The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander

In a 2004 U.S. Senate hearing, Senator Mark Dayton remarked that “this country and its citizens were completely undefended” for “109 minutes” on 9/11.[1]  Dayton went on to clarify that officials within the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had covered up the facts about the lack of air defenses by lying to the 9/11 Commission, to Congress and to the American people. And they were not held accountable.

One man was most responsible for both the air defense failures and the lying that covered it up.  U.S. Air Force General Ralph Edward Eberhart had taken over command of NORAD from General Richard Myers in February 2000.  The position included leadership of all air defense operations in North America and, also, the U.S. Space Command.  Therefore, on 9/11, Eberhart was the man most responsible for failure to intercept the four hijacked aircraft over a period of nearly two hours.

NORAD is the joint U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for monitoring and defending the airspace over North America.  Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with airliners that have gone off-course or been hijacked, were not followed on 9/11.  Each of the four flights involved in the 9/11 attacks should have been intercepted when they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.[2]

The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001.  A 1994 government report stated — “Overall, during the past four years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged … less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”[3]

On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened.  Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day.  Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony.  And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.”[4]

Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day.  This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely.  Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse?

In order to better determine the facts, investigators should begin with at least three areas of inquiry: 1) the times at which NORAD was notified (or made aware) of the hijackings, 2) the times at which NORAD responded in the form of scrambling jets to intercept, and 3) the instructions given to the interceptor pilots in terms of speed and direction.

NORAD’s ever-changing story

The military’s explanations began with a short description of the response to the hijackings.  Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers gave this account to the Senate Armed Services Committee, in an official hearing for his confirmation as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS).  He said that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was hit.[5]

Although Myers was not in command of NORAD on 9/11, he should have known two days later if normal procedures had been followed.  As Acting CJCS on 9/11, and as Vice Chairman otherwise, his role was to ensure the president and secretary of defense were informed of critical military matters.

A second story was given a week after the attacks, when NORAD provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the responses that followed.  General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6]  This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded.

The new timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full twenty minutes before it impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC).  Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base (AFB) were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking.  This allowed twice the time needed for the jets to reach New York City before Flight 175 crashed.

EberhartEberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon.  He told the Senate Armed Services Committee (repeatedly) that this was a “documented notification.”[7]  If true, interceptor jets from Andrews AFB, only ten miles from the Pentagon, could have easily reached the errant airliner given this lead time.

Although the military might now use the excuse that Andrews was not technically under the command of NORAD, the 9/11 Commissions says Eberhart’s statement was simply not true.  In fact, both Commission counsel Dan Marcus and Team leader John Farmer were later very blunt about this being a false statement.[8]  Therefore, it is clear that Eberhart should be brought up on a charge of contempt of Congress.  It is illegal to make any materially false statement or representation in testimony to the Unites States Congress.[9]  And that was not the only false statement that Eberhart apparently made to the senators.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott presented a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline.  They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until 9:05, three minutes after the aircraft crashed into the south tower.  This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there” (Flight 175), Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”[10]

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am.  This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am.  Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report, now supported by NORAD.  In this explanation NORAD received “no advance notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11]  Instead of 20 minutes of notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes notice on Flight 77, and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not notified about any of them until it was too late.  The military was off the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notifications and response, which had constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown out the window.  In place of these documents and testimonies, new explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]

The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair. [13]  Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access to audio tapes that were not available to the public.  Although the newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different timelines.

The changing stories given by NORAD led to placing more blame for the failed air defenses on the FAA.  After NORAD’s 2003 timeline was issued, however, the FAA publicly stated that NORAD had in fact been informed throughout all the developments that morning.  FAA official Laura Brown wrote a memo to the 9/11 Commission in which she stated that FAA shared “real-time information” with NORAD about “loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.”[14]

FAA leadership certainly did fail that morning and there are shocking questions to be answered in that regard.[15]  Not the least of these questions is why evidence that might have helped was destroyed by an FAA official after the attacks.[16]  But the multiple stories given by the military indicate that NORAD was at least as culpable as the FAA in the inexplicable lack of air defense. And the facts indicate that NORAD was in the loop earlier than its 2003 timeline suggested, meaning that there is no reasonable explanation for why NORAD-controlled jets did not intercept most, if not all, of the planes hijacked on 9/11.

When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Eberhart confirmed that if NORAD had been in the loop as the FAA said it was, his people would have been able “to shoot down all three aircraft — all four aircraft.”[17]

Reasons to suspect Eberhart

Investigation of NORAD and its commander Eberhart is warranted, apart from the evidence for lying to Congress.  Additional reasons to focus on Eberhart include the following nine facts.

  1. As Commander in Chief of the U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE), Eberhart was responsible for setting Infocon levels.[18]  Infocon is an alert system that defends against attacks on communications networks within the Department of Defense (DOD).  Just 12 hours before the 9/11 attacks, an order was given to lower Infocon to its least protective level.[19]  Setting Infocon at a lower level made it easier for people to hack or compromise the DOD computer networks, including the air defense system.[20]
  2. As both CINCSPACE and Commander in Chief of NORAD (CINCNORAD), Eberhart was in charge of many of the highly coincidental military exercises (i.e. war games) that were going on that morning.
  3. Eberhart did nothing effective in response to the 9/11 hijackings, despite being present in the military’s teleconference as those hijackings were in progress. He did not order the scrambling of jets, he did not order an escort for Air Force One, and he did not provide leadership.
  4. Eberhart also failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace until well after the attacks were over.  Although it was his prerogative to do so, Eberhart did not implement SCATANA, the process of assuming military control over the U.S. airspace, until two hours after the second plane hit the WTC and one hour after the last plane had been destroyed.  Eberhart later said that he had waited until it finally became “obvious” to him that a coordinated terrorist attack was underway.[21]  He told the 9/11 Commission that, although people were telling him to take control of the airspace earlier, he didn’t feel that the military could “provide traffic deconfliction like the FAA has.”[22]
  5. In the middle of the 9/11 attacks, Eberhart decided to drive between Peterson Air Force Base and NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC).  Normally this 12-mile drive takes 30 minutes but it took Eberhart between 45 minutes and an hour to make the drive that morning.  No reason was ever given (or requested) for why Eberhart did not fly directly to CMOC from Peterson, making use of the Cheyenne Mountain helicopter port.  Eberhart made conflicting statements about his reasons for making this trip, saying that he stayed for a while at Peterson because he “did not want to lose communication.”[23]  Nevertheless, Eberhart lost communication at the most important time by leaving at approximately 9:30 am (EST), when two of the hijacked planes were still flying wildly off-course.  His reason for doing this was that things had “quieted down.”[24]
  6. While on his way to the CMOC he was in the U.S. military’s air threat call via cell phone.  In this call, at 9:49 am, Eberhart “directed all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed.”[25]  Although this might sound like decisive action, the command apparently grounded all interceptor jets that had not yet taken off due to the fact that “battle stations” is a grounded status.  Other military leaders later gave orders to actually scramble the jets.  And despite his involvement, Eberhart portrayed himself as being out of the loop entirely.  For example, he told the 9/11 Commission that he had “no knowledge of the circumstances that initiated the scramble” of fighter jets from Langley AFB and that he had just “recently” been made aware that it happened (in March 2004).[26]
  7. Eberhart failed to explain the multiple changes in the account of 9/11 that were given by NORAD.  In fact, he seemed to tell his staff to change the NORAD timeline as much as was needed in order to prevent further questioning about the military’s performance.[27]
  8. For whatever reasons, Eberhart also gave out false information about the NORAD response to others.  General Richard Myers, acting CJCS that morning, said that Eberhart told him there were “several hijack codes in the system.”  Yet none of the four planes had squawked the hijack code on 9/11 and therefore it is not clear how such codes could have been in the system.[28]
  9. NORAD failed to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission.  Even as late as March 2004, the Commission was struggling to get basic documents about 9/11 performance from Eberhart’s organization.[29]  In some cases, such as with the after-action reports that follow all military actions, the Commission never received the NORAD documents.

Of all these concerns, it is the military exercises that NORAD was conducting on 9/11 that have drawn the most attention from concerned citizens.  When questioned about them, Eberhart claimed that the impact of the 9/11 exercises on NORAD’s response was that they “at most cost us 30 seconds.”[30]  That was clearly not the case.

NORAD’s coincidental exercises

After several government officials had made incorrect statements about the military’s preparation for hijackings and the use of planes as weapons, General Myers responded to a pointed question on the subject.  He reported that NORAD had practiced “five exercise hijack events,” between November 1999 and October 2000, all of which “included a suicide crash into a high value target.”[31]  Records since released show that NORAD practiced approximately 28 hijack exercise events in the 20 months leading up to 9/11.  At least six of these were focused on hijackings located entirely within the Unites States, which puts to rest the excuse that NORAD was only looking for threats coming from outside of U.S. borders.[32]

One of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian in October 2000, practiced interception of an airliner hijacked for a suicide attack against the 39-story United Nations building in New York City, just a few blocks from the WTC.[33]  Another air defense exercise, called Amalgam Virgo and practiced just three months before 9/11, was accompanied by a planning document that had a picture of Osama bin Laden on the cover.[34]

Many of the military exercises or war games that were occurring on the day of 9/11 were run under the control of CINCNORAD Eberhart.  In fact, Eberhart was in command of the war games that had the greatest impact on the nation’s air defenses.  Of course, he had help.

NORAD is divided into several large areas that cover the U.S. and Canada, one of which is the region of the continental U.S. called CONR, headed on 9/11 by General Larry Arnold.  Within CONR there are three sectors. The 9/11 attacks took place in the airspace monitored by CONR’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). Personnel at NEADS were therefore primarily responsible for trying to coordinate the NORAD response to the hijackings.  CMOC was also an important facility in the response that should have been effective but was not.

At NEADS, Colonel Robert Marr was in charge.  Marr had been in the U.S. Air Force for over 20 years until 1994, at which time he spent a few months in Saudi Arabia as “director of combat operations.”[35]  He then left the military to work two years for a private company called Phoenix Air.  Coincidentally, Phoenix Air provided aircraft for the Amalgam Virgo exercises.[36]  There is also reason to believe that Phoenix Air is associated with Huffman Aviation where the alleged 9/11 hijackers had trained.[37]  After his stint at Phoenix Air, Marr returned to the military as the exercise coordinator at NEADS and, by 9/11, had risen to the position of commander of the facility.

There were several NORAD exercises planned for 9/11:  Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Overview, both command post exercises (CPX), and Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior, which were field training (or FTX) exercises.  All four of these exercises were CJCS approved and sponsored by CINCNORAD Eberhart.[38]  Apollo Guardian was also running on 9/11.  This was an exercise conducted by the U.S. Space Command, meaning Eberhart was in control of that too.

FTX exercises are sometimes what are referred to as SPADEs, meaning “a track is taken out of radar coverage and then re-introduced as an unknown track.”[39]  This exercise feature is interesting given that Flight 77 was lost on radar for a period of time on 9/11 and then reappeared in a way that has not yet been explained.[40]

Amalgam Virgo 02 was a modification of Twin Star, a live-fly joint FAA/NORAD exercise conducted in 1995.  This was described by NORAD exercise design manager Ken Merchant and Major Paul Goddard, the Canadian who was NORAD exercise chief.[41]  According to Goddard, the Twin Star plan was to have interceptor jets scramble and escort a hijacked airliner.  During that exercise, “the fighters never got off on the appropriate heading, and it took them forever to catch up.”[42]

It is interesting to consider that Amalgam Virgo 02, which was said to be only in the planning stages, might actually have been in play on 9/11.  One reason to consider this is that, on 9/11, the fighters “never got off on the appropriate heading, and it took them forever to catch up.”  Another reason is that 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste showed considerable interest in Amalgam Virgo 02, as did the 9/11 Commission staff in its request for documents.[43]  According to Ben-Veniste, this was a case in which “NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States.”[44]  The plan for Amalgam Virgo 02 was therefore similar to the 9/11 attacks, with multiple, simultaneous hijackings.

Another large-scale exercise being conducted on 9/11 was Global Guardian, a joint nuclear war simulation run by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom) in conjunction with NORAD.  This was essentially a practice for Armageddon that involved live nuclear bombs and at least three airborne command and control airliners called E-4Bs.[45]  The E-4B that was seen circling the White House during the 9/11 attacks might have been part of this exercise.[46]

The 9/11 Commission did not mention most of these exercises in its report.  To the contrary, the report mentioned only Vigilant Guardian and then only one time in a deceptively stated footnote that said “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the Soviet Union.”[47]  This statement is false in several ways, not the least of which is that NORAD was scheduled to conduct at least five exercises on 9/11.  And Vigilant Guardian was not simply an exercise involving one bomber from the former Soviet Union.

Vigilant Guardian (VG) had been in play for several days as of 9/11.  On September 9, it included a scenario in which terrorists hijacked an airliner and planned to attack New York City.  The exercise presented a number of other scenarios based around airliner hijackings and in one of these, the fictitious terrorists threatened to “Rain Terror from the Skies.”[48]

According to the VG planning documents, the 9/11 exercise was to be conducted “sim over live,” meaning the simulated hijackings were to be inserted into the live air control system.  This was repeated in the instructions – “Ensure all tracks of interest (sim or live) are input on the live chart.”[49]  Furthermore, the VG plan was that “All expansions will be Real World.”  Although frequently misunderstood, the term “Real World” does not refer to an actual hijacking, it refers to the use of real aircraft in live-fly exercises.[50]

Due to these confusing circumstances, NEADS staff confused the actual hijackings on 9/11 with the exercises.   As researcher Matthew Everett explained — “What is remarkable… is that at a time when it should have been obvious to them that the U.S. was in the middle of a major terrorist attack, these key personnel [at NEADS] were uncertain whether what was happening was real or simulated.”[51]  The confusion caused much more than a “30 second” problem as Eberhart suggested, because NEADS personnel thought the exercises were continuing well after the attacks.

On 9/11, VG was scheduled to include a simulated hijacking at 9:40 am, within an hour of when Flight 11 struck the WTC.  When they first learned that Flight 11 was hijacked, NEADS staff noted that the “exercise” appeared to be starting an hour early that morning.  The evidence indicates that everyone at NEADS, including Colonel Marr, thought the actual hijackings were exercises.  They even joked about it.[52]  That might have been due to the VG plan stating that the NEADS building where Colonel Marr and company were located was a planned “exercise play area” and everyone there, knowingly or not, was “subject to exercise play.”[53]

NEADS radar scopes were displaying simulated information at least until the time of the Pentagon attack.  The same problem was going on at CMOC, another exercise play area, with radar screens showing false tracks as late as 10:12 am.  In fact, personnel at CMOC called NEADs in an attempt to stop the exercise inputs.[54]  Because those inputs did not stop, it appeared that someone wanted the NEADS and CMOC radar scopes to continue showing false information until after the four planes had been destroyed.

Ken Merchant added that the National Military Command Center (NMCC), located at the Pentagon, regularly participated in NORAD exercises by interjecting emergency action messages (EAMs).[55]  On 9/11 the performance of the NMCC, which plays a critical role in establishing the military chain of command and communicating orders, was remarkably poor.  Officers there lacked any sense of urgency and were completely ineffective with regard to communications.[56]

The disruptive effect of the ongoing NORAD exercises that morning continued until after all the hijacked planes had crashed.  One military newspaper said VG continued until 30 minutes after attacks.[57]  Global Guardian was “formally terminated” at 10:44 am but certain actions taken after that time, including that CMOC blast doors were closed (a needless action in terms of hijacked airliners), suggested that the exercise continued.[58]

Investigating Eberhart

Investigation of Ralph Eberhart and his subordinates would almost certainly reveal more of what the public needs to know. Whether Eberhart or others were part of a conspiracy to attack the United States is not the only reason.  The main purpose would be to understand how such an inexplicable failure to follow the long-standing and most critical procedures of the U.S. defense system could be followed by a string of lies about that inexplicable failure.

Eberhart was among the liars and he was in charge of NORAD at the time.  Was he lying to make himself and his organization look bad, as the 9/11 Commission suggests?  Or is he lying now, along with the 9/11 Commission, in order to remove NORAD’s responsibility and eliminate questioning about 9/11?

A year after 9/11, Eberhart was rewarded for his performance by being placed in charge of the new NORTHCOM organization. He has more recently been praised and honored for his great work on 9/11.  Called a “9/11 hero” despite having been a disastrous failure on that day, he was honored by having the new NORTHCOM headquarters at Peterson AFB named after him.[59]

There is an intangible benefit to consider as well.  Like a number of people who should be investigated for 9/11, Eberhart was a veteran of the only war in which the United States was defeated.  He began his military career as a forward air controller stationed out of Pleiku Air Base in South Vietnam.

Coincidentally, Benedict Sliney, who was in charge of FAA operations on 9/11, was an air traffic controller stationed in Pleiku at about the same time.  Fighting in related operations was Michael Canavan, the FAA’s missing hijack coordinator on 9/11, who was in the 5th Special Forces Group (SFG).  Also in the 5th SFG were Brian Michael Jenkins, who as Deputy Chairman of Kroll designed the WTC security systems, and CJCS Hugh Shelton, who was yet another high-level leader missing on 9/11.  Shelton’s temporary replacement that morning, Richard Myers, was a combat pilot in Vietnam.

Along with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who were high-level leaders in the Nixon administration at the time, all these men were undoubtedly devastated by the defeat in Vietnam.  Cheney and Rumsfeld experienced the only other significant defeat of their careers when President Ford lost the 1976 election a few years later.  Other people who played critical roles on 9/11 and also worked under the Ford Administration included L. Paul Bremer, Frank Carlucci, Rudy Giuliani, and DOD employees Richard Clarke, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Armitage.

The defeats in Vietnam and the 1976 presidential election made their mark on these men.  Years later, the attacks of 9/11 brought all of them a late chance for redemption and victory.  And it made them all heroes.

Eberhart benefited from the 9/11 attacks in more tangible ways as well.  He continued on as head of NORAD and NORTHCOM through 2004.  After that he went on to become the chairman for more than half a dozen stock or bond equity funds, and a board director for a similar number of companies profiting from increased military expenditures, oil and gas services, and “Homeland Security.”[60]

The bottom line is that NORAD officials working for Ralph Eberhart covered up the facts about the lack of air defense on 9/11 by lying to the American people and by failure to cooperate with the 9/11 investigations.  For those reasons alone, Eberhart’s performance that day and the related statements should be thoroughly investigated.  Considering the nine facts presented above about Eberhart’s activities on 9/11, and that Eberhart appears to have violated U.S. law by lying to Congress, that investigation should be performed with the utmost assertiveness including formal charges and the use of subpoenas.


[1] Nicholas Levis, Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11, 911Truth.org, August 1, 2004, http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607

[2]  Bob Arnot, What Was Needed to Halt the Attacks?: Cockpit security, quick response not in evidence Tuesday, MSNBC, September 12, 2001, http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/msnbc091201.html

[3] United States General Accounting Office, Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed, May 3, 1994, http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

[4] Nicholas Levis, Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11

[5] Senate Armed Services Committee, General Myers Confirmation Hearing, September 13, 2001, http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm

[6] Transcript of Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, October 25, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office

[7] Transcript of Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, October 25, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office

[8] See memo from Dan Marcus to the Inspector General of both the DOD and Department of Transportation, dated July 29, 2004.  See also email response from John Farmer to 9/11 Commission staff (dated 1/19/2004) and associated messages.  See also memorandum from John Farmer and Philip Zelikow to the 9/11 Commissioners in which they state that “Team 8 has unearthed evidence strongly suggesting the possibility that a USAF officer, and possibly others at the USAF and FAA, must have known that the official story was false, yet persisted in telling it or did not correct the record.”

[9] United States Code, 18 USC § 1001, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001  This law is otherwise known as “making false statements”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

[10] The NORAD notification of Flight 175’s hijacking at 8:42 am was listed in an email from “NORADJ3″ to Eberhart.  It was also listed in the NORAD timeline given by Eberhart to the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2001.

[11] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Report, p 31

[12] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales, first published at 911Truth.org, December 13, 2005, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-9-11-commission-s-incredible-tales/1478

[13] Michael Bronner, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes”, Vanity Fair, September 2006, 262-285 http://www.vanityfair.com/pdf/pressroom/advance_Air_Force_9-11.pdf

[14] Kyle F. Hence, UQ Wire: Statement from FAA Contradicts 911 Report, Unanswered Questions Wire, August 2, 2004, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00013.htm

[15] Kevin R. Ryan, FAA Failures on 9/11:  The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator, DigWithin.net, April 2011, http://digwithin.net/2011/04/27/wall-street-lawyer-and-the-special-ops-hijack-coordinator/

[16] Matthew L. Wald, F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers’ Statements, The New York Times, May 6, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html

[17] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Transcript of twelfth public hearing, June 17,2004, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.htm

[18] On October 1, 1999, the Commander, USSPACECOM (USCINCSPACE), assumed command of a brand new mission area, DoD-Computer Network Defense (CND). Also effective the same date, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) delegated to USCINCSPACE the authority to declare DoD Infocon levels.

[19] 1st Fighter Wing History Excerpt, July through December 2001, p 61, http://www.scribd.com/doc/33866487/T8-B8-Kara-Docs-3-Timelines-Fdr-1st-Fighter-Wing-History-Excerpt-Jul-Dec-01-w-Logs  The Infocon level was raised again during the morning of September 11, immediately after the second attack on the World Trade Center.

[20] The Infocon alert system was developed in response to a coordinated hacking called Solar Sunrise that occurred in 1998 and started at Andrews Air Force Base.  For more on Solar Sunrise, see Kevin Poulsen, Video: Solar Sunrise, the Best FBI-Produced Hacker Flick Ever, Wired, September 23, 2008, . http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/video-solar-sun/

[21] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart, prepared by Geoffrey Brown,, March 1, 2004, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00788.pdf

[22] Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearings for June 17, 2004, published at The Washington Post, June 17, 2004

[23] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[24] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[25] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Report, p 38

[26] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[27] Eberhart told the Commission that the “newest NORAD time line [delivered to Commission staff on February 23,2004] was likely the result of his ‘standing order’ to correct the record of events whenever possible.”  9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with CINCNORAD Eberhart

[28] Matthew Everett, The Actions and Inactions of the Commander in Charge of the U.S. Air Defense Failure on 9/11, Shoestring 911, June 18, 2010, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/06/actions-and-inactions-of-commander-in.html

[29] See memorandum from 9/11 Commission Team 8 re: DOD Document Production, dated October 29, 2003

[30] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Transcript of twelfth public hearing, June 17,2004, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.htm

[31] Transcript of Hearing Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, August 16 and 17, 2004, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg24495/html/CHRG-108shrg24495.htm

[32] A NORAD Exercises Hijack Summary, released by the 9/11 Commission, lists 28 exercise events involving hijackings between October 1998 and September 10, 2001.  This does not include the Amalgam Virgo exercises, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/NORAD-Exercises-Hijack-Summary

[33] Matthew Everett, NORAD Exercise a Year Before 9/11 Simulated a Pilot Trying to Crash a Plane into a New York Skyscraper–The UN Headquarters, Shoestring 911, July 27, 2010, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/07/norad-exercise-year-before-911.html

[34] SEADS Concept Proposal: Amalgam Virgo 01, accessed at www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/AmalgumVirgo.pdf

[35] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Colonel Robert Marr, prepared by Geoffrey Brown,, January 23, 2004

[36] SEADS Concept Proposal: Amalgam Virgo 01

[37] Daniel Hopsicker, Will secret deal bring old management back to Venice Airport FBO?, Mad Cow Morning News, January 5, 2010, http://www.madcowprod.com/01052010.htm

[38] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant and Paul Goddard, prepared by Geoffrey Brown,, March 4, 2004

[39] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant and Paul Goddard

[40] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Context of ’9:05 am (and After) September 11, 2001: Flight 77 Reappears on Radar, but Flight Controllers Do Not Notice’, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a905reappears

[41] 9/11 Commission, Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant and Paul Goddard

[42] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Profile: Twin Star, http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=twin_star_1

[43] For example, see 9/11 Commission “DOD Document Request No. 18.”

[44] Transcript of 9/11 Commission Hearing of May 23, 2003, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

[45] Joe Dejka, Inside StratCom on September 11 Offutt exercise took real-life twist, The Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002

[46] Mark H. Gaffney, Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?, The Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2007.  See also the update several months later: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/MarkGaffneyOct2007Letter.pdf

[47] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Report, Notes to Chapter 1, footnote 116

[49] Vigilant Guardian 01-02 planning document

[50] Matthew Everett, ‘Real-World or Exercise’: Did the U.S. Military Mistake the 9/11 Attacks for a Training Scenario?, Shoestring 911, March 22, 2012, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2012/03/real-world-or-exercise-did-us-military.html

[51] Matthew Everett, ‘Real-World or Exercise’

[52] Matthew Everett, ‘Real-World or Exercise’

[53] Vigilant Guardian 01-02 planning document

[54] Matthew Everett, ‘Let’s Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim’: How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks, Shoestring 911, August 12, 2010, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/08/lets-get-rid-of-this-goddamn-sim-how.html

[55] Matthew Everett, On 9/11, the U.S. Military Was Preparing for a Simulated Nuclear War, Shoestring 911, November 23, 2011, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-911-us-military-was-preparing-for.html

[56] Matthew Everett, The Repeatedly Delayed Responses of the Pentagon Command Center on 9/11, Shoestring 911, November 7, 2010, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/11/repeatedly-delayed-responses-of.html

[57] Matthew Everett, ‘Let’s Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim’

[58] Matthew Everett, On 9/11, the U.S. Military Was Preparing for a Simulated Nuclear War

[59] NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs, NORAD and USNORTHCOM honour 9/11 heroes, October. 15, 2012, http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=13272

[60] See Bloomberg Businessweek profile for Ralph Eberhart.  He has been a director at Triumph Group (military aviation), Jacobs Engineering (Oil & gas services), VSE Corp.(DOD equipment support), Rockwell Collins (military aviation), The Spectrum Group (Homeland security), Eid Passport (Homeland security),Standard Aero Holdings (military aviation), ObjectVideo (Homeland Security), and ICx Technologies (Homeland security).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander

  1. Excellent compilation of facts and clarification. In the military I served in you were accountable for performance. Failure to perform adequately meant no promotions, even demotions. Eberhart clearly performed poorly on 9/11 so far as the American people were concerned. Why then was he promoted and rewarded for his failures. Or were they failures?

  2. fremo says:

    After that he went on to become the chairman for more than half a dozen stock or bond equity funds, and a board director for a similar number of companies profiting from increased military expenditures, oil and gas services, and “Homeland Security.”[60]

    Mother ‘deep state’s’ reward for a job well done . Chairman, equity marketeer, moneyman.

  3. Pingback: The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander | Aisle C

  4. Pingback: The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander | The Unmutual

  5. Pingback: NORAD’s 9/11 Commander Eberhart should be investigated » New Zealand 911 Truth

  6. xxxanonxxx says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    I consider Kevin Ryan to be the most important American journalist around.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      I already submitted this comment or reply but while others I subsequently submitted were posted, this one wasn’t. So, I modified it a little, thinking that maybe some URLs had a little too much specified in them.

      Posted what’s below using my GMail address and WordPress.com login password on 27 April 2013, at 22:30, but am not sure if it was properly submitted for my GMail address might not be the one I have associated with my WP account.

      Quote: “I consider Kevin Ryan to be the most important American journalist around.”

      He isn’t a journalist and is also much more than that. A place to start to get some background information about him is the About page of this website. I’ll also recommend doing web searches like the following one and the exact syntax will work whether you use Google, ixquick, startpage (by ixquick), or duckduckgo.

      “kevin ryan” site:globalresearch.ca

      ixquick and the others will change “site:” to “host:”, but this is done automatically, so a user can just write “site:” regardless of which of the search engines mentioned just above is used. And I recommend using more than one of them for I’ve sometimes found some returning little while others return useful links, and some can simply return more relevant links.

      In addition to GlobalResearch being a good website to search to find articles by and others referring to Kevin Ryan, tv.globalresearch.ca (GR’s video section), ae911truth.org, corbettreport.com (seems to be plenty of interviews), prisonplanet.com and infowars.com are very worth checking. He also has an important and always relevant, voir important, 4-part article that has an introduction by Don Paul at 911review.com, which is one of Jim Hoffman’s three 9/11 analysis, … websites.

      I’ll provide the link for Don Paul’s introduction page, for it’s worth reading and it has a complete index for the 4 parts by Kevin Ryan.

      “Demolition Access To The WTC Towers”, 2010
      911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

      A complmentary video for the 4-part article by Kevin and which I also find to be quite interesting is the following 15-minute one. Actually, 15min is only for “part 1 of ?” and I’m not sure how many parts there are in all, but part 2 is linked in the following page.

      “9/11 Explosive Connections (Part 1 of ?)”, uploaded by WarCrime911 in Sept. 2010
      youtube.com/watch?v=grybkFkmfYM

      The following video is 15min and provides some update, fixing for the above multi-part video, all uploaded and by WarCrime911(aka AlienScientist), but I’m not sure what the updates or fixes exactly are since the above multi-part one is 30 minutes or longer while, again, the following is only 15min.

      “9/11 Suspects – Explosive Connections (Updated Fixed and Revised)”, Oct 2011
      youtube.com/watch?v=ffs7PkOREEY

      Here’s another interesting and complementary video by WarCrime911 from Dec. 2012.

      “Marvin Bush, Stratesec, and 9/11: The Straight Facts” (11min)
      youtube.com/watch?v=TPD9kAJT98o

      Kevin posted a couple of important comments for the following article.

      “Colorado PBS Runs 9/11 Film Sponsored by 9/11 Families: Experts Reject Official Story, Present Evidence of Demolition”, by Ralph Lopez, Sept. 2012
      warisacrime.org/content/colorado-pbs-runs-911-film-sponsored-911-families-experts-reject-official-story-present-evid

      It’s the first time that I’ve heard or read of what Kevin’s comments are about and you’ll be able to see that he’s more than a journalist. A very important advantage that he has over them is that he’s of scientific background/expertise and it’s very useful regarding the attacks of 9/11.

      There have been and are, today, some very good journalists; Gary Webb, Robert Parry, editor of ConsortiumNews.com, the editors of NarocNews.com, and others, f.e. But while we can all, as individuals, realize in different respects that the official story about 9/11 from Washington is like a story of a paper bag supposedly being able to hold water for longer than a second or two, if that long, it’s very important to have the experts speak out and Kevin is one of them.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      I already submitted this reply two times and while subsequent comments in reply to others who commented were posted, this one wasn’t. If the problem is the URL’s provided in this one, then visitors of this blog should be forewarned that full URL’s won’t be accepted and their submissions will be trashed. With that said, I’ll try now, after having gone to WordPress to do a login there.

      Quote: “I consider Kevin Ryan to be the most important American journalist around.”

      He isn’t a journalist and is also much more than that. A place to start to get some background information about him is the About page of this website. I’ll also recommend doing web searches like the following one and the exact syntax will work whether you use Google, ixquick, startpage (by ixquick), or duckduckgo.

      “kevin ryan” site:globalresearch.ca

      ixquick and the others will change “site:” to “host:”, but this is done automatically, so a user can just write “site:” regardless of which of the search engines mentioned just above is used. And I recommend using more than one of them for I’ve sometimes found some returning little while others return useful links, and some can simply return more relevant links.

      In addition to GlobalResearch being a good website to search to find articles by and others referring to Kevin Ryan, tv.globalresearch.ca (GR’s video section), ae911truth.org, corbettreport.com (seems to be plenty of interviews), prisonplanet.com and infowars.com are very worth checking. He also has an important and always relevant, voir important, 4-part article that has an introduction by Don Paul at 911review.com, which is one of Jim Hoffman’s three 9/11 analysis, … websites.

      I’ll provide the link for Don Paul’s introduction page, for it’s worth reading and it has a complete index for the 4 parts by Kevin Ryan.

      “Demolition Access To The WTC Towers”, 2010
      911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

      A complmentary video for the 4-part article by Kevin and which I also find to be quite interesting is the following 15-minute one. Actually, 15min is only for “part 1 of ?” and I’m not sure how many parts there are in all, but part 2 is linked in the following page.

      “9/11 Explosive Connections (Part 1 of ?)”, uploaded by WarCrime911 in Sept. 2010
      youtube.com/watch?v=grybkFkmfYM

      The following video is 15min and provides some update, fixing for the above multi-part video, all uploaded and by WarCrime911(aka AlienScientist), but I’m not sure what the updates or fixes exactly are since the above multi-part one is 30 minutes or longer while, again, the following is only 15min.

      “9/11 Suspects – Explosive Connections (Updated Fixed and Revised)”, Oct 2011
      youtube.com/watch?v=ffs7PkOREEY

      Here’s another interesting and complementary video by WarCrime911 from Dec. 2012.

      “Marvin Bush, Stratesec, and 9/11: The Straight Facts” (11min)
      youtube.com/watch?v=TPD9kAJT98o

      Kevin posted a couple of important comments for the following article.

      “Colorado PBS Runs 9/11 Film Sponsored by 9/11 Families: Experts Reject Official Story, Present Evidence of Demolition”, by Ralph Lopez, Sept. 2012
      warisacrime.org/content/colorado-pbs-runs-911-film-sponsored-911-families-experts-reject-official-story-present-evid

      It’s the first time that I’ve heard or read of what Kevin’s comments are about and you’ll be able to see that he’s more than a journalist. A very important advantage that he has over them is that he’s of scientific background/expertise and it’s very useful regarding the attacks of 9/11.

      There have been and are, today, some very good journalists; Gary Webb, Robert Parry, editor of ConsortiumNews.com, the editors of NarocNews.com, and others, f.e. But while we can all, as individuals, realize in different respects that the official story about 9/11 from Washington is like a story of a paper bag supposedly being able to hold water for longer than a second or two, if that long, it’s very important to have the experts speak out and Kevin is one of them.

      • mikecorbeil says:

        This website or blog is working in an awkward manner. My two posts, above, shouldn’t have appeared all-of-a-sudden. The second one was only because the prior one wasn’t appearing. I finally became fed up with the automatic WordPress login not working for my reply to xxxanonxxx, so went to WP to do the login there and now my re-attempts at trying to get the reply posted finally worked, only it also shows two of the multiple attempts, rather than only showing one.

        Peculiar is that I replied to other comments afterwards and those replies were immediately posted. It’s only the reply to xxxanonxxx that was always being un-posted. Perhaps it has something to do with the inclusion of YouTube links, for that’s about the only difference that I think to see; or maybe that and/or the links having initially begun with the http and https prefixes, in the reply to xxxanonxxx. It seems to be for either or both of these reasons that there was a posting problem. Submission seemed to work, for there were no error messages or warnings of any sort. Only, the reply wasn’t effectively posted.

        If WP is the problem, then it should produce a message saying what the problem is, and WP seems to be what this blog depends on.

        Peculiar, also, is that I’m presently logged in at WP and when I click the “Posting Comment…” button beneath this comment box and the fields for specifying email address and username, I nevertheless get another WP login prompt.

  7. Pingback: The next logocal step in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theory - Page 6 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  8. Mike Corbeil says:

    Excellent/fantastique article, and I’ll inform people about it when appropriate, topic-wise. I spend enough time on the topic of 9/11, so there’ll be occasions to inform people about this article often enough. It’d be great to have this in video format and uploaded at YouTube. But we can always refer people to articles when posting comments there, so I’ll be doing this.

    It’s very clear that Eberhart is guilty of very high crimes and very possibly treason; him and plenty of others.

    And I guess that we can say that this article is very complementary with or for your 4-part article, “Demolition Access: …”, for which there’s a copy at 911review.com, which includes a decent or good introduction by Don Paul. I’ve been recommending that article ever since reading it a few years ago, so now there’ll be this additional piece about Eberhart.

    Just learned about your website this morning from the following index.

    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/index.html

  9. Pingback: Couple of articles about 9/11, 2001, and by Kevin Ryan | Mike Corbeil's Blog

  10. Steve says:

    I think that one of the important things to think about here is the possibility that United Flight 93 was shot down by the Air Force and then subsequently covered up. No, I’m not saying it was a conspiracy by Bush or an inside job.

    What I am saying is that to shoot down a commercial airliner, on its way to Washington DC would be very hard to explain to the American public. A true first. It’s important to look at the actions and timelines of General Montague Winfield, Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers and General Eberhart – especially between the time of 9:30 and 10 AM.

    Also look at the NEADS timeline and taped conversations. There are many areas where the conversations are not recorded or noted in the official transcript, especially between 9:40 and 10 AM.

    I’m sure that General Eberhart made plenty of mistakes for which he is covering up. However, I also believe that there’s a plausible reason for why the NORAD timeline for United 93 was not initially released to the public, as it did with the other planes.

    Just my thoughts.
    Steve

    • Mike Corbeil says:

      Regarding the shoot-down of UA93, which actually happened, and this is why the plane crashed into a Pennsylvania rural field, I recommend searching 911review.com, 911research.wtc7.net and wtc7.net. They’re all originally from or edited by Jim Hoffman, who I believe to continue to edit them, while it also seems that other people contribute, today. From what I’ve gathered over the past few months, 911review.com seems to be the one least updated, but I always refer to it anyway; along with the other two.

      These are good websites and they might need a little updating here and there, but given all of the content provided, we can understand that it isn’t easy to perform all revisions in fast-as-lightning speed. I’m not sure which has the most recent updates and additions, but it seems to be either WTC7.net or 911research.wtc7.net.

      Search the three about UA 93 and you’ll learn that a sufficient number of local people witnessed the shoot-down plane, plus the fact that there were parts of the plane spread over an unusually large area, and a little more.

  11. Mike Corbeil says:

    A little correction for my first comment:

    About Eberhart, forget the “very possibly” part. He isn’t very possibly treasonous. He simply is. We clearly don’t need to have any doubt about this. It’s how I felt, what I thougt when adding “very possibly”, but that’s just “politically correct” nonsense and I should’t have added those words. The man clearly is treachorous.

    If I’m now mistaken, then I’m open to “enlightenment”, but it’ll surely be very difficult for anyone to be able to convince me that he isn’t a traitor. Regardless of his intentions, if he didn,t mean to be traitor, that is, for he was either way. There’s nothing new about this, but it’s not a fact that we should become comfortble with, either.

  12. mikecorbeil says:

    I just received a notice about Steve’s post seconds ago even if I posted since his comment; having posted on March 29th, while he posted on March 28th. Anyway. I find some of what he says a little comical.

    Quote: “I think that one of the important things to think about here is the possibility that United Flight 93 was shot down by the Air Force and then subsequently covered up. No, I’m not saying it was a conspiracy by Bush or an inside job”.

    Of course not. A cover-up by Washington wouldn’t be an inside job. Israel made the US do this after having drugged Washington to the point that it had no clue of what was going on.

    While I perceive the Israeli government as a real enemy of the USA, I nevertheless don’t believe the above-stated explanation. Of course the cover-up was an inside job, and of course UA 93 was shot down by the US military. How more inside do we want to get? And, no, keep Washington out of my bed, svp!

    Steve added, quote: “What I am saying is that to shoot down a commercial airliner, on its way to Washington DC would be very hard to explain to the American public”.

    Ha ha ha ha. Steve is trying to be funny, but assuming he’s not, then all I can say is, No kidding. But the least that could be done is to break the news only after people have had their meals, like a couple of hours after, to make sure that there’s time for full digestion of the food. Otherwise, Barf or “Vomiture” will become the new name of the USA.

    I’ll recommend 911review.com, 911research.wtc7.net, historycommons.org, f.e. Visibility911.com apparently is a good resource, but I haven’t personally used it, only having paid a few very short visits over many years; but I learned about it from the recommended links at 911review or 911research.

    Yet, I never came across information like Kevin Ryan provided with this article about treachorous General Eberhart. I’ve believed in “inside job” for many years, but this piece about Eberhart certainly rocked me.

  13. Very descriptive post, I liked that bit. Will
    there be a part 2?

    • Mike Corbeil says:

      I’m wondering which post you’re referring to. If you mean Kevin Ryan’s article, then I’d say “article”, rather than post; for, while the article was posted, the same is also true of reader comments. So, you could be referring to either and only you know for sure or with certainty.

      It’s always better to be clear about what we mean when posting online, or in any communication, for that matter.

      If you’re meaning Kevin’s article, then your comment would be fine as it is for a PM, but try to not forget that it’s a different matter when posting in comments sections that any visitor can read and others have already commented. If yours was the first comment, then it would be okay, but there’re plenty of comments before yours.

      I’m not a moderator of this website’s comments section, or any other part of the website, but given that it’s Kevin Ryan’s website and the important contribution that he’s been providing to 9/11 Truth, I think all users should contribute to making this website highly qualitative with the comments that’re added. Part of being qualitative is being clear. It helps to preclude questions that ideally would be unnecessary, for the information or answers are already in place or provided.

      “Art of communication”: An important part is being clear rather than ambiguous.

      No offence intended. Your comment just leaves me confused about what you’re referring to.

  14. Christian says:

    Former Intelligence officials have hypothesize’d that if 9/11 was a cover up, you would needs wtc security clearencr and norad officials “on the inside”. This for the controlled demo explosives to be put into towers as well as building 7 ,(which honestly fell in same way as twin towers) i.e at extremely close to free fall speed (into its own footprint) as well as to confuse and stall fighter jets from being in position. Its sobering to learn who had been given wtc security “big wig” status and to see and hear accounts of blasts going on inside towers and then buildings falling like a control’d demo. The cia by the way has stop’d several terrorist threats, but did u know they trained and financed alot of these radical islamists to the point of then setting them up and taking the credit for “stopping them”. You should also reasonably conclude that if 9/11 was lead by rogue forces within certain intelligence and military circles w a cpl careful placed govt officials (likely w some amount of compartmentalize) knowledge that the truth can NOT be known to the public bc the threat of upheaval and. Societal breakdown and riots would be destabalizing beyond current abilities to confidently contain.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      WTC 7 wasn’t destroyed in the same way. Look carefully at videos of the destruction of towers 1 and 2, and then 7. There’re serious differences. All 3 were evidently demolition jobs that certainly no outside organization could’ve carried out or been responsible for, but the destruction differed with no. 7. 7 fell right into its own footprint whereas the tops of 1 and 2, or certainly one of those two anyway, exploded outward with great force and there were less but nonetheless other outward explosions. The first few seconds with 7 also was at very near perfect free-fall speed, but this wasn’t the case with 1 and 2. All 3 were demolition jobs, but there were marked differences that’re very observable when carefully watching the videos.

      Plenty that’ve been uploaded by ae911truth and David Chandler channels at YouTube. He did this as a member or certainly associate of AE911Truth and his channel used to be DavidChandler911 or something like that.

      WTC security:

      For “wtc security clearencr” you evidently mean WTC security management. My guess is that some of them had to be somewhat included in the “inside loop” of information, but not everyone in these circles is told everything. It’s on a “need to know” basis, only, and very strictly.

      Some people refer to it, usually in other contexts, as compartementalization. A “hit man”, fe, doesn’t need to know more than he or she needs to know to carry out a hit. A security manager would just need to be told by superior authorities that he/she has to allow bla bla, whatever, to happen and that there’s nothing to worry about, higher-ups supposedly having good conscience and knowing what they’re doing. That’s if the security manager is someone who’s of good conscience. If they’re not, then they can be told a little more, though not everything. Not everyone in a criminal organization, if any organization at all, is equally informed/knowledgeable. Each participant learns what he/she has to know in order to be able to carry out the work that he/she is paid for; but, they don’t need to have greater knowledge in order for the leadership to be able to carry out all of its planning, etc.

      Regarding WTC security, 911review.com or 911research.wtc7.net and I think it’s a piece by Jim Hoffman, presents an argument that I find interesting. This is in a critique of Scott Forbes’ account, a guy who apparently is like almost entirely unknown, though not entirely. And his story apparently hasn’t been corroborated. The following are some example articles.

      “UNLIKELY: ‘The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack’”, last modified on 28 Jan 2006

      http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

      Excerpts:
      * It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. …

      * Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story …. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. …
      * Contrary to the e-mail’s assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. …
      End of excerpts

      I still haven’t heard anyone speak about this supposed Forbes account in a way that can cause me to doubt that the above 911review.com page is wrong. Everything isn’t “hunky-dory ok” about security at the WTC on and over the days, weeks, months preceding 9/11, but what Scott Forbes purportedly said is very questionable and I don’t know of anyone who’s actually spoken with him. Something was wrongly done with security at the WTC, but what Forbes supposedly said and which apparently was communicated through others is very questionable. As far as I know, he’s like a ghost and even less verifiable than that.

      http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/powerdown.html

      Sibel Edmonds said earlier this year that she only listens to two people about the 9/11 attacks, Scott Forbes and I believe the other is Jon Gold. While I think Gold has said some acceptable things, without agreeing with him 100%, though nevertheless enough; the Forbes account is very or else totally uncorroborated and would definitely need to be corroborated. What Gold has said, from what little I read and heard anyway, raised some questions for me, but he wasn’t speaking as a witness. Forbes’s account is treated like a witness or eye-witness one and this requires corroboration. There’re no others when there should normally be many people who witnessed the same thing.

      We only have people who support and refer to what he purportedly said, nothing more. Supposedly isn’t good enough. Real corroboration is essential if what he purportedly said is to be seriously believed. But, I guess that Sibel Edmonds can be forgiven about this flaw in her choices. After all, she certainly isn’t a technologist.

      Some elementary questions :
      *) How could Forbes, who was supposedly working on the IT system for his employer on floor no. x in one of the two WTC towers hit by a plane, have known that power was totally cut off from the 50th floor to the top? Did he leave his job or assignment to go inspect what the power situation was on upper and lower floors? He was purportedly there to do emergency work for his employer, not the rest of the tower, which had somewhere around or a little over 100 floors.
      *) How would he know that all doors normally locked by security were unlocked? How many did he check? He was there for the weekend for emergency IT work for his employer, so why did he go around checking doors for all or many of the other floors when his employer occupied only 1 or 2 floors, or parts of them?
      *) Who told him that power was disabled from floor 50 upward and that all normally secured doors were unlocked due to power-down?
      *) Why has this supposed Scott Forbes not been proven to be a real person? As far as I know, this still hasn’t been done after nearly a decade. Why hasn’t he come forward?
      *) If he has come forward and proven his identity, that he worked at the WTC the weekend preceding 9/11, etc., then why is the “9/11 community” like totally silent about this?

      Kevin Ryan wrote a 4-part article and 911review.com provides an apparently full copy, including an introduction by Don Paul, who I’ll let others look up. All 5 parts are worth reading and it’s important information. There’s also a video that presents some overview of what’s said in the 4-part piece. I already included this in a prior comment, here, for this page, but will repeat it.

      “Demolition Access To The WTC Towers”, by Kevin Ryan, 2010
      911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

      A complmentary video for the 4-part article and which I also find to be quite interesting is the following 15-minute one.

      “9/11 Suspects – Explosive Connections (Updated Fixed and Revised)”, uploaded by WarCrime911 on 15 Oct 2011
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffs7PkOREEY

      He has an older 2010 video on the same topic and that’s titled while saying, “Part 1 of ?”. I found a second part, but no more. The two parts provide about 30min for runtime and perhaps they’re important to listen to when listening the above one of only 15min. The following link is for part 1.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grybkFkmfYM

      The same user has the following related video.

      “Marvin Bush, Stratesec, and 9/11: The Straight Facts”, uploaded on 14 Dec 2012. (11min)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPD9kAJT98o

      These 3 videos are based on Kevin Ryan’s writings and they definitely inform readers and listeners to the fact that there were serious problems with security; but, none say what Forbes purportedly claimed.

  15. There is certainly a lot to find out about this topic. I love all the points you have made.

  16. Admiring the persistence you put into your blog and detailed information you present.
    It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the
    same outdated rehashed material. Fantastic
    read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS
    feeds to my Google account.

  17. Lynette says:

    Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after browsing through a few of the articles I realized it’s
    new to me. Nonetheless, I’m certainly happy I found it and I’ll be bookmarking it and checking back regularly!

  18. Oh my goodness! Awesome article dude! Thank you so much, However I am having difficulties
    with your RSS. I don’t know why I am unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody else getting similar RSS problems? Anybody who knows the answer will you kindly respond? Thanks!!

    • mikecorbeil says:

      For other readers, skip this comment unless having problems with subscribing to the RSS feed, for that’s all this post is about.

      This ideally would be a Q&A placed in a different comments section, perhaps in the About page for this blog or website, but I have no way to move this there while leaving your post here and the first part of your comment is specifically about the …, like you said, “awesome article” of this page.

      What problem is it you’re having with RSS, here? I was able to easily subscribe using the “Entries RSS” link in the section of Meta links located on the right-hand-side of a Web page here. If I click on it now, which I did after reading your question, and then also tried the “Comments RSS” link, then this immediately causes pop-up prompts for adding these as “Live Bookmark”. I didn’t know what LB was but said ok maybe a month ago and it worked. Now I get the prompt, but I cancel them due to already being subscribed.

      I’m using Firefox, which is always kept to the most recent official release. If you’re also using Ffx and the current or a recent release, rather than one many years old (as some people seem to do), f.e., then you should be getting the pop-up prompt.

      If clicking on the two RSS subscription links from this page, then I respectively get the two following URLs.

      http://digwithin.net/feed

      http://digwithin.net/comments/feed

      Clicking on the same (what seem to be the same, anyway) links from the home page of this website, the url doesn’t change. It remains http://digwithin.net for both RSS links.

      I just performed these tests and if I check Properties for the feed or LB added around a month ago, then it’s http://digwithin.net/feed. It’s correctly working.

      If clicking on the RSS links don’t work for you, for getting the pop-up prompt to add a LB, then try again by copying, pasting and loading the feed URLs specified above in a separate tab, say.

      If that also doesn’t work, then there perhaps is a problem that’s due to your Web browser. In that case, try inquiring with user support for the browser. Firefox or Mozilla browser users should check both mozilla.org as well as mozillazine.org. MISIE users can simply do a Web search of microsoft.com, for this will include Technet and social sections. Mozilla and MozillaZine need to be separately searched. The ‘Zine one isn’t by Mozilla. It’s by Mozilla product users and provides a forum as well as a knowledge base.

  19. A.Wright says:

    The idea that NORAD could have affected the events of 9/11 is largely spurious. There was nothing that could have ,or should have, been done to stop AA11 , and no plausible way the crash of UA175 could have been stopped either. With AA77, given better co-ordination that might have been intercepted at least but even then positively identifying it and getting an order to do something about it would have been difficult. With UA 93 it would in all likelihood have been intercepted if it hadn’t been crashed. Since it is unlikely NORAD could have done little to prevent what happened, there would be no requirement to hamper them in preventing it. Those trying to help did their best in the circumstances.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      A.Wright evidently is very wrong and a clear example of this is wherein he/she wrote, quote: “With UA 93 it would in all likelihood have been intercepted if it hadn’t been crashed”.

      UA 93 was intercepted. It was shot down. See Jim Hoffman’s websites, 911research.wtc7.net and 911review.com. All a person needs to do is to either work their way through the websites’ menus, or use, f.e., Google with the search terms of “flight 93″ and “UA 93″; for separate searches. “UA 93″ returns only 1 link and it may or possibly may not be included in the links returned for “flight 93″, so I’d recommend both searches. The main page is entitled “Flight 93″ and I’ll briefly cite from it.

      Quote:
      Shoot-Down

      According to the official story, Flight 93 crashed by flying into the ground near Somerset, Pennsylvania as a result of a struggle between passengers and the hijackers. However, eyewitness reports and widely scattered debris belie this account. …
      End quote

      Emphasis is to be placed on, “eyewitness reports and widely scattered debris belie” the official “story”.

      A person who doesn’t speak other than the official “story” about UA 93 is surely not someone to consider believing about the other 9/11 attack flights, either; NOT today, not after all of these many years.

  20. Pingback: The Corbett Report | 9/11 Truth and the Way Forward: Starting a Real Criminal Investigation

  21. Pingback: 9/11 Truth and the Way Forward: Starting a Real Criminal Investigation -

  22. Pingback: James Corbett – The Corbett Report – 9/11 Truth And The Way Forward: Starting A Real Criminal Investigation – 11 September 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  23. Pingback: 9/11 Truth and the Way Forward: Starting a Real Criminal Investigation

  24. Pingback: Another Drill Baby Drill | The Sandy Monocle

  25. waitew says:

    A far better case can be made against NEADS Commander Col. Robert Marr with SPECIFIC obstruction to our air defenses that we can prove one by one. Why the silence from the Truth movement?

    • mikecorbeil says:

      We can use the name to do some Web searches, but you should provide links to the sources you used. Not necessarily everyone who’s published about Col. Marr with respect to 9/11 will say the same things. Some may say the same thing but all while some of theyse may say little and others say more.

      Good writers or speakers provide reference notes for the sources used.

      Take the following article, f.e.

      http://911review.com/articles/gaffney/MysteryPlane2.html

      Quote:
      The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II)
      Mark H. Gaffney
      Part 2 in a series, See Part I
      May 7, 2007

      Yet, incredibly, the 9/11 Commission Report barely mentions the issue. It appears that instead of doing its job, i.e., digging for the truth, the commission meekly accepted the military’s various explanations, without a word of protest. General McKinley, for example, …. There was also the lame excuse about antiquated radar equipment. … According to Scoggins NEADS could see everything the FAA saw, and more. NEADS’ failure to locate Flight 11 on radar had the serious consequence of slowing down the military’s response, because Col. Robert Marr, NEADS commander, was reluctant to scramble his Otis fighters without a target. Was this the intended outcome?

      End quote

      Doing a Web search of 911research.wtc7.net turns up links, but it appears to be a copies of some 9/11 report. Doing a Web search of 911blogger.com, however, turns up plenty more.

      Nonetheless, you should provide source references. Who wants to spend a day or two trying to find the material that you should be able to include specific references for?

      Not me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s