[From www.DNotice.org ]

The NORAD Papers VI

Unnoticed Passages In The 9/11 Commission Report Destroys NORAD’s And Popular Mechanic’s Contention That NORAD Did Not Monitor Flights Originating Within Domestic Airspace On September 11, 2001

In the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) magazine an article appeared titled Debunking the 9/11 Myths which, according to the article’s subtitle, “…examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.”1 In the section dealing with NORAD, titled No Stand-Down Order, the article explains NORAD’s seemingly lackluster response to the September 11 attacks with the following:

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says [Major Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD]. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.2

In previous supplements of The NORAD Papers (at www.DNotice.org), I posted articles/documents published before September 11, 2001 that positively affirmed NORAD’s robust monitoring capabilities over the territorial airspace of the United States. These pre-911 articles/documents affirmed that NORAD tracked all aircraft (both foreign and domestic flights originating in the United States) over the air space of the United States. Recently, however, I regrettably discovered that I was not the first to learn of NORAD’s true monitoring capabilities over the United States and write about it. To my surprise, The 9/11 Commission Report3 was the first to detail NORAD’s true monitoring capabilities over the airspace of the United States.

With respect to interagency collaboration between the FAA and NORAD in the event of a hijacking on any give day before September 11, 2001, the commission report says of NORAD’s radar tracking abilities for hijacked flights originating within the United States:

NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar [radar that PM refers to above as the radar sites that “ringed the continent”.4] or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility [Notice that Major Martin and PM say nothing about these other FAA air traffic control facilities that also provided NORAD with tracking information.]. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it.5

As for the actual day of September 11, 2001, the commission report says of NORAD’s radar tracking abilities for flights originating within the United States:

F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.6

Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away.7

NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground.8

NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it.9

The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that NORAD’s ground radar tracking capabilities for detecting aircraft originating within the United States was operational on September 11, 2001. Of course, this was no secret. NORAD’s tracking on radar of all aircraft flying within the United States was a matter of public record. As such, any terrorist organization that planned to attack the United States would never have chosen an airborne venue for their operation. Such an operation would have a low probability of success. Any real foreign terrorist attack on the United States would have been confined to the ground or waterways.

Thanks to The 9/11 Commission Report’s assessment of NORAD on September 11, 2001, we now know two things:

1. For the first time we have verifiable proof that a grand conspiracy exits to cover up the identity of the real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks; and
2. PM has shown itself to be a witting tool for the elements within the Federal government who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

This is the breakthrough the 9/11 Truth Movement has been waiting for for over eight years now; positive proof that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were staged false-flag events. It should not surprise anyone that the NORAD angle of 9/11 Truth would be the initial catalyst that overturned the official version of what transpired on September 11, 2001. After all, the NORAD angle of 9/11 Truth is the only angle that had an extensive written history going back long before September 11, 2001 that explained exactly what NORAD’s missions were.

1. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
2. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3
3. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf
4. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/arsr-4.htm
5. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf, Page 18.
6. Ibid, Page 20.
7. Ibid, Page 27.
8. Ibid, Page 30.
9. Ibid, Page 28.

Read More At www.DNotice.org