Norad?

[Reheat]

It's possible that a member or members of NORAD might have had preknowledge.

Especially when it comes to the gov't or military personnel on 9/11, what you have is confusion, distraction, and deception, not necessarily complicity.

It's possible that the earth does not rotate around the sun, but an educated rational person would require proof that it doesn't.

Why evade specifics? Tell us specifically where confusion, distraction, and deception by the "Government and/or Military caused an outcome to be different than it otherwise might have been under perfect conditions.

 

[RedIbis]

I bet you love The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson. [/COLOR]

I don't "love" anything that documents the foreknowledge, facilitation and ensuing cover up of 9/11.

But yes, I find both The Terror Timeline and Thompson's work at cooperativeresearch.org to be indespensible resources.

I haven't caught the requisite smear campaign against Thompson. Is he a Holocaust denier? doesn't believe in AIDS? Didn't buy into the "Magic Bullet Theory"?

What is it? You guys must have come up with something.

 

[Par]

I don't "love" anything that documents the foreknowledge, facilitation and ensuing cover up of 9/11.

But yes, I find both The Terror Timeline and Thompson's work at cooperativeresearch.org to be indespensible resources.

I haven't caught the requisite smear campaign against Thompson. Is he a Holocaust denier? doesn't believe in AIDS? Didn't buy into the "Magic Bullet Theory"?

What is it? You guys must have come up with something.

I see. So, do you have any NORAD-related issues that you’d like to raise?

 

[Spins]

I don't "love" anything that documents the foreknowledge, facilitation and ensuing cover up of 9/11.

But yes, I find both The Terror Timeline and Thompson's work at cooperativeresearch.org to be indespensible resources.

I haven't caught the requisite smear campaign against Thompson. Is he a Holocaust denier? doesn't believe in AIDS? Didn't buy into the "Magic Bullet Theory"?

What is it? You guys must have come up with something.

I've told you before; Paul Thompson relies heavily on mainstream media reports in his Terror Timeline, including incorrect ones, and clearly has an agenda which is seriously affecting his objectivity and conclusions.

This is quite evident in the quote used by A-Train on the second post of this thread. He (Paul Thompson) omits several parts of the exchange between the Navy controller and NEADS (which I later posted) in order to make it seem to the reader that the Navy controller was procrastinating. In fact this is exactly why A-Train posted that quote and started asking who the Navy controller was etc because he/she was sure this was relevant and or evidence that NORAD "stood down".

Other than that I'd agree and say his Terror Timeline is a pretty good resource as long as you verify and check his conclusions or assertions elsewhere, unfortunately most 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't.

So do you have any evidence you'd like to share with us about the NORAD "stand down" or are you just going to whine?

 

[Reheat]

Spins, if you can stay for awhile I feel certain that you can handle anything this idiot might introduce. I have to go as I do have a life....

I'll be back in a few hours to see if there's anything I can add....

 

[Shrinker]

On this thread and others I hear the misconception that "twoofers" say "the whole FDNY is in on it", "the airlines are in on it" "All of NORAD is on it" "victim's families are in on it"

I don't hear anybody claiming that.

Most of the good researchers that I've studied are careful not to generalize. It is possible that a member or a group of members of the gov't might have been in on it.

It's possible that a member or members of NORAD might have had preknowledge.

Especially when it comes to the gov't or military personnel on 9/11, what you have is confusion, distraction, and deception, not necessarily complicity.

Try not to exaggerate and reduce the veracity of your statements.

Could RedIbis or another CTist answer a question from a lurker...

It seems you're making a common CTist retreat, shying away from accusing the public 'heroes' of the day and referring to shadowy unknowns, plotting behind the scenes.

From here, you need to demonstrate that the performance of the 'heroes' was in some way compromised by some person or agency as yet unknown, because otherwise the confusion, and ill-preparedness evident in the public accounts easily accounts for the lack of intercepts.

Why do you not seem able to do so? You cannot show that any drill interfered in the intercepts, and you can't find any evidence of dubious orders given to any of the named personnel. Everything you need to reach your conclusion, is completely missing from the record.

The best you can do is point to the ill-preparedness and somehow claim that that was engineered. But since when do you need an organised cabal of NORAD plotters to arrange for something not to happen? Things fail to happen all the time. There are plenty of reason why a plan could have been not in existence - lack of imagination, unwillingness to fund etc, none of which require the setting up of a secret, evil, non-planning, Complete Inaction Department.

It's up to you to show why you have constructed your NORAD theory, from what appears to be nothing at all, and why you are sticking to it.

Cheers. (And well done everyone for keeping this thread civil)

 

[A-Train]

The fighters were controlled by the Weapons Team Commander at NEADS (Major Fox).

Are you saying that Maj. Fox-- or anyone at NEADS in upstate New York-- was talking directly to the pilots in the cockpits of the fighters at Otis and Langley? I don't think you are. I am trying to get a description of the communication link between Fox at NEADS and the pilots of the fighters.

Originally Posted by A-Train
Huh? Are you kidding? Didn't you read the 9/11 Commission Report? The most important communications of the day, the actual orders to the fighters in their cockpits, seem to have disappeared.

Then why are they on the NORAD tapes?

What's on the NORAD tapes? Yes, you hear a lot of interesting conversations between Nasypany and Fox, most of it after the key timeframe when the planes still could have been intercepted. You hear Nasypany drop the f-bomb at 10:10.

Where on any of these tapes do you hear the actual instructions given to the pilots of the fighter planes?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't know about online, but I have seen plenty of documentaries where they play audio of the pilots talking to them on TV. And I have seen interviews on TV with the pilots.

 

[Reheat]

Where on any of these tapes do you hear the actual instructions given to the pilots of the fighter planes?

Why is this an important issue?

 

[A-Train]

Could RedIbis or another CTist answer a question from a lurker...

It seems you're making a common CTist retreat, shying away from accusing the public 'heroes' of the day and referring to shadowy unknowns, plotting behind the scenes.

If there was a stand-down, it was an inside job-- just like the rest of 9/11. None of the public "heroes" would have been involved or even have known anything of it. Those who would have engineered the stand-down would indeed have been "shadowy unknowns," perhaps placed into position by neocons within the Bush administration.

What we have to wonder is, who would have had the access to tamper with the lines of communication between the officers at NEADS and the fighters?

From here, you need to demonstrate that the performance of the 'heroes' was in some way compromised by some person or agency as yet unknown, because otherwise the confusion, and ill-preparedness evident in the public accounts easily accounts for the lack of intercepts.

It only "easily" accounts for the lack of intercepts for someone knows nothing about air traffic control and the military's air defense system. Yes you can tell the official story to a group of high school kids, or a group of senior citizens, and the story "easily" convinces them. But to those of us who have some expertise in these areas, or who have done a little research, the official accounts are preposterous.

At Otis, you have fighters sitting on the ground for six minutes after AAL11 was known to be hijacked when a foreign voice was heard by controllers from the cockpit. Six minutes is an eternity for air defense; and this was a crucial time frame when the planes could have been intercepted. No one has ever explained why the fighters were delayed. And the recordings between the NEADS weapons director and his technician handling the fighters are not available because of "technical issues."

At Langley, the fighters head out East over the Atlantic. According to the 9/11 Commission, this is because no one at their base knew where to scramble them to. No one has ever been called to account for this absurd situation.

Any thinking, knowledgeable person has a right to suspect that a stand-down was engineered, and it was engineered by relaying bogus orders to the fighters, then intimidating the loyal elements of the military to cover it up.

 

[Reheat]

If there was a stand-down, it was an inside job-- just like the rest of 9/11.

There was NO STAND-DOWN. It's insulting and lubricious to even suggest such a thing.

What we have to wonder is, who would have had the access to tamper with the lines of communication between the officers at NEADS and the fighters?

And where do you get this preposterous idea?

It only "easily" accounts for the lack of intercepts for someone knows nothing about air traffic control and the military's air defense system.

What do you know?

But to those of us who have some expertise in these areas,

Tell me about your expertise, I like to be informed.

At Otis, you have fighters sitting on the ground for six minutes

Yes, it is considering that they are the space ship Enterprise.

And the recordings between the NEADS weapons director and his technician handling the fighters are not available because of "technical issues."

Could those recordings perhaps not be any of your business (that's technical).

At Langley, the fighters head out East over the Atlantic. According to the 9/11 Commission, this is because no one at their base knew where to scramble them to. No one has ever been called to account for this absurd situation.

You haven't read the thread. It might surprise you to know the approximately 30 miles east DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE anyway.

Any thinking, knowledgeable person has a right to suspect that a stand-down was engineered, and it was engineered by relaying bogus orders to the fighters, then intimidating the loyal elements of the military to cover it up.

Male Bovine excrement of the highly odorous variety.

 

[gumboot]

Are you saying that Maj. Fox-- or anyone at NEADS in upstate New York-- was talking directly to the pilots in the cockpits of the fighters at Otis and Langley?

Yes, I am. And he was. In fact the pilot's voices themselves appear on some of the NORAD tapes.

-Gumboot

 

[A-Train]

Yes, I am. And he was. In fact the pilot's voices themselves appear on some of the NORAD tapes.

Looking through the Vanity Fair article, the first communication with a fighter pilot is between Master Sergeant Steve Citino at NEADS and a Langley pilot at about 10:07AM. This is of course after all four planes have crashed. It is after the crucial time frame when a stand-down would have been implemented.

Have you listened to the NORAD tapes in their entirety, Gumboot? I have only been able to access the ones in Vanity Fair. If you have listened to the rest of the tapes, and heard communications with fighter pilots before 10:06, please tell me, as I'd like to hear them too.

Otherwise, it is completely meaningless what went on after the 9/11 attacks had been allowed to succeed.

 

[Par]

Looking through the Vanity Fair article, the first communication with a fighter pilot is between Master Sergeant Steve Citino at NEADS and a Langley pilot at about 10:07AM. This is of course after all four planes have crashed. It is after the crucial time frame when a stand-down would have been implemented.

Have you listened to the NORAD tapes in their entirety, Gumboot? I have only been able to access the ones in Vanity Fair. If you have listened to the rest of the tapes, and heard communications with fighter pilots before 10:06, please tell me, as I'd like to hear them too.

Either way, do we have any reason to think that the fighters were intentionally delayed?

Otherwise, it is completely meaningless what went on after the 9/11 attacks had been allowed to succeed.

You’re committing the begging the question fallacy. Whether or not the attacks were allowed to succeed is precisely the point at issue.

 

[Reheat]

It only "easily" accounts for the lack of intercepts for someone knows nothing about air traffic control and the military's air defense system. Yes you can tell the official story to a group of high school kids, or a group of senior citizens, and the story "easily" convinces them. But to those of us who have some expertise in these areas, or who have done a little research, the official accounts are preposterous.

Any day now, I'm waiting for you to talk about your "expertise" in these areas.

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting........

 

[A-Train]

Either way, do we have any reason to think that the fighters were intentionally delayed?

We have lots and lots of reasons to suspect the fighters were intentionally delayed. Who delayed them and how they did it I don't yet know. But I suggest you read David Ray Griffin's latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, pp.50-52 for a detailed description of the various reasons we should be suspicious.

Griffin notes in his book that Boston Center Military liaison Chip Scoggins also found the delay to be unusual:

Scoggins certainly considered the delay unusual. In continuing his reflections on it, he said:

"They [the military officials] state in several places that they were waiting on a clearance from the FAA. That is false; we asked them on several occasions why the fighters had not launched. It seemed like an eternity."

In spelling out the “several occasions” on which Boston center called the military to check on the launch, Scoggins first says that, learning that Joe Cooper had already called NEADS, “I asked Bueno to call Otis again and see if they had got a call from NEADS.” He later says that, besides calling NEADS many times, “I called Otis at least 3 or 4 times.” When I asked whether these calls to Otis were different from the calls he made on “several occasions” to ask why the fighters had not launched, he replied: “Yeah, I kept going back and forth [between Otis and NEADS].” Scoggins clearly believed that the military’s slowness in launching was far from normal.
The waiting probably “seemed like an eternity” to Scoggins partly because, even after the delays discussed already, it took another full six minutes for the Otis fighters to become airborne. DRG pp. 51

The planes were only launched at 8:45, despite the fact that NEADS was told of a certain hijacking at 8:36. And Griffin lays out the evidence that NEADS was certainly notified even earlier of the potential for the need for an emergency scramble.

Scoggins also points out in Griffin's book that NEADS did not need permission from higher ups to launch a scramble:

Having made this argument in my critique of The 9/11 Commission Report, I was interested to learn that Scoggins agrees. He says:

"According to FAA Order 7610.4, NEADS has the authority issued by NORAD to launch fighters; they do not have to wait for authority from NORAD. On 9/11, I believe Col. Marr at NEADS would not launch without authority from General Arnold at NORAD; that caused a delay." ibid. p.50

No one has never explained why the fighters were delayed so long. And the records of who was handling them at the time are being kept from us.

 

[Par]

The delay being “far from normal” is not evidence that it was intentional. After all, 9/11 was far from normal in every way. Further, your second piece of emphasised text appears to be David Ray Griffin’s own personal colouration of someone else’s comment.

 

[Reheat]

The planes were only launched at 8:45, despite the fact that NEADS was told of a certain hijacking at 8:36. And Griffin lays out the evidence that NEADS was certainly notified even earlier of the potential for the need for an emergency scramble.

You obviously don't have expertise at anything related to NORAD or the FAA for that matter.

Prior to 9/11 a hijacking was NOT AN EMERGENCY to NORAD. Got it? How did the FAA know there was an emergency anyway? As if you have the answer.

According to you they scrambled at 8:36, launched at 8:45. That's nine minutes according to my abacus. Their requirement from scramble to launch is 15 minutes and they beat it by 6 minutes. What's the problem?

You didn't bring it up, but I will. Langley was scrambled at 9:24 and launched at 9:30, that's 6 minutes. Where is your evidence of a stand down or a delay in launching.

 

[A-Train]

The delay being “far from normal” is not evidence that it was intentional. After all, 9/11 was far from normal in every way. Further, your second piece of emphasised text appears to be David Ray Griffin’s own personal colouration of someone else’s comment.

I agree that 9/11 was far from normal in every way; scrambling a fighter to a suspect craft, however, is very routine.

Scoggins' own words were "it seemed like an eternity."

We have every right to suspect that the delay of the Otis fighters, like the order to send the Langley fighters east, were deliberate. These actions are inexplicable, yet fit right in with the plans of the conspirators to carry out the attacks. The fact that the recordings of the NEADS personnel handling the scrambles have mysteriously disappeared only adds to the suspicion.

 

[A-Train]

The military and the FAA at the time of the initial review by the 9-11 commision were basing their responses on the information available at the time. Though they did not have the exact conversation on tape why the Langley fighters were launched, they determined it was for AAL77 becasue that is what made sense at the time. When the other NEAD tapes were reviewed between September of 2002 through January 2003, the more precise information was revealed, that the fighters were actually launched for the Phantom AAL11, and that the military was never notified by the FAA regarding AAL77 except just prior to impact at the Pentagon.

This whole explanation seems downright weird. Why would you have to review tapes to determine why the Langley fighters were launched? Why would it take a couple of years? Why not just ask the person responsible for their launching? Presumably that would be Maj. Fox at NEADS.

I think the explanation put forth by David Ray Griffin is more plausible. The initial story was that the fighters were launched in response to the hijacking of AAL77 at about 9:24. When it was pointed out that that would have been plenty of time to nonetheless intercept AAL77 before it hit the Pentagon, a new story had to be concocted. That new story was the "Phantom Flight 11." That explains why this phantom flight was never mentioned until the release of the NORAD tapes in 2004.

The concept of “phantom flight 11”—-the name given to the nonexistent plane that, according to the tapes, was thought by the FAA and NORAD to be heading towards Washington---is absolutely crucial to the 9/11 Commission’s new story. It is so important because of the well-entrenched report that fighters were scrambled from Langley Air Force Base at 9:24 (becoming airborne at 9:30). As we saw earlier, the original NORAD timeline indicated that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to word from the FAA at 9:24 that AA 77 had possibly been hijacked and appeared to be heading back toward Washington. General Arnold, in his 2003 testimony to the Commission, gave a different account, saying that the fighters were really scrambled in response to word about UA 93. The 9/11 Commission, insisting that the military did not learn about either flight until after 9:30, needed an alternative explanation for the Langley scrambles. The tapes provide this alternative explanation: phantom AA 11.
Although the tapes-based story of phantom 11 is undoubtedly convenient, the question is whether it is true. An examination of this story---which, thanks to Bronner’s article, is now available in more detail than it was in The 9/11 Commission Report—-will provide reasons to doubt its truth. Debunking 9/11 Debunking, David Ray Griffin

This whole issue gets back to the theme I am hammering away at. Who exactly was issuing the orders to the pilots of the fighters, and why have they not been held accountable?