UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
And Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. 08 CV 10881
Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT OF
ROBIN D. HORDON vs.
DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1-X, all in their individual capacities,
Defendants _________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBIN HORDON
I, Robin Dirk Hordon, declare, under the penalty of perjury:
And further, as an employee of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], in addition to performing all the skills and requirements of an Air Traffic Controller, I also served for several years in a management capacity [in an “Area Office“] which is charged with developing and coordinating airspace and procedural changes, improvements and modifications and this included working closely with the U.S. Military aviation operations. 2. And further, that I have served in a temporary supervisory role at specific “area specialties” in which I supervised operations of several air traffic control sectors and assigned and supervised personnel which required that I have basic understandings of communications and procedures required to perform all the duties required of an area of specialty including the communications flows upward to higher supervisory levels, downward to sector operations, parallel to other areas of specialty and outward to various other air traffic control facilities, including military facilities, with whom we shared many common goals. And further, that as an Air Traffic Controller, Area Specialist and Facility Training Instructor, I was part of the team that upgraded the entire Air Traffic Control system into a computerized era creating and performing the upgrade training required for the use of the IBM9020 computer and its RDP [Radar Data Processing] computer programs. This enabled me to become familiar with both older analogue and modern digitized radar systems, how the radar data was collected, and eventually how it was chosen or selected to be displayed at FAA air traffic control sectors in the ARTCC environment. And further, that as an Air Traffic Controller, I have experienced the successful scrambling of military aviation assets in the assistance of an aircraft suffering an in-flight emergency. Additionally, I was peripherally involved in an aviation hijacking and directly involved in handling a US Air Carrier which reportedly had on board an altitude sensitive bomb as it transited through my airspace. And further, I have performed the duties required of me as part of the National Air Defense System working closely with Air Defense Command [the precedent organization to NORAD, the North American Air Dense system] in the operation of various War Games, low altitude Oil Burner Bombing Runs, aerial refueling, scramble and flush operations, and interceptor operations. 2. That I have accumulated 1600 hours of flight time in light aircraft ascending to pilot of a third level air carrier operating small twin engined aircraft in the northeastern part of the U.S.A. And further that I had achieved the following piloting licenses: Commercial Pilots License with an Instrument Rating and with the following ratings: Airplane Single Engine LandAirplane Single Engine SeaAirplane Multi-engine LandGliderFlight Instructor Airplanes and InstrumentsAnd further, that I had been certified as a ground instructor.And further that I had passed the Flight Engineer Basic Exam that was based upon the B727 aircraft. 3. That I have accumulated approximately 2000 hours of supervised aviation mechanic training working on airframes and engines, and the installation of electronics in light aircraft. I stipulate that considering all of the above mentioned training and experiences, I have a solid understanding of aviation operations from aircraft upkeep, repair and fixed-base operations, to the flying of aircraft, to the training of new pilots, to understanding, operating and training within the air traffic control system as a pilot, to understanding, performing duties and training what is required of air traffic controllers in the NAS [National Airspace Systems] in the En Route ATC [ARTCC] environment including, being an integral part of Military Aviation Operations and the National Air Defense System as well as pertaining to procedural and airspace development, planning and operations which also includes operating with Military Aviation facilities such as NORAD as part of the National Air Defense System. 4. Based upon all of the above information including all my experiences in defense of the U.S.A., as the attacks on this country, as seen on 9/11/2001, ensued, and then shortly thereafter, upon finding out that there was no major communication or radar system failure between the FAA facilities and those of NORAD in the morning hours ON 9/11/2001, I concluded that there had to have been a major failure of the National Air Defense System, And further that, this failure had to have its origins WITHIN the U.S. Governmental organizations responsible for defending the United States of America in general, and more specifically, within the National Air Defense Systems which includes both the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], The Pentagon and its Defense Department, and NORAD. Somehow
the standard intercept operating procedures that had been finely
honed for over 50 years operated in the defense of the U.S.A had been
stood down or compromised to allow such an attack to be successful. SPECIFIC
SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION, FACTS, and EVIDENCE 5. In the ensuing years after 9/11/2001 I have had the ability to, access of , discovery of, analysis of, and example of information, facts, data and evidence that supports the statement shown in the paragraph identified under 4 above. Below please find this information and my interpretations of and conclusions about this evidence. 6. SCRAMBLING PROTOCOLS, NORAD and WAR GAMES: On 9/11/2001 there were three modes of scrambling interceptors in active use as they are every hour of every day of every year in: …the defense of this country……assisting aircraft suffering in-flight emergencies……in dealing with hijacked aircraft… Two of the three scrambling protocols call for the immediate scrambling of interceptors without delay once the decision is made that requires a scramble, and the third can also demand the immediate scrambling of interceptors or appropriate military aviation assets if deemed necessary. The above three scramble protocols do not include any actions regarding the Drug Enforcement Agency’s scramble and intercept operations as they have their own distinct communications, operations and aviation assets. 7. ONE of TWO: In Defense of the Unites States of America… Upon the notification of enemy aircraft [or sometimes missiles] inbound towards the continental United States, or in some instances the continent of North America, interceptors are immediately scrambled to conduct this interception action and there is no need for prior approvals from the Pentagon to scramble aircraft. NORAD and its facilities, including scramble or “hot “ bases react to the situation immediately AND MAKE DECISIONS TO SCRAMBLE TOTALLY WITHIN FIELD FACILITY OPERATIONS. Reports of these activities are filed in appropriate “after action” formats. The immediacy of the need to scramble military aviation assets in this scenario is of utmost importance because there is little or no time available to handle the situation. TWO of TWO: Aircraft Suffering In-Flight Emergencies… Upon notification from the FAA that assistance of any U.S. Military aviation asset, such as interceptors, are required to deal with an “in-flight emergency“, NORAD”s field facilities are required to IMMEDIATELY SCRAMBLE pertinent military aviation assets to handle this situation. And again the immediacy of scrambling pertinent military aviation assets in such situations is quite obvious because “in-flight emergencies” have no time to spare. THREE of THREE: Possible Hijacked Aircraft… The third protocol for scrambling military aviation assets has to do with the possible hijacking of an aircraft. In this situation the request for the need for Military aviation assets comes from whatever facility or information source that suspects that a hijacking may be unfolding. This may be law enforcement, the State Department, or sometimes from an FAA air traffic control facility that hears something from the pilot of an aircraft suggesting that a hijacking is taking place, or from seeing a special hijacking transponder code being transmitted by an aircraft. In these situations the need for an immediate scrambling of Military aviation assets is less time critical. 8.This is for both State Department involvement and for Pentagon involvement because of their need for long range flight escorting by interceptors and interceptor replacement requirements due to their short range fuel capabilities. However, if deemed appropriate by high level NORAD or Pentagon personnel, the hijacking scramble protocol can be assigned first priority of service which places these activities in the same “immediacy” of action status as the first two scramble priorities noted above. In the unfolding events of 9/11/2001 each of the four airliners involved, AA11, UA175, UA93 and AA77 each showed all the signs of aircraft suffering “in-flight emergencies” WELL BEFORE any of them were considered to be suffering a possible “hijacking“. Please note that each of the following are also some of the physical air traffic control based signs of both a potential hijacking and an in-flight emergency. These signs are: Loss of radio contact…Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval…Loss of transponder… Each of these four airliners showed each of these characteristics and therefore should have been first and immediately considered as suffering “in-flight emergencies“. Such suspicions were reported at 08:21 by ATC Pete Zalewski. Indeed, there were no signs at that point establishing that the airliners were suffering a possible hijacking. Again, the signs indicating a possible hijacking are: seeing the airliner’s transponder code on the special hijacking code, or hearing direct radio transmissions about being hijacked by the pilot of AA11 itself. The ONLY information that was presented to ATC that AA11 was being hijacked were a few radio transmissions between 08:14-08:24 that noted some troubling disturbances onboard an aircraft on that frequency, and that they sounded like the radio transmissions were from an Arabic sounding person. It is CRITICAL TO NOTE that these specific radio transmissions referred to above cannot be positively established as coming from AA11 or indeed any of the other specific airliners themselves. And further that, such radio transmissions could have come from ANY OTHER aircraft aloft at high altitudes in the northeastern part of the U.S.A.5 It is only PRESUMPTION that these radio transmissions came from AA11 and any of the other airliners in question. The first indication that there was serious trouble in the flight of an airliner came from Pete Zalewski, the Boston ARTCC air traffic controller, noticing the loss of radio contact, then shortly the loss of transponder, and then subsequently, the radical and unapproved course change exhibited by AA11...and this sequence of events started at 08:14. Normal protocols for the FAA to reach out to NORAD for assistance with an “in-flight emergency” would place the first call to NEADS for help no later than 08:21, and most prudently, somewhere around 08:18 or so, as AA11 increasingly showed the symptoms of suffering an “in-flight emergency“. INDEED, the first radio transmission suggesting that a hijacking was taking place happened at 08:24. Therefore, for a period of ten minutes the ONLY possibility to explain the odd behavior of AA11 was that it was suffering an “in-flight emergency” such as a total loss of electrical power or circuitry. Such a possibility of serious trouble for AA11 was reported to his supervisor by controller Pete Zalewski at 08:21. This observance of an impending “in-flight emergency” should have called for an IMMEDIATE scramble of Military aviation assets to help out AA11. All of his information should be available for discovery by a thorough analysis of ALL ATC audio tapes in use at ZBW [Boston ARTCC] and ALL adjacent and pertinent air traffic control sectors and facilities that had ANY relationships to the geographical flight path of AA11. However, the FBI has not released ALL of these FAA sector and extra facility audio tapes for such discovery as noted by Collin Scoggins the Military Liason Officer working at ZBW on 9/11/2001.
9. Consequently, the net affect of the Arab sounding radio transmissions was to make ATC suspect that a hijacking was taking place in lieu of an “in-flight emergency“, which as noted earlier, would engage a different and slower scramble protocol, that of a hijacking where the Pentagon’s approval was needed before interceptors were allowed to be scrambled. However, and critical to all the scrambling events on 9/11, at 08:38 the Boston ARTCC called NEADS [the Northeast Air Defense Sector] and directly and succinctly asked for direct support of scrambled interceptors and this specific request SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER PROTOCOLS because the FAA is the responsible organization when dealing with aircraft in ANY kind of distress and thusly, is directly responsible for its safe handling. Tellingly, NEADS did NOT follow this DIRECT REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE made by Boston ARTCC, and also tellingly, the interceptors were finally allowed off the ground only after there was a pertinent and “impromptu” decision made by a NORAD commander serving down in Florida. And also tellingly, this order in itself was outside the “hijacking scramble protocol“ indicating that the appropriate level of emergency assistance had been in place for quite sometime and that an appropriate response HAD NOT been executed to meet this emergency. This is a critical event because this commander saw and understood that the precedent activities of the U.S. Military [NORAD-NEADS] in NOT IMMEDIATELY ASSISTING the FAA in dispensing its responsibilities by honoring the FAA’s request…aka…at a minimum, the instructions by the Boston ARTCC for NEADS to scramble interceptors, was the INCORRECT SCRAMBLE AND COMMAND PROTOCOL and he corrected such protocols by issuing immediate scramble orders to NEADS at that time with approval of superiors at the Pentagon to come later. The approval for scrambling was issued at 08:46 and the interceptors were airborne at 08:52. This six minute delay was because the interceptors were NOT given higher departure priority as called for in scrambles for “in-flight emergencies” and instead, were slotted for normal first-come-first-served departure sequences and ATC handling used in hijacking protocols [unless specifically requested otherwise as noted in the Special Military Operations section of FAA-Military orders].
10. It has been well established that there were several overlapping War Games Exercises that were scheduled and in operation on or about 9/11/2001. Indeed, the U.S. Military actually moved up scheduling dates of one or more War Games that had usually occurred in or after October every year to the 9/11/2001 timeframe. Its is also understood that these War Games included many hijacking scenarios as almost all War Games Exercises do have included within them. It is my experience that all participants in upcoming War Games Exercises, IE: the FAA facilities and all participating Military facilities, squadrons and personnel, are not only briefed ahead of time about the possibility of upcoming War Games Exercises, but indeed, these early warnings are used to create opportunities for both new and refresher training of such War Games Exercises within ALL the facilities and squadrons and their associated personnel, that will soon be included in executing the upcoming War Games Exercises. This is certainly true within the FAA’s En Route ATC environment and I have been told that it’s the very same within the Military environments. Therefore, it is clear to me that the “hijacking” protocols and associated expectations were necessary and deliberately pre-placed in and on “participant’s minds” as the events of 9/11/2001 began to unfold. Indeed, there is testimony and recorded conversations between Military participants in these War Games Exercises in which they expressed that the hijacking portions of the War Games Exercises may have been “early“, or whether or not it was “real world” or still part of the War Games Exercises as was usual. It is important note that FEW SUCH conclusions about a hijacking were part of the FAA’s initial responses to AA11’s plight and that the majority of the “thinking” and ensuing presumptions about a possible “hijacking” scenario came from within the chain of command in NEADS, NORAD and the Pentagon. All of the above serves as proof positive of the intended results of the confusion and delay related to the differences between scramble protocols in the assistance of an ‘in-flight emergency“ and those of a “hijacking“. This is in part because of the relocation of War Games into the 9/11/2001 time period, the existing War games that had been planned for that time period, resulting in focus being placed upon the “hijacking protocols“ at NORAD and NEADS.
11. In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that the Air Defense System for the United States of America, as historically provided by NORAD and their northeast geographical sector known a NEADS under the auspices of the Pentagon, was deliberately compromised by elements within the U.S. Military by: …scheduling War Games Exercises which included “hijacking scenarios” so that, because of confusion, there would be just a few minutes of delay in appropriate reactions to the usual and expected immediate scrambling protocols associated with “in-flight emergencies” and this is due SPECIFICALLY to the confusion between “real world” and War Games Exercises… …and that the radio transmissions that sounded like the voices of Arabic sounding people CANNOT be, and have not been proven to have come from the radios onboard the affected airliners and indeed, they could have come from another airborne platform flying in the northeast airspace… …and that NEADS, which served as the communications and radar data nexus and SINGLE FACILITY responsible for all air defense activities in the northeast region of the U.S.A. on 9/11/2001, and which was responsible for all the airspace in which all the flights, including the interceptors which were finally scrambled, did not take appropriate, timely and affirmative action to scramble interceptors when they were DIRECTLY ASKED/INSTRUCTED to do so by the FAA’s Boston ARTCC which holds such civil first responder responsibilities and authority in establishing and maintaining the safety of flights within it sphere of responsibilities… …and that NORAD through its northeast sector facility NEADS, was directly told at 08:38 that the FAA needed the Military’s assistance”, that there were possibilities of hijackings”, that existing immediate scramble protocols to assist the FAA were not followed”, and that subsequently, three OTHER airliners were suffering from either “in-flight emergencies” or, hijackings, or both and that these three airliners were allowed to fly unabated in U.S. airspace until they each allegedly crashed at: 09:03, 09:32/38, and 10:03/06 respectively…
12. This
amounts to: - a 25 minute delay in scrambling/intercept response for UA175 before its crash into WTC2, and - a 48/54 minute delay in scrambling/intercept response for AA77 before its alleged crash into the Pentagon, and - an 85/88 minute delay in scrambling/intercept response for UA93 before its alleged crash or its shoot-down in Shanksville, PA, and - that a senior commander at NORAD, upon finding out about the delayed scramble situation, IMMEDIATELY gave instructions to allow the interceptors to be scrambled because he KNEW that the usual scramble protocols called for in such emergency situations had not been adhered to, and - that once interceptors were scrambled from Langley well in time to intercept the unknown high speed air vehicle displayed as an UNKNOWN HIGH SPEED PRIMARY TARGET [eventually thought to be, or morphed into being considered AA77] approaching WDC from the west over West Virginia, and - they were not broken off of their normal easterly departure routings and turned directly towards WDC in a fashion as seen in the interceptors that departed Otis AFB were immediately turned directly towards NYC upon departure, and - consequently, and knowingly, the failure to head these interceptors directly towards WDC after departure [as had happened with the interceptors who were late in departing Otis AFB and headed directly towards NYC], and all the subsequent headings issued to these interceptors to points OTHER THAN DIRECTLY TOWARDS WDC, were issued to INSURE that the Langley interceptors WOULD NOT arrive over WDC in time to intercept the above noted UNDIDENTIFIED HIGH SPEED PRIMARY TARGET that was presumed to be AA77, when indeed, the interceptors had taken off WITH ENOUGH TIME TO INTERCEPT this unknown high speed primary target before it got to the WDC and Pentagon area. UNSEEN TARGETS, TRACKS and RADAR DATA ANALYSIS:
13.
THREE
OF FOUR CRASHED… AA11...Boston to WTC1...UA175...Boston to WTC2...UA93...Newark to Shanksville, PA… AA77 is a completely different story… AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio and nobody, at any facility, in any location, at any time during the events of 9/11/2001 or thereafter, has ever re-radar identified any target flying anywhere as being AA77. AA77 became lost to positive radar contact and remains so today. The high speed eastbound primary radar target eventually seen by Danielle O’Brien at Dulles Tower-Potomac Approach, and which went on towards WDC, and then which made a large right handed turn into or over the Pentagon, has only been PRESUMED to be AA77... …and that presumption is SOLELY BASED upon unreliable and controversial evidence FOUND or PLACED AT the Pentagon crash site… …and the aforementioned evidence is being forwarded as “proof” that this unidentified target was indeed AA77 by the use of a reverse time engineered identification process based upon the unreliable evidence found or placed at the Pentagon crash or explosion site… …consequently, it CANNOT be established that the target seen by Danielle O’Brien is AA77 using unreliable and inconclusive evidence at the crash site. There will be more on AA77 later in this affidavit but there is no proof positive that AA77 was the aircraft that flew into, or over the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Its only speculation of such as of this point in time.
14. The phantom AA11... Its is my conclusion that the “phantom AA11” that was eventually used by the Pentagon and NORAD as THE PRIMARY REASON for scrambling interceptors from Langley, in lieu of the interceptors being scrambled because of the actual high speed primary target headed for WDC [the presumed AA77]… …was in fact the computer generated TRACK for AA11 that kept on heading in a southwesterly direction after AA11, the real airplane, struck WTC1. TRACKS are not TARGETS and TRACKS are created from specifically designed tracking computer programs that place alphanumeric symbols in the vicinity of and over the actual RADAR TARGET that the TRACK is associated with. This is continuously accomplished so as to keep the identity of AND the tracked location of, that specific TARGET. TRACKS are designed to “search for” its associated TARGET along the route of flight, or along the last generated heading and ground speed noted by the TRACK for its specific host aircraft. After the TRACK for AA11 “lost” its host target [because AA11 had entered WTC1], the TRACK for AA11, showing all the same specific alphanumeric symbols identifying AA11 [with the exception of the COAST TRACK symbol in place of a target symbo] as were attached to the real AA11 before it hit WTC1, kept on traveling on the last heading and groundspeed known [towards WDC] as it kept “searching for” its former but recently lost host TARGET. TRACKS will remain in COAST MODE and moving at the last known heading and speed, or routing and speed, still searching for its original target forever, or, until manually ended by specific computer inputs associated with that specific flight plan and/or track. A person who is inexperienced or unknowledgeable regarding such RDP and ATC symbols, procedures and programming specifications, and in seeing this alphanumeric display, but failing to see that the host TARGET was not there, could conclude that AA11 was still airborne even though only the TRACK for AA11 was moving across the radar scopes even though of it lacked a TARGET. However, a person who IS EXPERIENCED in all these programs and associated nomenclature and symbols, would SEE THE COAST MODE of this TRACK and be able to convince an inexperienced person that AA11 was still airborne because all the alphanumeric symbols were the same except the smallish COAST SYMBOL [] that had replaced the REAL TARGET symbol. Therefore, it is my conclusion that someone, somewhere and at some location associated with one of the various inter-intra facility phone banks established on 9/11/2001, and with a FAA Radar Situational Display, or a similar device showing the COAST TRACK of AA11, deliberately made the point that AA11 was still airborne so as to increase the levels of confusion… …and further that, this was done to create a COVER-UP of the real reason that the interceptors from Langley were indeed scrambled for…to intercept the high speed eastbound primary target first noted by Danielle O’Brien at Dulles Tower-Potomac Approach… …and further that, this was part of the sophisticated “stand-down” of NORAD’s assets and responsibilities to protect the United States of America in place on 9/11/2001.
15. Why AA11 Was Not Seen by NEADS?… Having years ago worked as an air traffic controller the specific airspace in which AA11 exhibited signs of suffering an “in-flight emergency” before it then turned hard left and headed south towards NYC… …and further that, having handed military aircraft off to then ADC [Air Defense Command]…aka…the now modernized NORAD-NEADS facilities… …and further that, in having military aircraft handed off and identified to me, and having pointed out various civilian aircraft to ADC-NEADS that they had questions about, or were concerned about as they operated their War Games and daily military activities, I claim that the attempts to point out AA11 to NEADS failed because the radar data delivery systems to NEADS through NORAD’s radar data and computer programming was COMPROMISED all within the ACKNOWLEDGED BUT NEVER FULLY EXPLAINED 24 second delay in delivery of such radar data from NORAD’s main computers to NEADS’ radar displays in upstate NY… …and further that, long range radar [LRR] sweeps or refreshes occur every twelve seconds... …and further that, this 24 second delay represents two separate opportunities [each being 12 seconds apart], for a radar tech, or in inside “mole” who is located “electronically” in between the original radar data source [NORAD-FAA-or joint use radar antennae sites], and the final destination of the radar data stream [NORAD-NEADS field facilities and eventually their sector radar scopes], to ELIMINATE SPECIFIC TARGETS as needed or desired in the continuation of both the execution of the “stand-down” of NORAD and the ensuing COVER-UP of this stand-down still ongoing today… …and further that, NORAD radar systems have the computer program capacity to electronically create “target inputs” that present fake aircraft targets associated with specific War Games Scenarios to affected NORAD sectors during War Games Exercises that are so indiscernible from REAL targets so as to make it impossible for NORAD radar techs, AND any interceptor pilots who also receive similar target data for their intercept operations, to be able to tell ANY DIFFERENCES between such computer generated targets and any REAL WORLD targets seen and eventually presented to NORAD sector radar techs…. …and further that, this capacity allows for the presentation of War games as close to reality as is possible… …and further that, likewise, but in the total OPPOSITE need, NORAD radar and computer programs and systems have the capacity to “output“, “out-take“, or somehow to ELIMINATE or REMOVE SPECIFIC RADAR TARGETS and RADAR DATA from the radar data base and radar data streams… …and further that, ostensibly, that such programs are designed to, and such practices allow for and dictate that, after such a radar “input” or “fake target” has served its purpose in any War Game Exercises, this “input or target” can be completely eliminated by the means of an electronic command into the specific computer programming designed so that the radar displays in BOTH the NORAD radar tech’s and interceptor pilot’s displays, can be kept as close to reality based as is possible… …and further that, it is with THIS electronically actuated radar target “out-take” capability that the real target of AA11 was secretly “eliminated” from the radar data base and data streams generated by NORAD prior to all the radar data being sent along to NORAD-NEADS sectors… …and further that, the willful and clandestine elimination of the primary radar target for AA11, which under historical conditions would have EASILY been seen and detected by normally operating radar systems in use by NORAD-NEADS in this specific geographical area, is the PRIMARY REASON that the primary target presented by AA11, a wide body B767, was NOT VISIBLE to NORAD-NEADS radar techs on 9/11/2001... …and further that, this is the full purpose behind the unusual, and yet to be explained, 24 second delay that has been acknowledged by the Pentagon and NORAD as being in existence regarding the radar data stream on 9/11/2001... …and further that, the net result of the removal of the REAL target of AA11 from NORAD-NEADS’ radar scopes was that the radar techs at NORAD-NEADS could not get a geographical position for AA1... …and further that, consequent to the lack of such a primary radar target, both the FAA personnel and NORAD-NEADS personnel had a more difficult and much longer time spent in assessing the location of AA11, as well as, the critical nature of the unfolding events regarding AA11’s plight… …and further that, personnel in each facility had to spend over 40 phone calls busy with attempts at such identification activities, and, thusly, had a far more difficult time in establishing and consequently transmitting any target location information to interceptors’ target and tracking systems… …and further that, the absence of a radar target at NEADS also was by design and created the delay in response to the launching of interceptors in aid and assistance to AA11 on 9/11/2001... …and further that, all of the above stands as evidence to establish the “stand-down” of NORAD’s responsibilities and capabilities to defend The United States of America on 9/11/2001.
16. Why the
primary radar target for AA77 was not seen by Indianapolis ATRCC in
eastern Ohio: Radar data that is collected from radar antennae across the country is processed by the FAA’s RDP [radar data processing] computer programs in each of the ARTCC computers that are, in one way or another, electronically connected across the country covering the airspaces controlled by the collective ARTCCs which are contiguously adjacent to each other forming a massive mosaic of controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Pertinent RADR DATA, both secondary radar returns and primary radar returns reflected from the outer skins or external coverings of aircraft [which are handled with separate radar antennae], and which eventually gets processed and sent along to individual air traffic control sectors, is first allocated to and eventually sent INTO electronically defined geographical areas or zones called “radar sort boxes” before they are able to be seen by ATCs at their sectors. These “radar sort boxes” are established en-mass, as a large contiguous gridlike-matrix-mosaic covering the entire United States of America and somewhat beyond where needed for air traffic control purposes. These “sort boxes” usually have several radar antennae sweeping through them and it is an expected practice that the best, strongest and lowest height-altitude coverage radar returns of the multiple radar antennae coverage in each “sort box” is selected to be SENT INTO each individual “radar sort box“. Consequently, and in order to manage and control these preferred radar data streams, there are computer commands that are entered into the major RDP and other computer systems at the various ARTCCs that control which radar data stream from which radar antennae site is preferred. Part of these computer commands sending both primary and secondary radar data streams into the various “radar sort boxes” includes the capacity to INHIBIT ALL RADAR DATA STREAMS to be sent into ANY SPECIFIC “radar sort box or boxes“. Therefore, the primary radar “black hole” in which AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio could have been created by inputting commands into the RDP [radar data processing] computer programs that instructed that ANY or ALL primary radar data streams NOT be sent into the group of “radar sort boxes” that represent the broader region in which AA77 was lost to positive radar identification and contact in eastern Ohio. In other words, it is possible to CREATE a “primary radar black hole” in which no primary radar data returns would be made available to an air traffic controller in that specific area… …and further that, thee computer commands controlling the sending of radar data to all the applicable “radar sort boxes”, and subsequent air traffic sector radar displays, is usually located at the “systems engineers” stations or positions at each individual ARTCC…. …and further that, through keyboard inputs from such stations, EACH of the “radar sort boxes” within the entire airspace that each ARTCC is responsible for, is assigned the appropriate radar data stream input… …and further that, like any other computer input station, or computer program, such computer command inputs are hackable or, controllable from other locations should the proper hacking or code breaking be discovered or utilized… …and further that, therefore, on the morning of 9/11/2001, it is entirely possible that some agent other than qualified Indianapolis ARTCC personnel, such as a secretive mole within the Indianapolis ARTCC, or a secretive mole in a remote location could have, without detection, hacked into the FAA’s Indianapolis ATRCC computers and entered commands that eliminated the input flows of primary radar data into the specific “radar sort boxes” that covered eastern Ohio where AA77’s primary radar target was never observed… …and further that, the FAA in general, and the Indianapolis ARTCC specifically, have to this day only identified the anomaly of the lack of primary radar coverage in the region where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact, as being an unexplainable “glitch” in their radar system operations on 9/11/2001.
17.
Analyzing Radar Data Around WDC and The Pentagon: …and further that, multiple eyewitnesses have reported seeing multiple large aircraft flying at low altitudes around the WDC-Pentagon-Mall area… …and further that, upon analysis, aircraft at these at altitudes would normally create an observable target for local and long range radar systems in that area… …and further that, this RADES radar data shows a target approaching the Pentagon from the west, then making a sweeping 330 degree right hand turn, then heading back to the Pentagon on a northeasterly heading… …and further that, then a loss of that target occurred for a few radar sweeps just west of the Pentagon near the Naval Annex area… …and further that, and tellingly, then another radar “hit” or “target” is shown on that same projected target ground track AT the side of the Pentagon… …and further that, the above noted loss of the primary target to the immediate west of the Pentagon is most likely due to the low altitudes flown approaching the Navy Annex and subsequently, near-over the Pentagon… …and further that, the reappearing target at the edge of the Pentagon is most likely because this target climbed up and over the Pentagon and above the radar floor thus again becoming visible to local radar systems… …and further that, some of the radar returns known as ground clutter [which looks exactly like a stationary primary radar target] which had been long established and represented to the north-northeast side of the Pentagon…east of the Potomac…and to the west of the White House…IE:…in the vicinity of the Georgetown area, and which had been stationary and visible throughout the entire radar data display provided by RADES, suddenly “disappears“… …and further that, this ground clutter is in the exact geographical position that had an extended flight path of an air vehicle OVER FLYING THE PENTAGON would have traveled IF it had indeed flown over and past the Pentagon and had began a low altitude left turn towards the northwest in a flight path that would place this flight over Georgetown... …and further that, at least one eyewitness establishes a large aircraft making a low altitude left banked turn over the Georgetown section of the WDC area which is just north-northeast of the Pentagon and across the Potomac… …and further that, the loss of the ground clutter in the vicinity of Georgetown at the projected location and time that an over-flying air vehicle would be in that exact geographical location, indicates that the radar data was scrubbed or eliminated at that point to hide the fact that it was an over-flight, or that there was a target in that area and that that target needed to be “hidden“ from analysis or subsequent investigation… …and further that, that the radar data stream stops soon thereafter which disallows any further analysis thus continuing the cover-up of true aviation activities on or around WDC and the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. In conclusion of this radar analysis: The lack of radar returns for aircraft flying over WDC at altitudes high enough to have been detected by radar systems, combined with the above described radar data scrubbing or target eliminations over WDC, when combined with the Military denying the existence of an E4B flying high above WDC that was videotaped by both CNN and ABC news film crews and reported conclusively by author Mark Gaffney AND multiple eyewitnesses, all combine with each other to indicate that the RADES radar data has been scrubbed or tampered with. All of the above information indicates that the U.S. Military has covered up or fabricated, or both, the: …truthful radar data showing aviation operations around WDC on 9/11/2001... …the actual identification of certain radar targets seen in and around and approaching the WDC area… …and the existence of certain flights operating in the vicinity of WDC at both low and high altitudes on the morning of 9/11/2001.
Pertinent Information About AA77... The flight of AA77 is an exceptional event for the following reasons…and I consider it very differently than the other three airliner flights. AA77 is the only one of the four flights that was totally lost to positive radar contact on 9/11/2001. All three other flights were kept in virtual positive radar contact from departure to their final destinations or crash sites… …and further that, AA77 was never positively re-radar identified by any person, at any facility at any time since it was lost to positive radar contact… …and further that, the only way that the Military, FBI and other agencies have attempted to prove that the eastbound high speed target eventually noticed by Danielle O’Brien as it entered her airspace at Dulles Tower-Potomac Approach, is to reverse engineer the identity based upon the alleged “hard evidence” found at the alleged crash site at the Pentagon… …and further that, the evidence collected at the Pentagon crash site is under significant challenge as to its veracity and accuracy as being parts and parcels of the actual aircraft operating as AA11... …and further that, there are legitimate questions of “chain of possession “ of evidence such as the DNA of body parts found at the Pentagon… …and further that, the FDR [Flight Data Recorder] found at the Pentagon that was allegedly onboard AA77 is under sever questioning as to its authenticity based upon the following: ……that the last modification to the data inside the FDR happened approximately four hours before it was found at the Pentagon which was many hours after the alleged crash of AA77 at the Pentagon… ……that this indicates tampering of the FDR at some time between the alleged crash time at the Pentagon and the recovery time admitted by authorities… ……that there are no matching serial numbers establishing a history that the FDR recovered at the Pentagon was indeed the FDR that was onboard AA77 on 9/11/2001... ……that there is radar data and air traffic controller testimony that AA77 had begun a descent at the west end of its westbound leg just before it was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio… ……that the FDR data does NOT show the beginning of this descent and thusly, this establishes that the data within the alleged FDR for AA77, at least after this point of descent initiation has been tampered with… ……that the last heading noted by FAA air traffic controllers and FAA radar data establishes that AA77 was headed southwest bound and NOT eastbound before AA77 was lost to positive radar contact… ……that all of this above casts strong and critical doubt upon the veracity of all the routing, airspeed, altitude and other data contained in the FDR alleged to be from AA77 AFTER this point where the data failed to show such a descent… AA77 was captained by Chic Burlingame, who, approximately one year before 9/11/2001, and while on National Guard duty, participated in the analysis of the defensive capabilities of the Pentagon should it be attacked by a hijacked airliner that would be used as an airborne bomb… …and further that, Burlingame’s family members have collectively and definitively indicated that Burlingame would NEVER give up his aircraft to ANYONE attempting to take control of HIS aircraft, and especially anyone wielding small box-cutter knives who was many inches shorter and tens of pounds lighter in physical stature… “Operation Northwoods” was a secretive plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the approval of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy that called for the “swapping out” of a US airliner with a “substitute aircraft“… …and further that, the “swapped in” aircraft would then be deliberately crashed or shot down under the LIE that this happened by the hand of Cuba, and thusly, would create a false impression that Cuba had attacked the United States… …and further that, this shoot-down would justify the U.S. Military attacking or invading Cuba… …and further that, the aircraft that was “swapped out” had to be flown by a trusted and cooperative agent of the U.S. Military who would pilot this original aircraft to an undisclosed or secure airport so that its passengers and the aircraft itself could be dealt with appropriately… …and further that, another part of Operation Northwoods included bombing U.S. cities causing deaths of U.S. citizens and again blaming the event on Cuba in order to attack Cuba… …and further that, President Kennedy fired all those in the Military who had proposed the plan… …and further that, the creation of Operation Northwoods proves that the U.S. Military has the history, capability and heartlessness to create plans that include the deaths of innocent U.S. citizens by their own hand to further their agenda of justifying and initiating an attack on another country.
RADAR Data Specific to AA77 or The Airvehicle Approaching the Pentagon and the Penatgon‘s Air Defense System... It is well reported that the altitude of the air vehicle that approached the Pentagon and which subsequently made a 330 degree descending turn back towards the Pentagon was flying between 7000 and 8000 feet before it began its descent… …and further that, the ORIGINAL SOURCE of this altitude information has not yet been established… …and further that, the primary target approaching the Pentagon did not have a civilian transponder turned on which would have most likely shown the altitude of this aircraft… …and further that, a military air vehicle equipped with a military IFF [Identification-Friend or Foe] transponder would BOTH not bee seen by any FAA radar system, yet WOULD be seen by all Military radar systems in use for the protection of the WDC area, or elsewhere… …and further that, such a Military IFF transponder WOULD contain altitude information of the air vehicle and this WOULD be seen by the Military radar facility thus becoming a possible source for the 7000 foot altitude… …and further that, upon reading the Military IFF transponder the ground-to-air defense system protecting parts or all of WDC on 9/11/2001, would automatically “stand-down” or “disarm“, the ground-to-air missile defense systems in use protecting the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
THE UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY TARGET “first seen”… The low altitude radar coverage floor of the west quadrant of the PLA [The Plains] radar site located in The Plains, VA, ranges from 7000-9000 feet in the general region over central West Virginia where the high speed eastbound UNKNOWN and UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY radar target was first seen by the PLA radar site… …and further that, this geographical point is approximately 150NM west of the PLA radar site… …and further that, a target flying between 7000-9000 feet at points west of this 150NM point WOULD NOT be seen by the PLA radar site because the target would be BELOW the floor of radar coverage in that area… …and further that, if such a target were to be flying eastbound at an altitude between 7000-9000 feet in the above described general region over central West Virginia and it kept flying eastbound, this primary radar target would eventually be seen by the PLA radar site as it entered above the floor of radar coverage east of the 150NM point west of the PLA radar site… …and further that, this data establishes the potential that the eastbound target that “popped up” into radar coverage over central West Virginia approximately 150NM west of the PLA radar site was most likely flying at an altitude that was between 7000-9000 feet and that this is why this eastbound target was NOT seen west of the 150NM point west of the PLA radar site… …and further that, the two altitudes of approximately 7000 feet…IE:…the 7000 foot floor of the radar coverage at 150NM west of the PLA radar site and the 7000 foot altitude that is claimed to be the altitude at which the air vehicle that made the 330 degree descending turn towards the Pentagon began its descent from, represent an interesting and more than coincidental similarity of approximately 7000 feet at both ends of the flight of this primary target… …and further that, this now represents TWO possible sources establishing the 7000 foot altitude at the beginning of the descending turn… ONE…the floor of the PLA radar coverage in central West Virginia… TWO…one of the Military radar sites [such as PLA or any radar system used by the Secret Service in protecting the WDC area] reading the altitude from the air vehicle’s IFF …aka…the Military transponder, IF the air vehicle indeed had such an IFF transponder… …and further that, the floor of the PLA radar system 150NM west of the PLA radar site, and then west of there to a point 200NM west of the PLA radar site [the outermost range of the PLA radar system], and specifically for the 50 mile leg between 150NM and 200NM west of the PLA radar site, was low enough or adequate enough to have the capability to “see” and pick up the primary target of AA77 had AA77 been the air vehicle flying the route between just east of where AA77 first was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio, and where the unidentified high speed primary target “popped up” on the PLA radar site approximately 150NM west of the PLA radar site, AND if AA77 was high enough… …and further that, according to the FDR data allegedly in use onboard AA77 , on this specific 50 NM portion of the flight, shows that AA77 was flying at an altitude well above this primary radar coverage floor, and therefore, SHOULD have been easily seen by the PLA radar site in this area at the higher altitudes… …and further that, a primary radar target WAS NOT seen or picked up by the PLA radar site from 200NM west of the PLA radar site until an eastbound primary target “popped up” into radar coverage at the 150NM point west of the PLA radar site… …and further that, consequently, this radar and other data establishes that this primary target that “popped up” at the 150NM point west of the PLA radar site over central West Virginia WAS NOT AA77 because if it were AA77 flying at the altitudes established by the FDR, the PLA radar site would have seen and presented this primary target between the 150NM point and the 200NM point west of the PLA radar site... A radar target report or readout covering the above mentioned route segment prepared by the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center does show such a high speed primary target traveling this exact 50NM leg from 200NM west of PLA to 150NM west of PLA on an eastbound route… …and further that, the FAA employee responsible for creating this radar report or readout admits in this same report to BOTH; being unqualified to create such a report or readout, and that he was helped in this assignment by a member of the Military within the Indianapolis Center… The above noted report or readout from the Indianapolis ARTCC derived its radar data from a radar site located in Bedford, Virginia… …and further that, upon comparing both “geographical locations in matched time” shown by the FDR that was alleged to be that of AA77, and the geographical locations of the aforementioned “primary target” at the same TIME from either the Bedford or the PLA radar site, these “geographical locations in matched time” were within 400 feet of each other… …and further that, in the real universe, such duplicate and exacting geographical locations in time from two radically different sources, the FDR and the Bedford or PLA radar sites, is a virtual impossibility because of the width and inaccuracies of the sweeping radar beams and the timing mechanisms used to record the radar returns from the sweeping radar beams… …and further that, this establishes that one of the above noted sources establishing geographical locations in time, WAS USED TO CREATE THE OTHER source’s “geographical location in time”… …and further that, this proves that one of these sources was hacked, manipulated or copied from the other and is thusly, inaccurate, compromised constitutes another example of the systemic cover-up of the truthful actions and activities by the US Military and NOARD-NEADS on 9/11/2001.
IN CONCLUSION TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: It is my opinion that based upon my training, knowledge, real world experiences, understandings of how the ATC system, radar systems, RDP [radar data processing] systems, and the National Air Defense System all work, and all work together, it is clear to me that: The National Air Defense Systems, including the Air Defensive systems used to protect the United States of America, WDC and the Pentagon, were deliberately and knowingly compromised on or before 9/11/2001 by: …the scheduling of overlapping and rescheduling of previously unscheduled War Games Exercises most of which contained elements of dealing with “hijacked aircraft”, on or about 9/11/2001... …pre-installing and establishing “hijacking” mindsets and thought processes within the entire NORAD system in use on 9/11/2001… …by triggering such “hijacking” thinking by the use of radio transmissions on 9/11/2001 that sounded like middle eastern voices using strange and ominous languages and instructions… …by delaying approvals for the launch of interceptor aircraft from the “hot” or “ready” bases where such interceptor aircraft were deployed AND AT THE READY for such launching so that they could intercept the subject airliners in a fashion that had been routinely performed about 150 times per year for the previous ten years of NORAD intercept activities… …by NOT adjusting the routing of some interceptors that were launched from Langley directly towards WDC and thusly, ensuring that these interceptors WOULD NOT be able to intercept an unknown primary target approaching WDC from the western quadrant… …by Vice President Richard Cheney commanding the “stand-down” of the Air Defense Systems protecting the Pentagon as noted in the testimony of the conversation that Norman Mineta overheard while Cheney was in the PEOC… …or that the attack on the Pentagon was made possible by swapping in a Military air vehicle in place of AA77 over or near central West Virginia for which Cheney provided “cover” for such a Military air vehicle with his statements to Norman Mineta. It is also my opinion regarding radar data provided by the 84th RADES Squadron and the operation of AA77: …that the radar data presented by the 84th RADES Squadron has been compromised, scrubbed or otherwise manipulated as needed to show something untrue, or to hide something that is true… …and further that, the flight and operation of AA77 on 9/11/2001 is not as what has been presented by the Pentagon, The 9/11 Commission and the various intelligence agencies and this includes data within AA77’s alleged FDR… …and further that AA77, piloted by Chic Burlingame, was never shown to complete its left hand turn into an eastbound heading towards WDC… …and further that, it has it NEVER BEEN PROVEN that the primary target that “popped up” over central West Virginia some 150NM west of the PLA radar site is actually that of AA77… …and further that, it has NEVER BEEN PROVEN that the primary target which was seen by Danielle O’Brien at Dulles Tower-Potomac Approach was actually that of AA77... …and further that, it has NEVER BEEN PROVEN that the air vehicle that approached, allegedly struck, or over flew the Pentagon was actually AA77... …and further that, AA77 has remained outside of POSITIVE RADAR CONTACT AND RADAR RE-IDENTIFICATION, radar flight following, or any other visual or radar observations establishing that this primary target iss indeed that of AA77, by anyone in the FAA ATC system… …and further that, thusly that the real and true flight of AA77 could have diverted to any number of secretive or unknown airports or Military facilities , or anywhere else, at free and undetected will outside of radar coverage and free of radar identification… …and further that, during the ensuing chaos of landing all the airborne aircraft on the morning of 9/11/2001 over the entire airspace in the United States, AA77 could have easily diverted to any number of undisclosed airports or Military airbases BECAUSE such unusual activities becoming part of the “the normal activities” on 9/11/2001... …and further that, AA77, a Boeing 757, piloted by Chic Burlingame is similar to Boeing aircraft used for transport purposes by the U.S. Military and it could easily have been absorbed into the Military fleet of aircraft… …and further that, the gap of eight minutes of NO PRIMARY RADAR RETURNS after AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in which there were no primary radar target returns shown between 150NM and 200NM west of the PLA radar site, comprised enough time and opportunity for the “swapping in” of a replacement flight for AA77, and for “swapping out” of the original AA77 piloted by Chic Burlingame at low altitudes in, around and over the valley of central West Virginia and between the ridges of the Appalachian Mountains along the eastern and western boundaries of West Virginia… …and further that, based upon the information above, the ultimate dispensation of AA77 could reflect actions and activities based upon the example of such an aircraft “swap-n/swap-out” as proscribed by Operation Northwoods… Finally, and in consideration of all of the above and previously presented information, it is clear that Mr. Richard Cheney, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Meyers, and any number of other participants in the secretive operations of the attacks on 9/11/2001 and its required cover-up, have before, and continue to now, be engaged in an ongoing cover-up of both their initial planning and executions of the attacks on 9/11/2001, and the cover-up itself, I fully and knowingly state that:
The foregoing is true and correct. Dated:______________________ Signed:_____________________
Robin Dirk Hordon |
This page last updated July 28th, 2009