The NORAD Response Revisited

[MikeW]

A courier has just turned up with.... TWO copies of Farmer's book? I only ordered one... Didn't I?!

Oh well. Off to do some speed-reading!

 

[Boone 870]

Brad Friedman interviewing John Farmer on the Mike Malloy Show.

I've only made it through the first 15 minutes, but so far there is nothing that most members here don't already know. Questions from callers should start soon. That'll be fun...

 

[progge]

Brad Friedman interviewing John Farmer on the Mike Malloy Show.

I've only made it through the first 15 minutes, but so far there is nothing that most members here don't already know. Questions from callers should start soon. That'll be fun...

Thanks Boone.

No new stuff indeed, some random talking about Van Jones and 911Truth questions, and finally a Pentagon-No-Planer in the line.

Oh, but in min15:20, referring to the FAA/NORAD timeline of the 9/11 CR:

The [9/11 Commission] Report is extremely accurate and set forth the facts of 9/11.

No surprise, of course, but as a reminder for truthers who tried to exploit Farmers statements for their means.

ETA: Brainster was faster. Damned.

 

[gumboot]

I am having a discussion with a truther and a point he made was about radar inserts to be used as part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. He commented that these would have confused FAA Controllers while they were looking for the lost aircraft.

No it wouldn't. Firstly, Vigilant Guardian is a NORAD exercise, not an FAA exercise, and did not involve the FAA in any way whatsoever. Secondly, it is technically impossible for false or artificial radar returns to be inserted on an FAA ATC radar display. This is done intentionally. Training is conducted on physically separate computer systems located in physically separate rooms. Thirdly, all NORAD command centres contain two independent computer systems, one of which is used for operations and one for training. Exercise inputs are NEVER displayed on the operational system.

 

[Cheap Shot]

I am having a discussion with a truther and a point he made was about radar inserts to be used as part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. He commented that these would have confused FAA Controllers while they were looking for the lost aircraft.

Two things occurred to me.

1.) If the scenarios were designed to simulate a hijack to 'cuba' would they use inserts with no IFF tags? In the NEADS Tapes anyone discussing trying to find the aircraft seems perplexed by this action as if they were not expecting it. And if the exercise was in fact in operation inserts with IFF tags would have no effect on the activity. The radar ops were trying to find blips without tags that did not have a corresponding blip on the tagged screen.

2) I didn't actually read anywhere that the exercise would include inserts of any kind on FAA radar screens. Especially not working ATC screens in all the control areas in the North East. Certainly none of the reports I have seen suggest that FAA controllers saw any radar targets with or without IFF tags for any aircraft that didn't exist.

Am I right? Anywhere I can point to supporting this?

It's basically impossible to input any false targets into the FAA system. Even in our training Dysim where we do use inserts, that system is tied off from the HOST system. We can get false targets or target jumps, but they are usually related to weather phenomena or a mainteniance issue.

There was an article a while back that the FAA ATC system was probably one of the few computers never hacked into because of the Archaic program language, which I beleive is a modified version of "Jovial C".

Even at NEADS my guess is the "SIMS" that they run are probably off line form thier "ID" Section. The "ID" Section is run real world, just as our FAA ATC system is. The "ID" Section has real world responsibilities. I might be wrong, GUMBOOT might be able to answer that.

On another issue picked up "The Ground Truth" yesterday probably read it this weekend.