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.


Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
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?
I think the explanation there is it's a bit more than just a pilot overhearing a hijacking report. Timothy Duffy took the original call from TRACON asking for Otis to scramble fighters. He was an alert pilot, but he was also Director of Operations (or some other similar command role) on the day. Protocol or not, the military are all about contingency, being prepared, and trying to keep options available. If no scramble was made, all he and Nash would do by getting ready was waste some of their own time - hardly an issue given their job is basically to sit around and wait all day to be scrambled.

But if a scramble did occur, they'd be one step ahead of the game, and able to respond faster.

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).

I like to put this in the context of my own job, and perhaps you can do something similar to better understand it. One of my jobs on the film set is to bring actors on and off the set as requested by the First AD. If some other crew member comes up to me and says "hey I think they want the cast on set now" obviously I'm not going to herd em all in there. The First AD is going to make that call, when they're ready. But I can do a check and make sure I know where all of my cast are, and be standing by, so if the First AD does ask for the cast I can get them on set all the quicker. Worst case scenario I stand tense and ready for ten minutes when I could be having a coffee. Best case scenario I do my job just that little bit better than I otherwise would.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
<snip> 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.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2009, 03:55 AM   #35
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
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.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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
ex_king_john is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2009, 01:08 AM   #38
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by ex_king_john View Post
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.
This comes from Mike Ruppert, who quotes a report from NORAD that ends:

Quote:
The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens".
(For source on that, and more on this in general, see here.)

Problem #1 is Ruppert simply assumes that an inject means a false blip on a radar screen. He may be correct, but this isn't necessarily the case (see the above link for examples.)

Problem #2 is Ruppert follows that article quote by asking "No other mainstream press (especially in the US) had mentioned that false radar blips had been inserted onto radar screens on September 11th. But on whose screens? Where?" There's no ambiguity in the article, it's clearly talking about NORAD, yet Ruppert pretends that "false blips" on FAA radar screens are now a real possibility. (Then on his site they pretend he's got documented evidence.)

Problem #3 is, as you say, there's no evidence that an exercise would put false blips on FAA radar screens, that would obviously be dangerous, and what would be the point? If you want them involved, use a real plane. If I remember correctly, an aircraft controller who posts here sometimes said that would never happen, though I'll have to confirm that.

And problem #4, as you point out again, is that there are no witnesses who report this as a problem. Flights 11, 175 and 93 were seen on radar until their last moments. Flight 77 was lost, but that was because it turned about mostly in a radar black spot and the controllers were looking in the wrong place. "False blips" are an attempt to explain something that didn't actually happen.

Last edited by MikeW; 13th September 2009 at 01:10 AM.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2009, 01:19 AM   #39
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,664
Originally Posted by ex_king_john View Post
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]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2009, 04:58 AM   #40
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
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.
I suspect that the Farmer book is going to have much to say about the FAA/NORAD stuff. Based on hearing hm speak for half an hour, he is definitely not a Twoofer but I can't factcheck is claims about FAA.NORAD. It's not my thing and the details make my head hurt.

Here's a link to the audio on this page. The blurb is a little over the top but, hey, the guy deserves to sell a good book. Maybe he will trick some Ttuthers into reading it.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/epi...egments/140472
Quote:
John Farmer, 9/11 Commission senior counsel, explains how the truth of 9/11 was obfuscated by a false version of events that the government presented to Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and the media. Drawing on newly released records, Farmer gives a comprehensive account of the events of that day in The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of an America Under Attack on 9/11
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.