NORAD Tapes

[PhantomWolf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:

The Battle Management Center, in operation only since early 1998, is staffed by three people under ordinary circumstances. In the event of an increased alert status, this room full of office cubicles would be filled with personnel from all branches of the military.
One ongoing mission of the Battle Management Center is to coordinate "air sovereignty" efforts, monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace -- some 2.5 million a year. NORAD is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders.

Source: CNN[
Notice something missing like the phrase: "Only aircraft originating outside the United States." Notice something else? Air Sovereignty. Do you remember what air sovereignty means from my post below?

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

 

[LTC8K6]

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

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

 

[funk de fino]

Swingie

post # 336

Stop playing dodgeball on me

retract the false statement, be a man

 

[Corsair 115]

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

Another example:

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

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

Wikipedia account of the incident here.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

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

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

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

 

[gumboot]

I noticed Major James Fox appears in the film United 93, portraying himself. Shawna Fox also appears in the film as herself- "Staff Sgt. Shawna Fox."

I just noticed this...

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

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

 

[zorro99]

War Games Exercises?

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

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

No, they didn't.

 

[zorro99]

No, they didn't.

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

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

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

_____

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

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

 

[boloboffin]

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

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

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reheat]

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

Next trooferism?

 

[gumboot]

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

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

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

_____

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

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

The clue is in the recording...

Play.

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

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

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zorro99]

The clue is in the recording...

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

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

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

Okay. Thanks!

 

[gumboot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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