Monday, July 14, 2014

Action Alert: NORAD Should Stand Trial for 9/11 Stand-down


The NORAD Stand-Down on 9/11 has been used as the basis for a lawsuit in the past and it can be again! We've uncovered  a lot more damning evidence since then and there are other people to legitimately go after, like "The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander."  George W. Bush was a lofty goal for a starting point.

So, please read my post about informing federal or state prosecutors and consider presenting a few of them with this information along with, or maybe instead of, demolition evidence. They might shy away from this less and if they are implored to look over how much stronger the case for complicity concerning lack of air defense has gotten since the first lawsuit, we might just find the person for the job. The case for complicity is detailed in the very bottom link on this page.
The "Summary of Facts" will set the foundation to support Plaintiff Counts as set forth herein.
However, a complete highly researched timelines of "911" by American Citizen Mark R. Elsis
( and ) who has agreed to testify to his research
on behalf of Plaintiff, and believed to be one
of the "most comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of "911".


Plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most damning indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants who failed to protect our nation on "911" was the failure of Defendants DOD/NORAD to follow normal military protocol to be followed as standard procedure.  The following testimony of "911" victim family member Mindy Kleinberg, presented on March 31, 2003 before the "911 Commission" is so articulate that it stands with Plaintiff's "open letter" to Defendant GWB as cited at "A" and to support this Count:

"Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These 'protocols' were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to 'intercept' commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as 'Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, 'fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.'

Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example:

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m.  Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control.  Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight.  Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew.  At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD?  Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets?  How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets.  Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases.  For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C.  As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th.  At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  The fighter jets were still miles away.  Why?

So the hijackers' luck had continued.  On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures.  Who were the people that delayed the notification?  Have they been questioned?  In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

"Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."