“Is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?”
- Larry Arnold, NORAD Commander, upon hearing of the first hijack
“That was news to me. I thought we were still chasing American 11.”
- F-15 pilot “Duff” on hearing a second plane had hit the WTC
“Holy smoke, that’s why we’re here.”
- F-16 pilot “Lou” upon seeing smoke from the Pentagon
This post is to organize and link together all the related sub-posts on the ridiculously inadequate air defense during the 9/11 attack. The air-based wargames, which are referred to often in these posts, are covered seperately in the wargames masterlist. People still argue about whether our fighter defenses could have done anything if they had been better integrated. The answer depends on the presumptions one makes, but basically the answer is yes - there were procedures to defend the nation from roughly the 9/11 threat of suicide hijackings, but they have been magnified, obscured, and muddled by both sides in the post-9/11 debate. And they seem to have not been followed that morning.
This is a chart I made of the timeline of the attack and overall air defense during it - click the image to get a full-size, readable view (can also be saved and printed, 8.5 x 11").
> Status of air terror readiness as of 9/11: Could it be this bad on accident?
- Payne Stewart and Standard procedure: We had standard procedures for intercepting stray planes
- Rumors of a Stand-Down: Unprepared or Stood Down? (neither - this dichotomy is a false one).
- Muzzling the Defense: Rumsfeld's recent changes to fighter scramble procedures - ultimately a red herring?
- Warnings ignored?
- Fighter deployments decided on to defend the known primary zone of terrorism threats: notably inadequate.
- Commercial pilots' right to bear arms in the air rescinded in 2001? Post in the works...
> A Hobbled Defense in Action on 9/11
- Federal Attack Assistance? {masterlist}: The FAA's role in "dropping the ball" on 9/11, in several sub-posts: Sliney, the phantom Flight 11, the mistaken memo, etc...
- Phantom flights/radar inserts
- Radar blind spots
- Otis and Langley: Scrambling against the clock
- Heading and Speed: slowly away from the attacks
- Information shared with the defending fighter pilots: RIDICULOUSLY inadequate
> Permission to use deadly force to protect America: Negligently (?) denied
- No Such order recieved by the five defending pilots.
- Bush at Booker: Isolated accidents require no defensive orders, and Bush insisted on pretending it was an isolated accident until the last possible minute - and then still refused to issue the order for at least another hour. By the official story.
- Cheney and the Shoot-Down Order
6 comments:
Thanks for your post on Actively Nowhere.
I captioned it with the following "I personally don't subscribe to this as being an actual video of the Pentagon strike...But it is as good as what the Government has put out with their five frames and sponsored forensic cartoon video"
Yes it is an obvious fake which just my point, it is as real as anything the government (administration and the like) has put forward as evidence.
I have just started reading some of your posts.
I must say, good job.
From what I have read so far it appears to be a very well rounded piece of research without judgment, with what seem to be verifiable facts.
Keep up the good work, if you decide to publish put me down for a copy
Paul
"I captioned it" - so long as it's clear they're not my words. sorry if I came across overly gruff - I was presuming it was being presented as true evidence, and as such it qualified as "fake." I think that's the word I used. But reall it's obvious enough that I should've thought more about your real intentions - I think you're onto something there.
"Yes it is an obvious fake which just my point, it is as real as anything the government (administration and the like) has put forward as evidence."
Well in all fairness, I'm not personally sure their scant released videos are that fake. They might even be real, I simplycan't tell. But boy they sure have spurred the speculation, eh?
Hey, thanks Paul! It's nice to see comments, especially nice ones and especially at this page. I knew the Frustrating Fraud would get the most attention, but this is the real stuff here, the positive argument for what REALLY might have happened. It's disturbingly similar to the official story I've decided, especially from a physical evidence stance.
As far as publishing, thanks for the vote of confidence. I think bookmarking the link is about the way you'll ever read this. But it's free. ow I check out your site a bit more, and take care!
Hello!
Very good posting.
Thank you - Have a good day!!!
Prof, sorry for missing your comment. I try to respnd to all but have been doing poorly of late. Thank you. You too,
Post a Comment