NORAD Tapes

[Reheat]

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

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

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

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

 

[jaydeehess]

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

4000=(0.5)at²236=at

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

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

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

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

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

Another CT 'question' answered then?

 

[jaydeehess]

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

 

[Reheat]

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

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

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

NORAD Mission Statement

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

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

This is Norad's Current Mission Statement:

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

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

 

[jaydeehess]

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

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

 

[Reheat]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Swing Dangler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[beachnut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no point. Sorry, I was looking for some meaning to your non point.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

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

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

 

[Cheap Shot]

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Ok, I am familiar with 'ground clutter'.

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

 

[jaydeehess]

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

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

At 40 miles its 10,000 feet.

height = horz.distance(sine 2.5^o)

 

[Swing Dangler]

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


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

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

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

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

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

Cheapshot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Gravy]

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

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

 

[Spins]

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

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

Prior to 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ, period. Popular Mechanics found this out years ago after they spoke with the FAA spokesman Bill Schumann.

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

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

 

[Swing Dangler]

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

Prior to 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ, period. Popular Mechanics found this out years ago after they spoke with the FAA spokesman Bill Schumann.

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

Why would the FAA and NORAD lie about this Swing?

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

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

"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:

intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

tracking hijacked aircraft;

assisting aircraft in distress;

escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

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

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

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

I'm sure you are aware that the details of these SOPS have not been released to the public. Ever wonder why? I can guess.

These standard procedures were activated on 67 occasions in the period from September 2000 to June 2001 (see, FAA news release, 8/9/02; AP, 8/13/02); and in 129 cases in the year 2000 (see, Calgary Herald, 10/13/01).

Have you placed me back on ignore yet?

 

[Spins]

1. Location of airbase excuses it from intercepts and drills over the continental U.S. Rejected! LOL

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

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

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

The FAA handled all domestic traffic within the continental US (or CONUS), it was the FAA who contacted NORAD for assistance when Payne Stewart's Learjet veered of course and stopped responding.

 

[Spins]

2. FAA spokesman instead of the historical record of NORAD's own comments? Rejected.

So the FAA spokesman is lying or mistaken?

3. Historical record? Accepted.

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

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

Please explain how you can design a plane that is never “in distress” except when it’s inside an ADIZ.

So basically what you are saying is that prior to 9/11 if a plane was "in distress" within the continental US an F16 or F15 was scrambled? That sounds like a news story to me, ala Payne Stewart, so shouldn't be too hard to find right?