Difference between revisions of "9-11/Air Defence"
(Procedure changes) |
(quote from Hamid Gul - Interview) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==Change of Procedure== | ==Change of Procedure== | ||
The procedure for interception of off-course airliners was changed (by whom?) in the run up to [[9/11]] to require personal authorisation (from Cheney?). | The procedure for interception of off-course airliners was changed (by whom?) in the run up to [[9/11]] to require personal authorisation (from Cheney?). | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{SMWQ | ||
| + | |text= | ||
| + | |subjects=The attacks against the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF — friend or foe identification — challenge. | ||
| + | |authors=Arnaud de Borchgrave, Hamid Gul | ||
| + | |date=September 26 2001 | ||
| + | |source_URL=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/de-Borchgrave/2010/07/28/UPI-interview-with-Hamid-Gul/60031280349846/?ur3=1 | ||
| + | }} | ||
==Mineta's Testimony== | ==Mineta's Testimony== | ||
Revision as of 19:54, 16 February 2021
 | |
| Date | 2001-09-11 |
|---|---|
| Perpetrators | NEADS, US Military |
| Interest of | Jochen Scholz |
| Description | 46 mock hijack exercises were ongoing on the morning of September 11th and planes were unavailable, contributing to an unprecedented failure. Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission (simply ignored in their final report), implying a direct stand down order, would seem to explain the total failure of air defence around the Pentagon. Although standard operating procedure was not followed, those responsible were promoted rather than disciplined after the event. |
US airspace defence on 9-11 was effectively stood down by a combination of drills, procedure changes and absenteeism.
Contents
Procedure changes
The air defense of a country is meant to be able intervene at all times when a critical situation in the airspace does occur. From the earliest archive of NORADs "about-us" page on it's mission:
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a binational United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States.[1]
NORAD’s aerospace control mission includes detecting and responding to any air-breathing threat to North America. To accomplish this mission, NORAD utilizes a network of ground-based radars and fighters to detect, intercept and if necessary engage any air-breathing threat to the continent. These fighters consist of U.S. F-15s and F-16s and Canadian CF-18s. As a part of its aerospace control mission, NORAD assists in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking. This information is passed to civilian law enforcement agencies to help combat the flow of illegal drugs into North America.[2]
It is beyond suspect, that drills should have intervened with systems and established procedures in such a way, that it was not possible for the interceptors to reach the planes that went of course. The North American Air defense was built up over decades by the best minds from the officers corps of the United States and Canada; so why should a system that is thought out like this not function on any particular day? Manipulation with intent is the best explanation here.
Simultaneous Exercises
- Full article: 9-11/Drills
- Full article: 9-11/Drills
As Michael Ruppert and Webster Tarpley have documented, on the day of 9/11, multiple exercises were ongoing on September 11, 2001,[3] perhaps more than on any day before or since, including Operation Northern Vigilance, Operation Vigilant Guardian, Operation Northern guardian' and Operation Vigilant Warrior. Some of which involved the simulated hijacking of airliners, some of which involved the flying of many fighter aircraft far away from their normal locations on the East Coast of US.[4]
Change of Procedure
The procedure for interception of off-course airliners was changed (by whom?) in the run up to 9/11 to require personal authorisation (from Cheney?).
Mineta's Testimony
Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission is well worth a listen, especially as regards the total lack of air defence around the Pentagon.
Related Documents
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:Norad-911-Jochen Scholz | interview | 30 January 2011 | Jochen Scholz | Excerpted from a NuoViso interview with Lieutenant-Colonel Jochen Scholz of the German air force on 911 and the war on terror. |
| File:AdamMinetaClarkePaper.pdf | report | 2006 | Adam Letalik | Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke Contradict the 9/11 Commission Report |
| File:The mineta testimony.pdf | report | 2005 | Gregor Holland | 9/11 Commission Report - one year later ... The Mineta Testimony: 9/11 Commission Exposed |
