4um: Why is NORAD able to track Santa Claus in Real Time, yet failed completely to intercept the planes on 9/11?

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11
See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Why is NORAD able to track Santa Claus in Real Time, yet failed completely to intercept the planes on 9/11?
Source: Official NORAD Santa Tracker
URL Source: http://www.noradsanta.org/
Published: Dec 24, 2015
Author: Me
Post Date: 2015-12-24 18:12:19 by Bill D Berger
Keywords: None
Views: 251
Comments: 11

Why is NORAD able to track Santa Claus yet on September 11th, 2001 the air defense network had predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack and failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.
Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified.
It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases from which to scramble planes. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Bill D Berger (#0)
I hope that this is a rhetorical question.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Lod posted on 2015-12-24 18:26:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: Bill D Berger (#0)
Why is NORAD able to track Santa Claus yet on September 11th, 2001 the air defense network had predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack and failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started.

That statement has no basis in fact, fiction spinning for effect only.

Cynicom posted on 2015-12-24 18:51:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: Cynicom (#2)
That statement has no basis in fact,

9/11 - Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense
NORAD Stand-Down:
A stand-down is defined as “a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert.” This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11. One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar.
As stated by the 9/11 Commission, “With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity and altitude.”
The commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal.
As defined by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, AWACS is “a sophisticated detection aircraft, fitted with powerful radar and a computer, capable of simultaneously tracking and plotting large numbers of low-flying aircraft at much greater distances than is possible with ground radar.”
On 9/11 an AWACS plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area was ordered to return to its base in Oklahoma limiting the communications and surveillance capabilities of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector.
In 2006 New Scientist magazine reported that “US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit.”
The 35 USAF bases that were within range of the 9/11 flights unquestionably possessed highly-sophisticated radar.
Commercial airliners do not need their transponders turned on in order to be tracked by the US military. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the US military lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder signal.
Another excuse given by defenders of the official story is that NORAD only looked outward for threats, not inward. There is much evidence that looking inward was also one of their responsibilities, but in any event, there is at least one incident which proves NORAD could be tasked to defend any part of the skies over the United States and Canada, as well as much evidence that it is not the only time this has happened, but rather, the only time we have been privy to.
The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths cites an article in a 2002 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, which claims that, “Before September 11, the only time officials recall scrambling jets over the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart’s plane veered off course and crashed in South Dakota in 1999.”
Popular Mechanics adds, “Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions from the end of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in these zones were primarily being used for drug smuggling.”
But an October 13, 2001 Calgary Herald article reported that before 9/11 fighter jets “were scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or ‘unknowns’ twice a week.”
As Professor David Ray Griffin pointed out in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, “Twice a week would be about 100 times per year, and ‘babysitting’ is not what planes would do with jets suspected of smuggling drugs into the country.”
Furthermore, a 1994 United States General Accounting Office report on continental air defense states, “Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”
As the New York City Activist blog pointed out, “Admittedly this is the early 1990's, not 2001, and the quote is from a report which recommended trimming down the force. But still it casts a lot of doubt on the Popular Mechanics claim that intercepts were a rare occurrence.”
And as Griffin points out in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, “In this account NORAD made 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which ‘involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft in distress,’ not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the fact that 1992 was part of ‘the decade before 9/11,’ it is doubtful that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically after that.”
A Canadian government performance report on their arm of NORAD for 1999-2000 (pdf), the same period as the Payne Stewart flight, relevant to military operations in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, backs up Griffin’s statements. The report states, “If required, ‘unknown aircraft’ are intercepted and identified by aircraft dedicated to NORAD. Over the past year, NORAD has intercepted 736 aircraft, 82 of which were suspected drug smugglers…
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Bill D Berger posted on 2015-12-24 19:10:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: Bill D Berger (#0)
Man, boredom can bring out some really weird shit !
"Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day".
"The almighty Dollar ain't worth a buck".
Doug Scheidt
noone222 posted on 2015-12-24 19:11:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: Bill D Berger (#3)
There is nothing in there that is relevant to the event.

Cynicom posted on 2015-12-24 19:13:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Bill D BergerCynicom, Lod, noone222 (#3)
NORAD able to track Santa Claus in Real Time, yet failed completely to intercept the planes on 9/11?

NORAD was in cahoots with what was going on. They kept the fighters out over the ocean so they could not shoot down the planes. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2015-12-24 22:12:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: Bill D Berger, Cynicom (#6)
PING to #6.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2015-12-24 22:14:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#8. To: BTP Holdings (#6)
NORAD was only a useful tool that day.Their drills were pre-planned; they had no clue about what was to happen.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Lod posted on 2015-12-24 22:47:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#9. To: Lod (#8)
NORAD was only a useful tool that day.Their drills were pre-planned; they had no clue about what was to happen.

Perhaps they were under "orders" to keep the planes out over the ocean. You know how the military works. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2015-12-24 22:55:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: Bill D Berger (#0)
Because Santa was in on that shit.

Obnoxicated posted on 2015-12-24 23:50:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#11. To: BTP Holdings (#9)
NORAD was only a useful tool that day.Their drills were pre-planned; they had no clue about what was to happen.
Perhaps they were under "orders" to keep the planes out over the ocean. You know how the military works. ;)

Utter nonsense.
NORAD then and now has one job. maintain watch over INCOMING traffic of any kind. Interior flights as always were and are domain of FAA.
Although they work in tandem and harmony, one needs not rearrange their primary focus. If you review known factors, the decision to halt the madness was not made by Vice President Cheney nor any General at NORAD.
The decision was made by a low level FAA supervisor, it was AN INTERIOR threat, not exterior, so the FAA grunt did what the others failed to do, his order was a halt to traffic, everyone down, no exceptions and right now.

Cynicom posted on 2015-12-25 9:59:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um