285 replies to this topic

[mrbusdriver]

Again...NORAD has ONLY the alert fighters under it's control on any given day. That might have amounted to around 16 fighters around the edges of the continental USA, pointing outwards, not inwards. We were indeed "unguarded" to this new threat.
Fine, they had some exercises going that day. They have hundreds of exercises every year, and it doesn't mean that they were any more "stood up" for the situation that morning. As for confusion, as soon as ATC told NORAD that it was real world hijack, there would be no question...now, up until that morning, a hijack meant an escort mission, to wherever they wanted to go. Airliners-as-missiles wasn't yet a scenario in the sim designer's playbook. Then they turned off the transponder (yes, they CAN do that in the cockpit). No IFF=no beacon=no flight info (flight #, altitude, speed, etc). Now, if the FAA radar sites have their raw radar down for any reason (happens frequently), without the "beacon" going, they will see...nothing. This is lost coverage for the controllers. They miss the airliners turning, descending, etc.

NORAD didn't have fleets of fighters primed for the exercise, just their small handful on normal alert. NEADS, where all the action was, had 4 fighters...that's it. NORADd shares radar data from the FAA radars, and has to specifically dial in those radars to get data from them. They don't routinely watch traffic around Pittsburg or Cincinnati.

So, no 7500, 7600, 7700 squawks, no radio calls, not sure what planes are where, doing what. Missed turnarounds, lost coverage...it was a nightmare for the controllers. The system wasn't designed for it, the controllers weren't ready for it, and NORAD's few fighters were not in position for the attack from within.

I spent pretty much my USAF career in air defense/control, and I have a pretty good idea what they were going though that morning. The system wasn't designed for the attack. They tried to do what they could, given the hand they were dealt. A bad day all around.

[bee]

mrbusdriver, on 09 October 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

it was a nightmare for the controllers.

I agree that it MUST have been.


This article, I think shows the human side of the nightmare....
Men and women tackling a totally new situation..where the
stakes are really high...but they have to just buckle down
and do the best they can.

The link contains clips of live NORAD tapes.


http://www.vanityfai.../08/norad200608



I am bound to admit that some parts of it contradict my ideas.

But a secret's a secret...it's hardly going to be splashed
all over Vanity Fair.

Even if the tapes have been tweeked and edited to omit anything
that might support my ideas...I still think they are good to
listen to...

[regeneratia]

What is the military's real job? Who really knows now?! But we really need to look at the AF first.

When I went to visit the AF academy in Colo Springs, the AF code or whatever it is was defaced and scratched off the bridge. I had to ask my AF escort what it was supposed to say, and why something like that would be defaced. He had no idea. But he considered the place his stomping grounds.

Meanwhile, there is massive trouble within the AF regarding the fundementalist Christian bend that has been going on there, and all the non-Christian students and AF men who are not Christian having a hard time flowing within the AF system. IMHO, the code was defaced because there are those within the AF that wanted to eliminate it from the AF, OR someone was wrestling with the Fundementalist=Christian trend and found that trend to run against the AF code.

This is a really great site to read from:
http://www.militaryr...ousfreedom.org/

------------------

When a government has fore-knowledge of an up-coming attack, they don't leave the country unguarded, even if there are military exercises going on. There is no way it was accidental to leave our perimeters unguarded on 9-11, even WITH the exercises going forward, and especially if there was fore-knowledge of 9-11. I will not accept that is was an accident that the military stood down on 9-11.

Czero 101, on 09 October 2010 - 10:18 PM, said:

What exactly, in your estimation, is the military's "real job"...?


Do you have military checkpoints where you live?

Do you have to pass through roadblocks to get to work or the mall or where ever?

Are there random military patrols wandering your city asking for papers and checking "suspicious looking people / vehicles"...?

No...?

I'm willing to speculate that if you DID have such a military presence in your city (or cities) you would be protesting that the military has too much control / presence and has no right to impinge on your freedom of movement.

Yet you seemingly demand that the Air Force should have been flying CAP's over your cities to intercept / interrogate domestic flights within your borders...




In other words, you've already made up your mind what happened, and you are just going to keep digging until you find evidence that you think fits your predetermined conclusions, whether such evidence exists or not.




Cz

[regeneratia]

I am waiting for some controllers to start taking about it. And perhaps they already have and I have missed it.

bee, on 10 October 2010 - 08:36 PM, said:

I agree that it MUST have been.


This article, I think shows the human side of the nightmare....
Men and women tackling a totally new situation..where the
stakes are really high...but they have to just buckle down
and do the best they can.

The link contains clips of live NORAD tapes.


http://www.vanityfai.../08/norad200608



I am bound to admit that some parts of it contradict my ideas.

But a secret's a secret...it's hardly going to be splashed
all over Vanity Fair.

Even if the tapes have been tweeked and edited to omit anything
that might support my ideas...I still think they are good to
listen to...

[Czero 101]

regeneratia, on 10 October 2010 - 11:23 PM, said:

What is the military's real job? Who really knows now?! But we really need to look at the AF first.

When I went to visit the AF academy in Colo Springs, the AF code or whatever it is was defaced and scratched off the bridge. I had to ask my AF escort what it was supposed to say, and why something like that would be defaced. He had no idea. But he considered the place his stomping grounds.

Meanwhile, there is massive trouble within the AF regarding the fundementalist Christian bend that has been going on there, and all the non-Christian students and AF men who are not Christian having a hard time flowing within the AF system. IMHO, the code was defaced because there are those within the AF that wanted to eliminate it from the AF, OR someone was wrestling with the Fundementalist=Christian trend and found that trend to run against the AF code.

This is a really great site to read from:
http://www.militaryr...ousfreedom.org/

Deflection of the point of my post and of this thread noted.

Quote

When a government has fore-knowledge of an up-coming attack,

And this has been proven where, exactly...?

Please note the emphasis on "proven", because while you may believe that, your beliefs are not facts.

Quote

they don't leave the country unguarded, even if there are military exercises going on. There is no way it was accidental to leave our perimeters unguarded on 9-11, even WITH the exercises going forward, and especially if there was fore-knowledge of 9-11.

As has been explained to you, until 9/11 the main doctrine of US military defense had to do with protecting from "enemies" coming from outside the continental USA.

Are you still suggesting that the Air Force should have been actively engaged in CAP's over US cities and have been actively intercepting "suspicious" domestic flights?

Quote

I will not accept that is was an accident

Of course you can't accept it was an "accident". You already believe that it was done on purpose, and are only seeking proof that confirms your preconceived notions.

Quote

that the military stood down on 9-11.

Please provide any factual evidence that the military "stood down on 9/11". Again, please provide FACTS not idle speculation based on biased beliefs.

Someone who is actually seeking the truth would not make such blatantly biased blanket statements that amount to "I am only seeking those answers that confirm what I already believe, and I refuse accept anything that contradicts my beliefs".

You're not seeking the "truth"... you're only seeking validation.




Cz

[regeneratia]

I don't seek validation. I have learned to spot it when other people do tho.

"When a government has fore-knowledge of an up-coming attack,

And this has been proven where, exactly...?

Please note the emphasis on "proven", because while you may believe that, your beliefs are not facts."

http://dictionary.re...se/hypothetical
"When A government has foreknowledge of an upcoming attack..." is a hypothetical.

"As has been explained to you, until 9/11 the main doctrine of US military defense had to do with protecting from "enemies" coming from outside the continental USA. "

No, it has not been explained to me, and would I believe that report if it was?
Do you know what the AF code is? I cannot find it anywhere. But I tried to read the code that was scratched out and defaced in Colo. Springs, and it was once explained to me by an AF officer. I didn't memorize it. Didn't have to.


Of course, 9-11 was done on purpose. Come on! It even required a conspiracy. And it was successful.

If the military didn't stand down on 9-11, where were they that day? For they performed pretty well this day: http://www.securityi...airspace-breach, and this day: http://articles.lati...cal/me-pilots31, and this day: http://articles.lati.../na-airspace24. These planes didn't stand down. So why did it happen on 9-11? Why the stand down?

[frenat]

regeneratia, on 11 October 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

If the military didn't stand down on 9-11, where were they that day? For they performed pretty well this day: http://www.securityi...airspace-breach, and this day: http://articles.lati...cal/me-pilots31, and this day: http://articles.lati.../na-airspace24. These planes didn't stand down. So why did it happen on 9-11? Why the stand down?

All of your examples involve airplanes breaching restricted airspace during a presidential visit and all of them are after 911.  When the President goes anywhere he is accompanied by an AWACS and fighter escort.  There are already planes in the air in these cases.  On 911 they were set up for a threat from OUTSIDE the continental US.  NORAD did not look inside the US.  There was a small and limited number of fighters available on standby on the entire Easter coast.  There was no stand down.  They just didn't live up to your expectations.

[regeneratia]

Oh, the military didn't live up to my expectation on 9-11 and that is the answer. Huh! Oh well, I guess I am just supposed to accept that explanation.

Sorry, charlie!
Not gonna happen.

Why was the USA left unguarded militarily on 9-11? Why? By whose order?
Seems to me that NORAD is all about protecting us. And NORAD was in place long before 9-11, supposedly doing their job.

Was there foreknowledge of 9-11? If there was, why was the USA left unguarded on 9-11? What was Eberhart doing that day?

"On 911 they were set up for a threat from OUTSIDE the continental US. NORAD did not look inside the US. "

What a costly management scheme!

Guilt by ommission: http://www.upi.com/B...54871021666824/

Edited by regeneratia, 11 October 2010 - 12:53 AM.

[Czero 101]

regeneratia, on 11 October 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

I don't seek validation. I have learned to spot it when other people do tho.

Oh I see... so I guess then the fact that you can't recognise it in yourself must be because its one of those things that you will not accept since it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions or beliefs.

Quote

http://dictionary.re...se/hypothetical
"When A government has foreknowledge of an upcoming attack..." is a hypothetical.

Please note the first definition from the page you have linked:

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.

So, in keeping with the definition you have provided, your assertions that "the government had foreknowledge" is just a hypothesis, an ASSUMPTION on your part, that apparently has no factual basis.

Quote

"As has been explained to you, until 9/11 the main doctrine of US military defense had to do with protecting from "enemies" coming from outside the continental USA. "

No, it has not been explained to me,

Then perhaps you to pay a bit more attention to posts that you reply to. The first part of the first post on this page by MrBusdriver (which you replied to, although you only quoted a small part of it) says this:

mrbusdriver, on 09 October 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

Again...NORAD has ONLY the alert fighters under it's control on any given day. That might have amounted to around 16 fighters around the edges of the continental USA, pointing outwards, not inwards. We were indeed "unguarded" to this new threat.

Oh wait... that must be one of those things you "won't accept" since it doesn't conform to your beliefs and predetermined conclusion.

Quote

and would I believe that report if it was?

I'm guessing not, since, as stated, it doesn't VALIDATE your beliefs.

Quote

Do you know what the AF code is? I cannot find it anywhere. But I tried to read the code that was scratched out and defaced in Colo. Springs, and it was once explained to me by an AF officer. I didn't memorize it. Didn't have to.

The Air Force has a lot of codes. Rather than listing off the many that you might be referring to, I'll just post the one that, to me, seems the most likely:

"We Will Not Lie, Steal Or Cheat, Nor Tolerate Among Us Anyone Who Does"
SOURCE - US Air Force Academy

If it is one of the other myriad of "AF Codes" out there (Google "Air Force Code"), then please specify, and please explain how it actually means anything in regards to this thread.

Quote

Of course, 9-11 was done on purpose. Come on! It even required a conspiracy.

Prove it.

And again, please provide FACTS backed up by VERIFIED EVIDENCE, not just a re-iteration of your biased beliefs and what you will or will not accept.

Quote

If the military didn't stand down on 9-11, where were they that day? For they performed pretty well this day: http://www.securityi...airspace-breach, and this day: http://articles.lati...cal/me-pilots31, and this day: http://articles.lati.../na-airspace24. These planes didn't stand down. So why did it happen on 9-11? Why the stand down?

Frenat's posts above covers this point.



Cz

[frenat]

regeneratia, on 11 October 2010 - 12:38 AM, said:

Oh, the military didn't live up to my expectation on 9-11 and that is the answer. Huh! Oh well, I guess I am just supposed to accept that explanation.

Sorry, charlie!
Not gonna happen.

Why was the USA left unguarded militarily on 9-11? Why? By whose order?
Seems to me that NORAD is all about protecting us. And NORAD was in place long before 9-11, supposedly doing their job.

Was there foreknowledge of 9-11? If there was, why was the USA left unguarded on 9-11? What was Eberhart doing that day?

"On 911 they were set up for a threat from OUTSIDE the continental US. NORAD did not look inside the US. "

What a costly management scheme!

Before 911 NORAD only looked outside.  That is just how it was.  They were only rarely involved in intercepts within the continental US.  They were still focused on a cold war threat from Russia or China.  They cut back the active planes due to peacetime but the country was NOT unguarded.  There were the same number of jet available that day that had been each day for months before.

Foreknowledge?  Depends on what you mean.  There were lots of vague threats but nothing specific as in "this flight number on this day in this city".  When taken as a whole with the thousands upon thousands of other threats, which ones do you focus on?  You can't give 100% attention on each threat.  That would be just as irresponsible as paying no attention to any threat.  They evaluated the threats and decided which were most likely based on the info they had.  Looking back on it they might have chosen differently but nobody can have the advantage of hindsight until after the event has passed.

[regeneratia]

What i think is that you want me to be unsure of myself and need validation. Not gonna happen. You guys assume I need validation because perhaps you do.

About that "hypothetical" thing you have going on. You said "the Government" and I said "A government". Are you able to differentiate this? Or do you need more help?


I tried to address several issues on the board, from various posts, into one post because I don't want to run up the number of posts. Is this against the rules in some way? Because I have reviewed the rules several times and have yet to find anything that addresses this. So I can continue to do what I want while posting within the rules.

"Oh wait... that must be one of those things you "won't accept" since it doesn't conform to your beliefs and predetermined conclusion."
Could the same be said about you?

"I'm guessing not, since, as stated, it doesn't VALIDATE your beliefs. "
First I am accused of needing validation and now you accuse me of not needing validation! No one can respond to a situation like this. You all are all over the place, saying one thing, then the opposite.

""We Will Not Lie, Steal Or Cheat, Nor Tolerate Among Us Anyone Who Does""
I think that is the one that was defaced and scratched out. I sure do like that code. If you are familiar with this bridge, north and east of the chapel, and the code inscribed in stone, why do you suppose it was defaced, and making note that I am asking speculation? This defaced condition was sometime around 6 years ago. There were some really publicity-documented negative situations within the AF at that time.

Come on, THINK! 9-11 was a conspiracy, anyway you look at it.

"Of course, 9-11 was done on purpose. Come on! It even required a conspiracy.

Prove it.

And again, please provide FACTS backed up by VERIFIED EVIDENCE, not just a re-iteration of your biased beliefs and what you will or will not accept."

Wouldn't it be amazingly accurate to say that 9-11 took a conspiracy to get it done. Obviously it took over three people to get it done. It required planning and an infallible set-up. Someone did it and did it with success. To think it was not a conspiracy is massive denial. Are you denying that 9-11 ever happened? If it did happen, certainly (!) it took a conspiracy.


http://dictionary.re...owse/conspiracy
con·spir·a·cy
   /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Use conspiracy in a Sentence
See images of conspiracy
Search conspiracy on the Web
Origin:
1325–75;  ME conspiracie,  prob. < AF; see conspire, -acy;  r. ME conspiracioun; see conspiration

—Related forms
con·spir·a·tive, adjective
con·spir·a·to·ri·al  /kənˌspɪrəˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/ Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-] Show IPA, con·spir·a·to·ry, adjective
con·spir·a·to·ri·al·ly, adverb
non·con·spir·a·to·ri·al, adjective
pre·con·spir·a·cy, noun, plural -cies.

—Synonyms
1.  collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal  all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one. A conspiracy  usually involves a group entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective: a vicious conspiracy to control prices.  A plot  is a carefully planned secret scheme, usually by a small number of persons, to secure sinister ends: a plot to seize control of a company.  An intrigue  usually involves duplicity and deceit aimed at achieving either personal advantage or criminal or treasonous objectives: the petty intrigues of civil servants. Cabal  refers either to a plan by a small group of highly-placed persons to overthrow or control a government, or to the group of persons themselves: a cabal of powerful lawmakers.


Yes, and the excuse for the military stand down on 9-11, IMHO, is still not explained to my satisfaction.

Editing to bring in the NORAD issue:
http://en.wikipedia....Defense_Command
"At the end of the Cold War NORAD reassessed its mission. To avoid cutbacks, from 1989 NORAD operations expanded to cover counter-drug operations, especially the tracking of small aircraft entering and operating within America and Canada[4],"

So they were/are also to monitor within the country as well. Opposes your thought that they were only to look outside the USA for things coming to the USA.

Edited by regeneratia, 11 October 2010 - 01:45 AM.

[regeneratia]

Thank you.
Is the system designed now that would eliminate those flaws on 9-11?
Yours is the best post I have read for this, and I appreciate it. Just now read it. Thank you for taking the time to do it.

So how does one suppose that the hijackers knew this particular flaw in the monitoring system? They had to know this was a hole in coverage.

mrbusdriver, on 09 October 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

Again...NORAD has ONLY the alert fighters under it's control on any given day. That might have amounted to around 16 fighters around the edges of the continental USA, pointing outwards, not inwards. We were indeed "unguarded" to this new threat.
Fine, they had some exercises going that day. They have hundreds of exercises every year, and it doesn't mean that they were any more "stood up" for the situation that morning. As for confusion, as soon as ATC told NORAD that it was real world hijack, there would be no question...now, up until that morning, a hijack meant an escort mission, to wherever they wanted to go. Airliners-as-missiles wasn't yet a scenario in the sim designer's playbook. Then they turned off the transponder (yes, they CAN do that in the cockpit). No IFF=no beacon=no flight info (flight #, altitude, speed, etc). Now, if the FAA radar sites have their raw radar down for any reason (happens frequently), without the "beacon" going, they will see...nothing. This is lost coverage for the controllers. They miss the airliners turning, descending, etc.

NORAD didn't have fleets of fighters primed for the exercise, just their small handful on normal alert. NEADS, where all the action was, had 4 fighters...that's it. NORADd shares radar data from the FAA radars, and has to specifically dial in those radars to get data from them. They don't routinely watch traffic around Pittsburg or Cincinnati.

So, no 7500, 7600, 7700 squawks, no radio calls, not sure what planes are where, doing what. Missed turnarounds, lost coverage...it was a nightmare for the controllers. The system wasn't designed for it, the controllers weren't ready for it, and NORAD's few fighters were not in position for the attack from within.

I spent pretty much my USAF career in air defense/control, and I have a pretty good idea what they were going though that morning. The system wasn't designed for the attack. They tried to do what they could, given the hand they were dealt. A bad day all around.

Edited by regeneratia, 11 October 2010 - 01:41 AM.

[mrbusdriver]

What do you mean, specifically, by "standdown"? Yes, the "order of battle" today is much better prepared for internal threats. And it gets plenty of practice, with numerous TFR voilations occurring.

Many more fighters, and I would imagine a much more "streamlined" process for coordinating with the FAA as well as controlling fighters in CONUS airspaces. Probably more decentralized C3 to allow regional bosses to take action without the "mother may I" routine from before.

Yeah, I'm certain things have changed a lot. Now, if TSA would just get it's house in order...

[mrbusdriver]

regeneratia, on 11 October 2010 - 01:37 AM, said:

Thank you.
Is the system designed now that would eliminate those flaws on 9-11?
Yours is the best post I have read for this, and I appreciate it. Just now read it. Thank you for taking the time to do it.

So how does one suppose that the hijackers knew this particular flaw in the monitoring system? They had to know this was a hole in coverage.

I imagine they knew that the response would be slow. They were depending on operational confusion, and an unprepared defense. Getting fighters on a tareget deep inside CONUS isn't something that's practiced. Doing it on multiple simultaneous targets was not in the defense strategy. It was a gaping, well known hole. There was no perceived need to have alert fighters primed to go against internal civil targets in a big hurry.

They knew what they were doing.

[frenat]

regeneratia, on 11 October 2010 - 01:14 AM, said:

Editing to bring in the NORAD issue:
http://en.wikipedia....Defense_Command
"At the end of the Cold War NORAD reassessed its mission. To avoid cutbacks, from 1989 NORAD operations expanded to cover counter-drug operations, especially the tracking of small aircraft entering and operating within America and Canada[4],"

So they were/are also to monitor within the country as well. Opposes your thought that they were only to look outside the USA for things coming to the USA.

They ONLY monitored traffic inside if it was monitored entering and was suspected of smuggling and then they had to coordinate with the FAA.  I've talked to those working at SEADS and currently train Air Battle Managers, some of which go on to work with NORAD.  Before 911 the focus was outside the US.  If they dealt with anything inside they had to coordinate with the FAA.  Their own radars looked out and they only had the personell to monitor an outward facing look.