Some General Remarks Concerning Air Defense
(triggered by the publications of Paul Schreyer)

Any scientific approach towards a subject tries to investigate with different methods and viewpoints from different angles, using experience and logic and the tool bar of the specific science branch. This includes btw. theories too, but even theories must be based on the facts which do not fit together without those theories.
 9/11 has in general to be viewed from the two perspectives “attack” and “defense”  If we stick to the word “war” for the 9/11 event we may compare it with the approach  used by historians and people in general throughout the centuries: every citizen is interested not only in the attacks, but also in the defense of his country. A lost battle would always produce the question about the system of defense and the persons who were responsible for it. Even when investigating a simple car accident  every judge would not only ask what the undoubtedly wrongly driving car had done but also what the hit cardriver could have done to prevent the accident or to minimize the effect of the crash.
In this respect we can conclude what the truther movement has  NOT yet done until now, and that the issues that Schreyer covers are important. BTW: if  this approach, see above, would have been used concerning the Pentagon crash, not only AA 77 would have been subject of the investigation, but also the building being hit and the persons inside. All the "hole theories" and "no plane theories" would have crushed like the brick walls of the Pentagon wedge because bricks do not tend to hang in the air when the bricks which they  are based on have been hit away with the power and speed of a Boeing. Bricks follow the rule of gravity and close the gap. The only question remaining is why the wall around the hole was still standing. So I ask about the wall and not about the hole. Neither Meyssan nor the Pentagon officials were interested to publish information about the exact materials being used in the so called PENREN (Pentagon Renovation) program. That is Kevlar as wallpaper inside, blast resistant windows which were carefully fixed by steel anchors because of their half ton weight and the steel columns inside. The PENREN provides a perfect explanation why the holes were too small, why the plane was sucked in and was deconstructed inside and not outside the wall - and why Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were perfectly safe in the opposite wedge of the building.
This I pointed out in the video (English subtitles) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bke3NphcSNc
 Video: http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1139385.html
And why the front facade was "hanging" for about half an hour instead of collapsing instantly.
More about "seismic wallpaper" like Kevlar see here:
http://www.land-der-ideen.de/de/365-orte/preistraeger/
seismische-tapete-intelligenter-erdbebenschutz

Back to topic. Obviously there is a lack of knowledge in the 9/11 truthers movement about air defense in general and about its overwhelming meaning for 9/11 specifically. To investigate the defenders position immediately leads to the responsibility of the US government. It is the "smoking gun" as  there would not so many people be willing to blame Osama bin Laden for the lack of air defense. Schreyer does indeed what I pointed out as useful, that is  to look at the defense and the defenders. But how does he  do it?

My understanding is that he  read carefully the "new revelations",  new books and articles  and that he takes the  "investigation" of the commission face value. I am not familiar with all this stuff and I do not  consider myself as  being an expert in  the details that Schreyer points out. More: I  do agree that it is a  nice and  sometimes fruitful way to "move the inherent contradictions to dance" as Karl Marx would have expressed it. But the guideline for the investigator should always be the comparison between reality and how it is mirrored in the publications of NORAD officials and their  embedded journalists. I miss the  general criticism of the sources, and I doubt Schreyer has  really  taken into consideration what kind of system air defense is (although his description of an interception e. g. is brilliant).

The System
The origins of the Air defense system using fighter interceptors (air policing) can be traced back to the time between the World Wars (the British mission in Mesopotamia, today Iraq). The system was made perfect during half a   the cold war century of cold war. Even after the end ofthis  system has been kept operational although run with a considerably smaller amount of interceptors, despite the fact that no air attacks at airfields or cities were expected any more. That is because the integrity and safety of (US) air space may be interfered by civilian aircraft. To intercept  aircraft is therefore still a nearly day by day routine, because loss of communication (error of technique or  lightning damage or whatsoever), heart attack of pilots, disregarding restricted air space, possibility of hijacking and so on are still  dangers that require a response. Interceptor fighters are being scrambled in each NATO country - and non-member states  have adopted the system.  Logic tells us that there is NO WAY that such a system would fail for 2 hours after 08:15. (BTW: compare this with the 100 minutes of "not arrival" of the police in the Norwegian shooting!) Imagine which distance civilian jets would have made within  two hours of flight (from Moscow to Berlin e. g. ) – not to mention supersonic bombers. Be aware of  the hijacking to Cuba or vice versa (like in the 1960s) which were performed  not only from Florida but from different US states within two hours.
See here http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

 the amount of intercepts in the years 1989-1992. The number was decreasing, but still the USAF intercepted 67 times in the month  before 9/1. To scramble fighter jets was and is  SOP - standard operational procedure -

Andrews
Schreyer mentions the airbase situated 10 miles from D.C.and responsible for D.C. airspace, for the security of Airforce '1 (based there) and the escort of state guests as part of diplomatic procedures. But this is not enough. I expect a researcher to mention the simple fact that  Andrews AFB is nowhere publicly discussed, which leads to the conclusion that its inactivity is widely HIDDEN in the media and in politics while knowledge about that fact exists. That means of course the complicity of  thousands of media people who do not openly address the scandalous stand down of the Andrews interceptors while it is admitted that other fighters (doomsday white plane and the  C-130 Hercules  took off there in time. This could not have been denied as too many people have seen these planes, even a video existed which the FBI could not obtain as  so many other ones. So, not to mention Andrews is part of the official lies. And what did Nasipany, the good guy according to Schreyer, say? Quote:
"Laut den Tonbändern nämlich erkundigte sich Major Nasypany drei Minuten nach dem Andrews-Start, um 10.41 Uhr: 
„Stehen die Andrews-Jäger unter unserem Kommando?"("According to the tapes Mayor Nasypany asked three minutes after the Andrews-scrambling "Are the Andrews fighters under our command?")
 The context (in Schreyer´s text) is that some generals were denying any knowledge about Andrews scrambling –  but Schreyer talks about  enormous delay between 09:34 in comparison to 10:38. Hell, such crap makes me angry! Who the hell would ever care about scramble delays after an attack at the Pentagon? Schreyer! Because he needs to convince his audience of the reliability of the tapes, of Nasypany as witness and of himself as a researcher.
Being confronted with a tape sequence like this at that time honest  truthers would immediately conclude that  the tapes are faked and would not be used anymore as a source, and that Nasypany has to play his part on these tapes, and that he is not a witness but a liar. How could anybody in the world believe that  a commander does not know which troops he commands, more than 2 hours after they were needed? It is ridiculous to pretend that the special situation of Andrews was crystal clear for the NEADS command! The attacks were over, any show of emotion is just bad surrealistic Hollywood-junk. But Schreyer takes it serious and discusses this. He takes the contradicting lies as partly secondary sources, and the tapes as primary sources. Even though he admits himself, that only Nasypny is to be heard and not his counterpart. Even though he knows that tapes  are not liked before court because they can easily be faked. And even though he could have seen that this is the case.

The exercises
Every military in the world exercises. Permanent and regular exercises are kind of life insurance for every soldier since soldiers exist. And it is a matter of logic that you need one to play the attacker and one to play the counterpart. So since eras exercises definitely differ from real military life, everything else would be the pits. Imagine the pre-programmed misunderstanding between a soldier equipped with real ammunition guarding a shelter containing nukes and an exercising soldier who "plays an attack" at the shelter.

That is why in all stories trying to explain the "delay" of 9/11 air defense the first question is "is this real?" Although the question is idiotic enough because sentries are sentries, and they are not on exercise, after getting the answer ANY further talk about exercise is over.
There is NO WAY that exercises can be used as lame excuses for any delay of the action of real world guards. For many years interested people have been eager to implement Exercise  "vigilant guardian" and so on into the discussion. The only question about that subject can be: "And who got arrested because of criminal delays or misunderstandings?" if (IF!) any researcher believes in  this as an issue of 9/11.
Schreyer uses this "information":
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13723849/T8-B16-Otis-Langley-and-AF1-Fdr-2-of-...
If these fighter jets were exercising and airborne that day, that time, that location, Nasypany would have had sufficient jets for intercepting all planes. If Schreyer believes in these planes where are they in his arguments, in the so called "radar-pictures", in the Nasypany-tal and so on?

RADAR system
Like the commission, like the generals arguing there, Schreyer uses alleged radar-pictures as arguments, as first class primary sources - see his little youtube video. This is junk, rubbish. All these alleged RADAR  films are just illustrations of the written or spoken words, scenic phantasm images from the  world of lies. Real RADAR looks differently. Any  real RADAR document  must include ALL  flights at that time: passenger planes, cargo  planes, military jets of all kinds, private Cessnas and  helicopters and so on. The whole picture would be unreadable for non-experts like us, having no access to the required equipment. But the flight controllers have that equipment and they had it ten years ago, too. Schreyer points out that without the  token information attached to the  blips  the blips are still visible, that is correct. So again no  excuse about  any delay because of "invisibility" is acceptable. But Schreyer accepts that. He discusses the "notification" of NORAD and NEADS in its varieties over the years. Instead of just fixing that NORAD does not NEED notifications, because the military has its own RADAR. No air defense system of the world waits for a  notification confirming  that the enemy is on his way. No  NORAD needs the additional information civil  flight controllers have, but  the military flight controller can  easily get into the  FAA systems. Why? Because civilian airspace and military airspace get mixed at least during take-off and landing. But any errant civilian plane is of immediate interest for NORAD. So they can use the civilian RADAR, they listen to the civilian radio traffic, and all radar screens are in an intranet system bound together. Additionally NORAD has a picture by satellite cameras. When any simple Cessna gets close to a restricted airspace like around  Camp David or D.C. NORAD does not wait for an invitation by FAA flight controllers. But for sure they would use all communications features to clear the situation and double check before scrambling.
So the bottom line says: we do not have any primary original source about  9/11 air space and therefore nobody should pretend to have it - like Schreyer does. We only obtained lame excuses by contradicting secondary sources. And whoever it is: most of them, if not all, would be in the dock before court if we had a normal trial. So they are testifying for themselves, not reliable.
But one more additionl information: every fighter jet has a so called f/f-system to make a difference between freind and foe. It is RADAR-based. So to say it loud and clearly: no fighter jet pilot needs exact information about his target in the air. He will find it himself. So any discussion about the official excuses to have sent  the OTIS jets  out to the Atlantic Ocean because  they could not have  "ssen" the planes without their transponder signals is useless.

OTIS scramble
Let us say it bluntly: there is no evidence at all that ANY fighter scrambled during these two crucial hours. There is no proof that any of the stories of Nasypany, Marr, Arnold, of the  controllers and of the alleged pilots of the fighters are true. It is all chit-chat to the commission, to Vanity Fair and  other "reliable media" of that kind. There has been no further knowledge for 10 years now. It is hard to comprehend, but the system described above includes a system of camaraderie which prevents any  juridical interference in "internal military  affairs".
To make it crystal clear: I do not believe in any Langley scrambles and any Andrews scrambles, and especially not in the best documented OTIS scrambles. I do not follow the fight for three minutes here and  some minutes there which  Schreyer tries to discuss. It starts with the alleged notification time which was  shifted several times without any explanation and which was in ANY case much too late. The notification should have occurred at 8:15, when  AA1 lost its radio, transponder and was off course. Not only that  the military should  have noticed that themselves (sharp change of course could for example conflict with Exercise "Vigilant Warrior" taking place that day), but a NOTIFICATION is nothing more than exactly the meaning of this word. It is not a scramble order. And because the decision to scramble lies exclusively with the military sphere no civil FAA air controller is ALLOWED to disobey the orders to push the red button.
So the lies begin in the very beginning of the whole story. Why do Schreyer and others swing into the rest of the storytellers in recent years?
There is no independent or  primary source about a scrambling in OTIS, about the flights and about the arrival wherever.  No video shows fighters on 9/11 during the first crucial two hours. No supersonic bang was heard in the country – what everybody would remember for sure on a day like 9/11! More than that: Schreyer relies on "documents" when generals  explain why  the OTIS jets did not  fly with afterburner to go supersonic that day. Why? Because they wanted to save fuel!  Remember: this was the REAL world, like wartime, and the distance between OTIS  and New York is minimal. Schreyer does not address that  queer answer of NORAD, he does not say that there is a bunch of liars and that a commission is not worth a dime which does not take into consideration myarguments above. He accepts that  stuff like the commission did.
Schreyer accepts that the jets allegedly had been sent out to the Atlantic ocean (instead to Manhattan or better to  Washington D.C.)- in addition to the  exercise interceptors. Only Nasypany has no jet at all and asks at 10:41 if Andrews is under his command!
Beware of such researchers who after 10 years did not even do ground work that is interrogating witnesses by themselves. Independent ones like Mr. Wibel, headmaster of the OTIS primary school, who was in the  OTIS center to talk to the commander and did not even notice any scramble. Or the people living in the immediate neighbourhood who normally do register very clearly any scramble, and especially this day.

The second part of Schreyer´s booklet includes another interesting issue, which is well underestimated in the last years, too. On the other hand It is not  the "smoking gun"  because of its only circumstantial worth as evidence for a deliberate staging of 9/11: the behaviour of the most prominent leaders.
As an example  let us take Rumsfeld. The most important source in Schreyer´s book concerning the leader of the department of defense is - his autobiography.
See in comparison my findings: http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html
To make it short let us see how Schreyer´s summary reads with respect to the absence of the US leaders in his latest interview:
"Das begann an der Spitze der militärischen Befehlskette, bei Bush, der ja in Florida weilte und sich dort vor allem um seine eigene Sicherheit sorgen musste. Es ging weiter mit Rumsfeld, der während der Angriffe quasi abtauchte und für seine Untergebenen, die ihn suchten, damit er endlich die Krisenreaktion koordinierte, unauffindbar blieb."
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35123/1.html

So Rumsfeld "dived away" and was not to be found for his staff and Bush had to care for his own security? We know that neither Bush nor his staff did anything concerning Bush´s security and that they did nothing for the security of the USA as well. But Rumsfeld was in his ofrfices (what Schreyer writes himself in his book) and so he was easily accessible for his staff. Instead of putting the contradictory memories of Cox and Rumsfeld and others in a framed picture Schreyer just relies on very few sources including the prominent one of the man who should be indicted for doing nothing. Again Schreyer quotes a witness who gives evidence in favour for himself.

Summary

Schreyers issue is well chosen, it was necessary to investigate the air defense. But his methods are poor, he leads the way to introduce another "we- could-not- connect-the- ots"-theory. The assumption that one person (Marr) might be responsible for the lack of air defense is bizarre. Any inquiry  tracking that way would lead into  a jungle of "I did not say that" and "I can`t remember". We do not need an inquiry but a  real fully equipped  juridical investigation with public admission to the original sources such as radio traffic, radar films, logs of ARTCCS, airports, military and civilian, in the area, fdrs and voice recorders not only of the planes but also of the interceptors and a lot more.
I do look back to ten years of no investigation in the real proceedings. It is a shame, but no American truther seems to have done basic questioning of people in Otis and Nashua or Cleveland.
I know that I do not know, a famous Greek philosopher said. This is much, at least much more than to "know" that Mr. Marr was the main/key figure of 9/11 air defense.
German TV about false flag operation in Italy ("gladio"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMa3XDRE5SI
My  article (English) about the behaviour of Rumsfeld that morning:
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html
My article about the "Schlüsselfragee" NATO Air Policing (=key qustion, in German language):
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/schluesselfrage.html