Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NEADS/EADS Role on 9/11

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
As a newcomer to the 9/11 discussions and/or conspiracies, I thought I would focus on NEADS/EADS role on September 11th, 2001. The reason for my interest in NEAD/EADS is that it is only located 20 minutes away in Rome, NY. Now known as EADS, or Eastern Air Defense Sector, if was formerly known as Northeast Air Defense Sector. EADS is housed at Griffiss field, a former-Strategic Air Command (SAC) Air Force Base during the Cold War. For those of us in New York State, particularly Upstate NY, may find this thread interesting.





The EADS air sovereignty and executes counter-air operations over the eastern United States. Directs the employment of 178 sensors, 8 fighter alert locations, AWACS aircraft, a Battle Control Center (BCC), and joint air defense artillery assets to defend one million square miles, 16 major cities, and adjacent seas. Supports NORAD's Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment, NORTHCOM Homeland Defense Mission. It works closely with other federal agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Secret Service and U.S. Customs Service as well as its sister military services – the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army and U.S. Coast Guard.



Here is the unit patch


I found a local article from the Rome Sentinel that described the atmosphere and events of NEADS/EADS on 9/11.


Regarding the actions of then-NEADS on 9/11, federal reviews determined that it reacted properly to the attacks, but was hindered by insufficient resources including limited radar capacity for tracking inside the U.S. and a small number of fighter jets on domestic alert. About 50 percent of EADS’ current staffers were with the facility around the time of the 9/11 attacks, said spokesman Tim Jones.



The day "started out very quiet, very calm" as NEADS prepared for a training exercise, said Deskins. There was "a little of bit of excitement" felt, she said, when an approximately 8:30 a.m. call from the Federal Aviation Administration office in Boston indicated a hijacking and requested that it be intercepted by a fighter.



At NEADS, it was "very, very frustrating," including seeking to find the hijacked planes, said Deskins. She cited "only two sets of fighters on alert" at bases in Massachusetts and Virginia, and a limited "radar picture" for NEADS of the interior U.S. due to the technology coupled with the focus at that time on tracking threats approaching the country from the "exterior."


According to the article the mission and equipment have changed HUGE.

The expansion of EADS’ territory to the entire eastern portion of the U.S. also was a "big change for us," Deskins remarked. In addition, EADS has "grown in manpower," adding about 50 more staffers after 9/11, she noted. In another change since 9/11, she said EADS has "more assets available...more spread out across the country" for summoning military force when needed.


According to the staff at NEADS/EADS

The situation was "very frustrating," said Dooley, as the hijackers had "done their homework" and "we were unable to track the aircraft" because they had "turned off their beacons." EADS staffers tried to calculate where they were headed based on such factors as last-known speed, altitude, and heading, she said.





An operator at the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) on 9/11 warns other operators to "be careful what we say on the loop, because these are being recorded and these tapes will be handed over." The tapes formed the basis of the 9/11 Commission's account of what happened.





Col. Dawne Deskins, Eastern Air Defense Sector vice commander, shares her memories of 9-11

Colonel Deskins is now the commander of EADS as of February 2012.

Anyways, I thought anyone from the Upstate NY region might find this article interesting.

NEADS/EADS


edit on 12-6-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
My problem is not at Rome, but at Andrews AFB less than two minutes flight time from the Pentagon. Andrews even had training flights up, but nobody bothered to redirect them. Plus planes from Andrews could have gotten to NY just as fast as the ones from Otis AFB.

Here's some detailed info on Andrews at that time:
www.911myths.com...

Note that Myers dismissed a need for DC air cover even thought there had been reasonable attack attempts on the White House before 911.

Even if planes from Andrews were not armed or on alert status, some unarmed planes should have been launched while others were being armed. But that was not done either. Military training and mindset could be a reasonable excuse, but not when contacted directly by the Secret Service!

I also believe that there were Anti Aircraft capabilities at the Pentagon that could and should have been deployed. Given that it is almost right on the main approach path to Washington DC airport, this would be a obvious need. It was known that the White House had Anti Aircraft capabilities via Stinger missiles on 9/11.

There were other training flights that NEAD had up in response to the NEAD Anti-hijacking exercise that was ongoing. Why were none of these diverted?

Somebody gave one or more stand down or diversion orders that prevented NORAD from fulfilling its mission on 9/11. I'd lot to get to the bottom of that issue.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Two items you might find interesting.


The NORAD 9/11 Response.

NORAD revisited



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by fah0436
My problem is not at Rome, but at Andrews AFB less than two minutes flight time from the Pentagon. Andrews even had training flights up, but nobody bothered to redirect them. Plus planes from Andrews could have gotten to NY just as fast as the ones from Otis AFB.

Here's some detailed info on Andrews at that time:
www.911myths.com...

Note that Myers dismissed a need for DC air cover even thought there had been reasonable attack attempts on the White House before 911.


Name them. There was a light aircraft that landed on the White House lawn. Do you really think an F-16 could defend again that? Quite obviously, in hindsight Andrews should have been a NORAD assigned base. No one to my knowledge has ever denied that the entire US structure was not prepared and surprised by this attack. This much was obvious from the beginning..


Originally posted by fah0436
Even if planes from Andrews were not armed or on alert status, some unarmed planes should have been launched while others were being armed. But that was not done either. Military training and mindset could be a reasonable excuse, but not when contacted directly by the Secret Service!


What were they suppose to do? Make faces at the hijackers in hopes of scaring them?


Originally posted by fah0436
I also believe that there were Anti Aircraft capabilities at the Pentagon that could and should have been deployed. Given that it is almost right on the main approach path to Washington DC airport, this would be a obvious need. It was known that the White House had Anti Aircraft capabilities via Stinger missiles on 9/11.


Regardless of what you believe, you are wrong. In that the Pentagon is right on the approach path to Reagon National Airport, doesn't that tell you AA is a bad idea. It had previously been discussed on numerous occasions and rejected as too risky...


Originally posted by fah0436
There were other training flights that NEAD had up in response to the NEAD Anti-hijacking exercise that was ongoing. Why were none of these diverted?


Wrong! Quote a credible source that proves this is true. You can't because it's false BS.


Originally posted by fah0436
Somebody gave one or more stand down or diversion orders that prevented NORAD from fulfilling its mission on 9/11. I'd lot to get to the bottom of that issue.


Poppycock.

I'm glad you're not in any decision making position because you have no clue. The most time NORAD had to intercept anything was 10 minutes and that was AA 11, prior to the knowledge we were under attack. For any of the others the time to respond was even shorter...

Truthers make the mistake of hypothesizing that Air Defense is the solution to the 9/11 attacks. It's not. Prevention of the hijack in the first place is the best solution.. Any intercept leading to a shoot down of a Commercial Airliner full of American citizen and perhaps citizens of other countries is a bad idea. How can it be determined that the aircraft won't crash into a large shopping mall or a school leading to an enormous number of deaths not to mention those on board.

You ought to get a clue or two before expressing a ridiculous opinion full of false information on a conspiracy site. There too much of that already...



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Thanks for the info. I find these transcripts very interesting. They provide insight into the emergency management response into the incident, how NEADS, the FAA, ATC, etc interacted with each other to mitigate the hijackings.

What I found a little concerning...

NEADS weapons controllers request the launch of the two F-16 fighters at Alert on Langley AFB (Air Force Base) in Virginia. However this request is refused by NEADS command. Instead the fighters are put on Battle Stations. NEADS command are concerned that the Langley fighters are the only remaining aircraft they have – if both pairs are airborne at the same time both pairs will run out of fuel at the same time.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, we only had two pairs of F-16's available? Does that seem insufficient?

Also...

SELFRIDGE FLIGHT OFFICER: Here—here’s what we can do. At a minimum, we can keep our guys airborne. I mean, they don’t have—they don’t have any guns or missiles or anything on board. But we— NEADS TECH: It’s a presence, though.

No guns or missiles?

I think the unfortunate part of all of this is that this was a scenario, despite training for, is a difficult situation to manage or mitigate. I also think up until the attacks our military attitude was one of still preparing for a major battle with the Soviets. Lots of time and heads up to scramble fighters to go find Soviet bombers. I don't know for sure. I could be wrong. There was a lot of confusion everywhere.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 

Worrying about Russia attacking us pretty much died with the Soviet Union. On 9/11, we had exactly 14 fighters on alert for the continental 48 states. No anti aircraft defenses, crappy internal radar coverage and a widespread belief that the Atlantic Ocean was an awesome defensive buffer zone made for a horrible day.

On a side note, MOST air force fighters are rarely armed in the air over the US.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


Here is a working Link to the old vanity fair article but unfortunately the audio is no longer working.

www.vanityfair.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Thanks for the info. I find these transcripts very interesting. They provide insight into the emergency management response into the incident, how NEADS, the FAA, ATC, etc interacted with each other to mitigate the hijackings.

What I found a little concerning...

NEADS weapons controllers request the launch of the two F-16 fighters at Alert on Langley AFB (Air Force Base) in Virginia. However this request is refused by NEADS command. Instead the fighters are put on Battle Stations. NEADS command are concerned that the Langley fighters are the only remaining aircraft they have – if both pairs are airborne at the same time both pairs will run out of fuel at the same time.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, we only had two pairs of F-16's available? Does that seem insufficient?


No, obviously (in hind sight) it was totally insufficient. The reason for this few number was due to the "peace divident" of the early 90's at the end of the Cold War.. From that point and on into the 90's the NORAD mission was given totally to the ANG, the numbers of active alert bases began to decline. The reduction became more and more during the 90's with the end result of what was available on 9/11. The aircraft available for a NORAD response had nothing to do with the exercises (War Games) or anything else of a nefarious nature. It was a gradual reduction in numbers by Congress at the encouragement of a President ( who loathed the military) until we had what we did on 9/11.

The NEADS decision not to launch the Langley fighters at that point was correct based on what they knew at the time. NORAD was not oriented toward activating a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over Washington as that was not how they operated at that time. (more on this below). They were oriented toward launching aircraft for specific targets and that's why they eventually launched the Langley Fighters (they had a target). But, that target was not AA 77 because they did not know about that aircraft. They launched because of a "ghost" AA 11 that they thought was still airborne due to confusion within the FAA.


Originally posted by Cosmic911
Also...

SELFRIDGE FLIGHT OFFICER: Here—here’s what we can do. At a minimum, we can keep our guys airborne. I mean, they don’t have—they don’t have any guns or missiles or anything on board. But we— NEADS TECH: It’s a presence, though.

No guns or missiles?

I think the unfortunate part of all of this is that this was a scenario, despite training for, is a difficult situation to manage or mitigate. I also think up until the attacks our military attitude was one of still preparing for a major battle with the Soviets. Lots of time and heads up to scramble fighters to go find Soviet bombers. I don't know for sure. I could be wrong. There was a lot of confusion everywhere.


Yes, you are correct. Bureaucracies don't change direction very easily at all and this was specifically true of NORAD. Unfortunately, in 2001 they were still oriented toward fighting the "Cold War" scenario, not a launch of hijacked attack aircraft from within the US. There is nothing sinister at play here, it's simply that NORAD had not changed gears from fighting the Cold War and were not prepared for dealing with hijacked Airliners used as missiles within US borders, That's part of the reason the attack was so successful from an Air Defense perspective, not some concocted crap about a "stand down" or anyone of the numerous inventions that the "know nothing" "truther" community has invented.

That, of course, has all changed now. NORAD has updated equipment and are more oriented with better capability to react to internal threats as opposed to the Cold War scenarios that they concentrated on in the past. There has also been a realignment of alert bases and some changed Major Command assignments giving NORAD more aircraft to respond to threats from within US borders...
edit on 12-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


An old aviation week article.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


If you OSers can't see the truth in front of your eyes, that's your problem, not mine.

I will respond to 3 items.

1. Previous incidents leading to Air Defense Decisions in DC Area
Myers himself cites a number of reasons in the article I referenced which you obviously never bothered to read. But the scariest thing is his quote "I am not aware that an aircraft has ever been used as a weapon." That's as scary as hell that the previous NORAD Commander and the Air Force Chief of Staff doesn't even remember Japanese Kamikaze planes in WWII!

2. What can an unarmed plane do?
Obviously you've never played poker. You can bluff. And if that fails, use your plane as a weapon and ram the other aircraft, a technique that also goes back to WWII.

3. Stand down order
Explain any of this:
www.youtube.com...
www.jonesreport.com...

And finally
www.journalof911studies.com...


There's only one thing that makes any sense. Cheney and the young man both knew that something could have been done to intercept the incoming plane, but Cheney made sure that didn't happen. If this is not true, why has Cheney never clarified or explained this situation reasonably?

And for further information I have actually worked in both NORAD's Cheyenne mountain complex and the NMCC. And most military officers that I have talked too regarding the incident also agree that at a minimum, NORAD was snookered, and they are MAD about it!

Why don't you try providing some definitive counter evidence and references instead of just slinging mud.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


There were seven bases, with a total of between 14 and 21 aircraft on armed alert status on 9/11. The majority of them were in the south to help with the antidrug mission. NEADS wanted to hold the Langley aircraft in case something else came up, and this was just the begining of something bigger.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fah0436
reply to post by Reheat
 


If you OSers can't see the truth in front of your eyes, that's your problem, not mine.


It's quite obvious that you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the derriere.


Originally posted by fah0436
I will respond to 3 items.

1. Previous incidents leading to Air Defense Decisions in DC Area
Myers himself cites a number of reasons in the article I referenced which you obviously never bothered to read. But the scariest thing is his quote "I am not aware that an aircraft has ever been used as a weapon." That's as scary as hell that the previous NORAD Commander and the Air Force Chief of Staff doesn't even remember Japanese Kamikaze planes in WWII!


He, he, he... you dare accuse me of not reading the article you posted, when obviously you didn't read it either. Gen Myers specifically mentioned the Kamikaze attacks of WWII. Not reading or comprehending stuff you post is very typical, truther..


Originally posted by fah0436
2. What can an unarmed plane do?
Obviously you've never played poker. You can bluff. And if that fails, use your plane as a weapon and ram the other aircraft, a technique that also goes back to WWII.


Yes, I'm sure brave that internet warriors such as yourself would volunteer to ram a commercial airliner full of people and hope that it didn't impact a school full of kids. Yes siree! I suppose that you don't realize that actually was discussed by one who did launch with a very limited supply of ammo...

Yes, I'm sure that would have worked on crazed Islamic extremists who were intent on a suicide mission in the first place... My what big ideas you have to second guess folks making decisions in the heat of a very confused situation..


Originally posted by fah0436
3. Stand down order
Explain any of this:
www.youtube.com...
www.jonesreport.com...

And finally
www.journalof911studies.com...


You dare post long debunked crap from "truther" sites and expect anyone to take you seriously? You probably do...


Originally posted by fah0436
There's only one thing that makes any sense. Cheney and the young man both knew that something could have been done to intercept the incoming plane, but Cheney made sure that didn't happen. If this is not true, why has Cheney never clarified or explained this situation reasonably?


If you had a clue what the word reasonable meant, you wouldn't be posting crap.


Originally posted by fah0436
And for further information I have actually worked in both NORAD's Cheyenne mountain complex and the NMCC. And most military officers that I have talked too regarding the incident also agree that at a minimum, NORAD was snookered, and they are MAD about it!


You need to define the word snookered. If that means they weren't prepared you are correct. But, I doubt that's what you mean. Please reveal to me anyone that is happy about anything related to 9/11, except the criminals who perpetuated and they were not US citizens, truther.


Originally posted by fah0436
Why don't you try providing some definitive counter evidence and references instead of just slinging mud.


I am the reference for what I post. Slinging mud, huh? Perhaps if you weren't slinging mud at innocent people with no credible evidence, others might not be tempted to sling any in return...

BTW, Norman Minetta's testimony timeline has conclusively been proven wrong many times over in several different ways. You won't find that on "truther" sites tho', they want to sell you a t-shirt instead of the truth. You're welcome.



edit on 13-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I knew I had this bookmarked somewhere.

Here are the NORAD related recordings from 911.

The article - A new type of war.

Audio Recordings (click the red parts)


The real story is much more interesting than any of the lies the truthers pump out.

edit on 13-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Reheat,
You are obviously fairly smart and are a source of good info on 911.
I like to think of myself as fairly open and willing to always consider alternatives.
Under other circumstances, I could learn a lot from you.

Unfortunately, that won't happen, strictly due to your ATTITUDE!

You
1. Insult people
2. Demean people
3. Categorize people
4. Don't provide references ("I am my own source")
5. Constantly are upiing/criticizing others and nitpicking
6. Don't seem to be interested in the truth, just being right

In short, it does not much matter what you say here, no one will listen with an attitude like that.
If the MODS really enforced their rules, you would be banned.

Have a good day

edit on 6/13/2012 by fah0436 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by fah0436
reply to post by Reheat
 


Reheat,
You are obviously fairly smart and are a source of good info on 911.
I like to think of myself as fairly open and willing to always consider alternatives.
Under other circumstances, I could learn a lot from you.


No, I don't consider myself smart at all. I simply know what I'm talking about when I post. Alternatives? We're not discussing your favorite ice cream flavor, we're discussing a sequence of events that has a historical record. You posted some crap about NORAD and I refuted it with facts. Is something you make up because you're ignorant of facts your version of an alternative? I have found in my around 5 years of dealing with so called :truthers" that is the case the vast majority of the time. If you post crap, I'm likely to call you on it. It's too bad if you don't like that.


Originally posted by fah0436
Unfortunately, that won't happen, strictly due to your ATTITUDE!


So, you don't like my attitude. So what? I could care less what you like or whether you approve of my attitude or not. Don't post ignorant crap and I won't bother you at all. Post crap and I'm likely to comment.


Originally posted by fah0436
You
1. Insult people


Most of my recent posts have been in the poster Labtop's threads. Yes, I do ridicule him, but I usually stay within the rules whether you agree or not. He has been doing this for a long time and I've been giving him correct information, but he refuses to listen. What am I suppose to do? Congratulate him for posting garbage?


Originally posted by fah0436
2. Demean people


That's you're own interpretation... I guess you don't think some people deserve that, but I do. When something continues to ignore proven FACTS, it's an reasonable alternative. No one has to post here, you know...


Originally posted by fah0436
3. Categorize people


Sure, I do, who doesn't. You've categorized me in this post. What's right for you is not for me, huh?


Originally posted by fah0436
4. Don't provide references ("I am my own source")


Wow! This is a rather generalized blanket statement based on what? If I am posting from my PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE why do I need a source? If what I'm posting doesn't come from an Internet Site, a book, or a document why should do I need a source? Over the years, I've found that "truthers" don't click on links or reject sources anyway, so why bother anyway in every single case? Frequently, it's a waste of time. Prove me wrong and force me to back it up if you have the knowledge to do so... It's pretty simple really.


Originally posted by fah0436
5. Constantly are upiing/criticizing others and nitpicking


Show me someone who doesn't do that and I'll show you someone who is wasting their time with posting here.


Originally posted by fah0436
6. Don't seem to be interested in the truth, just being right


What's the difference? If I'm wrong would that be the truth? I think you're confused, which is not unusual for "truthers". It's quite common actually.


Originally posted by fah0436
In short, it does not much matter what you say here, no one will listen with an attitude like that.


Oh, is that right now? For most "truthers" it doesn't matter either way.


Originally posted by fah0436
If the MODS really enforced their rules, you would be banned.


Since I'm not perhaps you don't know the rules. You have managed to prove yourself wrong by your logic in this post. It's not unusual for "truthers" to do that. It's actually a fairly common occurrence.


Originally posted by fah0436
Have a good day


You too.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


An old aviation week article.

911research.wtc7.net...


Thank you. I enjoyed that article. Good timeline of events. There is so much information to digest and consider.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join