Myers was commander of NORAD from August, 1998 to February, 2000 before becoming Vice Chairman of JCS.  You can read background on Myers at:

http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/chairman.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/myers

Even though emperors-clothes gives no source URL for its document, I have relied upon http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm for a record of the question and answer period during Myers September 13 hearing.  I have backed the emperors clothes file up at: http://www.Public-Action.com/911/myersconfirmation

The Washington Post reported Myers' appearance in its September 14 article, "Fighter Response After Attacks Questioned."  According to the Post, Myers "was deeply involved in the military's [9-11] response this week from the outset ..."  

Given that Myers was a past commander of NORAD, was  Vice Chairman of the JCS on 9-11 and had been "deeply involved" in the military response, and given that the hearings occurred just two days after the attack when people were both outraged and puzzled at NORAD's non-performance, Gen. Myers might have anticipated he would be asked some questions. 

Hey, no problem.  Just tell the truth, right?  Shouldn't be hard, especially because Myers is on speaking terms with NORAD's commander (Ralph E. Eberhart), and was on the phone with him after the New York attacks.

Military people, quite properly, are sticklers for precision.  You can't run an army with soldiers who rendezvous "sometime around noon." The military keeps precise military time.  Military actions are recorded in meticulous detail, in logs and reports which are reviewed and studied.

So knowing the military's precise ways, and knowing how puzzled and outraged folks were that NORAD didn't show, you'd think Myers would arrange to have NORAD logs faxed over to him so he could give the senators the facts.   When was NORAD notified?  When did the jets take off?  After all, there were just a handful of jets involved in NORAD's response, right?  We are not talking about a big deal, just a page from a log. 

And even if his fax machine wasn't working, surely Myers could have called over to Eberhart, asked for a few details, and jotted the information down on some index cards.  And even if Myers was too busy, we know he has gofers who could have done the job for him.

But guess what?  Myers arrived at the hearing without faxes, without logs, without index cards.  He came with his memory . . .

Even so, Myers' memory should be pretty good.  You don't get to be  Vice Chairmanof the JCS if you have Alzheimers.  And the big event happened just two days before.

Sen. Levin made this timid inquiry:  "General Myers, just a very brief request. When I asked you what time it was that the FAA or the FBI notified the Defense Department after the first World Trade -- the two crashes into the World Trade Center and you indicated you didn't know the time.  Could you ask someone on your staff to try to get us that time, so that we will have that either before this session here or for executive session?"

Imagine that.  Levin asked Myers when the DoD was notified of events at the WTC, and he didn't know.  Well, OK, Levin used the phrase "DoD" rather than "NORAD," but let's not split hairs.  We all wanted to know what went wrong with NORAD on September 11, why they did not show up, and here is Levin obviously trying to find out why.

Realize that NORAD is not only a military organization -- it is an intelligence organization, commanding sophisticated electronic and satellite surveillance equipment, and even clocks and wristwatches.  NORAD knows what time they were called on 9-11, and who called them.  It's all in the logs.  

Again, Sen.  Nelson:  "You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit.  And so, my question would be: Why?"

Myers:  "I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact timelines."

Right.  Myers could not remember this vital piece of information even though he was "deeply involved" with the military's response that day, and even though most anyone would anticipate  the Senate might be interested in the details of this huge military catastrophe.

Myers agreement that the NORAD jets were sent aloft "after the Pentagon was hit" does not tell us much.  The Pentagon was hit at 9:40 a.m.  Did NORAD scramble its jets at 9:41, 9:45, 10:00, or noon?

Allow us to assist Gen. Myers.  The Pentagon was hit at 9:40 a.m.  We will express Myers' statement this way:

Story Number One:

NORAD jets were (allegedly) sent aloft some time after 9:40 a.m.

Story Number One Enhanced:

NORAD (allegedly) decided to scramble after 9:03 a.m.
NORAD jets were (allegedly) scrambled after 9:40 a.m.

Story Number One:    

NORAD decided to scramble after 9:03 a.m.
NORAD jets were scrambled after 9:40 a.m.

Story Number Two:  

NORAD was notified at 8:40 a.m.
NORAD ordered scramble at 8:46 a.m.
NORAD jets were scrambled at 8:52 a.m.

"Yes sir, The first flight I think was American flight 11.  The FAA, once they notified us and we issued a scramble order almost simultaneously to the first crash, tragically.  That flight of two [sic] out of Otis Air Force base, out of Cape Cod  ..."

The Command, Control, and Communication center of the US is Washington, DC, home of the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon.  Washington DC is the most obvious military target in the US.  The strategic importance of Washington DC is so obvious that In 1994 and 1996 novelist Tom Clancy published two bestsellers in which malcontents purposely crashed jets into the Capitol building, killing members of Congress and the President. 

Once NORAD knew the WTC towers had been attacked, simple prudence demanded the immediate dispatch of protective air cover over Washington D.C. and surrounding areas.  The skies should have been filled with fighter jets from nearby Air Force bases, including Andrews Air Force base, just 10 miles away.

But NORAD did not send protective cover; it left the Washington DC area wide open even though the country was under attack.  Thus Flight 77 had a clear shot at the Pentagon.

How often have you known congresscritters to be unconcerned with their own skin?   Not often.  Yet none of the senators questioning Myers or Eberhart uttered a peep about NORAD treating them like sitting ducks.  No senator asked Myers or Eberhart this obvious question:

"General, why didn't you people immediately send jets from Andrews to protect Washington DC skies as soon as you knew we were under attack?  Don't you care about the safety of your government officials?  Don't you people in the military read Tom Clancy?"  These would have been among the first questions asked -- had the Senate hearings been anything more than a charade.

More on Eberhart's casual approach to 9-11.  We've already heard him saying:  "The first flight I think was American flight 11." Here are is words about the Pentagon crash:

"I think it's 77 that crashed into the Pentagon."

Or how about Eberhart's reference to Flight 93:

"Now the last flight was a little bit different.  I think it's flight 93 -- United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania."

Eberhart continued: 

"At that time we were trying to decide, initially, if that flight was going to continue west and if there was some other target for that flight. Was it Chicago? Was it St. Louis? And what might we do to launch an aircraft to intercept it?"

Sen. Allard asked: "So FAA knew before it deviated its flight pattern that it was hijacked."

Eberhart responded: 

"Yes. What we really knew is it was headed west, sir. It dropped off their radar scope. So it was headed west . . . "

Flight 93 left Newark bound for San Francisco.  It should have been headed west.  So it dropped off the radar screens while it was still on course?  Note that Eberhart did not say that the transponder was turned off, he says it dropped off the radar scope.   What would cause Flight 93 to drop from the radar scope while it was still on course?  None of the flight paths shown in the USA Today, Time, or Newsweek depict Flight 93's drop from the radar screens. 

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html

And not one senator expressed any curiosity.  They were not supposed to ask real questions, and they obviously knew it.

I don't believe Eberhart was truly "in charge" of NORAD on September 11.  He does not walk, or talk, or quack like a commander.  He can scarcely recall which planes flew into which targets. 

Nor do I believe the senators were sincere in their inquiries that day.  If the senators sincerely believed Eberhart was sincerely speaking the truth, they should have recommended he be tested for Alzheimers, retired immediately, and put into a nice nursing home. 

The senators don't want truth to come out.  For if it did, the pretext for the war against Israel's enemies would be undone.  That's not what senators are paid to do.

Operation 9-11 was used as a pretext for the War on Islam.  The success of Operation9-11 depended on NORAD not showing up on time and leaving the skies wide open for attack.  But NORAD's role had to be hidden.  It needed plausible denial.  NORAD needed a plausible explanation for why it failed to show up that day.

The solution?  Blame the FAA.  Claim the FAA did not notify NORAD of the hijackings in a timely manner and -- pooof!

Therefore it was important to establish that NORAD was totally dependent on the FAA for information on air traffic within the US, that NORAD was blind to internal US airspace, and (2) the FAA failed to notify NORAD of its problems in a timely fashion. 

Sen. Allard asked the question that set up the "NORAD can't see in" excuse:  "My understanding now (sic) that NORAD has made some effort to get direct access to FAA radar data. In the past, you've not had access to that? What's the status of that?"

Allard thus implied that NORAD did not have radar access of its own and depended on the FAA.  Eberhart follows this lead and responds with obfuscation and a tap dance. He says, in part:

"Yes, sir.  Again, in the past, we've had access to what we call the Joint Surveillance System, which is that system that rings the United States and looks out. It looks for that foreign threat.  It looks for someone coming into our airspace that's not authorized."

Let's stop right there.  Eberhart is implying NORAD can't see within US airspace, that NORAD "looks out" only.  Lets turn to Chapter 7 of FAA Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Effective Date November 3, 1998) 
http://www.faa.gov/Atpubs/MIL . Chapter 7 deals exclusively with hijacking procedures.  

Section 7-4-2 s says in part: "When the hijacking activity is within coverage of the NORAD surveillance system ..."  Obviously the FAA/NORAD surveillance jurisdictions overlap. 

Section 7-4-3 says in part "When the hijacking activity takes place outside NORAD radar coverage within the continental United States . . . "  Obviously NORAD does have radar coverage of at least some part of the continental US. 

Both sections indicate that NORAD conducts airspace surveillance within the United States.  Yet Eberhart said NORAD just "looks out." So we know Eberhart is not telling the truth.  Consider the following:

• "NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent," say the Canadians.  They should know, they're part of NORAD.  To confirm, visit the Canadian Defense website, "Canada-United States Defense Regulations."
  http://www.dnd.ca/menu/canada-us/bg00.010_e.htm
  or
  http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad
  
  
• Eberhart wants us to believe that once an "unauthorized aircraft" (a foreign bomber, perhaps) crossed into the U.S or Canada, NORAD could not see the bomber anymore, for NORAD only "looks out."  We are supposed to believe, perhaps, NORAD called upon the FAA and depended on civilians to track the bomber? Recall what the Canadian Defence website tells us:  "NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."  No,  NORAD must have been able to continuously track the bomber to direct fighter jets or missiles to intercept it or shoot it down.  NORAD must have been able to see internal US airspace.
  
  
• NORAD may have monitored all aircraft entering US and Canadian airspace, even "authorized" aircraft.  Consider this scenario:  A foreign bomber pilot, whose craft was equipped with a transponder, could have conceivably fooled the FAA into believing his craft was a commercial passenger jet.  Where would we be then?  What would happen if NORAD was ignorant of a craft?  Or does Eberhart want us to believe NORAD never thought of such a scenario? 
  
  
• If an enemy ICBM or space-launched vehicle were to enter US airspace, it could enter from high in the earth's atmosphere.  NORAD would have to track such a missile as it traveled towards its target.   NORAD's radar and sensors must have been able to see and monitor internal US airspace.   Or are we are supposed to believe NORAD planned to call upon the FAA to track the ICMB?  Once again, to quote the Canadians;  "NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."
  
  
• In his October 25 testimony, Gen. Eberhart mentions that over the years, NORAD has "moved" 200 NORAD personnel to the FAA to operate FAA radars.  Were those NORAD personnel on duty on at FAA radar stations on September 11, and what part did they play in the 9-11 events?
  
  
• According to a NORAD web page, NORAD's Space Command controls a fleet of satellites "that provide ballistic missile warning, communications, weather and navigation, and positioning support for America's armed forces." Notice that NORAD even watches the weather.  So certainly NORAD watches internal US airspace.
  http://www.gazette.com/military/spacemd/spacemai.html
  or
  http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad-spacecommand
  
  
• Tyndall Air Force Base tells us that "With advanced technology and sensors, NORAD 'weighed-in' on the war on drugs in 1989 and now works hand-in-hand with law enforcement agencies detecting and tracking airborne drug smugglers."
  http://www.1staf.tyndall.af.mil/defender/Summer98/forty.htm
  or
  http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad-drugs

Obviously NORAD watched suspicious aircraft flying into US airspace from Mexico and points south.  Or are we to believe NORAD programmed its surveillance apparatus to black out signals once the craft entered US airspace and then called upon the FAA for help?   

Look at the specifics listed above.  From these, a conclusion:  Of course NORAD watched US airspace.  Of course NORAD looked "inward" over the United States.  

Remember, Eberhart is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Members of that committee should have a vague idea of NORAD's capabilities.  Yet none spoke up to ask Eberhart any questions.  What NORAD could see on September 11 was glossed over. 

It had to be.  For if anyone questioned Eberhart's statements about NORAD's vision, the cover story justifying the War on Islam would begin to unravel. 

OK.  So now we know NORAD is blind as a bat.  Can't see nuttin.' Here the next element needed in the NORAD plausible denial story:  The bungling FAA.

Sen. Levin:  "General Eberhart, there's been some confusion about the sequence of events on September 11 that maybe you can clear up for us. The time line that we've been given is that at 8:55 on September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 began turning east, away from its intended course. And at 9:10, Flight 77 was detected by the FAA radar over West Virginia heading east. That was after the two planes had struck the World Trade Center towers."

Levin continues:  "Then 15 minutes later, at 9:25, the FAA notified NORAD that flight 77 was headed toward Washington.  Was that the first notification -- the 9:25 notification -- that NORAD or the DOD had that flight 77 was probably being hijacked? And if it was, do you know why it took 15 minutes for the FAA to notify NORAD?"

Look at Levin's last question:  "... do you know why it took 15 minutes for the FAA to notify NORAD?" If Eberhart has only a sketchy memory of NORAD's business, what good will it do to ask him about FAA business?  Sen. Levin is just doing his part in the cover-up by changing the subject from NORAD to the FAA.

Eberhart replies:  "Sir, there is one minor difference. I show it was 9:24 that we were notified, and that's the first notification that we received.  I do not know, sir, why it took that amount of time for FAA.  I hate to say it, but you'll have to ask FAA."

How interesting.  Eberhart cites a specific time -- "9:24" for NORAD's notification.  Notice that "9:25" -- the time cited by Sen. Levin -- is not quite precise enough for Eberhart.   Compare this precision with Eberhart's trouble in remembering which plane crashed into which target.

Let's say it again.  While our attention is focused on the FAA's dereliction of duty, we fail to think about the obvious:  Washington DC is the hub in the wheel. You don't have to be Tom Clancy to know that. NORAD should have had complete sky coverage of the Washington DC area from the first moments we realized we were under attack at 8:45 a.m.  NORAD left the skies open for Flight 77.  Had NORAD been doing its job, Flight 77 would not have been able to get anywhere near the Pentagon.

We just saw that Gen. Eberhart recommended Sen. Levin ask the FAA questions about its (alleged) slow response to the 9-11 emergency.  On February 13, this writer called Sen. Levin's office to see if Sen. Levin followed through.  I spoke to Levin aide Jeb Stoffel. 

Mr. Stoffel told me Sen. Levin had not contacted the FAA director Jane Garvey, but said he wanted to consult his notes to make sure.  Mr. Stoffel was off the line for a minute or so to come back to confirm what he had already said: Sen. Levin had not contacted FAA Administrator Jane Garvey concerning events of September 11.

Jane Garvey was appointed administrator of the FAA in 1997.  Coincidentally, she served a stint as director of Boston's Logan Airport, the origination point of Flights 11 and 175 that ran into the WTC towers.  What a coincidence.  See:

http://www.faa.gov.apa/bios/garvey.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/faa-garvey

The press, like Sen. Levin, has apparently not asked Ms. Garvey to answer any potentially embarrassing questions either.  On September 24 Jane Garvey flew from Dulles Airport to Kennedy in New York.  Her trip was the subject of a puff piece published by Time on September 27 which you can read at:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/donnelly/article/0,9565,176670,00.html

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/faa-garvey-time

Garvey, like every other passenger, stood in longer lines, got grilled by newly assertive security guards, and had to show photo identification repeatedly, and was twice 'swept' by a guard with a sensitive metal detector ...

And then, that afternoon, as Garvey stood in front of a small group of FAA staff in the New York field office, near walls peppered with the tragic images of the burning World Trade Center Towers and dozens of American flags, she began to explain how grateful she was for the professionalism of the employees ...

"I just came to thank you," said Garvey, who is known for being meticulously prepared for official appearances.  She is the pubic face of the FAA.  Today was no different -- despite 20 hour days, Garvey was sharply dressed in a pinstripe suit and her makeup was in order ...

... Her voice caught.  Tears came to her eyes, "I know those of you have lost friends and family ..." Finally, help came from just those Garvey was trying to comfort.  "That's okay, it makes us cry too," someone said.  A few minutes later, Garvey said simply, "We're all still recovering."

When the going gets rough, those in charge make sure their make-up is perfect.  And then they utter platitudes.  If 9-11 moves Ms. Jane to tears, why doesn't she open up and tell America what she knows?  But no, Ms. Jane keeps her silence, allowing her agency to take the blame for a catastrophe without uttering a peep in its own defense. 

Recall that in his October 25 testimony, Gen. Eberhart mentioned that NORAD "moved" 200 personnel to the FAA to operate FAA radars over the years.  It is unlikely Garvey knows where any of those NORAD radar people were working on September 11, and whether they played a role in the 9-11 events. It is unlikely Garvey knows the names of the air traffic controllers who directed the jets that day and unlikely she has asked them any questions.

It is likely that Garvey is just an ambitious yuppie, a figurehead who merely serves as the "face" of the FAA:  An attractive hood ornament for those who really run the agency.   

Another dumb blonde ...

Lt's go back to the Eberhart Senate testimony again:  After a display like that, most of us would want to have Eberhart tried for treason or dereliction of duty.  Instead, Sen. Allard thanks Gen. Eberhart in this fashion:

"OK. Well, I just want to thank you and your people for, I know, I think a tremendous effort in light of some totally unexpected circumstances. And at least, I, for one, appreciate, you know, the readiness that was displayed."

Can you believe it?  This remark is nothing short of IN-YOUR-FACE MOCKERY OF OUR DEAD.  With Allard's simpering obsequiousness, one must wonder: For whom does he think Eberhart is working?  Certain not the people of the United States of America or the Old Republic.

Now that you have seen the compilation of lies, how much faith are you willing to put in NORAD's report that it sent out any defensive jets on September 11? 

There are no media reports that any of the jets NORAD allegedly sent to New York and the Pentagon were ever sighted.  On the other hand, NORAD's press release shows it did not send a jet to respond to Flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash)

http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradresponse

Yet a military jet was sighted in that area.  ("Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found," USA Today, September 14, 2001).   "Local residents said they had been a second plane in the area, possibly an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the sky."

NORAD is hired to guard the American skies but doesn't watch them. The FAA has all the answers but no one asks them any questions.   Congressional oversight senators tip-toe around the subject, praising what is at the very least criminal negligence.  Two seventeen-star generals can scarcely remember their own names, and they give different versions of world-shaking events in which they claim to have been decision-makers and on-the-spot witnesses.

But Myers and Eberhart are obviously not decision-makers.  They are just pretty faces, dumb blondes,  like pretty face Jane Gavey over at the FAA.  Myers and Eberhart are the "spokespersons" who dazzle the sycophants with their braid and their ribbons, while the people who really run the show, Wolfowitz's and Perle's people, are concealed. 

Myers and Eberhart are errand boys, so unimportant that their Israeli bosses didn't even bother to write believable lies for them to tell when they testified.

Put that together with the following: 

• NORAD created the opportunity for the attack by inexplicably failing to show up.
  
  
• "Real" hijackers would have expected NORAD to be on the job and show up promptly.  "Real" hijackers could not have predicted NORAD's failure to show.  "Real" hijackers would not have made plans around NORAD's failure to show. 
  
  
• Real hijackers, expecting NORAD to show, would have completed the job quickly, taking off from airports close to the targets and hitting the targets soon after take-off.
  
  
• NORAD waited week to come out with a defense action time line, and by the time it was released, it had already been contradicted by Myers' testimony.
  
  
• After NORAD failed to show, NORAD misrepresented verifiable facts -- facts like its ability to look internally into US airspace. 
  
  
• NORAD and the US Senate staged a shadow-boxing match, pointing the finger of blame for 9-11 at the FAA.
  
  
• The Senate conducted no follow-up investigation of the FAA. 
  
  
• The FAA accepted the blame by default, never uttering a peep in self-defense.
  
  
• The American generals don't know what happened on 9-11 and can't tell a straight story.
  
  
• The beneficiary of the 9-11 events is Israel.  September 11 is being used as a pretext to eradicate threats to Zionist hegemony. 
  
  
• The 19 Muslims accused of hijacking the four aircraft, according to their trainers, were "dumb and dumber" and incapable of flying a Cessna.   http://www.Public-Action.com/911/robotplane.html
  
  
• A wealth of evidence indicates the "suicide jets" were remotely controlled, and not piloted by the Muslims.  ( http://www.Public-Action.com/911/robotplane ).
  
  
• NORAD has had decades of experience installing remote control systems in aircraft and guiding those craft in sophisticated maneuvers, including combat practice.  Guiding the "suicide" jets into their targets on September 11 would have been a piece of cake for NORAD personnel.
  
  
  Your Ad Here
  
  
  
• Israel also has remote control expertise.  
  http://www.iai.co.il/dows/dows/Serve/level/English/1.1.4.2.7.2.html
  
  http://www.Public-Action.com/911/israel-uav 
  
  
• Treason on behalf of Israel has become institutionalized in US public life.  See discussion of President Johnson's and Secretary of Defense McNamara's treason in 1967.  Johnson and McNamara sided with Israel when Israeli attacked USS Liberty. http://www.USSLiberty.org
  
  
• Every administration since the time of the Liberty attack has cooperated in the treason by failing to investigate, punish, or label the traitors.  See also "The Traitors Among Us" http://www.Public-Action.com/911/chrzion.html
  
  
• Israeli agents are ruthless and cunning, capable of targeting Americans and blaming on the Arabs, according to the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies.  http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html

Put together, the conclusion is unavoidable:  NORAD --  or more likely Israeli operatives using NORAD as a cover -- sent the remote control suicide jets crashing into their targets on 9-11.    

Footnote 1: It has just been revealed that the late "American" journalist Daniel Pearl was an Israeli citizen.  This news was revealed by the Israeli press; the American press knew the truth, but kept the news secret at the request of Pearl's family.  See Mark Bruzonsky's Pearl was Israeli Citizen, February 23, 2002.  Bruzonsky cites Ha'aretz. 

MER@MiddleEast.Org
http://www.MiddleEast.Org .  

Ha'aretz URL:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/
ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=133733&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Carol A. Valentine President, Public Action, Inc. http://www.Public-Action.com
See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI:
Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum