NORAD Tapes

[jaydeehess]

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

Gravy beats me to it,

In fact so far no one has ever been able to show me that an interceptor has ever been scrambled against a US domestic flight let alone been on station with the errant flight within 20 -30 minutes.

Of course the only deliberate shoot down of a modern airliner by a sophisticated air force would be the shoot down of KAL 007 by the Soviet air force. I'd have to look up just how quickly the Soviet fighters took to get to that 747 but I suspect it was more than 30 minutes from the time the scramble alert went out, and that was an incursion into Soviet airspace by a foreign aircraft, not a domestic USSR flight.

Even then the pilot does not shoot for some time, then fires cannon accross the path of the 747 before later dropping back and firing a missile so the KAL flight travelled 25 miles (25 miles would be 5 minutes at 300 MPH) or more with the fighters on station before a shootdown was ordered and carried out by one of them.

 

[Cheap Shot]

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?

1. I don't really know, some of it was becasue the FAA was deleting TACANS that were associated with some of the VOR's. They were replacing them with DME's. TACANS are driectional as well as distance measuring. Civil aircraft only use the measuring equipment. So the FAA could save money. The military response or at least one of them was if all of there TACANS were going to disapear then they should use some other form identification for common reference points. There were always going to be some VORTACS left. I did not know they went completely away from common reference points on 9/11. I have a Letter of Agreement with NEADS that lists 24 common reference points from 1997.

2. Why were we not informed I don't know, things slip by sometimes even out of those 24 common reference points some of those have been decomissioned. The main point of this LOA was not common reference points, it is scheduling and activating airspace, procedures on to transfer of aircraft back and forth, it is still in effect but is in the process of being rewritten. I have been told that they could actually do common reference points back then, but they just didn't I don't know why. There new system can handle both, I haven't seen it, they still prefer Lat/Longs. More later

 

[jaydeehess]

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:


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.

Actually I addressed all 4 aircraft Swing so I don't know what your beef is.

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”.

You have never worked in a large corporate enviroment have you?
Myopic planning and disregard for other departments happens all the time. I see it in my own job where another department makes decisions and then when I hear of it I have to scramble (no puns intended) to make my concerns or desires known in regards to those decisons. Rarely does anyone think to include the department where I work, in on things occuring elsewhere along the chain. Recently it was decided to install a fiber link to a building I am responsible for. This was to provide one way communications. No one asked me if a second fiber would be useful because it was not immediately obvious to the fiber group that it might be. I had to then quickly request that the work order include the splicing in of a second fiber for the 3 or 4 times that I will require two way communication to that site. It will also double as a spare for the original signal if the first fiber goes dark.

It would not be immediately obvious that FAA and military radar should be the same so no the item either slips through the cracks or is shelved because of cost and wrangling over which dept will pick up that cost, who will decide on specific technical details etc.

Remove 'ground clutter? Yes ground clutter does get removed from radar scopes. The problem would be including the clutter in order to try and see something in that clutter that is moving fast.
The only way to actually remove ground clutter would be to bulldoze the landscape flat and have everyone live underground. Discerning changes in the ground clutter (ie something moving) is not big on the agenda of ATC.

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?

The reason fighter aircraft hug the ground in attack missions is so that it is difficult for radar to detect them. The military response to that was to build AWACS systems.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course the only deliberate shoot down of a modern airliner by a sophisticated air force would be the shoot down of KAL 007 by the Soviet air force. I'd have to look up just how quickly the Soviet fighters took to get to that 747 but I suspect it was more than 30 minutes from the time the scramble alert went out, and that was an incursion into Soviet airspace by a foreign aircraft, not a domestic USSR flight.

Not actually true, depending on how you define things. KAL-902 was a 707, a modern airliner for its time and similar in age to the 747. It was shot down by the Soviets in 1978.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

It's been noted several times that the insertion of false blips into live data is impossible.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Actually NORAD themselves have stated it. You're welcome to prove them wrong by showing all of the intercepts that were conducted over the Continental US. All you have done so far is express your disbelief of their statement.

Here's a question. If NORAD knows that all of its intercepts were in the ADIZs, why would they need to say it in a report?

 

[Cheap Shot]

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?

I know who did, I won't mention any names here. I can tell you what happened, and how much it upset some of us in the building. On the other end as we ran with things like DAL1989, I can see how this got out of hand and ended up in the evacuation of our building.

After the second crash UAL175, some time after that we started receiving false hijackings all over the place, and unknown aircraft reports. One of the unknown aircraft reports was an aircraft approximately 65 miles southeast of Nantucket, at about 25,000 ft. The heading of this aircraft put it on a trajectory towards Nantucket, Boston or even Nashua, where the center was located. You had many possibilities. I checked with FACSFAC VACAPES (Giant Killer) to see if they knew who the aircraft was. Not a big deal it is common for Navy P-3's or Coast Guard aircraft to come in this way and they eventually contact us. I don't remember who or how, but we ended up identifying the aircraft as a Coast Guard. Probably within 4 or 5 minutes. Well probably 15 minutes later we hear that a our facility was coming under attack, and that impact was imminent. Our controllers were already landing aircraft, so as each sector cleared the sky the controllers left the building.

I found out later that the aircraft they thought was going to hit our facility was the Coast Guard aircraft. Pissed is not the word, but I was out of the building between 15 and 20 minutes where I could have been helping other facilities and NEADS.

 

[Cheap Shot]

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.

1. Not sure what you are asking here, we use the same radar source, it all travels through the center than to NEADS.

2. I don't know if NEADS had the ability to remove ground clutter, but by thier own mission they were required to look at all targets even if it meant looking at ground clutter. They needed to be able to see slow moving aircraft coming in through the ADIZ.

3. It is very common for NEADS to use SIM targets, even regualr scheduled exercises usually have some type of SIM backup just in case weather or maintenance break down prevents some participants they can SIM the operation. I have never seen an exercise from NEADS end so I can't tell you how it exactly works. I don't know when they conduct an exercise, are they using there Real World ID Scopes or are they using scopes that are reserved for exercises. I can't tell you, I can assure you on the FAA end we cannot mix false targets with live traffic. If someone had entered false blips that were not shceduled, soemone would know about it. I jsut can't see anyone doing this on the level I worked at that day, if there was a stand down I didn't see it that day from the people I delat with at NEADS that day, it would have had to been at a much higher level than that. I don't beleive that theory.

 

[Cheap Shot]

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.

4. Definitely, especially that day. The protocol is there to get the appropriate Command Level that you need for decision making; however, that protocl is for them, not the controller. Though I got questioned a ton by the Justice Department on the protocol procedures and why didn't I follow them, I said I did. It wasn't my job to personally call the NMCC. I told my boss, who told the Region who told FAA HQ, and so on down the line. My rule was contained in FAAO 7610.4, escort hijacked aircraft, it didn't tell me how to go about it. I called NEADS and we got it started. I kind of figured all of those other people would eventually catch up.

5. Don't agree with you here either. Most of the intercepts that occur on the east coast happen in the northeast. Everyone who flys overseas uses the great circle routes. no body flys around the 30th parallel to get to Europe, they go North. What would be the purpose. Our threat for years were from the Russians they were not going to attack us from the east, it was going to come over the top. In addition Langley had fighters for the other alert base. I don't agree with the reduction years before to go to those two bases only, but thats just my opinion. Prior to 9-11 there just were not very many scrambles I see all of these reports of about how many scrambles there were, other than exercise scrambles I don't remember any after the Korean Air incident. The games between the countries ended rather quickly after that incident.

 

[Cheap Shot]

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.

Planes yes ground clutter probably not. You can tell a primary radar blip from weather, as long as the blip has some movement to it. If it is really slow moving, or if it is ground clutter, would be harder. You have to remember though that ground clutter though a problem exists near the radar site only, outside of 25 or 40 miles ground clutter is minimal. There are filters not sure about NEADS scopes at the time but you can dim your weather, of course on 9-11 weather was non-existent. Weather is based on preciptation only.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not actually true, depending on how you define things. KAL-902 was a 707, a modern airliner for its time and similar in age to the 747. It was shot down by the Soviets in 1978.

Duly noted. I had forgotten about that one.

Still its not a NORAD shootdown of a domestic American flight.

I see that Swing is claiming that if the task was to ensure air sovereingty and intercepts were performed then some of those intercepts must have been scrambles and some of those must have been of domestic flights within the confines of the US borders.

Now my own memory is shown to have missed one shoot down of a civilian aircraft so it cannot be trusted to recall a scramble of interceptors against a civilian domestic flight but surely someone here would remember this.

Here's a thought; what was the response that had a couple of F-106 fighters trailing the 727 hijacked by "D.B.Cooper"? Was this a scramble? Was it initiated by NORAD or by ATC requesting a fighter escort? How long from the time "Cooper" told the crew he had a bomb and allowed them to communicate this to ATC, to the time the fighters were on the tail of the 727?

"Cooper" had asked for several chutes leading to the thought that he was going to have the entire crew and himself jump. That would have put the plane on a uncontrolled and possibly dangerous path. Was shootdown ever considered?

SwingD, how about it? Answers to my questions would possibly go a long way to bolstering your contentions.

Of course this did occur 37 years ago and surely there is some other incident that is more recent. Should you find one, do let us know.

 

[beachnut]

how can swing get everything wrong? Is there a class at LCF for messing up 9/11 information?

 

[Cheap Shot]

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?

7. I don't think so, doubt it.

8. On 9-11 I beleive it was a huge hinderance, I know we gave at least 6 locations on AAL11 and they could never find it. At times AAL11 was grounding 600 knots, that's "cookin". We had no problem tracking AAL11, we had a hard time keeping our data block on the target, but that is common with primary targets. I am confident with the system they have today, I haven't seen it yet, but I have talked with thier techs and I can't wait to see it.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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...
Again, read the GAO report closely and NORAD's mission. Plane in distress over the continental U.S. Check. Hijacked plane over the U.S.? Check. Intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects. Geez who does that if it is over the continental United States? Why NORAD does! Flying objects that are unidentified over the continental U.S.? Check! Who is responsible? NORAD. Something from space entering U.S. airspace in the continental U.S. Check! Its all there.
Please don't "limit" NORAD intercepts through deception and stop ignoring the simple fact of NORAD's purpose. NORAD isn't limited to its own designated fighter bases. They have the ability to scramble from any airbase. See this list for the list of USAF bases in the CONUS.

So the FAA spokesman is lying or mistaken?

See Cheapshots comments about NEADS and then you can figure it out. Being an FAA operator doesn't make you a spokesman for NEADS or NORAD nor does iit make you an expert on their technology.

[qimg]http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ADIZ.gif[/qimg]
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.

What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

PhatomwolfActually NORAD themselves have stated it. You're welcome to prove them wrong by showing all of the intercepts that were conducted over the Continental US. All you have done so far is express your disbelief of their statement.

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. 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.

I see that Swing is claiming that if the task was to ensure air sovereingty and intercepts were performed then some of those intercepts must have been scrambles and some of those must have been of domestic flights within the confines of the US borders.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.Source: USAToday

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.

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[/QUOTE]
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?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. That idea completely contradicts NORAD's intended purpose: the"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. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. That is strawman.

I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

Cheapshot,

thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.
Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?

 

[beachnut]

Swing, your post are so obtuse. There was no stand down. To even make up such an idea, makes for a dumb post. You debunk things that were not even said, you make up ideas never implied. Your post is junk. And you refuse to learn.

As you quibble over bs, you miss the whole point. But then you are making the false idea point, for 9/11 truth liars and false idea merchants.

If you would take the time to learn, you would not be imply the stupid ideas in your posts. But research is never a trait of 9/11 truth false information believers, is it?

Operation Northwoods - the red flag used to identify pure bs posts.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

That is a bare faced lie

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E3DC1E39F932A25752C1A9659C8B63

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3258857.stm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E2DF133FF932A15755C0A9649C8B63

retract stupid lie please

 

[Swing Dangler]

Double post.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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...
Again, read the GAO report closely and NORAD's mission. Plane in distress over the continental U.S. Check. Hijacked plane over the U.S.? Check. Intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects. Geez who does that if it is over the continental United States? Why NORAD does! Flying objects that are unidentified over the continental U.S.? Check! Who is responsible? NORAD. Something from space entering U.S. airspace in the continental U.S. Check! Its all there.
Please don't "limit" NORAD intercepts through deception and stop ignoring the simple fact of NORAD's purpose. NORAD isn't limited to its own designated fighter bases. They have the ability to scramble from any airbase. See this list for the list of USAF bases in the CONUS.

So the FAA spokesman is lying or mistaken?

See Cheapshots comments about NEADS and then you can figure it out. Being an FAA operator doesn't make you a spokesman for NEADS or NORAD nor does iit make you an expert on their technology.

[qimg]http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ADIZ.gif[/qimg]
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.

What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

PhatomwolfActually NORAD themselves have stated it. You're welcome to prove them wrong by showing all of the intercepts that were conducted over the Continental US. All you have done so far is express your disbelief of their statement.

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. 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.

I see that Swing is claiming that if the task was to ensure air sovereingty and intercepts were performed then some of those intercepts must have been scrambles and some of those must have been of domestic flights within the confines of the US borders.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
Lastly, lets examine this statement about training within the continental U.S.:

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.Source: USAToday

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.

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[/QUOTE]
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?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. That idea completely contradicts NORAD's intended purpose: the"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. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. That is strawman.

I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

Cheapshot,

thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.
Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?

 

[beachnut]

What is the source of your map "not drawn to scale"?
Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

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. 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.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
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.

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:
Source: CNN[/QUOTE]
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?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. That idea completely contradicts NORAD's intended purpose: the"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. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. That is strawman.

I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

thank you for taking the time to address the points in a most civil fashion. Your expertise, albeit anonymous, is appreciated.
Final question, why won't or can't you release the name of the person who issued the false alarm to your particular outfit?

You have not made a point or any sensible arguments for anything. How can you post so much stuff, and not even make a point? Twice?

Northwoods again? It defeats the weak CT implications clouded by the weak attack on your own failed ideas of what NORAD does. After reading the repeated post, I still can not see your point.

You make such a poor attempt at making up a CT. Why not come out with some facts instead of playing around with talk? Your post actually shows your ignorance on NORAD and 9/11. Trying to push a weak CT idea in the mess of repeated posted junk. Hopefully your obstipated ideas can be extricated by someone. Good luck

 

[jaydeehess]

Payne Stewart is a Strawman of course. Handling of domestic aircraft and surveillance and control of the territorial airspace are two different things. See the definition of territorial airspace below.

Odd that you would take that tact when you later state

"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. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER.

Which is it Swing? Is the Payne Stewart example a strawman because it is a domestic flight or is NORAD's task to , among other things, "providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:......assisting aircraft in distress..."?

Perhaps its only a strawman because it illustrates so very well that NORAD relied on ATC to alert them of trouble with domestic aircraft and that they did not have aircraft ready to scramble against aircraft within the lower 48 states.

This flight was not a hijacking but did ATC or NORAD know that for a fact? It was nordo and acting strangly.
On the other hand has there been a hijacking of a domestic US or Canadian flight in the couple of decades prior to sept. 2001? I don't believe so.
If there was then by all means illuminate me.
If there has been an interceptor scramble alert against any domestic US or Canadian flight in those same two deacdes feel free to let us know about them.

That isn't a claim of course. It is the state mission of NORAD per the GAO.
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.

Replace my using the phrase "that if" with "given that". My statement was to illustrate that with a task as described you have assumed that intercepts over the contiguous USA have occured yet you are unable to illustrate that such is the case. Instead you attempt to make lack of evidence into evidence.

As for that drill which had interceptors from Washington and Utah, you might note where the intercepted aircraft were escorted to where Swing? British Columbia and Alaska are both very much NOT within the contiguous USA. So in that case where did the errant aircraft originate? The article does not say but we do get this; ""We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.""

Everyone, absolutely everyone, agrees that NORAD was looking outward, in this case north, from the US border.

So its another Swing and a miss for,,,,, well,,,, Swing Dangler.

A second source from CNN regarding NORAD's mission:
Source: CNN[/QUOTE]
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?

The entire idea of NORAD "not being responsible for the airspace over the continental United States" is an idea pushed to excuse NORAD's handling of the events of 9/11 and to provide an excuse for the lack of timely intercepts. ....
I think the whole idea of NORAD not being responsible for the airspace over the continental U.S. has now been debunked. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts.

Most people have come around to the idea that NORAD actually had not claimed to be tasked with only threats coming towards the contiguous USA from without the borders.
Fact of the matter is that NORAD was not looking inward and relied on ATC to ask for assistance, if needed, for a domestic flight in trouble or in the case of a hijacking. In other cases they assisted other agencies such as the DEA when assistance was requested. How many drug smuggling planes would be coming in via the northeast? Maybe the northwest from British Columbia, and of course over Fla. or Tx. From over the NE coast, what are they smuggling, Newfoundland Screech?

It still remains for you to show that in the decades prior to 9/11 they were particularily concerned with domestic surveillance. A police force has jurisdiction over local parking bylaws but the detectives in the homicide division are very very unlikely to write up a parking ticket. But they could if they wanted to.

Cheapshot although he doesn't believe so has also confirmed that a defacto "stand down" could be accomplished without 1000's of folks being in on it. Could a conspiracy of that nature be proven in a court of law? Hardly. Do memo's float around describing the plans of a conspiracy? Of course not, with Operation Northwoods being the exception of course which has been talked about and need not be addressed here. However, when officials lie, change their story, and fabricate information despite the historical record, it does leave a conspiracy viewpoint valid and one to be investigated.
That is the nature of conspiracy theories of course. Or else it would be a conspiracy fact.

Once again creating evidence from a lack of evidence.
One thing that always amazes me is that so many CT's will on one hand shout about the stretching of intel that the Bush administration did to whip up support for an Iraq war and then turn around and stretch information in ways so very grossly similar.
Swing Dangler and Cheney up in a tree....