So did you read and listen to what was pulished by Vanity fair or not with respect to NORAD?
I told you that the link to the Vanity Fair article was dead. Besides, is Vanity Fair an expert publication with respect to the operations of NORAD? Does the article present the definitive history of what happened that morning?
As far as NORAD not directing or controlling civilian aircraft.....are you kidding me, did you real feel you needed to tell me this?
Yes, because it is clear from your earlier posts that you did not know this fact.
The fact of the matter is that we waste a great deal of money on a whole lot of nothing in terms of being protected by these agencies
It is your opinion that they waste money; other people think that NORAD is a very sound defence investment. More recently, much of the money for NORAD has been spent on upgrades in technology.
... are far from being as competent as they claim when lobbying for more cash and control, but failed to protect North American air space because why?
I explained to you something of the processes involved. Your insinuation that NORAD was incompetent is misplaced - unless you expect them to read minds. No one was expecting suicide/mass murder attacks using civilian aircraft. The events of 9/11 were within the jurisdiction of civilian control and were originally viewed as hijackings. NORAD exists and operates primarily to deal with military threats. You appear to not understand this distinction.
Also, do understand that in times of peace military aircraft operating in exercises are unarmed - unless there is a very specific live fire exercise under way. Even so, had a military aircraft been close to one of the airliners in question (none were), there would have been no clear way to know whether that airliner was under hostile control, and the pilot could not fire a weapon without clearance. Moreover, NORAD commanders could give no such order to fire weapons on their own; they would require appropriate civilian authorization first.
The amount of money that NORAD receives is decided entirely by government. Following the end of the Cold War there was a
considerable reduction in funding and restructuring of NORAD. The events of 9/11 brought about an emphasis on being prepared to deal with emerging threats.
Make all the excuses you want for NORAD on that faithful day but in the end they were practicing for attacks while attacks were in fact happening and this confused many many people who tried to deal with what was happening in the sky that day. There was and is nothing they can say for themselves other than better luck next time.
You heap scorn on NORAD. Did it occur to you that the people to blame for all these deaths are those individuals who took control of the aircraft? You have not mentioned them. Surprise attacks are confusing; they are meant to be. The attackers don't exactly announce their intentions in advance either. That would defeat their purpose.
Also, this may be a big shock to you, but there are many problems related to the idea of shooting down civilian airliners without clear evidence that they are under hostile control. Maybe you would do so without thinking about it, but had that possibility actually arisen, I bet you'd be here berating the military for the large numbers of civilian deaths.
As far as your comment about the slanted site, this site is rather slanted as well I think.
I find this site filled with a diversity of opinions. Prisonplanet is one of those websites that has a title that essentially explains its governing attitude to things.
What I find mostly amusing about your posts is that you have not considered what the alternatives ought to have been. What exactly was supposed to happen that day? Think it through and try to avoid facile or baseless conclusions. I'll comment on any shortcomings.
