Many of the questions in the article are so naive as to make one suspect that the author knows very little about the subject.

NORAD is designed to look outwards from the US: it's an Air Defense system, and not surprisingly, it was taken as given that the attacks would come from overseas.

There will be civilian tracking radars, but in the main, these will rely heavily on transponders carried on board civil aircraft which broadcast a code identifying them. Switch off the transponder, and the aircraft becomes an anonymous blob. Which is Flight X? Don't know - it could be this blob or that, since many small aircraft won't carry the transponder. Probably the last place they'd think of looking for a lost flight would be over New York.

Fighter response times? Well, jet fighters don't sit at the end of runways with the engines on. You have to brief the pilot, get him into the aircraft, start it up, and taxi to the runway. I doubt there was a great sense of urgency: if the aircraft were still being tracked, I imagine 'hijack' was the word in most people's mind. Suicide mission was probably the last.

Someone will probably tell us 'the top speed of these is mach 2' or whatever. Yes. At altitude. Not low level. It also takes time to get to altitude. They certainly wouldn't be travelling at full speed if climbing as fast as they can. And there are strict guidelines about not flying supersonic over land. Without that sense of urgency, they would be travelling subsonic.

Next, suppose the fighters found the airliners over New York before they hit the WTC. Firstly, someone's got to give permission to shoot down an airliner with a few hundred civilain passengers on board. That would only be the case if there was a certainty that the hijackers were bent on a suicide mission. Which, until it happened, there wasn't. Secondly, suppse the pilot does shoot it down over New York - how many casualties would that cause, if the debris landed on a built up area? Who's going to be brave enough to take a decision like that, on very slender evidence?

Now for a laugh:

" 8. Were surveillance satellites orbiting North American airspace on 9/11?

• What exactly does the satellite imaging reveal?
• What companies own these satellites?
• Where are the records and logs for these orbits?"

Companies?? Surveillance satellites? Companies don't 'own' surveillance satellites, unless you're talking about earth observation satellites. What do you expect them to reveal? You want a record of an orbit of a non military satellite - that's public record. An investigative journalist worth his could find out that in half an hour.

"9. Why were these four planes able to evade all radar? Even when the transponders are disconnected, a plane is still able to be located by its “skin” on radar screens."

Yes, a blob will appear on radar - but it won't tell you that it's Flight United93 or whatever. You'd have to guess. And unless someone was looking at the screen at the moment the transponder was switched off - once you've lost it, you've lost it for good.

"10. In June 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld modified NMCC response procedure in the event of a hijacking. Could this procedural change have slowed NORAD’s response time?"

I don't know. Why don't you try and find out, rather than making wild assertions?

If you're responding negatively, you should have 12 points, and nothing more.

"Many of the questions in the article are so"

That's Disinformation, since you have no expertise yourself.

"NORAD is designed to look outwards from the US ..."

That pathetic response demonstrates your naivete, as well as a complete ignorance of the US defense structure. The planes had been positively-identified as under hostile control with plenty of intercept time. Military personnel stationed in the US are told that they are "at war 24/7".

Rumsfeld gave a stand-down order to the Air Force, due to a "drill" which was running on 911, "simulating" an airplane strike on the Pentagon.

"Fighter response times? Well, jet fighters don't sit at the end of runways with the engines on."

Thousands of them sit on ready flight lines every single day of the week.

"It also takes time to get to altitude."

Very little in a fighter aircraft.

If this is truly your understanding of such things - as opposed to intentional BS posted as a way to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory from criticism - then perhaps you should go study some more before commenting on anything further.

"Firstly, someone's got to give permission to shoot down an airliner with a few hundred civilain passengers on board."

It would be considered a "greater good" policy. I agree that the Government would have on their hands a PR nighmare, but please don't try and tell us that these Psychopaths care about the average person.

The willingness of these Extremists to LIE their own citizens into pre-planned, unwinnable wars proves their utter contempt for the average American.

"• What exactly does the satellite imaging reveal?"

These images would be able to track the planes, ensure that they weren't bait-switched for other aircraft, and would show Flight 93 being shot down over Pennsylvania by the ND Air National Guard, as well as the unexplained private jet which followed it.

"Companies don't 'own' surveillance satellites"

Sure they do.

"Yes, a blob will appear on radar"

And this was the key to the plot, grounding all planes, making it impossible for the FAA to prooperly track the plane amongst the "flight of the bumble bees".

"but it won't tell you that it's Flight United93 or whatever."

Right. Amidst the confusion, another craft could be thusly substituted for any of the four aircraft.

I'd like to know why the head of the FAA, after debriefings with his staff that afternoon, took the recordings, pulled the tapes apart, and threw them away in seperate receptacles.

"And unless someone was looking at the screen at the moment the transponder was switched off - once you've lost it, you've lost it for good."

No, you just look for the blob without a transponder. That's basic.

I, personally, would love to see these women debate Coulter on national TV ... but I won't hold my breath. Coulter's kind relies solely on one-way communication, the key to any successful Disinfo.

Anyhow, the fact remains that not one piece of evidence has been provided by the War Criminals and LIARS, which could support their "Evil Arabs, To War!!" Conspiracy Theory. That, in itself, warrants an investigation, as well as serious consideration of these and a myriad of other questions, most notably, 'what happened?', and 'who was responsible?'.

'That's Disinformation, since you have no expertise yourself.' Your authority for this statement?

'That pathetic response demonstrates your naivete, as well as a complete ignorance of the US defense structure. '

Well, try Wikipedia:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command

'After the events of September 11, 2001, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States.'

emphasis on the AFTER

'Thousands of them sit on ready flight lines every single day of the week.'

Not thousands. And not with engines running and ready to roll.

Unless you can provide a source which says otherwise?

""• What exactly does the satellite imaging reveal?"

These images would be able to track the planes, ensure that they weren't bait-switched for other aircraft, and would show Flight 93 being shot down over Pennsylvania by the ND Air National Guard, as well as the unexplained private jet which followed it."

No, they would not. Surveillance satellites pass over a given point in about ten minutes. Their orbit takes them round the earth once every ninety minutes

" "Companies don't 'own' surveillance satellites"

Sure they do. "

Name me one.

"I'd like to know why the head of the FAA, after debriefings with his staff that afternoon, took the recordings, pulled the tapes apart, and threw them away in seperate receptacles."

A source for your assertion?

No, being a Plant makes you a coward.

You can research everything I've said for yourself.

If you're responding negatively, Plant, you should have 12 points, and nothing more.

make assertions, then say to critics: you find the sources.

Well, if the sources don't exist, I'm going to have a hard time.