America's air defense pre-911

[hack89]

There is not a lot of hard info about our air defense system on 911 so consequently any discussion on the matter quickly disintegrates. How about if someone give me a quick run down how the 911 truth community thinks America's air defenses were organized on 9/11 so we have a common starting point? Simple things like how many dedicated strip alert fighters were there and where were they based.

While you are at it, I have asked many times in this forum if there was any evidence of any military interception of airliners over the continental US (with the exception of Payne Stewart). Was 9/11 the first time that the Air Force ever tried to intercept a lost or hijacked airliner over land? There doesn't seem to be much evidence to the contrary.

And please, lets try to avoid the "if I ran the zoo" kind of logic. It is completely irrelevant how you and I think it should have happened - lets just find hard evidence one way or the other.

Looking forward to your replies.

[bushatbooker]

1. 67 times between Sept '00 and June '01

From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20020812-1404-attacks-faamilitary.html

[Jazz2006]

3. That's not really responsive to the question....

I've seen that link before and while it says they "scrambled" 67 times, it says nothing at all about intercepting airplanes, which is what the question was referring to.

The only intercept I've ever found any reference to is the Payne Stewart incident.

Do you have anything at all to suggest that there have been other intercepts in the time frame referenced?

[bushatbooker]

4. Clarify his question if you can

Does he mean any evidence a military plane was scrambled to assist a distressed commercial airliner?

[Jazz2006]

5. Seems it needs no clarification but I'll cut and paste it if that helps

"I have asked many times in this forum if there was any evidence of any military interception of airliners over the continental US (with the exception of Payne Stewart). Was 9/11 the first time that the Air Force ever tried to intercept a lost or hijacked airliner over land?"

[mirandapriestly]

7. bushatbooker

don't worry about "harassers" on this forum. Check out the post count and match it up with how long the person has been here. Lots of posts in a very short time means: trouble maker.

[hack89]

17. The question is whether armed, strip alert fighters ..

dedicated to the air defense mission have every been scrambled to intercept any commercial air craft over land

[bushatbooker]

19. It would be silly to not think they haven't or

haven't trained for it.

I don't get the importance of your question.

[hack89]

23. It is important because if it had never happened before 911 ..

it would explain a lot of the confusion on 911.

I find it significant that there was no over land ADIZ before 911 - that tells me that the air force was not trained or organized to do intercepts over land.

The Payne Stewart incident is further proof that the air force was not organized to conduct rapid intercepts overland.

I think the evidence points at America's air defense prior to 911 being completely oriented outwards to intercept and identify strange aircraft before they reached our shores.

I have searched a lot and cannot find a single report of an intercept of a commercial airliner over American soil.

The fact that you think it is silly is a classic example of "if I ran the zoo." The governent routinely does things that are "silly". Not to be rude but I am interested in your evidence, not your feelings.

[bushatbooker]

27. If you don't think our military has trained for this, than I...

have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


And guess what else our military has trained for...

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Hmmm, the WTC and Pentagon. Must be just a "coincidence."

I like that quote at the end, "that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic." I totally agree!!! I think it's unrealistic that a 757 hit the Pentagon too!

[hack89]

29. You need to read a little closer...

From your link:

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

[bushatbooker]

32. So?

the planes would eventually come over US land. You don't think they had a "domestic version" of that exercise?

Our military has known about jets used as missiles since the mid-90's at least.

The confusion on 9/11 came with all the war games going on simulating what actually happened that day. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[hack89]

35. No - if they were a threat

they would be shot down over water. It looks to me like the confusion was because they had no experience with intercepting planes that were overland. For example, when the Langley fighters took off, because they had no definite target, they headed out to sea per their standard operating procedures.

[bushatbooker]

37. The confussion was the multiple War Games going on

so it shouldn't be so hard to understand why all the confusion.

[hack89]

38. But I have not seen proof of confusion ...

other than one watch officer asking "is this a drill?" . The question was answered in seconds and the watch officer knew exactly what was going on.

There is a lot of chatter about injecting false contacts but they usually reflect a poor knowledge of how FAA and military radars / command and control systems work.

[bushatbooker]

39. The timetable suggests the slow response was FAA's fault

which, IMO, would be easier to make them be at fault and not look obvious than the military.

Maybe that's why those FAA supervisors destroyed tapes?

It's also obvious that Rumsfeld was at fault for going outside to help Pentagon victims instead of doing his job of ordering shoot downs like he specifically changed the rules when he first got in.

Pleeease tell me you don't buy the "confusion/not prepared" excuse our gov't is feeding us.

[hack89]

40. Well, I don't have a lot of confidence in the competence

of our government so given a choice between them fucking up 911 or masterminding a complex plot and cover up, I vote for them fucking up.

[bushatbooker]

41. So if it was just a screw up, then how many gov't officials

were demoted or fired for screwing up so royally that day?

[Shoestring]

22. Here's another account of a pre-9/11 interception

http://www.1staf.tyndall.af.mil/defender/April98/lost.htm

This took place over the sea. But I'm sure the same skills are required to intercept over sea as over land. After all, interception takes place way up in the sky. It shouldn't make any difference what is thousands of feet below you.

[hack89]

25. All the evidence seems to point towards no intercepts over land.

thanks

[bushatbooker]

28. So why doesn't the Payne Stewart intercept count?

and other than that one, has a commercial airliner ever been hijacked over US land which would need armed jetfighters to intercept?

[hack89]

31. It took over an hour ..

and was done by unarmed planes that were already airborne on routine flights.

It has been stated many times in this forum that FAA standard procedures dictate that airliners are intercepted for many reasons including going off course or losing communications - in other words, intercepts were routine and 911 was a clear violation of standard procedures.

[bushatbooker]

33. So what is your whole point about your thread?

Maybe I'm just not getting what you're asking about?

[mirandapriestly]

2. the standard operating procedure was not followed

that is all I'm going to say. Over and over again, the same stuff....

[hack89]

14. So provide a link to the SOP so we all can understand. nt

[orleans]

6. Ding Ding Ding!! check this out:

"Since 9-11, NORAD has launched or diverted over 1,900 aircraft to intercept unauthorized aircraft in the FRZ. " (FRZ=flight restricted zone)

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-15-05/03-15-05memo.html
or cached
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fNWASantpw0J:www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-15-05/03-15-05memo.html+faa+intercept+hazards&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
and the date of this looks like march 15 2005

so, to answer one of your questions i would say that yes, there is evidence that the military intercepts airlines on a regular basis!

and if we've done it so often since 9/11 how can you doubt we never did it before 9/11 regarding our frz?


"interception is a routine matter that occurs over a hundred times a year" (david ray griffin, the new pearl harbor, page 6 in paperback)

"I have asked many times in this forum if there was any evidence of any military interception of airliners over the continental US (with the exception of Payne Stewart). Was 9/11 the first time that the Air Force ever tried to intercept a lost or hijacked airliner over land? There doesn't seem to be much evidence to the contrary."

do i win a prize?

[greyl]

8. Dong Dong Dong!! :)

That says "Since 9/11". The OP says "pre-9/11".

[orleans]

9. Duh! don't "dong dong dong" me; read my post again

the second paragraph in the op says "while you are at it," and continues on to make another point, not specifying "pre" 9/11; the question, as it was phrased, asks do we intercept AT ALL and the answer is yes.

"I have asked many times in this forum if there was any evidence of any military interception of airliners over the continental US (with the exception of Payne Stewart)"

that quote does NOT say "since 9/11"

the op goes on to say: "Was 9/11 the first time that the Air Force ever tried to intercept a lost or hijacked airliner over land?"

and because, within 3 1/2 years we intercepted over 1900 it would be absurd to think we never did before as we had restricted airspace before 9/11. (restricted airspace in dc has been around for years; restricted airspace over disneyland is a new concept--why would there be over 1900 accidental violations of the airspace since 9/11 and none prior?)

and the quote i used from griffin's book was in reference to 9/11--the quote would not make sense if we had just started to intercept since 9/11; the quote implies that interception was a fairly routine task at the time of 9/11

[greyl]

10. Read your link, and put the bell away. nt

[orleans]

11. yeah, you're right. i just read my link--and who believes the

fucking government with their bullshit 9/11 story anyway?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Classic.

When the government says something that "supports" what you believe, you call out the town crier and ring dem bells.

When you see that it doesn't support what you say at all, it's the "fucking government with their bullshit 9/11 story".

I think a few rounds of Kent Triple Bob is in order...

[orleans]

24. uh...i was being sarcastic--but i guess that wasn't obvious

sorry, i forgot to put the :sarcasm: sign in here so you could understand my point.

i believe it's called "irony"--which was directed for those who believe the government's official 9/11 story but don't believe the government's report about intercepting over 1900 airplanes

btw:
"ring dem bells"? (is that suppose to be a slam on my politics, a racist slam, or what exactly? i guess i don't understand what *you're* implying by using the word "dem" in this context)

[Bolo Boffin]

30. I confess.

I like jazz music. Sue me.

[hack89]

13. "Since 911" ? - what about pre-911?

looks like a response to 911 to me - has it occurred to you that there have been significant changes since 911? A FRZ is part of a an ADIZ (air defense intercept zone) - since there was no ADIZ over land pre 911 how could there be a FRZ?

Also, when flying in Maryland, stay away from the Washington D.C. area, far away, unless you would like a complete revocation of your license. More specifically, your instructor's license can be revoked if you are a student. This is just one of those post 911 adjustments pilots today must keep in mind. Keep in mind because of 911, there has been in place a Washington D.C. Metropolitan ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) and a FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) each with their own specified boundaries. If you are flying in this area of Maryland, you absolutely need to know where these boundaries are located.

http://pilotportalusa.atspace.com/flight_schools_northeast_part3.html

Griffen provides no evidence for his statement.

[orleans]

18. the adiz was put into effect after 9/11; before 9/11 there were frz

i've read this in several articles that i've found on google

your comment implies that there was no such thing as a frz before 9/11. but there was. the frz were EXPANDED after 9/11.

"A few FAA reports quote pilots who said they didn't know the no-fly zone had widened.

On Sept. 21, a pilot from Georgia flew over Hagerstown on his way to Morristown, N.J. He veered into the restricted zone as he changed course toward Lancaster, Pa.

"Pilot said he was unaware that P40 had been increased ...," a report states.

An Oct. 8 report on a Delaware pilot reads, "Airman does not believe briefer told him of the enhancement of the P-40 from 3-mile radius to 8-mile radius."

Two other pilots reported similar problems about a week later."

http://www.herald-mail.com/FOI/articles/nofly.phtml

[orleans]

20. also "FAA officials stated that the number and severity

of disciplinary actions imposed on pilots violating TFR's have increased since September 11. However, FAA officials were unable to provide statistical information on the number and severity of disciplinary actions for pilots violating TFR's before or since September 11."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05144.pdf

(tfr=temporary flight restrictions)

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Your questions are difficult to answer

Since the proof is usually 'classified' information and not the sort of thing that's reported in the press. It's not like NORAD calls up CNN everytime they intercept a plane. Or that any of us know what sort of air defense system was in place around DC prior to 9-11. So we are left we bits and pieces of info that we can dig up out of press reports. Everyone knew about the Payne Stewart story because he was famous and the story of the intercept was national news. At the time, I can remember the talking airheads claiming that intercepts were sent out within 10 minutes of a flight going off course, or not responding.

Anywhere, here's one bit that I've found in a press report from the Telegraph that was published on 9/13/01 which mentions an air defense system being in place around DC to protect the WH. I would assume the same system would also protect the Pentagon and Congress but so far that is an assumption.

White House staff ran for their lives as hijack jet approached
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 13/09/2001)

The evacuation was ordered because air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport had reported that Flight 77 had diverted from its flight path towards San Francisco and was heading at full throttle towards the restricted airspace above the White House, two miles from the Pentagon.

Although White House defence plans are of the highest security classification, it is believed that a missile system is in place in the capital to shoot down any incoming object aimed at the president's residence and offices.

One White House source said he understood that Flight 77 had been on the verge of being blown out of the sky when it suddenly banked 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MUB4TUUPYG5CXQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/13/wpent113.xml

[sgsmith]

15. Pre 9/11

I don't have a military background, but try to keep current on space activities by reading AWST. That magazine covers a lot of military stuff that's intesting reading. Having said that...

Pre 9/11, America was basically basking in a feeling of invulnerability. The military foes that developed out of WW-II were the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent China. Since the military was strong, and had lots of bases in foreign lands (Germany, Italy, England, S. Vietnam, Phillipines, Japan, etc.) the defense posture was one of fight on foreign soils. The only was Russia could attack was via long range bombers and missiles. The Russians weren't going to be able to mass armies on our northern or southern border were they?

Thus a outward looking series of radar stations were created in places like Alaska. If bombers were coming, detect them over the Bering Strait and use the distance of Alaska and Canada to allow for a fighting zone. Similiarily, an attack from submarines based in the North Sea would have to get by Iceland, Greenland and the UK, so radar and sonar stations were set up to identify an attack from a distance, and use the open oceans to fight the war.

So, pre 9/11, the only ADIZ were out to sea, and were monitored for inbound aircraft. Intercepter crews were trained to go to the enemy, which would have been out to sea, and attack from long distances. The presumption was that a lot of unidentified radar returns weren't a bunch of British Airways flights that hadn't filed flight plans, but would be Bear bombers.

But a funny thing happened. Peace (or at least a reasonable fascimilie). The Soviet Union fell apart, the wars in Vietnam and Korea ended, and there didn't appear to be any country capable of long range attack. From what I've read, the defense posture was restructured to be smaller. The local fighter bases that would provide intercept at sea capability were cut back both in number, and in number of aircraft on alert. I've seen references that said there were 7 bases and a total of 14 aircraft on alert prior to 9/11.

Internally, attacks weren't seen as a reasonable threat. No commercial airliner had been hijacked for a long time. In fact, hijackings around the world were few and far between. And what hijackings did occur were for financial gain (D.B. Cooper), or political (flights to Cuba). Commercial air traffic was a thriving business, with hundreds of flights per day into the three airports around DC. And airliner traffic was becoming much safer with fewer accidents and less loss of life. Even the General Aviation aircraft like Payne Stewart's Learjet were safer, with most accidents occurring in either takeoff or landing.

So basically, I'm saying that the threats were seen to be external, were declining in likelihood of occurance, and the military reorganized to be smaller in response. There wasn't much of a need to intercept aircraft internally, because equipment didn't break down and hijackings were passee.

[Shoestring]

16. NORAD before 9/11...

How about if someone give me a quick run down how the 911 truth community thinks America's air defenses were organized on 9/11 so we have a common starting point? Simple things like how many dedicated strip alert fighters were there and where were they based. I have asked many times in this forum if there was any evidence of any military interception of airliners over the continental US (with the exception of Payne Stewart). Was 9/11 the first time that the Air Force ever tried to intercept a lost or hijacked airliner over land? There doesn't seem to be much evidence to the contrary.

I think the following quote goes some way towards answering your question. This is from the December 1999 issue of Airman magazine:

Dowdy belongs to the 125th Fighter Wing, a Florida Air National Guard unit nicknamed the FANG based at Jacksonville, Fla., but flies out of Homestead Air Reserve Base just south of Miami, supporting the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s air sovereignty mission.

Day or night, 24-7, a pair of pilots and two crew chiefs stand alert in a secure compound on Homestead, the base Hurricane Andrew nearly razed in August 1992. Within minutes, the crew chiefs can launch the pilots and send them on their way to intercept “unknown riders,” whether they’re Cuban MiGs, drug traffickers, smugglers, hijackers, novice pilots who’ve filed faulty flight plans or crippled aircraft limping in on a wing and a prayer.

“If needed, we could be killing things in five minutes or less,” said Capt. Tom “Pickle” Herring, a full-time alert pilot.

But almost without exception, the only thing FANG fliers shoot are photos — pictures to help identify aircraft or for evidence in drug smuggling cases. The typical scramble often reveals an inexperienced private pilot at the controls, flying off course after vacationing in the Bahamas.

“Sometimes when we show up, a pilot might radio air traffic controllers and give his position and say, ‘Hey, by the way, there’s a couple of F-15s on my wing, and they’re too d----- close,’ ” Herring said. “Yeah, there’s a reason we’re up here, you bozo!”

... The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.

Active units pull similar duties outside the mainland. In fact last September, a two-ship flight of F-15 Eagles based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, stared down a pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers as they vectored toward the Alaskan coast. The bombers hightailed it home when the American Eagles closed within 90 miles.

“We don’t let other aircraft — zero — penetrate our air space without being monitored or escorted,” Herring said. “That’s why we have weapons on our jets. We need to be postured such that no one would dare threaten us ... and nobody better.”
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm

[orleans]

26. thanks. nice find. n/t

[hack89]

34. This seems to indicate that US interception efforts were ..

oriented towards intercepting and identify aircraft as they approached the US - note that there are no inland airbases involved.

[Shoestring]

36. I think they included planes both entering the US airspace...

and those already within it. For example, the Airman article includes as potential intercept targets: "novice pilots who’ve filed faulty flight plans or crippled aircraft limping in on a wing and a prayer." So these would include planes above the US, not just flights over water.

Also, NORAD's mission (as reported in March 1999) included: "providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States."
http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=374806&Language=E

So they would surely have prepared to deal with hostile or suspicious aircraft above the US, as a major part of their mission was protecting this airspace.