{"id":654,"date":"2014-11-19T02:32:27","date_gmt":"2014-11-19T07:32:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kendoc911.wordpress.com\/?page_id=654"},"modified":"2014-11-19T02:32:27","modified_gmt":"2014-11-19T07:32:27","slug":"norads-purpose","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/911warroom.com\/kendoc\/norad\/norads-purpose\/","title":{"rendered":"NORADS PURPOSE"},"content":{"rendered":"

NORAD\u2019s PURPOSE<\/strong><\/p>\n

On 9\/11, why weren’t standard operating procedures and protocols followed for hijacking scenarios?<\/p>\n

THE FAA AND NORAD
\nhttp:\/\/www.rutgerslawreview.com\/2011\/1-the-faa-and-norad\/
\n“On 9\/11 the defense of U.S. air space depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The last hijacking that involved U.S. air traffic controllers, FAA management, and military coordination, had occurred in 1993. In order to understand how the two agencies interacted eight years later, we will review their missions, command-and-control structures, and working relationship on the morning of 9\/11.”<\/p>\n

PROTOCOLS FOR RESPONDING TO HIJACKINGS
\nhttp:\/\/www.rutgerslawreview.com\/2011\/2-protocols-for-responding-to-hijackings\/<\/p>\n

“\u201cExcept when specifically directed otherwise by FAA headquarters,\u201d existing protocol provided the fighter escort aircraft must remain covert and be \u201cvectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft.\u201d Indeed, on 9\/11, the fighter aircraft, once scrambled and launched, were prepared and trained to: 1) approach and identify the target and 2) provide a covert escort (a \u201cshadow\u201d) for the aircraft until it landed safely at an airport”<\/p>\n


\n———–
\nThis is a good bit of research that covers NORAD’s stated purpose:
\nhttps:\/\/sites.google.com\/site\/deanjackson60\/airamerica<\/p>\n

https:\/\/rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com\/post\/47221431\/where-was-norad-on-911<\/a><\/div>\n