Best summary of the 9/11 air defense issues...

[JackRiddler]

...if I do so say myself...

An argument in legal terms, with no speculation: the parameters for a serious inquiry; why the Kean Commission failed to meet these; the conflicting official timelines and why they prove that at least two government bodies are lying; the lack of credibility of official accounts; the outstanding issues of the wargames; evidence for facilitation of the attacks by actors other than al-Qaida; destruction of evidence, obstruction of investigation, omissions of investigation...

http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

[spooked911]

1. That is a good page, thanks.

I linked to it on my blog for future reference.

[medienanalyse]

2. A good compilation - but ...

starting from section h it gets thin.

To repeat it again and again: wargames are exercises. It is as simple as that. There are interceptors in QRA status, so ready for action.

And there are fighter jets
- in repair
- in wargames
- in training for pilots
- transferred to Iraq
and so on.

action is the mission of the QRA- deseigned interceptors. There is no misunderstanding between action and exercise. Nowhere in the military. This is like the bible : necessary to survive.

Conclusion: forget about ALL wargames. they are not at all important. They canot confuse anything except non-military readers.

The only question is: where were the fighters designed for air-policing. And not: where were other fighters which COULD have been in place if they WERE switched into a real mission if they MIGHT have had weapons.

Do not confuse the two issues. There are others willing and able to confuse the public.

And Jack: you know I have BEST advice to be able to write that.

[spooked911]

3. I think the wargames, particularly the live-fly hijacking exercise, were

an integral part of 9/11.

I think the issue of the wargames goes far beyond the issue of just confusing the interceptors, but even that aspect of the wargames is probably important.

Think of the wargames this way:

they are a perfect way of making sure interceptors aren't there to intercept the 9/11 jets even if by chance

they give a perfect pretext for putting "hijacked" drone planes into the air

they provide a way for interceptors to shoot down a real passenger aircraft if they think it is only a drone

the planning of the live-fly exercise is very likely the mechanism by which moles in the military designed 9/11 in the first place

[medienanalyse]

6. Again, spooked, a special for you

You write
"Think of the wargames this way:
they are a perfect way of making sure interceptors aren't there to intercept the 9/11 jets even if by chance"

N O T A T A L L

A pair of F-16 fighters with the mission of airpolicing has this mission 24 hours a day, day by day.

They are on sentry.

they are not on exercises. No and never. It is like a fire brigade: there are peopl and cars in a "ready" position. Even when 90% of the colleagues have their annual meting with the families.

do not mix it up. No wargame can even be a lame excuse for not being on sentry. The airspace over Washington, the airspace in the most crowded part of the worlds aisspaces over the very heart of the most pwerfull nation is, was and will be perfectly protected. Except when the order comes to stand down and NOT to follow the SOPs.

[ROH]

7. Considerable confusion...

"Is this real-world or exercise?" ... NEADS

(8:37 a.m.)
According to the 9/11 Commission, Boston flight control contacts NEADS (NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector) at this time. This is apparently the first successful notification of the military about the crisis that morning. Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Powell, a member of the Air National Guard at NEADS, initially takes the call from Boston Center. <Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02> Boston flight control says, "Hi. Boston Center TMU, 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 replies, "Is this real-world or exercise?" Boston answers, "No, this is not an exercise, not a test." <8:37:52, 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04, BBC, 9/1/02> Powell gives the phone to Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins, regional Mission Crew Chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise (see (6:30 a.m.)). Deskins later says that initially she and "everybody" else at NEADS thinks the call is part of Vigilant Guardian. After the phone call she has to clarify to everyone that it is not a drill. <Newhouse News, 1/25/02> NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he hears of the hijacking at this time, "The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?" <ABC News, 9/11/02>
http://www.complete911timeline.org/

[k-robjoe]

8. Michael Dietrick

in his talk at "Gunsnbutter" talks about false blips being inserted on the radars as part of a wargame.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N (August 25th 2004)

And from what he said,it sounded almost like he had evidence at hand that there were a lot of these blips and they made it impossible to know which blip to intercept.

But he said this in August, and the film that he said would come is nowhere to be seen.

A poster on Letsroll asked "Does anyone know what happened to Michael Dietrick and his film?" No reply. Don´t suppose anyone here knows?

[JackRiddler]

10. I agree with one point...

Yes, this summary should have also mentioned that there were four fighters within NEADS on constant call for interception duty (two each at Otis and Langley). The 9/11 excercises apparently did not involve those planes, so they were available for response.

But there had previously been more fighters on constant call: why was the number reduced during a period that authorities expected hijackings and kamikaze attacks? You had all these "warnings" and even direct planning for an attack on the Pentagon (MASCAL exercise, etc.), but simultaneously the number of "fire brigades" as you call them was reduced.

Furthermore, planes on exercises and non-NORAD planes (ANG) are also available for use as necessary in interception missions, and had been used in the past (Payne Stewart example).

Therefore I agree in the main with spooked911: If you want to arrange a 9/11 so that people involved in the air defense system do not realize what really happened, the best way to do that is to create confusion through the wargames:

-- Holding large-scale exercises on the day to divert resources to the far north (Northern Guardian);

-- Creating other exercises that confuse response to the hijacking scenario (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior);

-- Injecting unknown live-fly craft and false radar blips to further confuse response.

The 9/11 Commission itself provides evidence of at least one false blip ("Phantom 11") that according to the report directly caused two of the planes on constant call (those from Langley) to fly to the wrong place.

-- Wargames provide an alibi for suppressing the information: if "we" fucked up because the wargames were "compromised," it's best to keep quiet about it so our enemies don't learn our weaknesses.

-- Suckering air force personnel into believing the official story.

[Woody Box]

12. The Langley fighters

The 9/11 Commission itself provides evidence of at least one false blip ("Phantom 11") that according to the report directly caused two of the planes on constant call (those from Langley) to fly to the wrong place.

I respectfully disagree. The Langley fighters were NOT going to the place of the phantom flight, though they were ordered to do that by the mission crew commander Kevin Nasypany ("head them to the Baltimore area"). Instead, they flew east, over the Atlantic Ocean. The 9/11 report gives three strange reasons for this "misunderstanding". To me, it looks like the pilots got an order by someone who cancelled Nasypany's order and told them to go east.

Who overvoted Kevin Nasypany?

[JackRiddler]

13. Excellent question.

The kind of question that names names and uses irrefutable evidence to show probable cause.

The kind we should be incorporating into citizens' complaints on 9/11 and submitting to every DA and AG in the country until we find our Garrison (note: MANY localities have an interest and potential jurisdiction on 9/11 crimes: residents who died, alleged hijackers who lived there, residences of potential perps, etc.)

See http://www.Justicefor911.org and check out the appendices for a summary of jurisdictional issues. Plunder it and use other material to write your complaint today! Get a group together and march over to the AG in your state, push on whatever media and PR buttons you can, do visibility, create local organizing groups.

[spooked911]

18. I agree-- this is a great question on a critical point.

this is definitely something for future research

[spooked911]

17. This may well be, but where are the stand down orders?

The fact is, we don't really know for sure if the wargames-- there were at least six different ones on 9/11-- pulled away some planes who ran normal sentry duty. Moreover, a direct stand-down order is much too risky. It is better to have something like the wargames that inhibits and confuses the normal response than a direct stand-down order.

Unless you have evidence of a stand-down order and if so, I'd love to see it.

[medienanalyse]

20. wrong logic, spooked

1. "The fact is, we don't really know for sure if the wargames-- there were at least six different ones on 9/11-- pulled away some planes who ran normal sentry duty.

You are right- we do not know. But to accept that this might have happened is identical with a sentence like " we do not know who ordered all New York and East Coast firbrigades to California on the day of the big Mahattan fires in the summer of 19xy."


2. "Moreover, a direct stand-down order is much too risky. It is better to have something like the wargames that inhibits and confuses the normal response than a direct stand-down order."
That is a pure assumption. Confusion may be produced today in the heads of non-military resarchers. That is true.

3. "Unless you have evidence of a stand-down order and if so, I'd love to see it."
Definitely NO. The Bushist must explain why the SOPs did not work that day. It is not the me who has to explain the unlogic or who has to find the most secret of the secret if something like that has ever reached awritten form.

Do not excuse the Bushists.
Do not take their lame second line of excuses.
Do not put the burden of evidence on others than those who are responsible.

[spooked911]

21. You're right. I wasn't thinking how arrogant and evil these people are

there could well be a stand-down order we don't know about.

I was just reading about how they forced the horrible John Bolton through the Senate hearings after he repeatedly lied under oath. If they don't care about that, then they can certainly do almost anything and think they can get away with it.

[medienanalyse]

22. again misunderstanding

"there could well be a stand-down order we don't know about."

I do not fancy speculations. I do not rule out the above mentioned possibility.

But my point is: let the Bushists prove TGEIR allegations. They had the responsibility that day and today for the airspace.

Why did the not scramble fighters according their SOPs ?

It is not my SOPs, not my fighter jets, not my orders, not my airspace, not my damage. I must prove and not speculate and not search for orders. Nothing of that. They must.

[medienanalyse]

23. I just saw the Jimmy Walter video

.... and noticed that the filmmakers mentioned the missing interceptors too. One or two sentences in the middle of 3 hours of speculations about architecture, controlled demolition and so on.

Boring.

[spooked911]

4. I think the wargames, particularly the live-fly hijacking exercise, were

an integral part of 9/11.

I think the issue of the wargames goes far beyond the issue of just confusing the interceptors, but even that aspect of the wargames is probably important.

Think of the wargames this way:

they are a perfect way of making sure interceptors aren't there to intercept the 9/11 jets even if by chance

they give a perfect pretext for putting "hijacked" drone planes into the air

they provide a way for interceptors to shoot down a real passenger aircraft if they think it is only a drone

the planning of the live-fly exercise is very likely the mechanism by which moles in the military designed 9/11 in the first place

[spooked911]

5. Whoops. Internet glitch!

[Woody Box]

9. The so-called "injected" radar blips

I enjoyed reading Ruppert's book, and I think it's an important evolutionary step on the way to the truth.

But I don't share his wargame paradigm that multiple blips were "injected" onto the radar screens of the controllers to confuse them and prevent them from paying attention to the hijacked flights.

I call this wargame theory "distraction theory", and I don't think it's at the core of the matter. Maybe there were some "injected" blips, but they are far less important than he suggests.

The "phantom flight 11" was no injected radar blip. It was a real plane, it was flight 11, tail number N334AA, and it didn't hit the North Tower. Most probably, it was a wargame flight:

http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/stolenairliner.html
http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/stolenairliner2.html

If you take a close look at the 9/11 commission report, you will see that controllers and managers from Boston Center, New York Center and Washington Center as well as the military all were convinced that flight 11 was still in the air after the North Tower crash.

I agree with spooked911 that the wargames were an integral part of 9/11, but Ruppert's approach doesn't reach far enough. Nevertheless, I emphasize again that his book is of utmost importance.

More to come.

[JackRiddler]

11. Speculation

I know you're wedded to plane-swapping theories and I do think they are possible, but it's nothing that you can prove (BTS databases are insufficient in this regard). Whether it was an inject or a drone or the "real" Flight 11, the government has admitted there was a "Phantom 11" and this admission is in itself much more significant than the hypotheses we carve out of it. It helps us in demolishing the official story first, then finding probable cause to attach to specific people for criminal charges, which gets subpeona power to force questions on those who know more, and to get available documents... then you might get tangible proofs of any given scenario. Until then, I don't see what we gain by saying we know for sure what "Phantom 11" was.

[medienanalyse]

14. if you inject something into a network

the network is physically "infected" - by a blip i.e.
Visible on all computer screens.

Just the addition:
if you are not in the network - you are out of any blip fun.

It is so simple. The physical RADAR screens do not get infected. The RADAR in the interceptors do not get infected.
Blips do not comminicate - imagine what any ATC will do when he suddenly sees an additional blip on his screen ...


Again: real life is real life, and wargames and fairy tales and Osamas tales of 2001 nights are good for children.

[JackRiddler]

15. not the point...

I don't say the wargames were compromised, I say that this is an excuse for those who were inside the system on the day.

And hacks are possible, so you don't have to be inside the system already.

The wargames are a great way to facilitate a 9/11 scenario...

[medienanalyse]

19. sorry - but you are terribly wrong, Jack

1, "I say that this is an excuse for those who were inside the system on the day."

There is a difference between "taking wargames AS an excuse" (which I must state as you do) and the wargames being an excuse in fact. Which they are not at all. A sentry is a sentry and is not participant in "games". The whole military is based on this difference, all over the world.

2. "And hacks are possible, so you don't have to be inside the system already."
As I pointed out: there is not "THE" (in the meaning of ONE) system. Radio is a different system - a simple call "hi blip, who are you" cleasr a lot. The pysical radar is not affected by the second layer of the cumputerized additional informations. And the pilots have their own "friend/foe" systems. No hack can ever explain what happened, there is no confusion possible based on Blips.
BTW: FAA and NORAD are not identical organizations. There are different systems on every level.

To sort witnesses out they just evacuated the ARTCCs and shut any public acces to the radar screen digitalized backups.


3. "The wargames are a great way to facilitate a 9/11 scenario..."

Excuse me again. That is just a apodictical sentence. If it were true I wonder why military is still existent. Since the Olympic games in the old Greece all soldiers must have erased themselves and their profession.

Talk with pilots. Talk with military. A sentry is a sentry. Games are games and Schnaps ist Schnaps.

[ladjf]

16. Great post!. This is the kind of cold bloodied logic we need.

Your post was void of bullshit and speculation.