VANITY FAIR 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes (read AND Listen)

[MADem]

How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up. VF.com exclusive: Hear excerpts from the September 11 NORAD tapes. Click PLAY after each transcript to listen
By MICHAEL BRONNER
ucked in a piney notch in the gentle folds of the Adirondacks' southern skirts—just up from a derelict Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern rail spur—is a 22-year-old aluminum bunker tricked out with antennae tilted skyward. It could pass for the Jetsons' garage or, in the estimation of one of the higher-ranking U.S. Air Force officers stationed there, a big, sideways, half-buried beer keg.

As Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility's mission-crew commander, drove up the hill to work on the morning of 9/11, he was dressed in his flight suit and prepared for battle. Not a real one. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), where Nasypany had been stationed since 1994, is the regional headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Cold War–era military organization charged with protecting North American airspace. As he poured his first coffee on that sunny September morning, the odds that he would have to defend against Russian "Bear Bombers," one of NORAD's traditional simulated missions, were slim. Rather, Nasypany (pronounced Nah-sip-a-nee), an amiable commander with a thick mini-mustache and a hockey player's build, was headed in early to get ready for the NORAD-wide training exercise he'd helped design. The battle commander, Colonel Bob Marr, had promised to bring in fritters.

NEADS is a desolate place, the sole orphan left behind after the dismantling of what was once one of the country's busiest bomber bases—Griffiss Air Force Base, in Rome, New York, which was otherwise mothballed in the mid-90s. NEADS's mission remained in place and continues today: its officers, air-traffic controllers, and air-surveillance and communications technicians—mostly American, with a handful of Canadian troops—are responsible for protecting a half-million-square-mile chunk of American airspace stretching from the East Coast to Tennessee, up through the Dakotas to the Canadian border, including Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago.

It was into this airspace that violence descended on 9/11, and from the NEADS operations floor that what turned out to be the sum total of America's military response during those critical 100-some minutes of the attack—scrambling four armed fighter jets and one unarmed training plane—emanated.

The story of what happened in that room, and when, has never been fully told, but is arguably more important in terms of understanding America's military capabilities that day than anything happening simultaneously on Air Force One or in the Pentagon, the White House, or NORAD's impregnable headquarters, deep within Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado. It's a story that was intentionally obscured, some members of the 9/11 commission believe, by military higher-ups and members of the Bush administration who spoke to the press, and later the commission itself, in order to downplay the extent of the confusion and miscommunication flying through the ranks of the government.

The truth, however, is all on tape.

Through the heat of the attack the wheels of what were, perhaps, some of the more modern pieces of equipment in the room—four Dictaphone multi-channel reel-to-reel tape recorders mounted on a rack in a corner of the operations floor—spun impassively, recording every radio channel, with time stamps..... http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060801fege01

[Mnemosyne]

1. KnR n/t

[ixion]

2. some salient quotes...and some curious 'coincidences'

"I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so do I.)

-- See, this is where is starts. Oh, that's just a coincidence, so go ahead and dismiss it. But here's the thing: you've got the military standing by for a training mission, then you have people reading 'inputs' into the scenario, some true and some false. What this does is help to build plausible denial, IMO.


But at NEADS, Nasypany's "tracker techs" in the Surveillance section still can't find American 11 on their scopes. As it turns out, this is just as the hijackers intended.

-- So is it just another 'coincidence' that a) the hijackers were adept enough at flying (we know they were not) to evade the radar; and, b) that they knew what type of radar they would encounter, and just how to evade it. That's some coincidence! :eyes:


9:23:15
ANDERSON: They're probably not squawking anything anyway. I mean, obviously these guys are in the cockpit.

NASYPANY: These guys are smart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, they knew exactly what they wanted to do.

-- Again, these incompetent pilots seems to be very adept at, in particular, evading the US military. I find that 'coincidence' curious, at best.


At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that NEADS believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point—one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93—the answer to Nasypany's question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor.

10:10:31

NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…

FOX: I'm not really worried about code words at this point.

NASYPANY: Fuck the code words. That's perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.



-- So, the authority comes back AFTER the 'attack' was over, but is denied before. My...just another one of those 'coincidences', I guess.


FOX: We're trying to get the Z-point. We're trying to find it.

HUCKABONE: I don't even know where the White House is.

CITINO: Whatever it is, it's very low. It's probably a helicopter.

MALE VOICE: It's probably the helicopter you're watching there.… There's probably one flying over the .

MALE VOICE: It's probably the smoke. The building's smoked.

HUCKABONE: Holy shit.… Holy shit …CITINO: Yes. We saw that. O.K.—let's watch our guys, Huck. Not the TV.… Quit 2-6, status? SD, they're too low. I can't talk to 'em. They're too low. I can't talk to 'em.

FOX: Negative clearance to fire.

CITINO: O.K. I told 'em mission is ID and that was it.

FOX: Do whatever you need to divert. They are not cleared to fire.



-- Not cleared, until AFTER the plane struck the pentagon. Another interesting thing here: These guys deal with US airspace everyday, but didn't have a clue about the topography of DC. Apparently, though, the hijackers knew just where to fly. Just another 'coincidence', I guess.

And in the end, we have this:

"A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office told me that the investigation had been completed, but he wasn't at liberty to share the findings, because the report had not been finalized. A spokesman at the Pentagon's inspector general's office said its investigation had also been completed, but the results are classified."


Gee, and people wonder why some of us do not believe the 'official' narrative. For me, there are just too many 'coincidences'.

[druidity33]

3. wow...

intense stuff... a devastating read.

K&R

[indepat]

4. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will set us free

of the clutches of this extreme RW agenda.

[Festivito]

5. I feel better. But, it does show need for more investigation.

These controllers were sitting in front of machines not meant for something like 9/11. We do not have computer tracking of each plane such that when it disappears and loses transponder, the computer attempts to place it with short radar bursts of unidentified aircraft.

They did not know where the planes were, and by the time they did and transferred the information, the planes had moved.

Okay, I can understand a little better about why no interceptors reached the planes.

Still, the article needs an overview reminder of when each plane started and when each plane was hijacked. Also, needed to mention the tapes that were destroyed.

Why did people spin their answers to the 9/11 commission? Culture? Orders?
Did the 9/11 commission investigate why when and who made a test for that day?

We need another 9/11 investigation. If 9/11 was important to anyone. ..ahem..

[angstlessk]

6. So do enemy planes have to have transponders for NORAD to track them?

If so, we certainly need to re-evaluate our system of defense.

[ixion]

7. precisely

maybe Mr. Moustache at the UN can call for a Man Date. :rofl:

[Festivito]

10. A transponder would be nice. Following from abroad is easy also.

9/11 was hard to track. Our defense system is ready to track fast, stealthy jets that come from Russia or some other country that we sit there and monitor and worry if they go off a screen. 9/11 was from inside our country. Using a lumbering jet. Yes, that is harder to find among several thousand lumbering jets. Flying below radar -- harder yet.

Finding Payne Stewart's plane was easy. Stuck on a single course, single altitude. Still it took an hour if you account for the Eastern to Central time zone being used in the middle of the timing descriptions.

Yes we will need better defense.

[Raster]

17. I have flown from New York, DC, and Boston Logan many times. I have

a couple of acquaintances that are pilots. They absolutely shake their heads at the idea that we just could not locate the high jacked jets. The Eastern corridor is the most tightly controlled airspace on the planet. They can trace a small Cessna at low altitudes in that air corridor. A commercial jet is too large to miss. Those planes were allowed to reach their targets.

[Festivito]

20. Possibility. I'll keep an open mind.

But,
Pilots are not air traffic controllers.
That you have flown from certain airports does not mean that you know how well controlled the airspace might be, nor how high the radars can detect.

Cessnas travel high enough for radar.

The terrorists were likely feeling like cowboys. Turning low would leave the plane on a heading not easily connected to its original heading.

Now, that unidentifiable dot should have been the hijacked jet, but some did not know there was more than one hijack simultaneously. And, that dot might have gone in and out with only a projected path that the hijackers kept changing.

The planes were allowed to reach the targets, but not from these guys.

[BridgeTheGap]

15. Of course, their (NORAD) answer to this is:

"We are set up to look for enemies coming from outside the country."
Evidently ground radar can see the blips, but with out the transponders, they can't i.d. them. That was part of the problem on 9/11 - alot of traffic in the air - how do you direct fighter air craft to them? You give general headings, speed and approx location. It makes sense that this would be a difficult task.

[petgoat]

22. "We are set up to look for enemies coming from outside the country."

Is that what the 9/11 Commission said? I know apologists for NORAD on this and other
boards have said it.

Major Nasypany's claim that he was looking for flight 11 in a 3,000 blip haystack seems
to contradict the claim that the radar system was set up to look outside.

[petgoat]

8. "why no interceptors reached the planes."

Here's what the article says:

They didn't reach flight 11 because they were still sitting on the ground.

They didn't reach flight 175 because the NY controllers watched it go out of course
and head for NYC and it took them 6 minutes to tell NEADS about it.

They didn't reach 77 because when they launched the planes from Langley nobody told
them where to go or what they were looking for, so the pilots went to their usual
offshore training coordinates; also they only found out 77 was missing 3 minutes before
it hit the Pentagon and only found that an unidentified plane was in the Pentagon
area a minute and half before it hit the Pentagon (and this notice came from Boston
Center!)

They didn't reach 93 because though three planes had been flown into buildings and
Cheney was informed of 93 at 10:02, nobody at FAA bothered to inform NEADS about it
until 10:07.

Why did people spin their answers to the 9/11 commission?

Bronner's answer seems to be that they lied to give the impression that the Air Force
was on on top of the situation. If so, you've got Marr, Scott, Arnold, and Nasyparney
all essentially telling the same lie.

I'm not convinced they lied. Pittsburgh evacuated the control tower because 93 was
perceived as a threat, and yet nobody informed NEADS? NORM Mineta says Cheney was
already in the White House bunker at 9:20, apparently discussing a shoot-down order
with a young man. The 9/11 Commission seems to be going to great lengths to make it
appear impossible that 93 was shot down--apparently in an attempt to protect Cheney
from the obvious hypothesis that he gave the order before he was authorized by the
President.

[Festivito]

13. It seems reasonable to me now. But, ...

Article did not deal well with the plane that had the microphone on constantly. They should have been able to trace it better. Yet, they probably had little procedure with which to trace it by broadcast interpolation. So, when it when off course and the mike was on, I assume both happened close together, there was no way to track it for some time. If from outside the country it would likely travel in a straight line hoping to make its run as short as possible, not so on 9/11. They didn't know what it was nor where to send escorts.

The Air Farce heads did a wrong thing lying. Publicly, yes, saying they are on top of it could be to keep enemies from thinking we, the US, had a security hole. A secret briefing should have made the rest more clear to the commission.

But, the timing of the exercise still bothers me. Who set it up, who chose the date.

[Raster]

9. You feel better? About what? ?...machines not meant for something

like 9/11." Certain government agencies have supercomputers so vast and powerful they are able to monitor thousands of telephone conversations at the same time and alert analysts that certain words or phrases have been used in a potentially suspicious way. Other government agencies have supercomputers that can create weather simulations so accurate that weather projects can be posted for some areas for years. The United States no longer has to physically test atomic weaponry because ultra sophisticated computers are able to model nuclear reaction and subsequent destruction within the "kill zone" down to projected body counts. That said, I find it extremely hard to believe that NORAD technology--specifically airspace radar tracking--would be so inadequate. There are two primary paradigms when dealing with 9/11: (a) terrible tragedy wrought by enemies of America armed only with box cutters that were able--primary through astounding runs of good luck, coincidence and shitty technological junctures--to bring the vaunted air defense capabilities of the wealthiest, most militarized, most technically advanced nation on Earth to its knees; or, (b) the official stories do not pass the smell test, and much more than just the hijackers were at work that day.

on edit: I am firmly in the camp of the latter. Far too often when it comes to all things bush*, from initial (s)election, to 9/11, to Iraq, to New Orleans/Katrina, we are bought off with coincidence and incompetence. Enough.

[Festivito]

12. I like that it seem real enough it COULD have been surprised people.

I still think the Bush admin had an idea that this was coming. The futures investments show that, along with the lack of investigation of who did know enough to make those investments.

We could all arm ourselves with box cutters before 9/11. My family would always re-box items at the airport cutting and taping boxes slipping the knife into a pocket before boarding.

And, the people sitting behind those fast computers and high-tech screens were not prepared for an internal threat. Had there been a rocket or unusual plane launched from a questionable country we'd been all over it.

Oh, there are some bad smells from that day. But, the controllers did have a tough time, and this doesn't smell as bad as I worried it might. I'd still like more information on the destroyed tapes, and a lot more.

[BridgeTheGap]

14. It still gets me

Where were the leaders/commanders? Secretary of Defenses, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
We know where Bush was and his excuses for not going back to D.C. are so lame - as was his continuing to read the Goat Story. Haven't they have ever watched "West Wing?" With something this major going on, their asses should have been in the situation room, pronto! Derelection of duty, at a minimum.
Also, read the testimony of the Norad General, and Gen. Meyers, at the Congressional Confirmation Hearings, just days after 9/11, for Meyers as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was strictly "cover your ass" type stuff.
Mike Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" is a great read on 9/11.
Yes, indeed, there is a stench here!

[Raster]

16. I will go to my grave believing certain persons within and out of the

bush* administration knew *SOMETHING* was coming. The evidence, though circumstantial, is overwhelming. No doubt persons at the air traffic controller level were just doing their jobs. Most persons at various governmental levels were just doing their jobs. And most importantly, some persons at various black and grey levels in certain areas were also doing their jobs. Like I said, there are two paradigms when examining 9/11. "How could this have happened?' and "How can we make this happen?" To loosely paraphrase Obi-wan, "use your intuition, ignore the distractions and obfuscations--trust your feelings." None of us WANT to believe that there are persons--perhaps even in our own government--that would be so callous and wanton with human life as to perpetuate a disaster the caliber of 9/11 for political and monetary gain. But for one moment put aside your pollyanna hopes and examine the circumstances in the cold, hard light of day. Once you take that step, you can NEVER go back. And that's a step that most--at least now--do not want to take.

[BridgeTheGap]

19. Ask yourself this:

What would Machiaveli do?

[Raster]

23. Exactly what happened. Create a disaster of unprecedented destruction

with just the right show amount of horror and pathos. Set up a willing villain. Use the momentum and outrage to firmly entrench your sycophants and agents, yielding tremendous monetary advantage and hamstring any investigation. Without 9/11, bush* would have been a one-hit wonder, JUST LIKE HIS FATHER. The difference is bush*-the-younger would have gone down in history as one of the worst, most incompetent frauds 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had ever seen.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. Good book to read

I just read the book "Cover Up" by journalist Peter Lance. Many, many unanswered questions by the 9/11 Commission. What did they cover-up? At a bare minimum, gross negligence. But it's probably far more sinister than the "gross negligence." 9/11 was the "Pearl Harbor type event" that PNAC needed to set it's whole hegemony foreign policy in motion. I don't know if they "did it" but I'm willing to bet that they knew it was coming. Bush admitted as much when he copped to seeing the first plane hit the tower. The only way that could have happened is through a closed circuit feed...they had cameras trained on the WTC, waiting.
Why is it that Bush said this twice in public but was never called on it? After the second occurence, he choked on the pretzel and got his face scuffed up on the coffee table. Yeah, sure. Sounds like uncle Dick might have been a little pissed off at what * was saying in public. He implicated them twice and NO ONE has called him on it.

[flyarm]

18. excellent book!! i suggest it often on DU..it should be a must read

for all Americans!!

fly

[Raster]

21. There's all kinds of things no one was called on. The one thing that

still sends me REELING is the lengths bush*, bushco*, the BFEE* and their collaborators have gone to discourage investigation. One would think that the (p)Resident* of the United States would DO EVERYTHING in their power to accurately answer questions and seek the truth, not cover and dodge at every turn. NEVER FORGET it was the Jersey Girls, John Conyers, the Congressional Black Caucus and a pitiful few others that demanded investigation. If not for them, there would never have been a 9/11 commission, such as it were.
--------------------------

An Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice
Re: 9-11 investigation and Commission testimony ... You knew. You kept silent. They died.

by Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I


Hon. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

April 9, 2004

Dear Ms. Rice:

I am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Point #1: You are a liar.

Attorney General Ashcroft sits on the National Security Council. Warned by his FBI security detail, the head of law enforcement for the United States knew to avoid commercial airlines on September 11, 2001.

It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people who flew on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 had the benefit of the same warnings as those they paid to protect us.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

You had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 – sufficient to let the American people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect themselves from a possible attack. It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people in the South Tower of the World Trade Center had the knowledge they needed to evacuate their building upon seeing the North Tower hit by a plane.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

Point #2: Your motives are transparent.

The World Trade Center is in the heart of New York City – one of the great financial capitals of the world. The Pentagon is in the heart of Washington -- the appropriation and accounting capital for the US federal budget and credit and the US Treasury – the largest issuer of securities in the world.

Unlike many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose family, friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work. Victim families, friends and the residents of the communities directly harmed can calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace the flow of money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the profits your supporters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can calculate how 9-11 profiteering connects to the financing and silence of corporate media.

Those personally impacted and the global researchers they network with have the intellectual power and personal courage to ask and answer, “Cui Bono?” (Who Benefits?) They understand that your success as National Security Advisor is as a direct result of your failure to stop 9-11. They can see how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicate that put you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so richly paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus and the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.

All the campaign ads in the world can not now convince the American people that you have their best interests at heart.

Point #3: You are going down.

The richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance. They pay you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they use it to centralize economic and political power. That means they need liars who are better at lying than you.

The myth that you had no idea that Americans deserved to be warned about the risks of flying or planes being used as weapons is now in the dust heap with the notion that the United States attacked Iraq and our soldiers are dying to protect us from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Your lies of 9-11 – like your lies about the Iraqi war – have been profitable for the military-banking complex you represent. These lies, however, have not misled the crowd. The American people and global citizens are looking for the truth. We demand the changes that will give meaning and honor to those who died on 9-11 and in the ensuing wars. We demand an end to further bloodshed. We demand a refund of all that you and your backers have stolen from those of us who remain alive.

Point #4: You are guilty of criminal gross negligence.

If you want to catch a terrorist today, you need look no further than your own mirror.

Many Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our sins and gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.


Sincerely Yours,

Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I
President
Solari, Inc.
PO Box 157
Hickory Valley, TN 38042
731.764.2515
[e-mail]



Letter Submitted:

White House Webmail: https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm
E-mail cc to:
President George W. Bush: [e-mail];
Vice President Richard Cheney: [e-mail];
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Tel: [phone]

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407
[phone]
[e-mail]

Background Articles:

Ashcroft Flying High
CBS News
Washington DC, July 26, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

A Historical Whitewash?
by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine, November 24, 2003
http://www.insightmag.com/news/565658.html

If the World Was Talking, Why Didn't We Listen?
by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine, November 24, 2003
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=565664

9-11 Profiteering
by Catherine Austin Fitts
Scoop Media, March 22, 2004
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00244.htm

A Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal
by Catherine Austin Fitts
Scoop Media, October 6, 2003
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00038.htm

Where is the Money?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org

[yurbud]

24. did he cover Rumsfeld change intercept rules that summer before 9/11?

That was an odd one. It required civilian approval to even launch whereas they used to only need it to use deadly force.