| http://eyesonamerica.org/200202/02022601.html
*** NORAD vs. FAA -- Who Sees What? *** Operation 9-11 was used as a pretext for the War on Islam. The success of Operation9-11 depended on NORAD not showing up on time and leaving the skies wide open for attack. But NORAD's role had to be hidden. It needed plausible denial. NORAD needed a plausible explanation for why it failed to show up that day. The solution? Blame the FAA. Claim the FAA did not notify NORAD of the hijackings in a timely manner and -- pooof! Therefore it was important to establish that NORAD was totally dependent on the FAA for information on air traffic within the US, that NORAD was blind to internal US airspace, and (2) the FAA failed to notify NORAD of its problems in a timely fashion. Sen. Allard asked the question that set up the "NORAD can't see in" excuse: "My understanding now (sic) that NORAD has made some effort to get direct access to FAA radar data. In the past, you've not had access to that? What's the status of that?" Allard thus implied that NORAD did not have radar access of its own and depended on the FAA. Eberhart follows this lead and responds with obfuscation and a tap dance. He says, in part, "Yes, sir. Again, in the past, we've had access to what we call the Joint Surveillance System, which is that system that rings the United States and looks out. It looks for that foreign threat. It looks for someone coming into our airspace that's not authorized." Let's stop right there. Eberhart is implying NORAD can't see within US airspace, that NORAD "looks out" only. Lets turn to Chapter 7 of FAA Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Effective Date November 3, 1998) http://www.faa.gov/Atpubs/MIL Chapter 7 deals exclusively with hijacking procedures. Section 7-4-2 s says in part: "When the hijacking activity is within coverage of the NORAD surveillance system . . . " Obviously the FAA/NORAD surveillance jurisdictions overlap. Section 7-4-3 says in part "When the hijacking activity takes place outside NORAD radar coverage within the continental United States . . . " Obviously NORAD does have radar coverage of at least some part of the continental US. Both sections indicate that NORAD conducts airspace surveillance within the United States. Yet Eberhart said NORAD just "looks out." So we know Eberhart is not telling the truth. Consider the following: * "NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent," say the Canadians. They should know, they're part of NORAD. To confirm, visit the Canadian Defense website, "Canada-United States Defense Regulations." http://www.dnd.ca/menu/canada-us/bg00.010_e.htm or http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad * Eberhart wants us to believe that once an "unauthorized aircraft" (a foreign bomber, perhaps) crossed into the U.S or Canada, NORAD could not see the bomber anymore, for NORAD only "looks out." We are supposed to believe, perhaps, NORAD called upon the FAA and depended on civilians to track the bomber? Recall what the Canadian Defence website tells us: "NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent." No, NORAD must have been able to continuously track the bomber to direct fighter jets or missiles to intercept it or shoot it down. NORAD must have been able to see internal US airspace. * NORAD may have monitored all aircraft entering US and Canadian airspace, even "authorized" aircraft. Consider this scenario: A foreign bomber pilot, whose craft was equipped with a transponder, could have conceivably fooled the FAA into believing his craft was a commercial passenger jet. Where would we be then? What would happen if NORAD was ignorant of a craft? Or does Eberhart want us to believe NORAD never thought of such a scenario? * If an enemy ICBM or space-launched vehicle were to enter US airspace, it could enter from high in the earth's atmosphere. NORAD would have to track such a missile as it traveled towards its target. NORAD's radar and sensors must have been able to see and monitor internal US airspace. Or are we are supposed to believe NORAD planned to call upon the FAA to track the ICMB? Once again, to quote the Canadians; "NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent." * In his October 25 testimony, Gen. Eberhart mentions that over the years, NORAD has "moved" 200 NORAD personnel to the FAA to operate FAA radars. Were those NORAD personnel on duty on at FAA radar stations on September 11, and what part did they play in the 9-11 events? * According to a NORAD web page, NORAD's Space Command controls a fleet of satellites "that provide ballistic missile warning, communications, weather and navigation, and positioning support for America's armed forces." Notice that NORAD even watches the weather. So certainly NORAD watches internal US airspace. http://www.gazette.com/military/spacemd/spacemai.html or http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad-spacecommand * Tyndall Air Force Base tells us that "With advanced technology and sensors, NORAD 'weighed-in' on the war on drugs in 1989 and now works hand-in-hand with law enforcement agencies detecting and tracking airborne drug smugglers." http://www.1staf.tyndall.af.mil/defender/Summer98/forty.htm http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad-drugs Obviously NORAD watched suspicious aircraft flying into US airspace from Mexico and points south. Or are we to believe NORAD programmed its surveillance apparatus to black out signals once the craft entered US airspace and then called upon the FAA for help? Look at the specifics listed above. From these, a conclusion: Of course NORAD watched US airspace. Of course NORAD looked "inward" over the United States. Remember, Eberhart is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Members of that committee should have a vague idea of NORAD's capabilities. Yet none spoke up to ask Eberhart any questions. What NORAD could see on September 11 was glossed over. It had to be. For if anyone questioned Eberhart's statements about NORAD's vision, the cover story justifying the War on Islam would begin to unravel. *** Enter The FAA *** OK. So now we know NORAD is blind as a bat. Can't see nuttin.' Here the next element needed in the NORAD plausible denial story: The bungling FAA. Sen. Levin: "General Eberhart, there's been some confusion about the sequence of events on September 11 that maybe you can clear up for us. The time line that we've been given is that at 8:55 on September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 began turning east, away from its intended course. And at 9:10, Flight 77 was detected by the FAA radar over West Virginia heading east. That was after the two planes had struck the World Trade Center towers." Levin continues: "Then 15 minutes later, at 9:25, the FAA notified NORAD that flight 77 was headed toward Washington. Was that the first notification -- the 9:25 notification -- that NORAD or the DOD had that flight 77 was probably being hijacked? And if it was, do you know why it took 15 minutes for the FAA to notify NORAD?" Look at Levin's last question: " . . . do you know why it took 15 minutes for the FAA to notify NORAD?" If Eberhart has only a sketchy memory of NORAD's business, what good will it do to ask him about FAA business? Sen. Levin is just doing his part in the cover-up by changing the subject from NORAD to the FAA. Eberhart replies: "Sir, there is one minor difference. I show it was 9:24 that we were notified, and that's the first notification that we received. I do not know, sir, why it took that amount of time for FAA. I hate to say it, but you'll have to ask FAA." How interesting. Eberhart cites a specific time -- "9:24" for NORAD's notification. Notice that "9:25" -- the time cited by Sen. Levin -- is not quite precise enough for Eberhart. Compare this precision with Eberhart's trouble in remembering which plane crashed into which target. Let's say it again. While our attention is focused on the FAA's dereliction of duty, we fail to think about the obvious: Washington DC is the hub in the wheel. You don't have to be Tom Clancy to know that. NORAD should have had complete sky coverage of the Washington DC area from the first moments we realized we were under attack at 8:45 a.m. NORAD left the skies open for Flight 77. Had NORAD been doing its job, Flight 77 would not have been able to get anywhere near the Pentagon. *** Patsy Not Even Invited To The Hanging *** We just saw that Gen. Eberhart recommended Sen. Levin ask the FAA questions about its (alleged) slow response to the 9-11 emergency. On February 13, this writer called Sen. Levin's office to see if Sen. Levin followed through. I spoke to Levin aide Jeb Stoffel. Mr. Stoffel told me Sen. Levin had not contacted the FAA director Jane Garvey, but said he wanted to consult his notes to make sure. Mr. Stoffel was off the line for a minute or so to come back to confirm what he had already said: Sen. Levin had not contacted FAA Administrator Jane Garvey concerning events of September 11. *** Meet The "Face" of the FAA: Jane Garvey *** Jane Garvey was appointed administrator of the FAA in 1997. Coincidentally, she served a stint as director of Boston's Logan Airport, the origination point of Flights 11 and 175 that ran into the WTC towers. What a coincidence. See: http://www.faa.gov.apa/bios/garvey.htm http://www.Public-Action.com/911/faa-garvey The press, like Sen. Levin, has apparently not asked Ms. Garvey to answer any potentially embarrassing questions either. On September 24 Jane Garvey flew from Dulles Airport to Kennedy in New York. Her trip was the subject of a puff piece published by Time on September 27 which you can read at: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/donnelly/article/0,9565,176670,00.html http://www.Public-Action.com/911/faa-garvey-time "Garvey, like every other passenger, stood in longer lines, got grilled by newly assertive security guards, and had to show photo identification repeatedly, and was twice 'swept' by a guard with a sensitive metal detector . . . " "And then, that afternoon, as Garvey stood in front of a small group of FAA staff in the New York field office, near walls peppered with the tragic images of the burning World Trade Center Towers and dozens of American flags, she began to explain how grateful she was for the professionalism of the employees . . . " "'I just came to thank you,' said Garvey, who is known for being meticulously prepared for official appearances. She is the pubic face of the FAA. Today was no different -- despite 20 hour days, Garvey was sharply dressed in a pinstripe suit and her makeup was in order . . . " . . . Her voice caught. Tears came to her eyes, 'I know those of you have lost friends and family . . . " Finally, help came from just those Garvey was trying to comfort. 'That's okay, it makes us cry too,' someone said. A few minutes later, Garvey said simply 'We're all still recovering.'" When the going gets rough, those in charge make sure their make-up is perfect. And then they utter platitudes. If 9-11 moves Ms. Jane to tears, why doesn't she open up and tell America what she knows? But no, Ms. Jane keeps her silence, allowing her agency to take the blame for a catastrophe without uttering a peep in its own defense. Recall that in his October 25 testimony, Gen. Eberhart mentioned that NORAD "moved" 200 personnel to the FAA to operate FAA radars over the years. It is unlikely Garvey knows where any of those NORAD radar people were working on September 11, and whether they played a role in the 9-11 events. It is unlikely Garvey knows the names of the air traffic controllers who directed the jets that day and unlikely she has asked them any questions. It is likely that Garvey is just an ambitious yuppie, a figurehead who merely serves as the "face" of the FAA: An attractive hood ornament for those who really run the agency. Another dumb blonde . . . *** Senate Praises NORAD's Readiness *** Lt's go back to the Eberhart Senate testimony again: After a display like that, most of us would want to have Eberhart tried for treason or dereliction of duty. Instead, Sen. Allard thanks Gen. Eberhart in this fashion: "OK. Well, I just want to thank you and your people for, I know, I think a tremendous effort in light of some totally unexpected circumstances. And at least, I, for one, appreciate, you know, the readiness that was displayed." Can you believe it? This remark is nothing short of IN-YOUR-FACE MOCKERY OF OUR DEAD. With Allard's simpering obsequiousness, one must wonder: For whom does he think Eberhart is working? Certain not the people of the United States of America or the Old Republic. *** No Witnesses To Defensive Jets *** Now that you have seen the compilation of lies, how much faith are you willing to put in NORAD's report that it sent out any defensive jets on September 11? There are no media reports that any of the jets NORAD allegedly sent to New York and the Pentagon were ever sighted. On the other hand, NORAD's press release shows it did not send a jet to respond to Flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash) http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradresponse Yet a military jet was sighted in that area. ("Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found," USA Today, September 14, 2001). "Local residents said they had been a second plane in the area, possibly an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the sky." *** Put It Together *** NORAD is hired to guard the American skies but doesn't watch them. The FAA has all the answers but no one asks them any questions. Congressional oversight senators tip-toe around the subject, praising what is at the very least criminal negligence. Two seventeen-star generals can scarcely remember their own names, and they give different versions of world-shaking events in which they claim to have been decision-makers and on-the-spot witnesses. But Myers and Eberhart are obviously not decision-makers. They are just pretty faces, dumb blondes, like pretty face Jane Gavey over at the FAA. Myers and Eberhart are the "spokespersons" who dazzle the sycophants with their braid and their ribbons, while the people who really run the show, Wolfowitz's and Perle's people, are concealed. Myers and Eberhart are errand boys, so unimportant that their Israeli bosses didn't even bother to write believable lies for them to tell when they testified. Put that together with the following: * NORAD created the opportunity for the attack by inexplicably failing to show up. * "Real" hijackers would have expected NORAD to be on the job and show up promptly. "Real" hijackers could not have predicted NORAD's failure to show. "Real" hijackers would not have made plans around NORAD's failure to show. * Real hijackers, expecting NORAD to show, would have completed the job quickly, taking off from airports close to the targets and hitting the targets soon after take-off. * NORAD waited week to come out with a defense action time line, and by the time it was released, it had already been contradicted by Myers' testimony. * After NORAD failed to show, NORAD misrepresented verifiable facts -- facts like its ability to look internally into US airspace. * NORAD and the US Senate staged a shadow-boxing match, pointing the finger of blame for 9-11 at the FAA. * The Senate conducted no follow-up investigation of the FAA. * The FAA accepted the blame by default, never uttering a peep in self-defense. * The American generals don't know what happened on 9-11 and can't tell a straight story. * The beneficiary of the 9-11 events is Israel. September 11 is being used as a pretext to eradicate threats to Zionist hegemony. * The 19 Muslims accused of hijacking the four aircraft, according to their trainers, were "dumb and dumber" and incapable of flying a Cessna. ( http://www.Public-Action.com/911/robotplane ) * A wealth of evidence indicates the "suicide jets" were remotely controlled, and not piloted by the Muslims. ( http://www.Public-Action.com/911/robotplane ). * NORAD has had decades of experience installing remote control systems in aircraft and guiding those craft in sophisticated maneuvers, including combat practice. Guiding the "suicide" jets into their targets on September 11 would have been a piece of cake for NORAD personnel. * Israel also has remote control expertise. http://www.iai.co.il/dows/dows/Serve/level/English/1.1.4.2.7.2.html http://www.Public-Action.com/911/israel-uav * Treason on behalf of Israel has become institutionalized in US public life. See discussion of President Johnson's and Secretary of Defense McNamara's treason in 1967. Johnson and McNamara sided with Israel when Israeli attacked USS Liberty. http://www.USSLiberty.org Every administration since the time of the Liberty attack has cooperated in the treason by failing to investigate, punish, or label the traitors. See also "The Traitors Among Us http://www.Public-Action.com/911/chrzion.html * Israeli agents are ruthless and cunning, capable of targeting Americans and blaming on the Arabs, according to the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies. http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.htm Put together, the conclusion is unavoidable: NORAD -- or more likely Israeli operatives using NORAD as a cover -- sent the remote control suicide jets crashing into their targets on 9-11. -- Carol A. Valentine President, Public Action, Inc. http://www.Public-Action.com See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI: Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum |
