wassertanzen13

*&%&! blogger

2007-02-13T22:33:00.000-08:00

This may well be my last post to this blog, unfortunately. You see, they want me to switch to their new version, which requires me to use a gmail account. Yeah, I have one, but I don't appreciate fascism. Thanks just the same, blogger. Anyway, I'll continue to post here as long as I can without submitting to their will, but I'm not to optimistic about it. Just in case this does indeed turn out to be my last post to this blog, I'll post an update on where my new blogging location will be on the pilots for 9/11 truth forum Screw you google. I won't submit to fascism from you or anyone else.

a few 9/11 truth updates

2006-11-25T02:39:00.000-08:00

I ran into a thing called stumbleupon.com recently. It's pretty cool. You can join groups like the 9/11 Truth Searchers or just pick keywords for topics that you are interested in and see what sites you stumbleupon. I've been slowly adding more blogs to the 9/11 Truth Movement blogshares category. I started a list of some documents which might be helpful to try to get through FOIA requests over at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum. That's where I've been writing the most lately; you can find my started threads there from here. Feel free to join us! Anyway, that's about all that I've got right now in terms of updates.

The Secret Service on 9/11

2006-11-05T22:02:00.000-08:00

I've updated my prior blog post on the Secret Service in NYC to add some new information to it and put together some information on their presence and activities in other places on 9/11 here. When read in combination with the current information on the Secret Service in the Complete 9/11 timeline, I think it provides the most complete picture I've seen yet (in only three sources!). Let me know if you are aware of more stuff which should be included that hasn't been covered yet.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth interview with the NTSB's Jim Ritter about the FDR and simulation for Flight 77

2006-10-27T01:05:00.000-07:00

Check this out, it's hot off the presses. No really, you'll want to watch it, and then get others to watch it. Trust me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4 Ask questions. Demand answers.

updates

2006-10-26T22:25:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted here much lately, but I've been busy. Posting at the old Loose Change forum, then trying to save content from there after it shut down and moving over to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum. I've just put up a few links on my sidebar, which I will add to as I feel called to. Killtown's site already has a pretty comprehensive listing of various websites, forums and blogs, so I won't be attempting to reinvent the wheel with anything comprehensive. I've also posted a link to the new blogshares industry: 9/11 Truth Movement, which I'm going to try to get blogs added into. Anyway, you can see some of my recent writing at the LC forum (until it goes 404 at least, though I've tried to save what I thought was important from there)
or at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum
So, just because I don't post here that much and have been slacking on my tags, etc. doesn't mean I've gone silent.

A partial critique of Debunking 911 - WTC 7

2006-09-22T01:07:00.000-07:00

Now I know that this site is likely to change (as such things do), but I thought I'd give it a little critique in its current form. Here's the link to the page:
Debunking 9/11 WTC 7
Here's my recent webcitation link, for comparison purposes: http://www.webcitation.org/5J3wv5GIZ

Debunking 9/11 exclusive! ~ World Trade Center 7 South Side Hole

Researching this, I began looking for images of the WTC 7south side hole the firemen talked about. The only photo's I could find had this massive hole obscured by tremendous plumes of smoke. I came across Steve Spak's web site with various 9/11 images. He has an excellent DVD with images not seen anywhere. I E-mailed Mr. Spak to see if he had any photos of the huge hole in the south side of building 7. He sent me back what I conclude is the best photo of the south side damage yet.

Did he send back the exact version posted on the webpage (with Steve Spak Debunking 9 11 written on it) If not, could we see a slightly more original (and less photoshopped) version of the photo for comparison purposes? If all this site can show us is manipulated images without references to the original source material, how seriously can we take it?

Even this photo doesn't show the entire hole.

Got any pictoral evidence to back up that claim?

Mr. Spak said he just happen to take the shot when the smoke cleared enough to see a portion of it.

Hmm, just happened, eh? And the most interesting bits which we wouldn't have seen before just happened to be obscured by a building... just like in all the other photos we've seen. Hmm, what a coincidence, right?

The WTC mezzanine covers the bottom half of the hole so we can't know how wide the hole is on the bottom floors. The skin of the building seems to be detached from the floors as if the north tower debris took some building 7 floors with it on the way down.

Not much worth commenting on here. "Seems" and "as if" mean the author is speculating. Why should I buy his speculation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

Just as conspiracy theorists used the north side photos to suggest that was the extent of the damage, (A few small fires) conspiracy theorists are now using this photo to suggest the photo shows the total extent of the damage.

Well, maybe some are. Maybe some of those CTers are on the payroll, too... Who knows? That's the disadvantage of never linking to alternate sources and backing things up. All we have to go on is the author's word. Why should we trust that? What evidence have we been shown that this person actually cares about finding out the truth no matter what that might be? Now my personal claim on the topic is that this "evidentiary picture offers us a new angle on damage which we've already established (South West corner of WTC 7 between floors 8 and 18, extending 1-2 columns along the south face of WTC 7). We also get to see a bit of the south face of WTC 7 which does not appear to be significantly damaged, structurally speaking. And a lot of smoke. There may have been more damage to the south face of WTC 7, but so far all we have to go on is conflicting testimony. Popular Mechanics says they've seen pictures which confirm this damage. Apparently, we don't get to. Some firefighters claim there was a big hole, other accounts say that the lobby had no large debris in it and that the only damage to the facade on the 9th floor was on the SW corner. Who knows? Be nice to see some more pictures, though. Popular Mechanics claims they exist, and why would they lie to us? After all, 360 of their brothers perished... oops, I'm getting a little ahead of myself there...

I emphasized the above because for some reason conspiracy theorists don't get it. Yes, I can't find a photo which shows more damage to the south side but conspiracy theorist who have been shown to be wrong time and time again also can't find a photo proving the south side only had the damage we see. I find this double standard comically obvious.

Well, perhaps some "conspiracy theorists" have been shown to be wrong time and time again. Perhaps some "coincidence theorists" have been shown wrong time and time again as well. Something about blind sows and acorns? When I see evidence which persuades me that my thinking has been incorrect, I change my mind. I used to think the smoke on WTC 7 was mostly enhanced by shooting through WTC 6 smoke. Now, I'm less sure. I've seen more photographic and video evidence to indicate that there was quite a bit of smoke coming out of WTC 7. Check out my post on misrepresenting photographic evidence. Rather than change that post, I write a new one to reflect my new thoughts based on new (to me) evidence. Also, so called "conspiracy theorists", at least many of them, should not bear the burden of proof on this issue (not being able to find photographic evidence). That's like saying, "well, they haven't shown us any pictures of the grassy knoll shooters, therefore the official story must be true." What we have here is a situation where there was limited access for close up photography. We know there were cameras in the area taking pictures. Some of them have even been seen by the public, believe it or not! Until we get official under oath testimony from all the photographers who we know were taking pictures at ground zero on 9/11 that every single one of their photos taken on 9/11 are available for public viewing, doubt remains about what we haven't seen. How to clear up that doubt? Release more photos, already! What's the security issue here? Instead, we (those of us who track such things) see photographic and documentary evidence disappearing from public view. Who is saving these things? This is historical. This was a criminal act of mass murder. This event has been used to justify so much that has happened in the last 5 years... sorry. Back to the critique.
Image 1

This photo is copyrighted and was given with permission to debunking911 for use on this site.

A statement from Steve Spak:
This photo was taken a couple of hours before number 7 WTC collapsed. Two water mains that supplied lower Manhattan were damaged leaving little or no water pressure in the area. Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo. I believe that the Chiefs made the right decision in letting 7 WTC burn.

Steve Spak
stevespak.com

If you count the columns which are visible, you can see this is NOT the corner damage in the FEMA photo below.

Image 2
I disagree. Looks pretty much like the same damage from a different angle to me. But I'll post a bunch of links to images and let the reader decide for him or herself. The problem for me here is that the camera angle and perspective appear to be intentionally designed to create the illusion of a large amount of damage. The obscuring mezzanine, the downward sloping lines which can be drawn on the windows of the Verizon building... these things give perspective on the photographer's position. Compare this image with these three: first, lower floor damage on the west side, second, a closer and somwhat less obscured shot of WTC 7 on 9/11 from a similar POV, third, a shot taken from across the Hudson.

antidote image 1
antidote image 2
antidote image 3

see more pics which I (and others) have gathered together from various internet sites here

The above South West damage is taken into account in the graphics below.

Below is a graphics from the initial World Trade Center 7 report. This might change when the final report becomes available. Note the word "Approximate" when talking about the large hole. I suspect the only evidence they had at the time were the firemen's interviews which seem to be very close to the photo at the top of the page.

Whatever...initial, approximate, suspect, might. Let us know when you're sure dude... some folks don't have multimillion dollar budgets and/or aren't on the payroll. They'd just like to see non BS answers. Let us know when you initially suspect someone might approximately have them.

Update:

Conspiracy Theorist are hard at work looking to find the slightest discrepancy in the NIST preliminary report. The NIST report was created before debunking911.com contacted Spak and sent the photo to NIST.

It's not unreasonable to suspect the members of the NIST who are investigating the collapse weren't there at the time of collapse. It's also not unreasonable to suspect they don't have much video or photographic evidence of the south side because they evacuated the south of Manhattan due to the impending collapse of this very building.

So... Steve Spak et. al didn't think it worth their time to pass their images on to say FEMA and/or NIST, yet Stevie passes it along to you so that you can then notify NIST? Ya think I just rolled off the turnip truck or something? I think that's not "not unreasonable to suspect" myself.

It's safe to say they only know what they have evidence for. Yet the conspiracy theorist expect the NIST to have all the evidence at their fingertips from the first day.

Dude, their initial report came out in 2004. 2006 can hardly be called the first day. Yeah, I know they haven't focused on WTC 7. They were busy. Whatever their excuse was on their FAQ page. (Look it up if you really want to know. I read it once.)

If any evidence comes up which doesn't support the preliminary hypothesis it's taken as a part of some mass murder plot.

Ah, yes, hyperbole... to me it's one more thing that doesn't add up. The list grows. That's why we need a new and truly independent investigation that can really uncover the answer.

Yet these "Truth seekers" give Jones a pass as he changes his hypothesis every few weeks.

Okay, fair enough. You see, I can concede a point. NIST gets to change their story too, as new evidence comes to light. What about the evidence they already have, though? The conflicting reports. The report of no large debris in the lobby, the report of an undamged facade on floor 9 (excepting the SW corner). Sure, there were other reports of damage which I'm sure you're going to tell us all about very shortly...

I wonder what the word "Preliminary" means to a conspiracy theorist? To me it means "a first hypothesis" and not "This is the final conclusion". Science don't work that way.

No comment. I'll be just as casual with my punctuation, grammar and spelling as you were. After all, it's not like either one of us is getting paid to write this stuff, right? It's not like either one of us is ever likely to have an audience for his screed, either.

Insert some BS scientific flowchart graphic image here

As I highlighted above, the NIST said the locations of the damage are not written in stone. Look at the legend below. They use the words "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely". Yet conspiracy theorist ignore these qualifiers and try to paint the scientist of the NIST as purposefully lying and supporting a mass murderer because the graphic below may not be exactly what the photo shows.

Yeah, we know you don't like CTers. How about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Do you like that? You seem to imply that CTers consistently make stuff up to fit their pet theories. Perhaps some do. I know I've had to wade through a lot of smelly stuff.

We really don't know how much of the graphic below is right or wrong using the Spak image because his image only shows a small portion of the south side. Most of the building is covered by smoke, the WTC 6 mezzanine and the camera angle. It's blatantly dishonest to use Spak's image to conclude their is less damage than on the graphic below. We just CAN'T KNOW from the image. We also don't know what other evidence the NIST has which support the graphic.

I haven't concluded anything just yet. However, we seem to have conflicting testimonies and no available photographic evidence. Seems a little too preliminary to start making up diagrams which then get tossed around as "official", however preliminary they may be. Heck, they could just say, we don't currently know the extent of the damage to the south face and leave it there. Or they could issue two diagrams- one showing established damage and one showing hypothetical conflicting accounts damage. Let's put it this way, I've never seen anyone referencing a NIST established damage diagram.

NIST diagram

Note the amount of columns on the south face. There are 14 columns on the south face. Also note the column on the end right is spaced out farther apart. Spak's image shows 5. We can assume the clearing at the end where daylight is visible is the end of the building. We can then fill in the columns to get a better idea where this hole is...

What makes you say we can assume the clearing is the end of the building? What if that's over on the Federal building next door? But no, let's blithely assume this based on no evidence and then fit our columns in based on this assumption.
Image 3

Green are visible columns, yellow are assumed. We can conclude this isn't the south west corner damage which only had a column or two taken out.

Yeah, whatever. Just assume what you want, draw some lines to fit and conclude what you want. Isn't that what you accuse the CTers of doing? If you want to update your page and columns using some of the photos which I've sent along as an assist, feel free. Somehow I doubt you will. Oh, look, you've already posted one of them below. Somehow, it fit your facts. Next time, be sure to get the perspective correct before you make conclusions.

The mezzanine under building 6 covers at least from the 6th floor down. How do we know? Because we can't see the louvers in Spak's image. No one can say the damage we see is the total damage. I suspect the hole became much larger at ground level given the collection of debris we see in the photo below.

I agree with the first two points. I don't care what you suspect, frankly. You have failed to gain my trust.
insert another image with a building obscuring most of WTC 7 here

Note the large pile of debris and what looks like perimeter columns sticking out of it.

Update:

One conspiracy theorist has done an admirable job inserting columns in the photo to give us a better understanding of what we see. It's such a good job, for the first time I'm going to use a conspiracy theorist photo to make a point.

How convenient for you. An unnamed and unsourced conspiracy theorist just happens to come up with a representation you agree with. Well, show me your source, and I can probably show you either a complete bozo or someone on the payroll. I find myself arguing against yet another photoshopped image, this time a composite with lines and numbers drawn in. Assumptions, once again. Fit the evidence to what one wants to show. You sure you didn't make this little gem up yourself? Haha, just kidding. I know you'd never do anything like that... That'd be dishonest. Oh, BTW, where'd ya get that little cutout for the bottom floor of the Verizon blg.? I'd like to see that image. Doh! you took it from another image with a building obscuring most of WTC 7 here, didn't you? Why you little sneaking, lying little sack of sh*t CTer. Oh, sorry, you didn't make that image, you just "borrowed" it from a CTer for the "first time ever" because it was so admirably done. Dude. I'm packing this review up. It's not even worth my time to continue. Next time, try to get a clue. In fact, next time, don't even bother.

An updated post on Positive Force '01

2006-09-20T02:49:00.000-07:00

April 2001 - The military engages in an exercise entitled Positive Force '01, a worldwide joint military/civilian exercise which includes many agencies which were conducting exercises on September 11th.

Held every 18 months, Positive Force exercises are large worldwide joint civilian/military emergency mobilization exercises.

Major themes cover the continuum of operations: mobilization,
deployment, employment, sustainment, crisis termination, and
redeployment.

(Joint Chiefs of Staff archive)

Some of the many participants in Positive Force 01

included members of the armed forces, members of the Unified Combatant Commands, the Departments of State, Transportation, Justice, and Health and Human Services, DLA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Defense and the Central Intelligence Agencies, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office, as well as many other agencies.

(The Defense Logistics Agency's The Provider, September/October 2001 archive)

Since the FAA is within the Department of Transportation and the FBI is within the Department of Justice, it seems likely that those agencies were also participants. Additionally, it also seems likely that the Secret Service would have participated in a large scale continuum of operations exercise such as this.

NORAD is a participant in this exercise, proposing an exercise involving a hijacked plane being crashed into the Pentagon, but the proposal is rejected. (See for instance Killtown's April 2001 entry or Cooperative Research's 'April 17-26, 2001' entry for more information and sources on this)

As far as exercises included within Positive Force '01 are concerned,

Positive Force 01 involved DLA
resources more than previous exercises,
and encompassed many CINC
and DoD agencies major exercises
such as Reception Staging and
Onward Movement and Integration
(RSOI), Turbo Challenge and
Amalgam Warrior into one.

(Defense Logistics Agency's Dimensions- July/August 2001 archive)

Amalgam Warrior is a live fly exercise; some quotes about past Amalgam Warrior exercises-

They are designed to exercise air sovereignty and air defense. Emphasis is placed on realistic target flow employing electronic warfare and other penetration tactics. Functions exercised include, but are not limited to, surveillance, detection, tracking, interception, employing rules of engagement, force generation, counterdrug operations, attack warning, attack assessment, counter cruise mis-sile operations and CONPLAN implementation.

The five-day Amalgam Warrior 96-1 concluded on Oct. 20, and put Americans and Canadians through their paces, challenging forces in the areas that coincide with NORAD's missions. The exercise was conducted in real time with a fictitious world political scenario, which prompts NORAD forces to transition from a peacetime posture to a war-fighting stance. The threat escalates from tracking unknown aircraft, which have incorrectly filed their flight plans or wandered off course, and in-flight emergencies to terrorist aircraft attacks and large-scale bomber strike missions.

(Global Security archive of IA archive)

Amalgam Warrior is often held in conjunction with Global Guardian, as is Vigilant Guardian- both of which we know were occuring on 9/11. (Defenselink.mil archive, Global Security)

The east coast Amalgam Warrior exercises are held in the fall, usually in October (Airman, US Congress, Arkin) but since Global Guardian was moved forward from early FY '02 to late FY '01 (Peterson AFB Observer, 03/01, archive, Arkin, p.379) it seems possible that Amalgam Warrior may have been as well.

We know there was a NORAD exercise involving live fly on 9/11 from Larry Arnold's Code One Magazine interview:

Another AWACS was flying a training mission off the coast of Florida. President Bush was in Sarasota. We moved the AWACS towards the president. Then we received tasking from the Secret Service through the Joint Staff and NORAD to follow the president and protect him. I had set up an arrangement with their wing commander at Tinker some months earlier for us to divert their AWACS off a normal training mission to go into an exercise scenario simulating an attack on the United States.

(Code one interview with Larry Arnold archive)

and from the same article- another AWACS was apparently training somewhere near Washington DC:

Our picture over DC was pretty poor. And the communication was poor. So the aircrews themselves coordinated the refueling and the combat air patrols. An AWACS flying a training mission nearby arrived.

One final quote about Positive Force '01:

The real success achieved during
Positive Force was reflected in how
the Agency responded to the events
of 9-11," Petrucelli said. "Again, the
total force team of DLA, the active
reserve and civilians stepped forward
and made things happen seamlessly.
All this is made possible because of
DLA's active participation and commitment
to joint exercises.

(Dimensions, Winter 2002
archive)

For more information on various Positive Force exercises held in the past, see also Global Security's Positive Force page (archive).

What's wrong with this picture?

2006-09-18T00:20:00.000-07:00

Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing here? I just ran into this photo among the FDNY WTC Ground Zero Image Gallery. Southwest corner and south face of WTC 7 above the firefighter's head, right? Water on the ground. Shadow on his face from the pole is pointing towards WTC 7, indicating an afternoon shot... see any smoke? See any sign of that much vaunted (and only occasionally photographed) damage? What are we dealing with here? A misinterpretation of this photo on my part? Photoshopped image/s? No damage/ smoke on WTC 7 until later in the afternoon? You tell me, 'cause I'm mighty curious to know...

source code pasting # 2

2006-09-17T02:23:00.000-07:00

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.netcom.army.mil/heroes/spotlight/atha.htm as retrieved on Aug 14, 2006 16:22:32 GMT.

G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.

The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.

This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:SPgFialXibUJ:www.netcom.army.mil/heroes/spotlight/atha.htm+%22has+played+a+critical+role+in+the+support+of+the+United+States+Secret+Service.+While+on+mission+in+New+York+on+Sept.+11,+2001%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted:

has

played

critical

role

the

support

the

united

states

secret

service

while

mission

new

york

sept

2001

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Salute to the NETCOM Hero

NETCOM Heroes

SFC Stephen Atha has served with the Communications Management Support Team since August 1998, and has played a critical role in the support of the United States Secret Service. While on mission in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, he dedicated himself to assisting in the rescue and evacuation of Secret Service employees and other persons who were injured at the scene of the World Trade Center Complex. SFC Atha was instrumental in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. During the campaign, he was the Operations NCOIC and executed multiple protective communications missions in support of Senators Kerry and Edwards. SFC Atha was selected over his peers to serve as NCOIC of the CMST, a nominative E-8 position. He directed team members to support the 2005 Presidential Inauguration without incident. This is emblematic of the professionalism and the "Make It Happen" attitude that is within him. His professionalism and actions make him a true NETCOM hero.

SFC Stephen Atha

CMST,

21st Signal Brigade

< Back to Full List

source code pasting # 1

2006-09-17T02:13:00.000-07:00

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.netcom.army.mil/heroes/spotlight/curtis.htm as retrieved on Aug 14, 2006 16:21:54 GMT.

G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.

The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.

This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:pkTyqNDSEBcJ:www.netcom.army.mil/heroes/spotlight/curtis.htm+%22has+played+a+critical+role+in+the+support+of+the+United+States+Secret+Service.+While+on+mission+in+New+York+on+Sept.+11,+2001%22+atha+OR+curtis&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted:

has

played

critical

role

the

support

the

united

states

secret

service

while

mission

new

york

sept

2001

curtis

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Salute to the NETCOM Hero

NETCOM Heroes

SSG Curtis has served with the Communications Management Support Team since May 2001, and has played a critical role in the support of the United States Secret Service. While on mission in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, he dedicated himself to assisting in the rescue and evacuation of Secret Service employees and other persons who were injured at the scene of the World Trade Center Complex. SSG Curtis was instrumental in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. During the campaign, he was a Team Leader and executed multiple protective communications missions in support of Senators Kerry and Edwards. SSG Curtis was selected over of his peers to be the CMST Maintenance NCOIC. In January 2005, SSG Curtis was entrusted with providing communication support to the 2005 Presidential Inauguration and accomplished this mission without incident. His professionalism and actions make him a true NETCOM hero.

SSG Robert Curtis

CMST,

21st Signal Brigade

< Back to Full List

More 404 informational pages - blacked out first, no less...

2006-09-17T00:28:00.000-07:00

Cross posted from the Loose Change Forum:

Okay, check it out...

First read the background information found in this thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11750

about a story I quoted a few weeks back (on one of the military units working with the Secret Service in NYC on 9/11). The story went 404 after I quoted it; it had been online since shortly after 9/11.

Now check this out:

As part of my research, I did some Googling of the names of the soldiers mentioned in the story. A few hits, including bios on two of them on Salute to the NETCOM Hero (it was located on the site http://www.netcom.army.mil )

Now our heroes seem to have all gone 404.

Not only that, but the text appears blacked out on the Google caches (except for the highlighted search terms, of course. Whatta pity.

Call me a sentimental fool, but I'd like to remember our heroes. Therefore, I've taken the liberty of viewing the source code on the caches and copying and pasting the text of them here.

SFC Stephen Atha has served with the Communications Management Support Team since August 1998, and has played a critical role in the support of the United States Secret Service. While on mission in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, he dedicated himself to assisting in the rescue and evacuation of Secret Service employees and other persons who were injured at the scene of the World Trade Center Complex. SFC Atha was instrumental in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. During the campaign, he was the Operations NCOIC and executed multiple protective communications missions in support of Senators Kerry and Edwards. SFC Atha was selected over his peers to serve as NCOIC of the CMST, a nominative E-8 position. He directed team members to support the 2005 Presidential Inauguration without incident. This is emblematic of the professionalism and the "Make It Happen" attitude that is within him. His professionalism and actions make him a true NETCOM hero.

SSG Curtis has served with the Communications Management Support Team since May 2001, and has played a critical role in the support of the United States Secret Service. While on mission in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, he dedicated himself to assisting in the rescue and evacuation of Secret Service employees and other persons who were injured at the scene of the World Trade Center Complex. SSG Curtis was instrumental in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. During the campaign, he was a Team Leader and executed multiple protective communications missions in support of Senators Kerry and Edwards. SSG Curtis was selected over of his peers to be the CMST Maintenance NCOIC. In January 2005, SSG Curtis was entrusted with providing communication support to the 2005 Presidential Inauguration and accomplished this mission without incident. His professionalism and actions make him a true NETCOM hero.

Oh, and here is the full listing of NETCOM heroes, if anyone else wants to peruse them or google them before they disappear...

NETCOM Heroes

SFC Stephen Atha
Robert Bachert
Dottie Ballew
LTC Mark Baxter
Curtis Berg
Craig Bouma
Richard Boyle
Vicki Brown
Barbara Calhoun
Adelina Cartagena
Sally Cecil
SSG Robert Curtis
Richard Delgado
COL Dave Devries
CW2 Brent Dixson
Loran Ellis
MSG Patricia Essick
Marcia Ferguson
Charles Fulford
Sally Gann
Jeanna Garland
Jeff Gibert
Sandra Gibson
MAJ Jesus Gomez
Lester Gordy
CPT Justin Haas
Neil Hains
Fred Hajibrahim
Sam Hawkins
SGT Stephen High
Mary Holte
CPT Jeremiah Jette
MAJ Sean Keenan
Gerald King
Tom King
L.P. Kirkland
Calvin Knight
MAJ Kelly Knitter
Jolynn Krall
Robert Kramer
CW3 Anthony Levaine
Bruce Lewis
Greg Lund
LeRoy Lundgren
CSM Donald Manley
MAJ Mark Mattei
SSG Travis McAninch
CPT Hugh McCauley
Gary Miller
Karen Moody
Keith Noha
Jimmy Norris
Clarence Pankow
Elizabeth Patten
Carol Pieper
Robert Plante
Tom Reardon
Mike Repasky
Bob Ringdahl
CW2 Cary Rook
Thomas Roubal
James Schutze
LTC Andrew Seward
Richard Sohm
Vince Speece
William Staley
Ronald Stewart
Scott Strange
Carol “Jeannie” Tanaka
John Thorpe
Ronald Tolbert
Rodrigo Trevino
Marta Vega
COL Steve Walker

check it out

2006-08-31T02:54:00.000-07:00

more pics of WTC 7

2006-08-30T03:22:00.000-07:00

Yeah, yeah, more smoke. You know, actually smoke means an oxygen poor fire. Means it's not burning as hot as it could be. Lots of smoke doesn't mean a really hot fire that can melt (or weaken) steel to bring a building down. Oh, and how come the east penthouse fell first, when all the damage we've seen so far indicates the southwest corner was the biggest problem? Hmm?

Debunking Debunking 911myths.com

2006-08-30T00:17:00.000-07:00

Debunking 911 myths has an exclusive essay with a new picture showing the major damage to the south face of WTC 7. Check out an archived view of their page here

I've added some black lines and blown it up a bit in an attempt to show the camera angle and determine where the shot was taken from and what it actually shows. The Verizon building (far left) has 9 floors of windows above ground story archways before the wedding cake tier effect starts on the next level up as you can see from the second to last picture (top left building, click on the photo to see a larger version (which can be further enlarged)). Therefore, we can conclude that the bottom horizontal line which I've drawn is roughly 2 stories up from ground level. WTC 7 (or smoke, as the case may be)starts to become more visible at approximately the 4th floor. Around the 5th and sixth floors we begin to see actual south facing side of WTC 7 with damage (below that level, I think mostly we see rubble, smoke and damage to the west side of WTC 7). However, because of the severe foreshortening of the south face of WTC 7 (which I've attempted to illustrate with lines drawn from other buildings) it is difficult to tell the extent of the damage to the south side of WTC 7, except that we can probably safely assume that we are seeing the damage to the lower floors of the southwest corner, which we already knew were damaged. See the NYPD photo for the damage down to about the 10th or 11th floor. Now we have a picture of the damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 which shows us another 5 floors or so, and a bit of the south side of the building. Yay, I guess. The vertical line which I've drawn midway up on WTC 6 (far right) is presumably the roofline of some building, though I'm not quite sure which one.. Obviously, quite a bit of what we see below that line is likely to be various floors of WTC 7 but most of that area is rather vague to say the least. Based on my drawn lines and the parallel lines which intersect, I'm going to say that that picture was probably taken from approximately the position of the firefighter on the far right of picture # 3, or perhaps slightly to the right. That's an approximation only. Once again, we have yet another photograph with a camera angle which seems almost (or perhaps entirely) designed to exaggerate whatever damage was on the south face of WTC 7. I'm still waiting to see that 20 story scoop out of 1/3 of the south face picture, folks. Oh, also, lately the last photo and the accompanying video have been making the rounds. I have just one word for you: solarium. Glass does break in the presence of flying concrete and steel, or so I've heard, at any rate.

CJCSI 3125.01 (August 3, 2001) Military Assistance to Domestic Consequence Management Operations in Response to a CBRNE (copied from lsu.edu cache)

2006-08-29T08:07:00.000-07:00

This is the html version of the file http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/DOD/manual/.%5CFull%20text%20documents%5CAgencies%20Documents%5CCJCSI%203125.01.doc.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:WMrQrjGGmWgJ:biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/DOD/manual/.%255CFull%2520text%2520documents%255CAgencies%2520Documents%255CCJCSI%25203125.01.doc+nsse+%22secret+service+%22+site:lsu.edu&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: nsse secret service lsu.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1185

CJCSI 3125.01, August 3, 2001, Military Assistance to Domestic Consequence Management Operations in Response to a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Situation

REFERENCES: The references listed in Enclosure H are pertinent to the implementation of this policy.

1. Purpose

a. This instruction provides operational and policy guidance and instructions for US military forces supporting domestic consequence management (CM) operations to prepare for and respond to the effects of a threatened or actual chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives (CBRNE) situation. Domestic CBRNE CM support encompasses both deliberate and inadvertent CBRNE situations including terrorism, acts of aggression, industrial accidents, and acts of nature. Domestic CBRNE CM may be conducted by US military forces under immediate response authority and in support of the designated lead federal agency (LFA).

b. Domestic CM operations are those conducted in the continental United States (CONUS) (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Two former trust territories (but now independent countries) are also deemed eligible for assistance under the Compact of Free Association -- the Republic of the Marshall Islands (until 21 October 2001) and the Federated States of Micronesia (until 3 November 2001).

c. This instruction does not apply to foreign CM operations. CJCSI 3214.01, “Military Support to Foreign Consequence Management Operations,” dated 30 June 1998, provides guidance for the planning and conduct of foreign CM operations.

2. Cancellation. CJCS CONPLAN 0400, Annex T, Appendix 2, is canceled.

3. Applicability. This instruction provides guidance the CINCs, especially the three geographic CINCs with domestic CBRNE CM responsibilities (USCINCJFCOM, USCINCPAC, and USCINCSO), Services, and DOD combat support agencies. It is provided for information and coordination to the Secretary of Defense and the appropriate US Government (USG) departments and agencies.

4. Objectives

a. Establish a CJCSI to complement and augment federal plans to execute a cohesive federal response to a domestic CBRNE CM situation.

b. Establish the charter for CJCS CONPLAN 0500 describing operational and policy guidance to facilitate a rapid DOD response for a potential or actual domestic CBRNE CM situation.

c. Provide information to the federal departments and agencies and the Department of Defense, and CJCS operational and policy guidance to the CINCs and Services concerning DOD support to the LFA during a domestic CBRNE CM situation.

5. Policy

a. Authority. External policy documents that provide guidance and authority for DOD assistance to domestic CBRNE CM operations are presented in Enclosure C. The Secretary of Defense issued the following internal policy memorandums:

(1) On 9 May 2001, the Secretary of Defense placed the policy oversight responsibility for all domestic CBRNE CM activities under the ASD(SO/LIC).

(2) On 1 April 2000, the Secretary of Defense recalled the Executive Agency for domestic CBRNE CM from the Secretary of Army. The Secretary of Defense retains CBRNE CM authority.

(3) On 10 August 2000, the Secretary of Defense determined that certain CBRNE situations may be qualitatively and quantitatively different than other situations, and DOD response might require special management procedures and channels. The Deputy Secretary of Defense has the responsibility to determine whether or not the CBRNE situation warrants special management. If so, the Joint Staff will translate Secretary of Defense’s decision into military orders for those CBRNE events, under the oversight of the ASD(SO/LIC). If not, the Secretary of the Army will exercise authority as the DOD Executive Agent through normal Director of Military Support (DOMS) military support to civil authorities (MSCA) procedures.

b. Background

(1) Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)-39 and PDD-62 directed measures to strengthen capabilities to prevent and manage the consequences of terrorist use of a CBRNE device, designated the lead agencies’ responsibilities, and established interagency groups to coordinate policies and programs. These PDDs validated and reaffirmed the overall LFA responsibility of the Department of Justice (DOJ), acting through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI is also the lead agency for crisis management, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the domestic lead agency for CM.

(2) The Secretary of Defense has issued policy documents (references k, l and m), assigned missions (reference j), and directed structural changes (references j and k). More specifically, the Secretary:

(a) Directed USCINCJFCOM to establish a standing Joint Task Force-Civilian Support (JTF-CS), a headquarters element subordinate to USCINCJFCOM, to plan for and integrate DOD’s support to the LFA responsible for domestic CBRNE CM. Directed that reporting for the JTF-CS be through the CINC and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

(b) Directed implementation of congressional direction to create Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs) resident in the National Guard and assigned to the governors for domestic CBRNE CM response.

(c) Assigned USJFCOM the mission to provide military assistance to civilian authorities (MACA) for CM of domestic CBRNE situations and to support other CINCs’ CBRNE CM efforts.

c. Mission Guidance for DOD Forces for Domestic CBRNE CM

(1) Immediate Response. Consistent with DOD Directives, when imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack require immediate action, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DOD components may take such actions as may be necessary to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, commanders or officials acting under this Immediate Response Authority may take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. They must also advise the DOD Executive Agent through command channels, by the most expeditious means available, and seek approval or additional authorizations as needed.

(2) DOD Mission Statement. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, DOD forces will prepare for and conduct CM operations in support of the LFA to mitigate the effects of CBRNE situations in the United States, its territories, and possessions.

(3) USJFCOM Mission Guidance. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, USCINCJFCOM deploys military resources and forces, and conducts military support operations to assist federal, state, and local authorities in responding to a natural or manmade CBRNE situation within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

(a) JTF-CS Mission Guidance. JTF-CS, when directed, will conduct CM operations in support of the designated LFA in response to a CBRNE incident or accident in CONUS, Alaska, Hawaii, US territories, and possessions. The JTF-CS will establish command and control of designated DOD forces and provide military assistance to civil authorities to save lives, prevent injury, and provide temporary critical life support.

(4) USPACOM Mission Guidance. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, USCINCPAC deploys military resources and forces and conducts military support operations to assist federal, state, and local authorities in responding to a natural or manmade CBRNE situation within the US states, territories, and possessions within its area of responsibility (AOR).

(5) USSOUTHCOM Mission Guidance. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, USCINCSO deploys military resources and forces and conducts military support operations to assist federal, state, and local authorities in responding to a natural or manmade CBRNE situation within the US territories and possessions within its AOR.

d. Command of DOD Forces

(1) Preevent Operations. Designated CINCs are responsible for the conduct of military operations within their assigned AOR or as designated by the Secretary of Defense.

(2) Response Operations. In response to an LFA request and upon NCA approval, the Secretary of Defense will designate the appropriate CINC and command relationship for each specific domestic CBRNE CM operation. In CONUS-based situations, USJFCOM will be the supported CINC. For states, territories, possessions, and commonwealths outside of CONUS, either USCINCPAC or USCINCSO will be the supported CINC. DOD will always be in support of the LFA during domestic CBRNE CM operations. DOD forces will remain under military command and control and the chain of command will remain with the geographic CINC.

(3) DOD Installations and Bases Operations. If a CBRNE situation, which appears to be an intentional incident, occurs on a domestic DOD base or installation, the base commander will notify the FBI Field Office as soon as possible. The base commander will request and coordinate support through higher headquarters and/or the supported CINC as required. The base commander has the authority and responsibility to notify state and local officials of the CBRNE situation when it poses a potential threat outside the installation and may make recommendations to state and local officials on actions that might be taken to protect the public. Installation/base commanders will immediately report any CBRNE situation through military channels in order to inform the CJCS who may recommend to the SECDEF to request assistance from other federal agencies. The FRP states: “If an emergency involves an area or facility for which the Federal Government exercises exclusive or primary responsibility and authority, the President may unilaterally direct the provision of emergency assistance under the Stafford Act. The Governor of the affected state will be consulted if possible.” With deliberate events, whether the incident occurs on or off military installations, DOJ/FBI is the overall LFA, as well as the lead agency for crisis management, and FEMA is the lead agency for CM. Although the base commander maintains overall command over the installation, the FBI has command and authority as it relates to the CBRNE situation. State and local officials can assist the base commander through mutual aid agreements.

(4) Control of National Guard Forces. Generally, short of a Presidential Reserve Call-Up (PRC) or mobilization, Army and Air National Guard forces remain under the control of their respective governor. Under 32 USC authority or state active duty status, the Adjutant General in each state may task organize National Guard units and exercise command and control over National Guard forces and resources to support the state's emergency response plan. If ordered to active duty, under 10 USC, National Guard units fall under the command and control of the designated federal military headquarters and conduct CM operations as part of the supported CINC's efforts.

6. Definitions. Definitions are contained in the Glossary.

7. Considerations. Considerations for CBRNE CM operations are contained in Enclosure F.

8. Roles and Responsibilities. DOD roles and responsibilities are found in Enclosure A. Interagency roles and responsibilities are found in Enclosure B.

9. Procedures. Specific DOD procedures are found in Enclosures D
and E.

10. Interagency Coordination

a. The National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism chairs assistant secretary/flag rank groups to coordinate policies and programs and reviews ongoing situations relating to WMD. Two of the groups are the Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) and the Preparedness and Weapons of Mass Destruction (PWMD) Group. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Plan (FRP), FEMA chairs the Catastrophic Disaster Response Group (CDRG) to coordinate planning, operations, and exercises for domestic CM, including CBRNE. DOD domestic CBRNE CM planning, operations, and exercises must be thoroughly coordinated within the USG Interagency Community.

b. The ASD(SO/LIC) has policy oversight responsibility for domestic CBRNE CM and is the DOD lead for domestic CBRNE CM interagency coordination.

c. Prior to approving or authorizing DOD forces to deploy, OSD and the Joint Staff will conduct appropriate staff coordination with the lead agency for CM, FEMA.

d. CINCs will coordinate with the Joint Staff during interagency coordination and operations.

11. Releasability. This instruction is approved for limited release. DOD components (to include the combatant commands) and other federal agencies may obtain copies of this instruction through controlled Internet access only (limited to .mil and .gov users) from the CJCS Directives Home Page--http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine. Joint Staff activities may access or obtain copies of this instruction from the Joint Staff LAN.

12. Effective Date. This instruction is effective upon receipt.

HENRY H. SHELTON

Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Enclosures:

A -- Roles and Responsibilities

B -- Interagency Roles and Responsibilities

C -- Authorities and Federal Response Plans

D -- Coordination and Approval Process

E -- Procedures

F -- Considerations

G -- Public Affairs

H -- References

GL -- Glossary

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

DISTRIBUTION

Distribution A, B, C, and J plus the following:

Copies

American Red Cross 2

Central Intelligence Agency 2

Department of Agriculture 2

Department of Commerce 2

Department of Education 2

Department of Energy 2

Department of Justice 5

Department of Health and Human Services 2

Department of Housing and Urban Development 2

Department of the Interior 2

Department of Labor 2

Department of State 2

Department of Transportation 2

Department of the Treasury 2

Department of Veterans Affairs 2

Environmental Protection Agency 2

Federal Aviation Administration 2

Federal Bureau of Investigation 5

Federal Communications Commission 2

Federal Emergency Management Agency 10

General Services Administration 2

Interstate Commerce Commission 2

National Communications System 2

National Security Council 2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2

Office of Personnel Management 2

Small Business Administration 2

Tennessee Valley Authority 2

US Coast Guard 2

US Secret Service 2

US Postal Service 2

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

ENCLOSURE A

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. General. The Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have the primary responsibility within DOD to provide the overall policy and oversight for MACA in the event of a domestic CBRNE incident. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CINCs, the Services, and Defense agencies have important roles regarding military support to domestic CBRNE CM.

2. Specific Responsibilities

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD(SO/LIC)):

(1) Provides civilian oversight for all combating terrorism and domestic CBRNE CM activities. This oversight includes direction and supervision for policy, program planning, execution, and allocation and use of resources for DOD.

(2) Represents the Secretary of Defense on all combating terrorism matters, including CBRNE consequence management, outside the Department.

(3) Serves as the OSD representative to the CSG and the PWMD.

(4) Chairs the DOD Crisis Coordination Group (CCG) and the DOD PWMD.

(5) Provides policy oversight for military installations’ first responders’ CM preparedness.

b. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD(RA)):

(1) Monitors RC readiness.

(2) In coordination with ASD(SO/LIC), provides policy and program oversight of RC assets designated to respond to domestic CBRNE CM situations.

(3) In coordination with ASD(SO/LIC), Joint Staff, and Services, ensures appropriate Reserve and National Guard forces are integrated into CBRNE CM response efforts.

(4) In coordination with ASD(SO/LIC), reviews PRC procedures and packages for CBRNE CM with the Joint Staff to ensure expeditious and efficient implementation.

c. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)):

(1) In coordination with ASD(SO/LIC), assists in developing policy for integrating military medical capability with civilian medical resources responding to a domestic CBRNE situation.

(2) In coordination with ASD(SO/LIC), informs the Joint Staff of any changes to the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) that would affect CBRNE CM responses.

d. Secretary of the Army has the same responsibility for domestic CBRNE CM as a Secretary of a Military Department who provides support under 10 USC (organize, train, equip, and provide forces). If special management is not necessary, the Secretary of the Army will exercise authority as the DOD Executive Agent through normal DOMS MSCA procedures.

e. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will:

(1) Serve as the principal military adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the President in preparing for and responding to a CBRNE situation.

(2) Ensure military planning is accomplished to support the lead agency for CBRNE CM, FEMA, in preparing for and responding to a domestic CBRNE situation requiring special management.

(3) Conduct assessments of military installations to ensure that commanders are preparing for, and are able to respond to, a CBRNE situation.

f. Service Chiefs will:

(1) Identify and assign units to USJFCOM that support its role as DOD lead in domestic CBRNE CM, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with
10 USC.

(2) Provide, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, designated forces, to include reserve forces, in order to prepare for and respond to a CBRNE situation. The Service Chiefs are to be prepared to provide support to the supported CINC through the appropriate Service component commanders.

(a) US Army. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, provides forces to furnish assistance to the lead agency for CM, FEMA, as part of the supported regional CINC’s response during a domestic CBRNE CM situation. These forces may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Specialized chemical and biological units.

2. Chemical detachments.

3. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units.

4. Specialized medical units and research capabilities.

5. Military working dogs.

(b) US Navy. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, provides forces to furnish assistance to the lead agency for CM, FEMA, as part of the supported regional CINC’s response during a domestic CBRNE CM situation. These forces may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Specialized environmental and radiological units.

2. EOD units.

3. Military working dogs.

4. Specialized medical units.

5. Medical research capabilities.

(c) US Air Force. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, provides forces to furnish assistance to the lead agency for CM, FEMA, as part of the supported regional CINC’s response during a domestic CBRNE CM situation. These forces may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Biological, chemical, and radiological detection units.

2. Hazardous material (HAZMAT) first responders.

3. EOD units.

4. Military working dogs.

5. Response-tailored specialty medical assets such as aeromedical rapid response units and specialized environmental surveillance assets.

(d) US Marine Corps. When directed by the Secretary of Defense, provides forces to furnish assistance to the lead agency for CM, FEMA, as part of the supported regional CINC’s response during a domestic CBRNE situation. These forces may be comprised of, but are not limited to, specialized chemical and biological units.

g. Director for Intelligence (J-2) will:

(1) Serve as the office of primary responsibility (OPR) for the Joint Staff coordination with the interagency Intelligence Community in support of domestic CBRNE CM matters.

(2) Provide the supported CINC and the Joint Staff with acquired foreign intelligence in support of DOD responses to a CBRNE situation.

h. Director for Operations (J-3) will:

(1) Serve as the Joint Staff OPR for all interagency coordination and guidance for domestic CBRNE CM planning and operational support in response to a CBRNE situation.

(2) Represent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in interagency working groups concerning domestic CBRNE CM planning, operations, and exercises.

(3) Coordinate with the Services, regional CINCs, and Joint Staff directorates during the development of joint doctrine dealing with domestic CBRNE CM.

(4) Maintain a CJCSI and CONPLAN for domestic CBRNE CM operations.

(5) Coordinate on the development of plans and policies relating to DOD assets involved in domestic CBRNE CM operations.

i. Director for Logistics (J-4) will:

(1) Coordinate on the development of plans and policies relating to DOD assets involved in domestic CBRNE CM operations, with a particular focus on medical, engineering, and transportation assets.

(2) Review the plans and programs of USCINCJFCOM, USCINCPAC, and USCINCSO to determine logistical adequacy and feasibility for domestic CBRNE CM operations within their respective AORs.

j. Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) will incorporate tasking for domestic CBRNE CM into the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP).

k. Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4) Systems (J-6) will:

(1) Serve as the Joint Staff OPR for C4 interoperability guidance.

(2) Track deployment and readiness status of CJCS-controlled C4 assets.

(3) Coordinate with the Joint Staff, the Services, federal agencies, and the appropriate regional CINCs to develop an interoperable C4 plan.

(4) Review DOD, USCINCJFCOM, USCINPAC, and USCINCSO C4 plans, programs, policies, and assets involved in domestic CBRNE CM operations to determine adequacy, feasibility, consistency with joint doctrine, acceptability, and interoperability with federal agency systems.

l. Director for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development (J-7) will:

(1) Coordinate with the Joint Staff, the Services, and the appropriate regional CINCs to develop joint domestic CBRNE CM doctrine.

(2) Coordinate individual and collective joint CM training with USCINCJFCOM to meet emerging joint domestic CBRNE CM doctrine principles.

(3) Validate emerging domestic CBRNE CM doctrine through joint training events and exercises. Where appropriate, promulgate lessons learned in the Joint Lessons Learned Program (JLLP).

(4) Coordinate the development of Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) tasks, conditions, and measures of effectiveness to reflect all aspects of domestic CBRNE CM operations.

m. Director for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment (J-8) will coordinate with the Services, supported CINCs, Joint Staff Directorates, and Office of the Under Secretary Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) to develop cost estimates supporting the development of plans and policies relating to DOD assets involved in domestic CBRNE CM operations.

n. Commander in Chief, US Joint Forces Command (USCINCJFCOM), will:

(1) Develop supporting CM plans to provide military assistance to civil authorities in response to CBRNE situations within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

(2) Assume the lead in exercising DOD domestic CBRNE CM capabilities.

(3) Execute joint exercises and training. The Secretary of Defense has designated USCINCJFCOM as the Executive Agent for CM support to CINC exercises. This delegation includes authority to issue directives and order the movement of selected CINC-assigned and participating Service personnel and assets to take part in training and exercises.

(4) Coordinate the development of UJTL tasks, conditions, and measures of effectiveness to reflect all aspects of domestic CBRNE CM operations.

(5) Identify, coordinate resourcing with Service Executive Agent, train, and employ as directed JTF-CS, a command and control (C2) element, capable of planning and integrating DOD's support to the LFA for CBRNE situations in the United States, its territories, and possessions. The JTF-CS:

(a) Serves as the USJFCOM action agent for domestic CBRNE CM operations in support of the LFA. JTF-CS, through USJFCOM, will plan and integrate DOD's CM support to the LFA for CBRNE situations in CONUS. This support will involve capabilities drawn from throughout the Department, including detection, decontamination, medical, and logistical assets.

(b) When directed, accepts Operational Control (OPCON) of designated DOD forces (less designated USSOCOM forces and US Army Corps of Engineers) when the Secretary of Defense approves their use.

(c) Plays a leading role in CM doctrine development, requirements identification, training and exercise management, and the promotion of domestic CBRNE CM interoperability for DOD CBRNE CM-capable assets in the Active and/or Reserve Components.

(d) As directed by USCINCJFCOM, works with the lead agency for CM, FEMA, to develop tailored force CM packages and scenario-based task organizations designed to respond to foreseeable CBRNE situations.

(e) When deployed, operates under the OPCON of the supported regional CINC, depending on the location of the incident (USJFCOM, USPACOM, or USSOUTHCOM).

(f) Develops procedures and plans, in coordination with USPACOM and USSOUTHCOM, for military assistance to civil authorities for CBRNE situations in US territories within their respective AORs.

(g) When coordinated through the appropriate CINCs, Services, and agencies, is authorized direct liaison with DOD CBRNE-capable units for issues related to CBRNE CM information sharing, planning, and interoperability.

o. Commander in Chief, US Pacific Command (USCINCPAC), will:

(1) Develop supporting CM plans for domestic CBRNE situations and CM operations conducted within the US states, territories, and possessions located within the USPACOM AOR.

(2) Identify an organic headquarters element to provide the initial incident response and serve as the initial C2 element for all subsequent DOD support in the domestic area within which the CINC is the supported commander.

(3) Be prepared to accept OPCON of, and employ as required, a JTF in response to domestic CM operations within the US states, territories, and possessions located within the USPACOM AOR.

(4) Exercise domestic CBRNE CM capabilities.

p. Commander in Chief, US Southern Command (USCINCSO), will:

(1) Develop supporting CM plans for domestic CBRNE situations and CM operations conducted within the US territories and possessions located within the USSOUTHCOM AOR.

(2) Identify an organic headquarters element to provide the initial incident response and serve as the initial C2 element in the domestic area within which the CINC is the supported commander.

(3) Be prepared to accept OPCON of, and employ as required, a JTF in response to domestic CM operations within the US territories and possessions located within the USSOUTHCOM AOR.

(4) Exercise domestic CBRNE CM capabilities.

q. Commander in Chief, US Transportation Command (USCINCTRANS), will:

(1) Be prepared to move selected forces and identified elements of other government agencies to support NCA-directed domestic CBRNE CM operations.

(2) Provide liaison officers (LNOs) and other assistance to the supported CINC and FEMA, as required.

r. Commander in Chief, US Special Operations Command (USCINCSOC), will:

(1) When directed, provide special operations forces (SOF) as required in support of the LFA during domestic CBRNE CM operations.

(2) Provide LNOs and other assistance to the supported CINC as required.

s. Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), will:

(1) Provide appropriate intelligence support to DOD leadership and the regional CINCs.

(2) Maintain liaison with non-DOD intelligence agencies.

t. Director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), will be prepared to provide command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) support and other support as required.

u. Director, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), will:

(1) Ensure the supported CINC and supporting commands receive timely and effective logistics support in planning and executing domestic CBRNE CM operations.

(2) Deploy the Contingency Support Team as required.

v. Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), will:

(1) Provide modeling, simulation, assessments, analysis, publications, training, and other support as required.

(2) Support CM training exercises, the operational deployments of DOD elements in response to domestic CBRNE situations, and provide expertise in domestic CM to CINCs, joint force commanders, and key DOD components.

(3) Sponsor studies and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD) to support development and acquisition of CBRNE defense doctrine, training, and equipment.

w. Director, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), will provide timely, relevant, and accurate imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information in support of CBRNE CM operations.

x. Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB), will:

(1) Monitor and assist the Adjutants General and the State National Guard in providing well-trained and well-equipped Army and Air National Guard forces and resources to provide military support to domestic CM operations in response to a CBRNE situation.

(2) Facilitate and coordinate with the Services and the CINCs National Guard support for contingency operations, special events, and military support to civil authorities.

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

ENCLOSURE B

INTERAGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. General. Many different groups and entities at all levels in the USG are engaged in CBRNE CM policy, programs, and operations. Several federal agencies active in CBRNE CM exercise independent authority to activate a federal field response for their respective AORs. FEMA is the domestic lead agency for CM, including CBRNE. FEMA coordinates with other federal agencies to ensure that domestic CM operations are synchronized with other operations.

2. Agency Responsibilities

a. American Red Cross (ARC). The ARC coordinates federal mass care assistance in support of state and local efforts to meet the needs of victims of a disaster upon activation of the FRP. Assistance will include shelter, feeding, and emergency relief supplies to disaster victims, and the collection of information to operate a Disaster Welfare Information (DWI) system for the purposes of reporting victim status and assisting in family reunification. The ARC independently provides mass care and other services to disaster victims as part of a broad program of disaster relief, as outlined in its charter provisions enacted by the US Congress in 1905.

b. Department of Energy (DOE). DOE will provide emergency responder training for nuclear and radiological incidents. DOE operates a variety of nuclear facilities throughout the United States and maintains radiological emergency response assets specifically organized, trained, and equipped to cope with all forms of radiological accidents and incidents. Through these assets, DOE supports both crisis and consequence management response. With specialized deployable assets, such as those under the Radiological Assistance Program and the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC), DOE assists other federal agencies, state, tribal, and local governments responding to nuclear emergencies.

c. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS is the lead agency for planning and preparing for a national response to medical emergencies and will develop metropolitan medical strike teams, now known as the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and maintain the NDMS. HHS provides federal support in response to public health and medical care concerns. HHS possesses unique CM capabilities that can be used in a domestic CBRNE CM response, which may include, but are not limited to, agent identification, epidemiological investigation, hazard detection and reduction, decontamination, medical support, and pharmaceutical support operations.

d. Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigation. DOJ, acting through the FBI, is the LFA until the Attorney General transfers the overall LFA role to FEMA. The FBI is the lead agency for crisis management throughout CBRNE situations. The CSG notifies the Attorney General and the Secretary of Treasury when they should designate a National Special Security Event (NSSE). The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury are required to agree on the designation.

e. Department of State (DOS). DOS leads foreign operations and coordinates foreign offers of assistance to domestic operations. If a CBRNE situation occurs along a shared border of the United States and Mexico or Canada, DOS will work with the appropriate agencies to coordinate a USG response.

f. Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT is responsible for coordinating transportation issues in response operations and in restoring the transportation infrastructure after a domestic CBRNE situation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the responsibility for the coordination of any law enforcement activity affecting the safety of persons aboard aircraft in flight. The USCG is located within the DOT and provides specialized response capabilities for CM operations. The USCG is a co-chair with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), if the incident occurs in areas under USCG jurisdiction. When directed or requested, the Coast Guard may provide assigned forces in response to a domestic CBRNE CM situation. The USCG and Coast Guard personnel possess unique law enforcement authority to establish and enforce security and safety zones and are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

g. Department of Treasury. For NSSEs, the US Secret Service (USSS) is the lead agency for security design/planning and implementation, and will identify and coordinate the appropriate Secret Service and federal antiterrorism measures and counterterrorism assets that will be needed to effect the overall security requirements. The CSG notifies the Attorney General and the Secretary of Treasury when they should designate an NSSE. The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury are required to agree on the designation.

h. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA will conduct assessments of medical assistance available to support a CBRNE situation. Additionally, the VA will coordinate with the NDMS.

i. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA responds to actual or potential releases of hazardous materials. Under the NCP, the EPA designates a Federal On-Scene Coordinator for an incident. The EPA is the National Chair of the National Response Team (NRT), a multiagency committee that provides technical expertise and advises in HAZMAT planning and response. Federal response may include, but is not limited to, agent identification, hazard detection and reduction, environmental monitoring, decontamination, and long-term site restoration. The EPA established the Radiological Emergency Response Team (ERT) to support its response to incidents involving radioactive materials. Under the FRP, the EPA is the lead agency for ESF-10, Hazardous Materials. EPA also provides emergency responder training for HAZMATs and environmental materials to meet its broad environmental mission.

j. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA is the lead agency for domestic CBRNE CM situations. FEMA uses the existing FRP structure to manage and coordinate the federal response to consequences of terrorism, including the consequences of a CBRNE situation. Figure B-1 outlines the functions and primary agencies designated in the FRP. DOD may be a support agency to all emergency support functions (ESFs).

EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTION PRIMARY AGENCY
#1 Transportation Department of Transportation
#2 Communications National Communications System
#3 Public Works and Engineering Department of Defense, US Army Corps of Engineers
#4 Firefighting Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
#5 Information and Planning Federal Emergency Management Agency
#6 Mass Care American Red Cross
#7 Resource Support General Services Administration
#8 Health and Medical Services Department of Health and Human Services
#9 Urban Search and Rescue Federal Emergency Management Agency
#10 Hazardous Material Environmental Protection Agency
#11 Food Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service
#12 Energy Department of Energy

Figure B-1. FRP Emergency Support Functions and Primary Agencies

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

ENCLOSURE C

AUTHORITIES AND FEDERAL RESPONSE PLANS

1. External Authorities. Several documents provide authority and guidance for DOD assistance to civil authorities. Additionally, many federal departments and agencies have developed response and contingency plans to coordinate activities and to successfully execute a cohesive, integrated response operation to domestic CBRNE CM operations. A brief summary of these authorities and plans is provided.

a. PDD-39. PDD-39, “US Policy on Counterterrorism (U),” validates and reaffirms the DOJ, acting through the FBI, as the overall LFA and lead agency for crisis management and FEMA as the domestic lead agency for CM.

b. PDD-62. PDD-62, “Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas (U),” reaffirms the domestic lead agencies and their responsibilities. Additionally, it outlines the roles and responsibilities of other federal agencies, including Public Health Service (PHS) (health/
medical), EPA (HAZMAT/environmental) and DOE (radiological). PDD-62 identifies lead agency responsibilities with regard to an NSSE. The FBI is the lead agency for crisis management, intelligence, and federal criminal investigation. The USSS is the lead agency for security design/planning and implementation. FEMA is the lead agency for CM. Other departments, such as Defense, State, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and the EPA, may provide specialized resources in support of these crisis management, security, and CM efforts.

c. Federal Response Plan

(1) Basic Plan. The FRP provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency. The FRP implements the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in order to provide assistance to save lives; protect public health, safety, and property; alleviate damage and hardship; and reduce future vulnerability. The FRP organizes the federal response into 12 ESFs and the primary agencies responsible for each ESF. The FRP signatories support FEMA for CM through their response to CBRNE situations. FEMA coordinates with other federal agencies to ensure that domestic CM operations are synchronized with other operations. FEMA publishes the FRP.

(2) Terrorism Incident Annex. The Terrorism Incident Annex ensures that the FRP is adequate to respond to the consequences of terrorism within the United States. The Terrorism Incident Annex addresses potential CBRNE CM requirements to support crisis management, responsibilities of various federal agencies, and funding guidelines.

d. National Contingency Plan. The NCP provides the organizational structure, procedures, and authority for the Federal Government to respond to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, including radiological, chemical, and biological agents. The EPA and the USCG have the responsibility for the NCP. The NCP may be activated in the initial stages of a CBRNE situation, especially when the nature of the agent is unknown. ESF #10, Hazardous Materials, places the response mechanisms of the NCP within the FRP coordination structure when both plans are implemented concurrently. The EPA publishes the NCP.

e. Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP). The FRERP provides structure for the Federal Government to respond to peacetime radiological incidents and accidents in order to provide assistance to save lives and protect public health, safety, and property. The FRP Terrorism Incident Annex and Base Plan places the response mechanisms of the FRERP within the FRP coordination structure when both plans are implemented concurrently for deliberate or inadvertent CBRNE CM. FEMA publishes the FRERP.

f. USG Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan (USG CONPLAN). The USG CONPLAN provides overall guidance to federal, state, and local agencies concerning how the Federal Government would respond to a potential or actual terrorist threat or incident that occurs in the United States, particularly one involving WMD.

g. Guidelines for the Mobilization, Deployment, and Employment of US Government Agency in Response to a Domestic Threat of Incident. The Domestic Guidelines is a classified document addressing the guidelines for the mobilization, deployment, and employment of USG agencies in response to a domestic threat or terrorist incident. The PDD-39 Domestic Guidelines assigns specific responsibilities to DOJ, FBI, DOD, FEMA, DOE, EPA, and HHS. These guidelines are designed to facilitate and enhance USG interagency coordination to effectively respond to potential or actual domestic terrorism. As the overall LFA for response to threats or acts of terrorism inside the United States, DOJ, acting through the FBI, is supported by FEMA and other federal agencies. The FBI is the lead agency for formulating and executing a crisis management response. FEMA is the lead agency for formulating and executing a Federal CM response in support of state and local governments.

2. Internal

a. Unified Command Plan (UCP)-99. The UCP is the document approved by the President that sets forth basic guidance to all unified combatant commanders. It establishes their missions, responsibilities, and force structure; delineates the general geographic AOR for geographic combatant commanders; and specifies functional responsibilities for functional combatant commanders. It is submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President every 2 years. UCP-99, approved by the President on 29 September 1999, tasks USCINCJFCOM with the responsibility for “providing, within CONUS, military assistance to civil authorities (including consequence management operations in response to nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction incidents) . . . subject to Secretary of Defense approval.”

b. On 13 September 1999, the Secretary of Defense forwarded to the President UCP-99 with amplification, which directed USCINCJFCOM to establish the JTF-CS to serve as the primary DOD command element for the planning and execution of military assistance to civil authorities for domestic CM operations as a result of a CBRNE situation.

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

ENCLOSURE D

COORDINATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS

1. Purpose. The following procedures provide CJCS guidance for the coordination and approval of operational deployments of DOD forces or individuals in support of an LFA request for assistance during a CBRNE situation.

2. Scope. The sensitivity of DOD CM missions and capabilities requires clear and concise procedures for domestic movements of individuals and units. Approval procedures must ensure that proper civilian oversight through ASD(SO/LIC) and the required interagency coordination are accomplished; all appropriate Services, agencies, and organizations are kept informed; and Operational Security (OPSEC) is maintained. This includes coordination with the regional CINC prior to deployment of personnel, units, or equipment.

3. Operational Deployments. Approval procedures for the deployment of DOD forces or individuals in support of contingency or other tasked CM operations are contained in CJCS CONPLAN 0500; regional CINCs supporting CONPLANs; or SECDEF-authorized warning, alert, deployment, or execute orders.

a. CINC Liaison Officers. Upon notification that a CBRNE event has occurred that may require DOD assistance, the affected geographic CINC may send LNOs to the appropriate operations centers to gain situational awareness. However, LNOs cannot obligate DOD resources or commence CBRNE CM support operations without proper authority.

b. Federal Request for DOD CBRNE CM Support. It is clear that certain CBRNE situations may be qualitatively and quantitatively different than other situations that may require DOD support to civil authorities, and therefore, the DOD response would require special management procedures and channels. All official requests for DOD support for a CBRNE situation enter through the DOD Executive Secretary. The Deputy Secretary of Defense will decide whether or not the situation warrants special management. If special management is required for a domestic CBRNE situation, the Joint Staff, J-33 Joint Operations Division (JOD), is the OPR and forwards orders to the appropriate CINC under the policy oversight of ASD(SO/LIC). If special operational management is not warranted, the Secretary of the Army DOMS is the OPR and forwards orders to the appropriate CINC.

c. Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO). A DCO may be the first DOD representative on site and is the single DOD point of contact. The DCO is the designated DOD on-scene member of the FEMA-led ERT. The DCO coordinates all requests for assistance with the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) or designated representative. The DCO is supported by a Defense Coordinating Element (DCE). Although the DCO may be supplanted by the JTF commander as the senior DOD representative, the DCO will continue to exercise the ERT staff function of mission assignment coordination and validation, and will act as a liaison between the ERT staff and the JTF staff.

d. Command of Forces. When directed, the commander of the JTF (or other appropriate C2 headquarters as determined by the supported CINC) accepts OPCON of designated DOD forces (less USSOCOM and US Army Corps of Engineers), including DCO, DCE, and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers (EPLOs).

e. DOD Personnel Accountability. Because of the inherent risk associated with working in a CBRNE environment and the potential for long-term health issues associated with exposure to CBRNE contaminants, strict accountability of all DOD personnel in the vicinity of the incident site is needed. Military commanders must establish adequate controls to account for and maintain records on all DOD personnel entering and departing the affected area.

ENCLOSURE E

PROCEDURES

1. Relationship Between DOD Units Responding to CBRNE Situations and Other Organizations During Times of Deployment

a. DOD Deployed Headquarters. For domestic CBRNE CM situations requiring special management, the commander of the responding headquarters reports to the Secretary of Defense through his respective regional CINC and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

b. Lead Federal Agency. The commander of the deployed CBRNE CM headquarters operates in support of the overall LFA through direct support of the lead agency for CM. With the FRP activated, FEMA coordinates with other federal agencies to ensure that domestic CM operations are synchronized with other operations. The commander of the deployed headquarters will supplant the DCO as the senior DOD representative and will keep higher headquarters informed. However, the DCO will continue to exercise the ERT staff function of mission assignment coordination and validation and act as liaison between the ERT staff and the JTF staff.

2. Operations Security

a. Federal, state, and local agencies conduct CM operations in an unclassified forum. The Department of Defense will be an active participant in the unclassified forum to ensure consistency and expeditious flow of information. Whenever joint special operations task forces (JSOTFs) are employed, their employment will be protected in accordance with established procedures and security classification guidelines.

b. Information on DOD CBRNE CM operations will be made public as necessary. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OSD(PA)) is the point of contact for all media inquiries relating to DOD participation in CBRNE CM activities.

3. Fiscal Arrangements. Funding of DOD units participating in CBRNE CM support to other government agencies will be in accordance with law and within the established procedures in PDD-39, PDD-62, DOD Directives, and the FRP. If the President invokes the Stafford Act, FEMA issues mission assignments through the FRP. Each DOD component is responsible for capturing and reporting incremental costs to Service/defense agency comptrollers. All incremental DOD costs should be captured by providers of support for reimbursement by the supported agency. Standard interagency billing procedures should be followed.

4. Public Affairs (PA)

a. OSD(PA) is the lead for releasing public information concerning DOD. This would continue to be the case during a CBRNE situation.

b. PA guidance during a domestic CBRNE CM operation must be coordinated with the LFA and the lead agencies for crisis and consequence management.

5. Use of Weapons

a. Units may deploy to sites of CBRNE situations with their weapons in storage in the event that the unit is subsequently authorized to carry arms by the Secretary of Defense or is deployed from the CBRNE site to an assignment where weapons are authorized. The military on-scene commander is responsible to ensure that weapons and ammunition are adequately stored and physically secured at the site of the CBRNE situation.

b. Military members providing security for stored weapons and ammunition at military facilities during CM support operations may carry their weapons while performing their normal security duties and will adhere to the rules on the use of force set forth in Annex C, Appendix 6, CJCS CONPLAN 0500-98.

c. There is a presumption that units deployed to sites of CBRNE situations will not carry arms. In an emergency situation and then only when expressly authorized by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, units providing CM support may be authorized to carry arms. When weapons are authorized, units will adhere to the rules on the use of force set forth in Annex C, Appendix 6, CJCS CONPLAN 0500-98.

6. Use of Force in Self-Defense. The responsibility for providing security for DOD personnel, equipment, and military sites during CM operations rests with local law enforcement authorities. DOD personnel, however, retain the right to take appropriate actions in self-defense if threatened during CM operations. If feasible, DOD personnel should request civilian law enforcement assistance before acting in self-defense.

ENCLOSURE F

CONSIDERATIONS

1. Intelligence. In a domestic CBRNE CM situation, DOD has no authority or responsibility for the collection of intelligence domestically. Moreover, in the context of a terrorist threat or acts of terrorism, the FBI, as the LFA, has the overall responsibility for assembling, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence, whether of domestic or foreign origin, on the operating environment.

2. Information. The LFA has the overall responsibility for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information on the operating environment. Information relevant to CM operations will be provided to DOD from the LFA or lead agency for CM. The on-scene military commander may request information from the LFA channels to fulfill his specific requirements.

3. Availability and Timeliness of CBRNE CM Capabilities. DOD units possess capabilities that can provide CBRNE CM assistance during a domestic CBRNE situation. However, response times and resources vary. Additionally, several of these units may be committed already to potential or current worldwide military operations. Based on adjusted priorities, the NCA could redirect these units to domestic CBRNE CM operations. The required time to disengage and redeploy the units and the impact on ongoing military operations are key planning considerations.

4. Media Impact. The media will play an important role in reporting and shaping public opinion concerning a CBRNE situation and CM response operations. Any DOD response must take into account possible media repercussions. DOJ/FBI is the lead agency for PA guidance in the crisis management phase. FEMA is the lead agency for PA guidance for CM. The LFA Joint Information Center (JIC) will provide information to the media. OASD(PA) is the point of contact for all media inquiries concerning DOD support to the LFA. See Enclosure G.

5. Medical. During a CBRNE situation, medical and public health needs will be significant factors. NDMS, which includes DOD coordination of participating nonfederal-fixed hospitals and DOD-provided patient evacuation, is the primary federal-level medical response element. Other DOD medical capabilities external to NDMS could be requested if it is determined necessary to augment or sustain the NDMS/local response in order to save lives and minimize human suffering.

6. Domestic Transportation Assets. Transportation of DOD and other federal personnel and assets to a domestic CBRNE situation will be critical to a successful response. DOD transportation assets are in high demand and require planning time. All transportation modes should be considered to support domestic CM operations. Unlike overseas deployments, ground transportation may be a viable option for CONUS situations. Under FRP ESF #1, Transportation, the DOT’s Movement Coordination Center will coordinate deployment of federal resources, including DOD resources, to support CBRNE CM operations.

7. Reserve Component Forces. RC forces are capable of conducting a wide range of domestic CBRNE CM operations. They are geographically dispersed throughout the United States and, therefore, may provide the most timely response to a CBRNE situation. RC forces may be involuntarily ordered to active duty for a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear situation. The timeline associated with RC call-up or mobilization is a key planning consideration.

8. Presidential Declaration. Until a Presidential Declaration is issued, federal agencies respond using their individual authorities and funding sources. Pursuant to the Stafford Act and a declaration of an emergency, the Department of Defense may be reimbursed for its assistance to FEMA and FRP operations.

9. Law Enforcement Activities. Military members supporting CBRNE CM operations will neither engage in civilian law enforcement activities nor act as law enforcement agents.

ENCLOSURE G

PUBLIC AFFAIRS

1. General. A threat or act of terrorism involving a CBRNE may produce major consequences that could overwhelm the capabilities of many local and state governments, as well as the existing capabilities of the Federal Government. DOD has certain responsibilities for training and supporting civilian authorities' efforts to respond to a terrorist attack involving the use of CBRNE.

2. This PA guidance contains policy-level guidance for use by commanders, public affairs officers, and spokespersons participating in domestic CBRNE CM responses and exercises with federal, state, and local civilian authorities.

3. General Guidance

a. DOD PA activities during domestic CBRNE CM situations are driven by the supported federal, state, or local authorities. For example, the PA posture; location of JICs; along with the time, place, and method of communicating with the media, will normally be driven by the supported civilian authority. PA for a CBRNE situation will be coordinated by the LFA. OSD(PA) is the PA focal point for the Department of Defense. The Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Public Affairs) will coordinate with OSD(PA).

b. In every instance, PA personnel will ensure proper contingency planning and coordination are accomplished in anticipation of potential real-world CBRNE response requirements and associated training activities. PA personnel must make accommodation for, and interact with, local, state, national, and international media. The responsible PA element must plan and execute appropriately.

c. The supported CINC, component, or Service commander, as applicable, will have responsibility for PA planning and execution.

d. PA guidance for CBRNE CM response contingencies will be developed and staffed in accordance with applicable DOD Directives. PA guidance will include, at a minimum, statements and questions/answers for use in response to queries. PA guidance should also include details regarding PA architecture and plans for participation in JICs.

e. Whenever JSOTFs are employed, their employment will be protected in accordance with established procedures and security classification guidelines.

4. Questions beyond the scope of this guidance will be forwarded through PA channels to OSD(PA).

5. OSD(PA) POC for plans may be contacted at (703) 693-1074; DSN:
223-1074. OSD(PA) POC for media may be contacted at (703) 697-4162;
DSN: 227-4162.

ENCLOSURE H

REFERENCES

a. CJCSI 3214.01, 30 June 1998, “Military Support to Foreign Consequence Management Operations”

b. CONPLAN 0400-96, 31 May 1996, “Counterproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction”

c. Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-39, 21 June 1995, “U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism”

d. Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-62, 22 May 1998, “Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas”

e. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 9230-1-PL, April 1999, Federal Response Plan (FRP), with Terrorism Incident Annex

f. Title 42, United States Code, sections 5121 et seq, “The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act” as amended (referred to herein as “the Stafford Act”)

g. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1994, “National Contingency Plan”

h. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1 May 1996, “Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan”

i. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 16 January 2001, “USG Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan”

j. Unified Command Plan, 29 September 1999, with Secretary of Defense,
13 September 1999, cover memorandum to the President of the United
States

k. SecDef memorandum, 1 April 2000, “Consequence Management Responsibilities Within the Department of Defense for Incidents Involving Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE-CM)”

l. SecDef memorandum, 10 August 2000, “Management of DOD Operational Response to the Consequences of Certain Incidents Involving Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosives”

m. SecDef memorandum, 9 May 2001, “Civilian Oversight of DoD Combating Terrorism and Consequence Management Activities”

n. DOD Directive 3025.1, 15 January 1993, “Military Support to Civil Authorities”

o. DOD Directive 3025.12, 4 February 1994, “Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS)”

p. DOD Directive 3025.13, 13 September 1985, “Employment of DOD Resources in Support of the United States Secret Service”

q. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities”

r. DOD Directive 3150.5, 24 March 1987, “DOD Response to an Improvised Nuclear Device Incident”

s. DOD Directive 5400.13, 9 January 1996, “Joint Public Affairs Operations”

t. DOD Directive 6000.12, 29 April 1996, “Health Services Operations and Readiness”

u. DOD Instruction 5400.14, 22 January 1996, “Procedures for Joint Public Affairs Operations”

v. SecDef message 211644Z APR 99, “Public Affairs Guidance - Counter-terrorism/Special Mission Units”

w. SecDef message 112005Z MAR 98, “Public Affairs Guidance for National Guard and Reserve Component Integration into Domestic Preparedness Program”

x. DepSecDef memorandum, 23 November 1996, “Executive Agency for the Domestic Preparedness Program”

y. CJCSM 3122.03A, 31 December 1999, “Joint Operations Planning and Execution System, Vol. II (Planning and Execution Formats and Guidance)”

z. CJCSI 5113.02A, 10 August 2000, “CJCS Counterproliferation Charter”

aa. Joint Pub 3-11, 11 July 2000, “Joint Doctrine for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Environments”

bb. Joint Pub 3-08, 1 February 1995, “Interagency Coordination During Joint Operations”

cc. Joint Pub 3-07.2, 17 March 1998, “Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism”

dd. Joint Pub 3-61, 14 May 1997, “Doctrine for Public Affairs in Joint Operations”

ee. Joint Pub 3-07.7, 3 July 2000, “Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Domestic Support Operations (DRAFT)”

ff. Public Law 104-201, Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction.

gg. DOD Directive 5160.62, 26 April 1989, “Single Manager for Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology and Training (EODT&T)”

hh. Department of Justice, 8 August 2000, “Guidelines for the Mobilization, Deployment, and Employment of U.S. Government Agencies in Response to a Domestic Threat or Incident of Terrorism in Accordance with Presidential Decision Directive 39”

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

GLOSSARY

PART I -- ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACTD Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations

AOR area of responsibility

ARC American Red Cross

ASD(HA) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)

ASD(RA) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs)

ASD(SO/LIC) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special
Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict)

C2 command and control

C4 command, control, communications, and computers

C4I command, control, communications, computers, and
intelligence

CBRNE chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-
yield explosive

CCG Crisis Coordination Group

CDRG Catastrophic Disaster Response Group

CINC commander in chief

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

CJCSI Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction

CM consequence management

CONPLAN Contingency Plan

CONUS Continental United States

CSG Counterterrorism and Security Group

DCE Defense Coordinating Element

DCO Defense Coordinating Officer

DepSecDef Deputy Secretary of Defense

DEST Domestic Emergency Support Team

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

DISA Defense Information Services Agency

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

DOMS Director of Military Support

DOS Department of State

DOT Department of Transportation

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency

DWI disaster welfare information

EOD explosive ordnance disposal

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPLO Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer

ERT Emergency Response Team

ESF emergency support function

EST Emergency Support Team

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCO Federal Coordinating Officer

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan

FRMAC Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment
Center

FRP Federal Response Plan

HAZMAT hazardous material

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IWG Interagency Working Group

JIC Joint Information Center

JLLP Joint Lessons Learned Program

JOD Joint Operations Division

JSCP Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan

JSOTF joint special operations task forces

JTF joint task force

JTF-CS Joint Task Force-Civil Support

LAN local area network

LFA lead federal agency

LNO liaison officer

MACA military assistance to civilian authorities

MACDIS military assistance to civil disturbances

MMRS Metropolitan Medical Response System

MSCA military support to civilian authorities

NCA National Command Authorities

NCP National Contingency Plan

NDMS National Disaster Medical System

NGB National Guard Bureau

NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency

NRT National Response Team

NSA National Security Administration

NSC National Security Council

NSSE National Special Security Event

OCJCS(PA) Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(Public Affairs)

OPCON operational control

OPR office of primary responsibility

OPSEC operational security

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OSD(PA) Office of the Secretary of Defense - Public Affairs

OUSD(C) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense - Comptroller

PA Public Affairs

PDD Presidential Decision Directive

PHS Public Health Service

PRC Presidential Reserve Call-Up

PWMD Preparedness and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Group

RC Reserve Component

SECDEF Secretary of Defense

SOF special operations forces

UCP Unified Command Plan

UJTL Universal Joint Task List

USC United States Code

USCG United States Coast Guard

USCINCJFCOM Commander in Chief, US Joint Forces Command

USCINCPAC Commander in Chief, US Pacific Command

USCINCSO Commander in Chief, US Southern Command

USCINCSOC Commander in Chief, US Special Operations
Command

USCINCTRANS Commander in Chief, US Transportation Command

USG United States Government

USJFCOM United States Joint Forces Command

USPACOM United States Pacific Command

USSOCOM United States Special Operations Command

USSOUTHCOM United States Southern Command

USSS United States Secret Service

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WMD weapons of mass destruction

WMD-CST Weapons of Mass Destruction - Civil Support Team

PART II -- TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

1. area of responsibility (AOR). The geographic area associated with a regional CINC within which a regional CINC has authority to plan and conduct operations.

2. biological agent. A microorganism or byproduct that causes disease in personnel, plants, or animals or causes the contamination or deterioration of material.

3. Catastrophic Disaster Response Group (CDRG). The CDRG was established by the Federal Response Plan as the interagency forum to direct planning, operations, and exercises for the FRP community. FEMA chairs the CDRG meetings among the FRP departments and agencies.

4. chemical agent. A chemical substance that is intended to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate people through its physiological effects. The term excludes riot agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame.

5. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive (CBRNE) - Consequence Management (CM). The consequence management activities for all deliberate and inadvertent releases of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives with potential to cause high casualties and large levels of destruction.

6. Consequence Management (CM). Consequence management is defined as measures to protect public health and safety, restore essential government services, and provide emergency relief to governments, businesses, and individuals affected by the consequences of a CBRNE situation. The primary authority rests with the states to respond, and the Federal Government to provide assistance as required.

7. Crisis Coordination Group (CCG). The CCG is an internal DOD working group that plans for and/or responds to a possible or actual terrorist incident.

8. Crisis Management. Crisis Management includes measures to identify, acquire, and plan the use of resources needed to anticipate, prevent, and resolve a threat or act of terrorism. Crisis Management is predominantly a law enforcement function in domestic situations.

9. Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG). The CSG is the interagency forum for domestic and foreign terrorism. The NSC National

Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism normally chairs the CSG. The FBI will chair the CSG when the CSG considers requests for the DEST in response to a domestic or unknown terrorist group. The CSG includes appropriate interagency members and reports to the Deputies Committee (or at the call of its chair, the Principals Committee).

10. Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO). The DCO is the DOD on-scene representative who coordinates requirements with the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) or designated representative. The DCO validates requests by the FCO, passing requirements back to the CINC or JTF.

11. domestic. The continental United States (CONUS) (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any political subdivision thereof. Two former trust territories (but now independent countries) also are deemed eligible assistance under the Compact of Free Association -- the Republic of the Marshall Islands (until 21 October 2001) and the Federated States of Micronesia (until 3 November 2001).

12. Emergency Response Team (ERT). The main ERT is an interagency team, consisting of the lead representative from each federal department or agency assigned primary responsibility for an ESF and key members of the FCO’s staff. ERT elements may operate from several field locations as required.

13. Emergency Support Team (EST). The interagency group comprised of representatives from each of the primary agencies, select support agencies, and FEMA headquarters staff. It operates from the FEMA National Interagency Emergency Operations Center in Washington, DC.

14. Executive Agent. The individual designated by position to have and exercise the assigned responsibility and delegated authority of the Secretary of Defense.

15. Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO). The FCO, or designated representative, is the focal point for DOD liaison with FEMA during CM operations. The FCO is appointed by the Director of FEMA, on behalf of the President, to coordinate Federal CM operations in the field. The source and level of the FCO will likely depend on the nature of the incident.

16. high-yield explosive. Any conventional weapon or device that is capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to kill or injure large numbers of people.

17. Immediate Response. Any form of immediate action taken by a DOD component or military commander to assist civil authorities to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions and when time does not permit approval from a higher authority.

18. lead agency. The federal department or agency assigned lead responsibility to manage and coordinate the federal response in a specific functional area. The FBI is the lead agency for crisis management and FEMA is the lead agency for consequence management. Lead agencies support the overall LFA during all phases of the response.

19. lead federal agency (LFA). The federal agency that leads and coordinates the overall federal response is referred to as the LFA and is determined by the type of emergency. Specific responsibilities of an LFA vary according to the agency's unique statutory authorities.

20. Military Assistance to Civil Authorities (MACA). Those DOD activities and measures covered under MSCA (natural and manmade disasters) plus DOD assistance for civil disturbances, counterdrug, sensitive support, counterterrorism, and law enforcement.

21. Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA). Those activities and measures taken by the DOD components to foster mutual assistance and support between DOD and any civilian government agency in planning, preparing for, or responding to, the consequences of civil emergencies or attacks.

22. National Disaster Medical System (NDMS). NDMS is a nationwide medical mutual aid network between the federal and nonfederal sectors that includes medical response, patient evacuation, and definitive medical care. At the federal level, it is a partnership between HHS, DOD, Department of Veterans Affairs, and FEMA.

23. National Special Security Event (NSSE). Events designated upon the approval of the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury which DOD and other government agencies may be requested to preposition forces. The forces requested may be units with CM capabilities in anticipation of a potential CBRNE situation.

24. Preparedness and Weapons of Mass Destruction (PWMD) Group. The PWMD Group, formerly WMDP under PDD-62, is an interagency forum to discuss policies and programs related to WMD issues. The NSC National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism chairs the PWMD Group.

25. Presidential Declaration. Under the Stafford Act, a Governor may request the President to declare a major disaster or emergency if an event is beyond the combined response capabilities of the affected local and state governments. Based on the findings of a joint federal-state-local preliminary damage assessment (PDA) indicating the damages are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant assistance under the Act, the President may grant a major disaster or emergency declaration. (Note: In a particularly fast-moving or devastating disaster, the PDA process may be deferred until after the declaration.) If an emergency involves an area or facility for which the Federal Government exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority, the President may unilaterally direct the provision of emergency assistance under the Stafford Act. The Governor of the affected state will be consulted if possible.

26. primary agency. A primary agency, as stated in the FRP, is responsible for coordinating an ESF. A primary agency is designated on the basis of its authorities, resources, and capabilities in that functional area.

27. routine operations. Day-to-day operations, training, actions, and plans conducted when not conducting CM operations.

28. support agency. A support agency assists the primary agency in resolving the requirements of an ESF.

29. supported CINC. The regional CINC designated by the NCA to exercise operational control of DOD forces providing CM support to the LFA.

30. supporting CINC. Any regional or functional CINC providing forces, equipment, or any other resources to the supported CINC for domestic CM.

31. weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

(1) Under 10 USC 1403, a WMD is any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; a disease organism; or radiation or radioactivity.

(2) 18 USC 2332a, defines a WMD as (1) any destructive device as defined in section of 921 of this title, [which states] any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to the above; (2) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (3) any weapon involving a disease organism; or (4) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

(3) For the purpose of military support to domestic CBRNE CM operations, the term WMD shall be defined as either a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive weapon, device or material. CBRNE includes any event, industrial accident, act of nature, act of war, or terrorism. WMD refers to a CBRNE device specifically designed to produce casualties.

32. Weapons of Mass Destruction - Civil Support Team (WMD-CST). WMD-CSTs are joint Army and Air National Guard teams that provide chemical, biological, and radiological initial survey and assessment operations for domestic WMD incidents. The WMD-CSTs are staffed fulltime with Active Guard/Reserve members from the National Guard. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1999, the Department of Defense established WMD-CSTs to support civil authorities in managing the consequences of a CBRNE situation. The WMD-CST deploys to an area of operations, assesses a suspected CBRNE situation in support of a local incident commander, and advises civilian responders regarding appropriate action.

Sorry Google and thanks to webcitation.org

2006-08-21T22:08:00.000-07:00

Sorry about screenshotting your cache here Google... Any questions on it, please refer to my Fair Use Notice posting

And a shout out to my newly discovered helpful friend WebCite. A great tool for documentation without the worrisome problems that 404s create. I only wish I had known about it when I began this project!

The following screenshots are from the cached page of a story which I referenced in my last post which is now 404. Surprise, surprise, right?

The Secret Service in NYC on 9/11

2006-08-13T02:04:00.000-07:00

Edit: 11/5/06 I'm going to be updating this post with more information which I've found since I wrote it (and perhaps changing the wording around), but you can find a cached version of how it looked before I started this process here.

Now, no doubt you are aware that the Secret Service's largest field office was located in WTC 7. What you may not know, though, is that 100 extra agents were in NYC on 9/11 in preparation for the U.N.'s General Assembly which was scheduled to open that day. Was 9/11 in NYC designated as a National Special Security event due to that opening? Usually, the General Debate begins a few days after the General Assembly opens. That is what was postponed until November, lasted only one week instead of the more typical two weeks and was classified as a NSSE when it happened. George Bush was scheduled to speak near the end of the General Debate in September. Anyway, here are some quotes regarding the Secret Service in NYC on 9/11.

In an interview with Barbara Riggs (the first woman Deputy Director of the Secret Service) she says

The Secret Service New York Field Office is its largest field operation, employing over 200 personnel. An additional 100 employees were in New York to plan, implement and staff the foreign dignitary details for the upcoming United Nations General Assembly.

The General Assembly was scheduled to open that day, but the opening was postponed until the following day due to the attacks. Kofi Annan addressed the General Assembly on September 12th. Much of their session was postponed until later in the year, when it was classified as a NSSE (as the previous year's assembly had also been) which puts the Secret Service in charge. A few quotes about NSSE's follow:

A portion of PDD-62, which is a classified document, deals with the coordination of Federal anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism assets for events of national interest.

When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan.

Certainly, we emphasize the importance of prevention and deterrence when we are developing an operational security plan, but we are also prepared to respond tactically to a threat if the situation dictates. As a result, we will employ a number of our specialized units during the course of this event.

A variety of training initiatives are conducted to include simulated attacks and medical emergencies, inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises.

The Secret Service apparently had at least three (and probably at least four) military unit working under them in New York on 9/11.
First, the 1108th U.S. Army Signal Brigade from Fort Detrick archive:

When four communications soldiers from the 1108th Signal Brigade were on temporary duty to New York City Sept. 11 to support the Secret Service in preparing for the United Nations General Assembly 56, they had no idea how life-altering their trip would be.

You can read about some of my adventures in trying to record that story after it went 404 here.
Two of the soldiers mentioned in this story, Stephen Atha and Robert Curtis used to have webpages made up for them in a location called Salute to the Netcom heroes. You can read about some of my adventures trying to document those pages after they were all blacked out and then went 404 here. A third soldier mentioned in this group, Justo Andaluz, made a complaint to Gateway computers, which you can read here. All of these sources would seem to add to the evidence that these soldiers have been involved with working at other NSSEs- the Winter Olympics for Andaluz and the 2005 Presidential Inauguration for Curtis and Atha.

Military unit number two- Air Force Protective Communications Support team (Scott AFB) archive (article on page 8) screenshot 1 screenshot 2. Quote:

Tech Sgt. Shawn Haynes and Staff Sgts. Craig Walentowski, Mark Provo and Lonnie Wells, of the Air Force Protective Communications Support team, were on temporary duty in New York City to provide communications support for the Secret Service for United Nations General Assembly 56. They left Scott AFB Aug. 27 and were scheduled to return Oct. 5, before their mission was cut short by the destruction of the World Trade Center Sept. 11.
"We were there to provide radio, telephone, computer, cellular phone, and paging support for the assembly," said Sergeant Haynes.
The four had left a morning briefing and begun preparing for the day's mission when the first airliner struck the north tower.

Mark Provo audio interview in the Library of Congress
Part 1 archive
Part 2 archive

Military unit number three
Navy EOD MU 6, Jim Prewitt, team leader archive

That morning, Prewitt, assigned to EOD Mobile Unit 6, was working as a team leader with the U.S. Secret Service in New York City. While on his way to a brief in building seven of the World Trade Center Complex, the first plane struck the north tower.

Probable military unit number four:
754th Explosive Ordnance Disposal company (Fort Monmouth), Richard Spanard and team

Richard J. Spanard, Beta Tau ’93 (Slippery
Rock University) is a U. S. Army
captain and commander of an Explosive
Ordnance Disposal company
based in northern New Jersey. On the
morning of September 11, he was enjoying
breakfast at a deli 50 feet from
the World Trade Center twin towers
when the first plane hit. General
hysteria inundated the deli. Spanard
decided that he and the three
soldiers with him should move to
number 7 World Trade Center, where
they had a scheduled meeting.

Please let me know if you are aware of other military units which were working with the Secret Service on 9/11/01 in New York City in addition to the ones above.

Now, from an interview with Bob Weaver, the Assistant Special Agent in charge of the US Secret Service New York Field Office(WTC 7):

At this point in the conversation, a colleague handed Weaver a picture of his former office in flames.

"I can't believe this picture," he said, the tone of his voice lowering. "There are flames shooting out of my office. There is no other fire on that side of the building (the West Broadway side) but there is in my office. It's incredible.

"I knew we lost everything in the attack, but I guess my friend wanted to be sure I didn't forget."

That would be an interesting picture to see, I think.

As Cynthia McKinney asked Richard Myers (with Donald Rumsfeld present) and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas on March 11th, 2005:

CMK: Mr. Chairman, begging your indulgence, was September Eleventh declared a National Security Special Event day?

RM: I have to look back; I do not know. Do you mean after the fact, or

CMK: No. Because of the activities going on that had been scheduled at the United Nations that day.

RM: I'd have to go back and check. I don't know.

From the 9/11 Commission report, we see that the Secret Service had been involved with potential threats posed by airplanes as far back as 1996-

Clarke had been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. There he had tried to create an air defense plan using assets from the Treasury Department, after the Defense Department declined to contribute resources. The Secret Service continued to work on the problem of airborne threats to the Washington region. In 1998, Clarke chaired an exercise designed to highlight the inadequacy of the solution. This paper exercise involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists commandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it toward a target in Washington, D.C. Clarke asked officials from the Pentagon, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Secret Service what they could do about the situation. Officials from the Pentagon said they could scramble aircraft from Langley Air Force Base, but they would need to go to the President for rules of engagement, and there was no mechanism to do so. There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.

Also from the Barbara Riggs interview we get a confirmation the the Secret Service was aware of potential hijackings in real time for at least some part of the morning:

Thru monitoring radar and activating an open line with the FAA, the Secret Service was able to receive real time information about other hijacked aircraft. We were tracking two hijacked aircraft as they approached Washington, D.C. and our assumption was that the White House was a target. While the White House was evacuated, the Secret Service prepared to defend the facility.

A quote from an exerpt of Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies:

I resumed the video conference. "FAA, FAA, go. Status report. How many aircraft do you still carry as hijacked?" Garvey read from a list: "All aircraft have been ordered to land at the nearest field. Here's what we have as potential hijacks: Delta 1989 over West Virginia, United 93 over Pennsylvania. . . ."

Stafford slipped me a note. "Radar shows aircraft headed this way." Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing. "I'm going to empty out the complex." He was ordering the evacuation of the White House.

Ralph Seigler stuck his head into the room, "There has been an explosion in the Pentagon parking lot, maybe a car bomb!" . . .

Roger Cressey stepped back in to the video conference and announced: "A plane just hit the Pentagon." I was still talking with FAA, taking down a list of possibly hijacked aircraft. "Did you hear me?" Cressey was on loan to the White House from the Pentagon. He had friends there, we all did. "I can still see Rumsfeld on the screen," I replied, "so the whole building didn't get hit. No emotion here. We are going to stay focused. Roger, find out where the fighter planes are. I want Combat Air Patrol over every major city in this country. Now." source

Of course, we also know that the Secret Service had been concerned about planes crashing into the White House before this:

The plane that slammed against the White House early Monday morning had been detected by radar at National Airport minutes before the crash, according to federal investigators who are trying to determine why Secret Service officers guarding the mansion weren't warned of the aircraft's approach.

Frank Eugene Corder, 38, a student pilot with a history of alcohol and drug abuse, stole the single-engine Cessna from an airfield north of Baltimore and died in the crash, officials said. Initial interviews with associates of Corder suggest the crash was intentional, federal officials said, but they said they did not believe it was politically motivated.

FBI and Secret Service investigators plan to pore over Federal Aviation Administration records to determine what the FAA's radar showed, whether it seemed to indicate a potential threat, and what was done with the information, federal sources said. source

(early AM September 12th, 1994)

My big project

2006-08-13T01:11:00.000-07:00

So my most recent 30 or so diary posts (in reverse chronological order) were basically written to be read as a single rather long essay. They were intended to be a beginning example of how I feel research on the topic of 9/11 may want to model itself. Given the fact that possibly relevant information has disappeared from the internet (and no doubt will continue to) I think documentation with screenshots may be an important technique. IMO, mirroring information is not as effective a way to document that a certain site contained such and such information at a certain time.

Likely, this essay won't persuade many people to re-examine 9/11. Nonetheless, I felt I had to attempt it. Anyway, below follows a link list to my various posts in the essay. I plan to post some more in the future as well, which I will link to from here. The Fair Use notice should be taken as applying to all of the following posts.
More recent postings on 9/11:
The Secret Service in NYC on 9/11

Essay:
The importance of getting 9/11 right
The Internet Archive and the Rules of Disinformation
The Office of Strategic Influence
Fair use notice - quotes from the 9/11 reading room
9/11 Commission report article versions a & b
Screenshots documenting changed and unchanged Pravda stories
September 11: The world will always remember
Misrepresenting photographic evidence
Potential examples of potential 9/11 internet evidence being changed
More on DCANG
War games and exercises
Amalgam Virgo I
Amalgam Virgo II
Budget shots re: Amalgam Virgo + Amalgam Warrior
Amalgam Warrior description
Some strangeness re: Amalgam Warrior
Amalgam Warrior shots
Positive Force '01
The Office of National Preparedness
TRIPOD
Pre-9/11 intelligence
Quotes about the 9/11 exercises
9/11 internet duels - Who (if anyone) is correct?
911Myths... Reading between the lies: a partial review
Possible examples of possible physical evidence re: 9/11 being destroyed
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland on the 9/11 Commission
More on the 9/11 Commission
To shoot or not to shoot, that is the question...
AWACS in training and exercises on 9/11
WTC 7
In conclusion

The importance of getting 9/11 right

2006-07-30T05:24:00.000-07:00

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq - even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." CBS News, 9/4/2002

“I want you all to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters. Everything is available for the pursuit of this war. Any barriers in your way, they’re gone. Any money you need, you have it. This is our only agenda.” When Rumsfeld points out that international law only allows force to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush yells, “No. I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 23-24] source- Complete 9/11 Timeline - 9:00 PM, 9/11/2001

9/11/2001:

(11:30 p.m.): Bush Sees New Pearl Harbor Before going to sleep, President Bush writes in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today. ... We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” [Washington Post, 1/27/2002] source- Complete 911 Timeline

(broken WaPo link- see screenshot below for an alternate URL for the article)

But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. source- White House Press Conference, March 2002

During Wednesday's hearing, Leahy questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Tuesday assertion that the prison camp was an essential part of the U.S.-led War on Terror. "All of us know this war will not end in our lifetime," Leahy said.
source- Congress Probes Gitmo Questions (Fox News)

At least one skeptic of the official explanation for the events of 9/11, Mike Ruppert, feels that looking at 9/11 any further will be like looking at "elephant that just ran us over" instead of at "the herd of elephants charging at us". Since I'm about to write several posts about 9/11 (posted in reverse chronological order for easier flow in reading), it's pretty clear to me that I don't totally agree with this assessment. There are at least three reasons for this- one being that while members of Mike Ruppert's audience may be willing to concede that an elephant has indeed just run them over, not everyone agrees that there was an elephant (or if there was on what the elephant looked like). Another is that the events preceeding, culminating in and following 9/11 (and all that has been written on that subject) seem to me to provide a stellar example for study in terms of conspiracy theory, misinformation and disinformation among other things. The third is what the events of 9/11 have been (and will continue to be) used to justify both domestically and worldwide- wars, torture, domestic spying, etc. and the cost, both financially and in terms of freedom of those things which are being justified by the events of 9/11 (and not just in or by the United States, which is partly why at the end of my essay I will make a plea for worldwide assistance in looking more closely at the events surrounding 9/11). Although the events of 9/11 took place predominantly within the borders of the US, many events around the world led toward that day. Also, the ripple efects from that event have worldwide consequences.

I will often bring up information previously mentioned on other sites which deal with 9/11, but will try to present evidence from primary sources (government websites and pages, official documents, newspaper, magazine and television stories, etc. which quote named sources who have relevant credentials and information) as much as possible. I owe a great debt to all of the researchers who have written on this topic, but I have nonetheless found it necessary to check, recheck, verify and/or refute any and all sources of information presented to the degree that it has been possible for me to do that online in a limited time period. These posts will only scratch the bare surface of a topic on which many books have been and will be written. You may also find some of my diary entries at dailykos useful for background information should you decide to take the plunge into all of this, particularly Keeping track of some of the major neocon players and their connections - who's on first?.

I will be using a primary tool for investigative purposes- the Internet Archive.

My main focus will be to document information (pictures, articles, websites, etc. which may provide relevant information to 9/11) which is no longer easily accessible, has been changed, or in some cases seems no longer to be available on the internet at all (as far as I can determine).

I will be attempting to document the evidence which I come across online by using screenshots.

I believe that my documentation of evidence will fall under the Fair Use guidelines which I have quoted from the 9/11 reading room

There seem to be two basic ways in which one can disprove or debunk theories, arguments, accounts of events, etc. The first one is to point out enough logical flaws (improbabilities, inconsistencies and/or impossibilities, etc.) in the account to call into question its validity as an explanation. The second is to offer an alternative explanation which better fits the known data. To give a simple example of the first method, one does not need to be able to prove conclusively that 1+1=2 in most cases in order to show evidence that 1+1=3 has a high probability of being incorrect. In this essay, I will not attempt to make many claims about what the data I present may mean. Instead, I offer it as potentially interesting data which may suggest that the official account of 9/11 may not be complete, accurate and/or truthful.
Given the possibility of disinformation about the events of 9/11, I won't attempt to present my evidence as more than that or to speculate on alternative explanations which may better account for the verifiable data. Nonetheless, I think that alternate explanations are a valuable avenue of pursuit, they are simpy beyond the scope of this essay. There are certainly enough sites around which delve into various possible scenarios without my attempting to add anything to them. So without further ado, here's what several weeks of research, documenting and writing on my part have produced:

The Internet Archive and the Rules of Disinformation

2006-07-29T01:35:00.000-07:00

In order to pick my way through the potential minefield of information, misinformation and disinformation online I will start by referring to a source which has been found to be admissible in court (with an affidavit):
Archived web pages as evidence

In an October 2004 case called "Telewizja Polska SA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite", the Wayback Machine archives were used as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time.

Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine)evidence that Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeneyexisted on the internet in substantially the same form as today prior to 9/11
corraborating evidence may be found using a google search as well.
Hopefully, this evidence reasonably proves to an internet audience that this document was written prior to 9/11 and has been used since that time by 9/11 sites such as 9-11 Review to help analyse patterns of disinformation. Assuming that The Rules of Disinformation had an existence prior to 9/11, we can then use it as a tool to examine things which have happened on and since 9/11 to see whether we may find any evidence of disinformation occuring and to see how well those events may fit within the Rules of Disinformation paradigm. I won't attempt to present exhaustive evidence support each point and even if I did, my examples would doubtless be subject to interpretation as opposed to definitive. Nonetheless, I feel that I can present reasonably convincing evidence that some points within the rules match events quite well, and I think that a reasonable reader could easily find more supportive evidence in online forums (some of which are no doubt devoted solely to 9/11 and others which may have a significant number of threads on the topic).

So here are some links where you can read the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation (short version w/o examples; also gives a link to the Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist)
and
a longer version (includes a preamble and pre-9/11 examples)

The Internet Archive can't prove that a documented web page did not exist prior to a certain date, but it can be used to establish that a documented web page did exist on or prior to a certain date in a certain form. Therefore, it can be useful in some cases when web pages have changed, no longer exist, or to establish their existence prior to a certain point in time. All of these things have been useful when trying to track down information and sort out potential disinformation, as you will see. As a point of note, the internet archive's URLs contain the date the archive of that page was created within them. For example, the URL for the oldest IA record for Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation is http://web.archive.org/web/20010820192101/http://www.hasslberger.com/about/about/awa/awa_6.htm (20010820 being August 20^th, 2001). This will be useful to keep in mind. Occasionally, when navigating through links on archived pages, the URL numbers will change to indicate a different date- this means that that particular page was archived at a different time than the page which links to it. Only once have I seen (and documented here) a different date number appear in the URL to the page I end up on than the date which appears for that page in the IA records.

The Office of Strategic Influence

2006-07-29T00:58:00.000-07:00

I mention this because while I will often use as sources of information government and official websites, I don't necessarily believe that all of the information contained on them is accurate. I feel that one has to weigh the possibility of disinformation in all cases in order to maintain proper skepticism. You may feel that this is an overcautious stance to take, but I hope to persuade you on that score why I feel this to be necessary through the combination of the Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth document and the evidence which I will be presenting. I feel that a case can be made that whether or not some or even most of what I present is disinformation it does not detract from my argument, which is that there is a need for the U.S. public to obtain a fuller understanding of the events of 9/11 than has been provided in official accounts so far.

From Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability En Route to Chile

And then there was the office of strategic influence. You may recall that. And "oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall." I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.

That was intended to be done by that office is being done by that office, NOT by that office in other ways.

From Wikipedia's entry on the Office of Strategic Influence

The Office of Strategic Influence, or OSI, was a department created by the United States Department of Defense on October 30, 2001, to support the War on Terrorism through psychological operations in targeted countries. The closure of the office was announced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld soon after its existence became publicly known.

The OSI would have been a center for the creation of propaganda materials, for the stated purpose of misleading enemy forces or foreign civilian populations. After information on the office spread through US and foreign media in mid February 2002, intense discussions on purpose and scope of the office were reported. The discussions culminated in a public statement by Rumsfeld in late February that the office has been closed down.

Some argue that due to its secretive nature and stated purposes the existence of such an agency would be hard to determine. In fact, in November 2002, Rumsfeld stated in an interview that only the name of the office was abolished, that it still exists and continues to fulfill its original intended purposes. Much of the OSI's responsibilities were shifted to the Information Operations Task Force. [1]

Fair use notice - quotes from the 9/11 reading room

2006-07-29T00:21:00.000-07:00

The 9/11 reading room archives articles, documents, etc. pertaining to 9/11. Here are a couple of quotes from the site:

This archive consists of news stories and other documents (images, government files) related to the most dire unanswered questions about the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. It is by no means complete: We invite readers to send us articles (or references to them) that will fill out this database.

(from the main page)

and

Because of its importance to the events of September 11, 2001, this article has been archived by the 911 Reading Room

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

(quoted from below articles)

I agree with their interpretation of fair use in this case for the reasons which they outline in the above quote and so I will also be documenting and archiving articles, images and documents without specific authorization by the copyright owner. As I will attempt to show, a great deal of information about 9/11 is no longer readily available, has changed or in some cases does not seem to be available at all. Due to this, I have attempted to document the existence of some things which I consider to be relevant to 9/11 due to the very real possibility that they may no longer be found in their current state at some point in the future.

9/11 Commission report article versions a & b

2006-07-28T23:56:00.000-07:00

These two articles are documented and compared in Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. In light of recent news stories on the 9/11 Commission and NORAD and the FAA (and as part of my essay talking about the 9/11 Commission), I thought it would be worthwhile to document them both in their entirety for comparison (and documentation) purposes. As Mike Ruppert noted, there are no mentions of interim reports in the later version of the story. Since we've not seen any interim reports other than these two from 2003, this is doubtless a good thing, since these would need to be part of the public record at some point (if they existed) just like the rest of the Commission's findings.

Screenshots documenting changed and unchanged Pravda stories

2006-07-27T18:04:00.000-07:00

<

So,if you've been following along with the captures above we now have examples of both pre 9/11 unchanged stories and early post 9/11 unchanged stories.

Hmm. I guess that probably means that they didn't overwrite stories because they were running out of storage space, unless they just happened to be selective in what they felt was no longer worth keeping, huh? What can ya say? Those crazy Russians. I noticed in the internet archive versions of the stories that many of them had linked at some point to a video.

September 11: The world will always remember

2006-07-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

But something like the Pravda disappearing photos couldn't happen here, because we will never forget September 11th, right?

September 11: The world will always remember

So read the pages on UPI's photo gallery according to the Internet Archives. So I guess that must mean that those images and pages might be worth saving? I tried to do a few searches on phrases like "Manhattan billow smoke" and "depicting the World Trade Center being hit" to see if I still could find the images on the internet (aside from in the internet archives). I didn't have any luck. I guess The world will still always remember, though, so it's okay if I can't easily find any particular picture, right? Save 'em if ya see 'em is my personal recommendation here...

Perhaps you are thinking, "Well, it's just a few photos and articles; no biggie." Well, let's take a quick look at some of the uses for "a few photos and articles"

Misrepresenting photographic evidence

2006-07-27T17:47:00.000-07:00

Exhibit A: compare the following images in light of the claims FEMA makes about smoke from the WTC 7 fire (from Chapter 5 of FEMA's WTC report)using the second one and the second to last one. The first image is a site map provided by FEMA in an earlier chapter. Judging from the other photos which I've looked at it seems pretty accurate in terms of scale, layout, etc. The text for the second image reads as follows:

Figure 5-17
Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume from south face of WTC 7 looking from the World Financial Plaza. Note damage to WFC 3 in the foreground.

The perspective in image 2 (according to FEMA taken at 3:36 PM) nicely obscures the fact that in order to see WTC 7 (the red building)in this picture one must first look over the Winter Garden, across West Street (which appears to be about six lanes wide at this point), over the ruins (and through the smoke) of WTC 6, an 8 story building which was on fire that day and across Vesey street. You can't even see the Verizon building (or WTC 6 for that matter) in this photo, but it lies more or less between WFC 3 and WTC 7. It's the building with the big flag on top in image 4. The ruins of WTC 7 are next to (looking up in the picture) it. Image 5 shows the WTC 7 ruins (top middle) beside the Verizon building and above the ruins of WTC 6. Yet the second image is often used as evidence as to the raging inferno on the South side of WTC 7 (see for example the images on the page from 911myths WTC7 Fire). No one doubts the fact that smoke was coming out of WTC 7, including on the south side of the building. Neglecting to mention the fact that WTC 6 smoke is in these pictures (and is often being shot through) seems just a tad disingenous to me. The other images should help clarify the perspective a bit, I hope. WTC 6 is the 8 story tall ruins that looks like a big hand smushed it. The quote from FEMA on the screenshot (next to last image) reads as follows:

Figure 5-18 WTC 7, with a large volume of dark smoke rising from it, just visible behind WFC 1 (left). A much smaller volume of white smoke is seen rising from the base of WTC 7. Note that the lower lighter colored smoke (to right) is thought to be from the two collapsed towers

I've helpfully labelled my screenshot with a few words, just in case the shot is unclear. Compare again with their site plan map (first image) to get a sense of where the two FEMA images might have been shot from.

Personally, I think the shot was taken from a slightly different location, since the northwest corner of WTC 7 appears peeking out from behind the northwest corner of WFC 1, but the picture gets across the basic idea pretty well nonetheless. (credit to WTC7.net)
Finally, one screenshot which I'll refer to only as WTC smoke. After all, I wouldn't want to misrepresent which buildings that smoke might be coming from. Post office is on the left, WTC 7 is on the right. WTC 5 is center left, WTC 6 is center right.

Potential examples of potential 9/11 internet evidence being changed

2006-07-27T17:37:00.000-07:00

I can't go into physical evidence tampering convincingly online (though you can read and research about allegations of such things online if interested- I've put together an example and a link to more here) but I can point to a few examples which may indicate that potentially relevant online evidence may have been changed, deleted or is no longer readily available. Here are a few examples:

You can see the page DCANG Yanks its Mission Statement for details on a possibly relevant online change. I'll go more into this one in a bit.

Blond women rule the world at all times (18.02.2005) apparently was formerly known as SENSATION: RUSSIA ALSO BECAME AN OBJECT FOR AIR TERRORISTS¦ATTACKS
a few quotes:

(Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday¦. This was said by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Anatoli Kornukov. (We had such facts too¦, - said the general straightforwardly.

As it turns out the way the terrorists acted in America is not unique. The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction of the anti-missile defense, Kornukov said. (As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up¦, -said the general.

(I've covered that one already)

Portions of that story and the following web page quotes were quoted in Michael Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon, published in mid 2004. I'll give some further context to that information afterwards, so that you may decide for yourself whether you think that the website changes might have any relevance to 9/11.

The webpage Homeland Security and Domestic Preparedness Services for System Planning Corporation was changed some time between Jun 05, 2004 and Feb 06, 2005 according to the Internet Archives so that it no longer contains such specific statements as the following:

SPC has been a principal support contractor to the Department of Defense since the company's founding in 1970. During this time we have gained extensive experience in conducting threat and vulnerability assessments of programs and facilities. For the federal government, we have participated in vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure, including defining risks from cyberwarfare, sabotage, terrorist acts, and natural disasters. The company has developed a detailed threat engineering process designed to address "outside the box" threats, tendencies, and objectives. This threat engineering process has been integrated with SPC's vulnerability assessment methodology to more accurately define and quantify risks to facilities and personnel, enabling managers to more effectively use scarce funding in developing solutions to preparedness issues.

SPC and TriData have supported crisis and emergency response planning for all levels of the federal government and for state and local (county and city) fire and police departments. We developed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) family of plans (the Federal Emergency Response Plan and Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan) used to guide federal responses to national emergencies. We have developed and conducted exercises to test responses to natural and wartime emergencies, including hurricanes, nuclear power plant accidents, and chemical/biological events. TriData has developed executive training models to address a wide array of threats, including industrial espionage and terrorism.

SPC has a distinguished history of providing innovative and effective physical security services across the life cycle of major facilities and programs for the federal government and industry. Notable programs supported by the company include the Atlanta Olympics, security design for more than 40 U.S. embassies worldwide (including the U.S. Embassy in Moscow), and security system design and implementation for U.S. Air Force nuclear weapons storage facilities.

SPC International (SPCI) has conducted numerous studies on Middle Eastern, South Asian, and East Asian political, economic, social, and military affairs for clients throughout DoD. SPCI analysts have traveled widely throughout these regions and have developed extensive contacts with foreign government and military officials, academics, and think-tank members. SPCI capabilities fit well with the federal government's current and future counterterrorism issues, particularly the cause of terrorism and other forms of anti-Americanism, the activities of terrorist groups across the globe, and the effects of terrorist activities on regional and global security balances.

TriData is internationally recognized in the areas of fire and rescue, law enforcement, and emergency response services (ERS) support. SPC and TriData maintain a core staff of professionals drawn from the public safety sector, including former fire chiefs, police officers, hazardous materials specialists, emergency management professionals, medical care professionals, and explosive ordnance technicians. The geographic range of local experience includes states, counties, and cities from coast to coast, and from the borders of Canada to Mexico. The company conducted the largest national technology assessments for cyber crime and infrastructure security for local governments. TriData brings hands-on knowledge and experience assessing and collecting information on incidents such as fires, bombings, natural disasters, and nuclear/chemical/biological accidents.

Since 1980 SPC and TriData have provided comprehensive emergency management support to U.S. federal, state, and local governments; to county and city fire and police departments; to international governments; and to private industry. Our experience spans the range of all-hazards emergencies, large and small, and includes disaster preparedness and response planning, documentation, training, and exercise; mitigation support; and post-disaster analysis and reporting. SPC and TriData have relevant experience and staff who are knowledgeable in exercise support relating to acts of terrorism, including threats at four levels:

Predictable -- bomb threats
Probable -- bombing attempts, computer crime
Possible -- hostage taking
Catastrophic -- aerial bombing, chemical agents in water supply or air conditioning

A bit more on SPC, TriData and one of their corporate officers, Dov Zakheim (Internet Archived bio info from Dec 23, 2001)

Dov S. Zakheim is Corporate Vice President of System Planning Corporation (SPC), a high-technology, research, analysis, and manufacturing firm based in Arlington, Virginia. He is also Chief Executive Officer of SPC International Corporation, a subsidiary of SPC that specializes in political, military, and economic consulting, and international sales and analysis. In addition, Dr. Zakheim serves as Consultant to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He is an Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asian Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations, Adjunct Scholar of the Heritage Foundation, and a Senior Advisor at the Center for International and Strategic Studies.

From the DoD page on Zakheim-

Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001.

(a post which he held until mid April of 2004)

From 1985 until March 1987, Dr. Zakheim was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Planning and Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy). In that capacity, he played an active role in the Department's system acquisition and strategic planning processes. Dr. Zakheim held a variety of other DoD posts from 1981 to 1985.

His government service includes terms on the United States Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad; the Task Force on Defense Reform (1997); the first Board of Visitors of the Department of Defense Overseas Regional Schools (1998); and the Defense Science Board task force on "The Impact of DoD Acquisition Policies on the Health of the Defense Industry" (2000).

Since Zakheim was CFO for the DoD on 9/11, he probably was cognizant of the fact that as Donald Rumsfeld said on September 10th, 2001- "according to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." Zakheim was a participant in the Project for a New American Century's now infamous Rebuilding America's Defenses paper which came out in September of 2000. The most famous quote from that paper being

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.

(yes I know it has been "debunked" as meaningless, but I thought I'd quote it anyway)

More on the SPC subsidiary Tridata: they produced in conjunction with FEMA a long (170 page pdf file) report entitled The World Trade Center Bombing:
Report and Analysis after the 1993 WTC bombing

More on SPC - they make a product called Flight Termination System,

a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles. The FTS consists of SPC's Command Transmitter System (CTS) and custom control, interface, and monitoring subsystems. The system is fully programmable and is flexible enough to meet the changing and challenging requirements of today's modern test ranges.

Finally, recalling that SPC's page used to say "Notable programs supported by the company include the Atlanta Olympics", we recall the Washington Post article Clues Pointed to Changing Terrorist Tactics
Foiled Plots, FBI Data Showed Al Qaeda Groups Might Use Airplanes as Missiles quote (though the whole article is worth reading)

Because of the threat from jetliners, it has been standard operating procedure since the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 to create "no-fly zones" for high-profile occasions designated "National Security Special Events." Others included the 50th anniversary summits of NATO and the United Nations. The no-fly zones are areas of restricted airspace defended by fighter jets and antiaircraft batteries.

More on DCANG

2006-07-27T17:27:00.000-07:00

War games and exercises

2006-07-27T17:20:00.000-07:00

This is a very large topic about which books can and should be written- pre-9/11 and 9/11 (and near vicinity- Tripod II FEMA exercise scheduled to begin on September 12 in NYC) exercises by various military, government and other agencies which may have been related to the events on the day of 9/11. Some of these exercises may have helped with consequence management, some may have slowed, interfered with and/or paralysed response to the events of the day. I will only attempt to look at a few of these exercises in any depth- primarily Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior.
Also of interest- the NRO/CIA exercise involving a plane crashing into a building on 9/11 and Positive Force '01 (held in late April, it seems to have involved many of the departments and agencies which would be holding exercises on or around 9/11)

For a more complete list of such exercises you might try a few of the following sites (though I have not checked into their research on the topics, so I only mention them as a point from which further research could be taken if so desired)

Below are a few screenshots from articles on a few of the other exercises (note that they quote or are written by named sources):

Amalgam Virgo I

2006-07-23T07:09:00.000-07:00

Edit Nov. 30th. Polishing this up a bit. Before polish archive

Okay, this one is a bit trickier as far as documentation of evidence goes (you'll see why soon), but I'll give it my best shot.

First a quote from an "official source"

This year's exercise is a commercial airliner-hijacking scenario -- planned before the Sept. 11 attacks, Snyder said. Last year's exercise, he said, was a scenario involving a cruise missile launched by "a rogue (government) or somebody" from a barge off the East Coast.

Future scenarios include air piracy and drug interdiction - - "anything else that might pop up," Snyder remarked. "We're planning for the worst-case scenario that was previously unimaginable" before the terrorist-hijacked airliner attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

(Screenshot below)

So far, the only site which I've been able to confirm a pre-9/11 Amalgam Virgo mention is ANZUS, Inc.'s site. (screenshot below) This doesn't mean that mentions didn't exist elsewhere prior to 9/11, just that I haven't found IA strength evidence to confirm that.

Next we have a bit of information on something formerly called the the freedom jet but now apparently known as SMART-1.

The Freedom Jet is a record-maker! Formerly known as the Silver Bullet, it is listed in the Guinness World Records under "the smallest jet." The aircraft, N21AP, weighs about 437 lbs, has a 17 foot wingspan and is 12 feet long. With the current engine - Microturbo TRS-18-1, 300 lb. thrust - it is capable of speeds of 260 knots (300 mph) in level flight. It has a fuel capacity of 36 US gallons in the airshow configuration and 54 gallons in the military configuration. The jet is still used to conduct some cruise missile simulation tests for the US military.

and a reference to its participation in Amalgam Virgo '01 at Tyndall AFB. (see screenshots)

From the site Globalsecurity.org we get a description of the excersise and some of the participants, among them the 513th Air Control Group.

The exercise was coordinated by the Air National Guard's 1st Air Force and involved active duty, National Guard and Reserve forces, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard as players.

Navy Aegis cruiser, USS Yorktown, in the Gulf of Mexico.

Because of the capability for people with very limited means, in relative terms, to be able to obtain a cruise missile, NORAD has to be very serious about that threat. Key to defending against cruise missiles is making sure all air defenders see the same thing. The goal of this exercise was to improve the air picture and counter new and emerging threats.

The Coast Guard, Navy and U.S. Southern Command, took the lead in detecting, identifying and prosecuting the surrogate terrorist vessel that "launched" the cruise missiles for the exercise.

At the heart of the exercise was the Joint-Based Expeditionary Connectivity Center, or JBECC, which 1st Air Force tested as part of its Area Cruise Missile Defense demonstration. Ackermann explained that the JBECC is a highly mobile connectivity shelter, which can be deployed to high-risk areas to provide early warning of a cruise-missile attack. It does this by collecting and correlating radar information from the different services to provide an accurate tracking picture of low-level targets such as cruise missiles.

During the June 2001 exercise Amalgam Virgo, ANZUS, Inc. demonstrated the Rosetta LINK-16 / Link-11 gateway functionality. Tracks and data were forwarded between both links in both directions in real-time.

The .pdf document would seem to indicate that this exercise was done under the direction of SEADS, but I've seen several sources which would seem to indicate that the exercise was under the aegis of the CJCS and CinCNORAD, which would move the level of the exercise up to the highest levels in NORAD's chain of command (and awareness). Considering the scenario (shown in the pdf) of a hijacked airplane coming across the CONUS to Washington D.C. from Russia via Alaska, it seems likely that this exercise was not solely designed for and attended by members of SEADS.
Amalgam Virgo DoD statement screenshot

Amalgam Virgo I pdf screenshots

Amalgam Virgo II

2006-07-23T02:13:00.000-07:00

They are a joint U.S.- Canadian terrorism exercise run by NORAD called Amalgam Virgo II. Now the two planes, a Delta 757, with actual Delta pilots in the flight deck, will be hijacked by FBI agents as it makes its trip from Salt Lake City to Honolulu. That plane will be diverted in midair to Elmendorf Air Base in Anchorage, Alaska.

The other plane, a Navy C-9, acting as commercial DC-9, will be hijacked by Royal Canadian Mounted Police as is it goes from Whidbey Island at Naval Air Station to Vancouver International airport. Amalgam Virgo II was planned before Septmber 11th, and involves 1,500 participants, no live fire, though, and no paying passengers on board. These are not scheduled flights. Now we don't know exactly how these hijackings will play out. Neither do the pilots. Even their bases from which the U.S. and military -- the U.S.-Canadian jets will be scrambled, don't know they are. source

Budget shots re: Amalgam Virgo + Amalgam Warrior

2006-07-22T02:27:00.000-07:00

Amalgam Warrior description

2006-07-21T01:18:00.000-07:00

Amalgam Warrior description

From Global Security:

AMALGAM WARRIOR (AW) is a CINCNORAD-sponsored, CJCS- approved and -funded, large-scale live-fly exercise normally involving two or more NORAD regions. They are designed to exercise air sovereignty and air defense. Emphasis is placed on realistic target flow employing electronic warfare and other penetration tactics. Functions exercised include, but are not limited to, surveillance, detection, tracking, interception, employing rules of engagement, force generation, counterdrug operations, attack warning, attack assessment, counter cruise mis-sile operations and CONPLAN implementation. Two AW exercises are scheduled each year.

NORAD, composed of US and Canadian forces, prepares and practices through continuous training and a realistic exercise program. The biggest of these exercises is Amalgam Warrior, which is held twice annually -- once in the fall for the East Coast and in the spring for the West Coast. The five-day Amalgam Warrior 96-1 concluded on Oct. 20, and put Americans and Canadians through their paces, challenging forces in the areas that coincide with NORAD's missions. The exercise was conducted in real time with a fictitious world political scenario, which prompts NORAD forces to transition from a peacetime posture to a war-fighting stance. The threat escalates from tracking unknown aircraft, which have incorrectly filed their flight plans or wandered off course, and in-flight emergencies to terrorist aircraft attacks and large-scale bomber strike missions.

Code names and descriptions of CPX vs. FTX - CinCNORAD JCS AMALGAM exercises

Neither of the below count as "official sources" for this information, so they should not be taken as such; that doesn't mean that they aren't accurate, but I haven't been able to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of the information from an official (government) source. Nonetheless, when taken in combination with the budget screenshots, it seems to be a pretty good bet that AMALGAM indeed signifies a NORAD HQ exercise.

(4) Assignment of first-word exercise terms identifies the using agency
(see figure 2).

4 NR 11-3 25 August 1989

ORGANIZATION FIRST WORD
HQ NORAD AMALGAM or VIGILANT
ALASKAN NORAD REGION (ANR) FENCING
CONUS NORAD REGION FALCON
CONUS SOUTHEAST SECTOR FEDERAL
CONUS SOUTHWEST SECTOR FALLING
CONUS NORTHEAST SECTOR FERTILE
CONUS NORTHWEST SECTOR FELIX
CANADIAN NORAD REGION FABRIC
CANADIAN NORAD SECTOR EAST FACTOR
CANADIAN NORAD SECTOR WEST FACULTY
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AIR FORCE BASE AMAZON

Some strangeness re: Amalgam Warrior

2006-07-20T22:06:00.000-07:00

Strangeness- note the redirect on the example Internet Archive from European Security and that neither date matches the date given on the page which appears. You can try this with other page examples as well- check out the Internet Archive on these pages, for instance-

http://www.european-security.com/article.php?id=351
http://www.european-security.com/article.php?id=348

Also, pay attention to the URLs shown at the bottom of the screen as well as at the top (these are from hovering over a link on the page). Does an exercise which apparently occurred in November of '97 really make news as a recent exercise in August of 2001? Apparently so...

Amalgam Warrior '98 - compare such things as the light and shadow on the plane and the air currents in front of it to verify that these are the same photo on different pages

archives of Air Force Link News hovering over the Aug 2001 link

August 2001 archives of Air Force Link News (hovering over the link to the article AWACS crew calls it a day)

the story AWACS crew calls it a day (hovering over the link to the picture) note the reference to the recent air defense exercise

an article with a similar dateline and description, but with an actual picture showing; hovering over the AFPN link- compare with the link from the prior page (no Internet Archive shot available to check on the date of the web page)

same article but hovering over the photo link

a similar article URL to try to determine if the article URLs are organized by date on the site

Internet Archive record for the comparison article

opening up the link- note the difference between the URL shown at the top of the page (which matches the Internet Archive date) and the page which it says is opening at the bottom of the page. This is the first website which I've run across which has this happen from a direct IA page

the new page opens with tothat day's date in the URL but with a date on the webpage of 13 Mars 2005- different from today's date and the IA page date both. I have no idea what this all means, it just seems odd to me, so I thought it was worth documenting.

And finally (I hope) on this subject we have this record:

http://web.archive.org/web/19991105034556/http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Nov1997/971103-F-7902R-004.html

(which hopefully demonstrates that this picture was probably at least 2 years old when it was being called "news" from a "recent" Amalgam Warrior exercise)

See how crazy, convoluted and complicated these things get?

Amalgam Warrior shots

2006-07-20T04:27:00.000-07:00

Positive Force '01

2006-07-20T03:10:00.000-07:00

From an article entitled Positive Force '01: America's Assessment for Readiness

During the last two weeks in April 2001, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) took part in a worldwide command post exercise sponsored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff known as Positive Force '01. This exercise involved the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and its major activities more than any previous exercise. The mission of Positive Force, which last took place in 1998, is to evaluate the National Defense Community's ability to respond with timely deployment, mobilization and/or sustainment decisions.

Participants for this comprehensive exercise included members of the armed forces, members of the Unified Combatant Commands, the Departments of State, Transportation, Justice, and Health and Human Services, DLA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Defense and the Central Intelligence Agencies, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office, as well as many other agencies. The Positive Force exercise prepared these organizations for a wide variety of trials, including such proceedings as noncombatant evacuation operations and repatriation, cyber attacks, and Information Operations events, such as rail disruption, intrusion into computer systems, and/or power outages. During the exercise, the Logistics Readiness Center and Crisis Action Team were on 24-hour manning with 12-hour shifts.

Note the participating departments and groups listed above: DoD, NRO, FEMA, CIA, DOT (overseeing body for the FAA, Noram Mineta secretary).

From an article called DLA Diversity Team Keeps Momentum

Positive Force 01 involved DLA
resources more than previous exercises,
and encompassed many CINC
and DoD agencies major exercises
such as Reception Staging and
Onward Movement and Integration
(RSOI), Turbo Challenge and
Amalgam Warrior into one.

From an article called Nine DLA Members Awarded Medals
for Role in Exercise Positive Force '01

"The real success achieved during
Positive Force was reflected in how
the Agency responded to the events
of 9-11," Petrucelli said. "Again, the
total force team of DLA, the active
reserve and civilians stepped forward
and made things happen seamlessly.
All this is made possible because of
DLA's active participation and commitment
to joint exercises.

From

a. POSITIVE FORCE (PF) Series. Conducted every 18 months, PF is a
large, worldwide exercise that focuses on the Department of Defense’s ability
to conduct large-scale military operations and to coordinate the operations
among NCA, combatant commanders, Services, and combat support
agencies. Major themes cover the continuum of operations: mobilization,
deployment, employment, sustainment, crisis termination, and
redeployment.

The 9/11 commission mentions being briefed on this exercise by the DoD in a footnote.

The Office of National Preparedness

2006-07-20T01:23:00.000-07:00

ONP

From The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, & Emergency Management
Hearing on

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of National Preparedness

The ONP has as its mission the task of providing “…leadership in the coordination and facilitation of all federal efforts to assist state and local emergency management and emergency response organizations with planning, training, equipment and exercises necessary to build and sustain capability to respond to any emergency or disaster.”

From the White House Press release dated May 8^th, 2001 (Statement by the President
Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction)

Today, numerous Federal departments and agencies have programs to deal with the consequences of a potential use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon in the United States. Many of these Federal programs offer training, planning, and assistance to state and local governments. But to maximize their effectiveness, these efforts need to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious, and comprehensive.

Therefore, I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm. I have also asked Joe Allbaugh, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to create an Office of National Preparedness. This Office will be responsible for implementing the results of those parts of the national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management. Specifically it will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies. The Office of National Preparedness will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed. FEMA will also work closely with the Department of Justice, in its lead role for crisis management, to ensure that all facets of our response to the threat from weapons of mass destruction are coordinated and cohesive. I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.

Consequence Management- here are a few links that give the basic idea on what WMD Consequence Management might mean.

United States Marine Corps
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force

From Parameters, Autumn 1997, pp. 119-34. (U.S Army War college Quarterly, Autumn 1997)

It is no longer a matter of if--but rather when--a weapon of mass destruction will be used against the people and institutions of the United States. The sarin gas attack that killed 12 people in a Tokyo subway in 1995 established the precedent, a dubious distinction that almost fell to the United States two years earlier. Only the unanticipated power of the explosion that rocked the World Trade Center in 1993, vaporizing the cyanide that had been packed with the explosive, prevented the gas from spreading throughout the area. The FBI presently is tracking several groups within the United States that have acquired, or show an inclination to use, some type of weapon of mass destruction. The seemingly inevitable attempt by foreign or domestic terrorists to use such weapons inside the United States requires a candid discussion about how we as a nation are preparing to manage the consequences of such an incident.

From RESERVE INTEGRATION MOVES FORWARD WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE (March 17, 1998 Defenselink News)

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today announced the establishment of a Consequence Management Program Integration Office to oversee the integration of the Reserve components into domestic preparations to respond to terrorist or other incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The office will be led by Air Force Lt. Col. Jay Steinmetz and will report to the director of Military Support. The secretary of the Army, as the executive agent for domestic preparedness, will supervise the office and its integration efforts.

Integrating the reserves into national plans to respond to domestic WMD incidents is another step in fulfilling Cohen's recent mandate to achieve full integration of the Reserve and active components. In his Sept. 4, 1997 Memo on the Integration of the Active and Reserve Components, he called on the military services to provide the National Command Authorities with a total force that provides "the flexibility and interoperability necessary for the full range of military operations."

The new office's primary function will be to bring Reserve Component integration in synch with current interagency WMD preparedness programs; and to establish 10 Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) elements. The RAID elements will enhance DoD's immediate response capability.

Each RAID element, consisting of 22 highly trained, full-time National Guard personnel, will have the mission of providing early assessment, initial detection, and technical advice to local incident commanders during an incident involving a weapon of mass destruction; and then initiating requests for additional state or federal response assets. Their goal is to deploy rapidly and arrive quickly at the site of a domestic WMD incident.

TRIPOD

2006-07-19T20:43:00.000-07:00

Remember the bio-terrorism exercise TRIPOD which was scheduled to take place on September 12, 2001 in New York City involving FEMA and the OEM? Below follow a few quotes and a screenshot from the original press release (which I was only able to locate with difficulty by scrounging through the internet archives). The only thing I could find on TRIPOD on the current version of OEM's site fails to mention the DOJ and the Office for Domestic Preparedness. Not to be confused with the Office of National Preparedness. That was the one which Dick Cheney was appointed to oversee in May of 2001. More on that here.

First let's get a quote from former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani to the 9-11 commission:

And the reason Pier 92 was selected as the command center was
because on the next day, on September 12th, Pier 92 was going to
have a drill. It had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the
federal government, from the state, from the State Emergency
Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for
biochemical attack. So that was going to be the place they were
going to have the drill. The equipment was already there so we
were able to establish a command center there within three days
that was two-and-a-half to three times bigger than the command
center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from
there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Release # 02-013 www.nyc.gov/oem

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
HOLDS TRIAL POINT-OF-DISPENSING DRILL (TRIPOD)

Drill for Distribution of Medication In the Event of a
Biological Attack Had Been Scheduled for September 12, 2001

The New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) today held the first-ever Trial Point of Dispensing drill-also known as "Operation TriPOD"-to test OEM's effectiveness in responding to a biological attack. TriPOD is a six-hour, real-time drill administered by OEM, in cooperation with the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ)

USDOJ Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels said, "The Office of Justice Programs, through its Office for Domestic Preparedness, is pleased to support the New York City TriPOD Exercise. We look forward to strengthening our partnership with the City of New York, through continued strong support of its domestic preparedness activities."

OEM From TESTIMONY OF
THE FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
BERNARD B. KERIK to the 9/11 Commission

2
In 1996, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani improved our overall
ability to respond to major events or emergencies with the creation of the Mayor’s Office of
Emergency Management (OEM). Together with other city agencies like the Fire Department,
the Department of Transportation and the Department of Health, the NYPD now had a more
formalized mechanism to better plan, coordinate and practice for just about any crisis you could
imagine. The City, through its OEM, had coordinated plans for many types of emergencies; and
those plans were tested frequently. Not only were drills and tabletop exercises conducted, like
the one simulating a bio/chemical attack in the mass transit system, but actual emergencies like
blackouts, building collapses, storms, plane crashes, and a West Nile Virus outbreak, all tested
the effectiveness of the city’s coordinated response system.

Pre-9/11 intelligence

2006-07-17T18:52:00.000-07:00

Once again, this is a huge topic which I'm only going to mention a few small pieces of- Project Bojinka and Able Danger.

Project Bojinka

Able Danger

Former FBI director Louis Freeh is coming down hard on the 9/11 commission over its refusal to investigate Able Danger. In an op/ed piece in The Wall Street Journal today, Freeh said claims made by Able Danger could be the most important disclosure in the 9/11 inquiry. In fact, saying the 9/11 commission's work will be incomplete until it investigates those claims.

Freeh says quote, the 9/11 commission inexplicably concluded that it was not historically significant. This astounding conclusion in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility. And if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.

The Able Danger U.S. Army intelligence unit claims to have identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammad Atta and other 9/11 radical Islamist terrorists more than a year before 9/11.

Able Danger officials say they were not allowed to share that information with agencies that could have prevented the terrorist attack. Leading to one of the worst intelligence failures in the country's history and of course, great tragedy. Congressman Curt Weldon demanding those officials be allowed to testify before Congress. Now, more than half of the House of Representatives, 235 members, have agreed with Congressman Weldon and have signed on to a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. You can read this letter on our Web site, loudobbs.com. source

screenshot:

Okay, I can't resist adding a few more:

Condi Rice press briefing, May 16, 2002

Condi Rice on CNN, May 19, 2002

and finally this screenshot from the 9/11 Commission report:

Quotes about the 9/11 exercises

2006-07-16T03:46:00.000-07:00

From Vanity Fair 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Boston's request for fighter jets is not as prescient as it might seem. Standard hijack protocol calls for fighters to be launched-"scrambled"-merely to establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane at a distance of about five miles, out of sight, following it until, presumably, it lands. If necessary, they can show themselves, flying up close to establish visual contact, and, if the situation demands, maneuver to force the plane to land.

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

9/11 internet duels - Who (if anyone) is correct?

2006-07-16T03:23:00.000-07:00

Now that we have a bit in the way of background knowledge and tools (with the 25 Rules of Disinformation and the Internet Archives) we can start to look at the content of different 9/11 sites, articles, evidence, etc. Hopefully, by taking a skeptical and logical approach to both some of the skeptical sites and articles(of the official 9/11 account skeptics) and the skeptical (of the official 9/11 account and of possible 9/11 disinformation websites) we can be skeptical of something, I think, though you may be skeptical.

One thing which I notice when I read statements like: "As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States." and "Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts" (Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths)and is what I will refer to as a use of adjectives. Don't get me wrong, I like adjectives. I often use them myself. I don't think that they generally add a great deal to the facts, however. Now when I read something like the above, I tend to think that the writer wants me to take sides even before I have a chance to look at the "irrefutable facts" which counter the "poisonous" and "outlandish" claims being made and/or accepted by foreigners and "extremists".

One thing which I notice when reading a debunking or review of an article like that, such as this one- Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth by Jim Hoffman or Reply to Popular
Mechanics re 9/11 by Peter Meyer is that they quote the full body of the topic and they address each point being made. I tend to associate that with thoroughness. So far, I have not seen Popular Mechanics replying to either of those articles, but I would look forward to reading that (as well as the follow up replies by their authors). Until I read that reply, I tend to favor the authors who have the last word, even though they may have a smaller readership.

But comparing a magazine article to an online article or site may be unfair. In my next article I won't attempt an entire review of the site 911Myths, but rather point out a few things which I have noticed which tend to make me skeptical about it.

911Myths... Reading between the lies: a partial review

2006-07-16T01:11:00.000-07:00

911Myths... Reading between the lies: a partial review

First, a few quotes from the homepage of 911Myths:

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

Fair enough. Looking over the site a bit, I would guess that it falls into the general category of: shows little to no evidence which would make one question the official story unless it can debunk that evidence to its satisfaction.

With over 100 pages in currently about 13 different categories it has obviously taken a lot of time and effort. A complete review and/or point by point addressing/rebuttal is clearly beyond my ability, so I will just point out a few potential inaccuracies, incompletenesses, etc. But, as they say, "look into the claims yourself" and "discover both sides of the argument" (keeping in mind that there may be more than two sides).

Progressive Collapse As much effort as has gone into this site, mightn't they have added a few pictures from the WTC collapses for comparison purposes? What I notice here is quite a few chunks of concrete (I also notice that in images from the Ronan Point collapse in May of 1968, but those are not included here, more shots of rather large pieces of concrete linked to here also). So far, I've been able to find only minimal pictoral evidence of chunks of concrete rubble at the WTC (as opposed to significant pictoral evidence for pulverized concrete) for comparison purposes. Perhaps you can find more either here or somewhere else?
What I also notice is this quote: "The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height." So, if that is accurate, then in that particular progressive collapse the structure took about twice as long to fall as an object in free fall would have from the same height. Comparing this to one report on the time it took WTC 7 to fall-

The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds.
Free-fall time from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds

I notice that in that report the collapse happened in roughly 110% of freefall time rather than 200% of frefall time. The site also has a pages called Freefall and Pulverized Concrete, and several pages devoted to WTC 7 so those topics would seem to be of interest. The page also mentions a recent paper by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure on progressive collapse featuring the WTC collapses. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't appear to mention the WTC 7 collapse (but then, neither does the 9/11 Commission report), so I can't tell you how Bazant explains that one. Though since the paper appears pretty technical, I probably couldn't tell you how he explains it if he had done so. Tentative conclusion- the site seems to be incomplete in the presentation of some evidence on some pages. Further checking, verifying (or refuting) and adding and/or crosslinking the relevant information to the pages in question would make them more complete.

Page: WTC Molten Steel This page appears to have at least 2 objectives- to show that molten doesn't necessarily mean liquid and that metal doesn't necessarily mean steel. To balance this page, I would recommend reading, verifying (or refuting) the relevant portions of Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (the page also has a great deal of material which pertains to other pages on the 911Myths site. Tentative conclusion: the site author apparently has not yet successfully attempted to rebut all claims made by 9/11 official story skeptics. The site author may have been aware of the page at some point in time in the past (at least judging from 911PHYSICS.CO.NR - Debunking 911Myths transcript of a prior version of the Progressive collapse page), though that might be falsified, since there is no way I can confirm that it was on his site at one point via the Internet Archives, so the best evidence I have that is was indeed there at one point is probably this. I would suggest that that particular page would be a very good place to concentrate substantial effort, since it appears to be a pretty strong argument which I haven't yet seen rebutted convincingly.

Another page- Hijack Assistance Approval mentions 2 pdf files: AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS (dated 31 July 1997) and an updated version of the same (dated 1 June 2001). The provenance of neither of these documents can be established as dating prior to 9/11/2001 by means of the Internet Archive (see Wayback Machine results for http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf (dated 31 July 1997, only current archived result: Jul 13, 2004) Wayback Machine results for http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf (dated 1 June 2001, earliest archive: Nov 27, 2001) tentative conclusion- without further verification, nothing can be authoratively stated on this issue, due to the possibility that one or both of these documents may not have existed at the quoted date of publication (since this review and the site being reviewed exist on the web, web standards of proof are the highest which can be attempted in terms of verification of information; failing the ability to verify something by web standards does not mean that it is not legitimate, but it does imply at minimum a weaker argument)

At least several of the pictures on the page seem to be claiming to be showing smoke from WTC 7 fires but have WTC 6 (or smoke from its fires) in the picture foreground. I've gone into this issue further in the section of this essay called Misrepresenting photographic evidence

Tentative conclusion from these examples: this site is not as strong a rebuttal of 9/11 official story skeptics as it may at first appear; despite the apparent thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the website, there appear to be some official story skeptic's arguments which have not been rebutted, some examples of incompleteness and some weak arguments on the site. Potentially it may include some straw man arguments, irrelevant arguments, cherry picking of claims to rebut, arguments debunked on 9/11 official story skeptic sites and other things as well, though I have not attempted to look further to give potential examples of those things. The site Debunking 9/11 Myths DRAFT appears to have done a critique as well, so you might want to check that out for a bit more on 911myths. Also, a bit more here
The site would perhaps gain more credibility if it also included more links to and information about things which it had not yet debunked to its satisfaction. Since it doesn't appear to me to debunk anything in the official "conspiracy theory story" or as far as I could tell mention much of anything questioning the official theory that it was not either dismissing or debunking it appears one sided in its efforts. That is in spite of its exhortation to the reader to "discover both sides of the argument". I guess if a reader wants to discover other sides, she is on her own.
Remember, "much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research." Probably, they just have an easier time with research than I do, since there is a lot more to the site than I could manage to put together with minimal research. Following along with their site does tend to help speed my research a bit, though.

Possible examples of possible physical evidence re: 9/11 being destroyed

2006-07-15T23:15:00.000-07:00

The following are exerpts from (Report No. CC-2004-003)
a report from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to The Honorable John McCain, dated May 4th, 2004:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to your request, we initiated an investigation, dividing it into two parts. We investigated (a) FAA’s reported lack of responsiveness in providing the Commission with requested documents and materials, prompting the Commission to issue a subpoena for records on October 16, 2003; and (b) a specific allegation that FAA had destroyed an audiotape that had been made at its New York Air Route Traffic Control Center2 (New York Center) of controller accounts of their actions and observations on September 11, 2001, shortly following the attacks.

We found that a single cassette tape-recording was made at the Center on September 11—beginning around 11:40 a.m. and lasting about an hour—of controllers giving first-hand accounts of their actions in interacting with, or tracking, two of the hijacked aircraft that morning. We identified six controllers who gave tape-recorded witness statements, each being approximately 5-10 minutes long.

We were told that nobody ever listened to, transcribed, or duplicated the tape. When one of the six controllers asked to listen to the tape in preparing her written statement, the Quality Assurance Manager told her that the tape was not meant for anyone to hear. Per FAA policy, controllers are afforded the opportunity to review radar data and radio transcripts before submitting written statements; however, this manager declined this controller’s request to listen to her own oral statement. This same controller said she again asked to listen to the tape, at the time of the Commission’s interviews (between September-October 2003), but did not know its whereabouts.

The Quality Assurance Manager told us that sometime between December 2001 and February 2002, he destroyed the tape of his own volition, by crushing the cassette case in his hand, cutting the tape into small pieces, and then depositing the pieces in trash cans throughout the Center. He advised that he felt strongly that the tape never should have been made.

More potential examples can be found at 9-11 Research - Evidence Destruction

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland on the 9/11 Commission

2006-07-15T21:58:00.000-07:00

A few quotes from Max Cleland (from the Salon article "The president ought to be ashamed")in regards to the 9/11 Commission (which he was a former member of)

"We shouldn't be making deals," Cleland complains. "If somebody wants to deal, we issue subpoenas. That's the deal."

First of all, as someone who co-sponsored legislation creating the 9/11 commission, against great opposition from the White House, this independent commission should be independent and should not be making deals with anybody. I start from there. It's been painfully obvious the administration not only fought the creation of the commission but that their objective was the war in Iraq, and one of the notions that was built on was there was a direct connection between al Qaida and 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was not.

Now, it's not partisan; Bill Clinton has already agreed to come personally before the 9/11 commission. But a majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal.

And what is the deal?

A minority of the commissioners will be able to see a minority of the [PDB] documents that the White House has already said is pertinent. And then a minority of the commissioners themselves will have to brief the rest of the commissioners on what the White House thinks is appropriate.

So the minority of commissioners will get a briefing on the documents?

Yes, but first they have to report to the White House what they're going to tell the other commissioners.

This is not a political witch hunt. This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious.

You say you think it should be a national scandal ...

It is a national scandal. Here's the deal. The administration made a connection on Sept. 11, and you can read Bob Woodward's book ["Bush at War"]. He's a private citizen. He got access to documents we don't have yet! Just think about that.

More on the 9/11 Commission

2006-07-15T19:20:00.000-07:00

More on the 9/11 Commission

9/11 Commission second interim report (dated Wednesday, September 23, 2003)

We are developing a full depiction of the conspiracy to attack this country; how
the plotters analyzed our weaknesses, the strategies they developed, the actions
they took, and those who helped them.

9/11 Report Cites Lack of Preparation
FAA Too Slow in Alerting Military, Panel Says (Washington Post, June 18, 2004)

The head of the U.S. air defense system told the commission yesterday that if the FAA had notified military authorities immediately when the planes were hijacked, fighter jets could have reached all four jetliners in time. "If that is the case, yes, we could shoot down the airplanes," testified Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

Yet the Sept. 11 commission's report, issued during the panel's final public hearing in Washington yesterday, cast serious doubt on Eberhart's claim, finding that even if the fighter pilots had had more time, an executive order by Vice President Cheney that gave the military permission to shoot down hostile aircraft that morning did not come until long after the last hijacked airliner had crashed. Furthermore, the panel found, the instruction was never passed on to fighter pilots scrambled from Virginia's Langley Air Force Base to Washington because of uncertainty about the order's ramifications.

"The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex," the commission's investigators concluded. "But the details play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet."

From the Washington Post article Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet

"We discussed the theories," said Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."

As best as I can determine, the 9/11 Commission report makes no mention of WTC 7. Perhaps the fact that it fell down was regarded as too much of a "conspiracy theory"? Or perhaps it was just deemed not relevant. I don't know.

But be sure to check through the staff statements and monographs and the redacted staff report (where you can find out such fascinating nuggets of information as the following)

³⁰⁰In the six months prior to 9/11, Flight 95 had operated six times a week, Monday through Saturday,
from 6/11/01 through 7/7/01, then five times a week, Monday through Friday, from 7/9/01 through 8/31/01. Daily service had started only with the week of 9/3/01.

⁶¹⁴No "Red Team" FAA Special Assessments were conducted at Dulles security
checkpoints over the two years prior to 9/11. The "Red Team" did test the explosive
detection systems for checked baggage, and the checkpoint passed [deleted]such tests in the period

Nevertheless, the FAA had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a
plane and use it as a weapon. In the spring of 2001, FAA intelligence distributed an
unclassified CD-ROM presentation to air carriers and airports, including Logan, Newark,
and Dulles. The presentation cited the possibility that terrorist might conduct suicide
hijacking but stated: "fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently
thinking in that direction."⁴²⁴

In 1998 and 1999, the FAA intelligence unit produced reports about the hijacking threat
posed by Bin Ladin and al Qaeda, including the possibility that the terrorist group might
try to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark. It viewed this possibility
as "unlikely" and a "last resort."

⁴²⁸ In 1998 UBL was reported to have stated "...All Islamic military have been mobilized
to strike a significant U.S. or Israeli strategic target, to bring down their aircraft and
hijack them" See: FAA response of 2/04/03 to Congressional Joint Inquiry staff letter

and be sure to dig through the hearing transcripts as well. I'm fairly confident that you can find a 9/11 Commission mention of WTC 7 somewhere among all those sources. I mean, I'm assuming that they did read the FEMA report which devotes an entire chapter to that building, since they use it as a source of information.

To shoot or not to shoot, that is the question...

2006-07-15T19:17:00.000-07:00

Were there orders to shoot down planes given at some point on 9/11 before Flight 93 went down? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps to some pilots and not others? Read the following quotes and see whether you can sort out what the rules of engagement were on 9/11 between say 9:30 and 10:20 AM. Did NEADS (NORAD) get different orders than DCANG (non NORAD)? That's the only plausible explanation I can come up with (short of lying) for the following accounts of events.

A quote from the Vanity Fair article 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes (August 2006 issue)

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that NEADS believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point-one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93-the answer to Nasypany's question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor.

10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
FOX: I'm not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: Fuck the code words. That's perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.
PLAY | STOP

The orders from higher headquarters are to identify by aircraft type and tail number, and nothing more. Those orders-and the fact that the pilots have no clearance to shoot-are reiterated by NEADS controllers as a dramatic chase towards the White House continues. Two more problems emerge: the controllers can't find the White House on their dated equipment, and they have trouble communicating with the Langley fighters (which are referred to by their call signs, Quit 2-5 and Quit 2-6).

A quote from a CNN story
Cheney recalls taking charge from bunker
September 11, 2002

After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.

"The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. "And the aide then asked a third time. He said, 'Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?' And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, 'I said yes.'"

It was a rare flash of anger from a man who knew he was setting the tone at a White House in crisis.

"I think there was an undertone of anger there. But it's more a matter of determination. You don't want to let your anger overwhelm your judgment in a moment like this," Cheney said.

Word came that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. Aides frantically called the White House to find out whether a military jet had shot it down.

"The vice president was a little bit ahead of us," said Eric Edelman, Cheney's national security advisor. "He said sort of softly and to nobody in particular, 'I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.'"

Cheney and staffers watched in horror as the first tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. Matalin remembered the moment.

"Oddly everything just stopped. Not for long, but it did stop totally at that moment," she said. "[Cheney] emoted in a way that he emotes, which was to stop."

Quotes from America's Chaotic Road to War
(between 9:32 and 9:55 AM according to story timeline)

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.

Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order-there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary.

"[Expletive] pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those goddamn planes down."

Sitting at the other end of the table, Cheney snapped his head up, looked squarely at Mineta and nodded in agreement.

9:55 a.m.

The Vice President in the Bunker: 'Should We Engage?' 'Yes.'

Once airborne, Bush spoke again to Cheney, who said the combat air patrol needed rules of engagement if pilots encountered an aircraft that might be under the control of hijackers. Cheney recommended that Bush authorize the military to shoot down any such civilian airliners-as momentous a decision as the president was asked to make in those first hours. "I said, 'You bet,'" Bush recalled. "We had a little discussion, but not much."

Bush then talked to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow in trying to force an unresponsive plane to the ground before opening fire on it. First, pilots would seek to make radio contact with the other plane and tell the pilot to land at a specific location. If that failed, the pilots were to use visual signals. These included having the fighters fly in front of the other plane.

If the plane continued heading toward what was seen as a significant target with apparently hostile intent, the U.S. pilot would have the authority to shoot it down. With Bush's approval, Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command.

In the White House bunker, a military aide approached the vice president.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"

"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.

Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.

"Yes," he replied again.

As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand?

"Of course it does," Cheney snapped.

The vice president said later that it had seemed "painful, but nonetheless clear-cut. And I didn't agonize over it."

It was, "obviously, a very significant action," Cheney said in an interview. "You're asking American pilots to fire on a commercial airliner full of civilians. On the other hand, you had directly in front of me what had happened to the World Trade Center, and a clear understanding that once the plane was hijacked, it was a weapon."

Within minutes, there was a report that a plane had crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania-what turned out to be United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that had been hijacked after leaving Newark International Airport. Many of those in the PEOC feared that Cheney's order had brought down a civilian aircraft. Rice demanded that someone check with the Pentagon.

On Air Force One, Bush inquired, "Did we shoot it down or did it crash?"

It took the Pentagon almost two hours to confirm that the plane had not been shot down, an enormous relief. "I think an act of heroism occurred on board that plane," Cheney said. Later, reports of cell phone conversations before the plane crashed indicated that some passengers had fought with the hijackers.

A quote from a cached UPI article entitled Military unprepared for 9/11 attacks
By Shaun Waterman
Published 5/23/2003 8:06 PM

NORAD also scrambled F-16s from Langley air force base in Virginia, he said. They were in the air within six minutes, which he said was "exceedingly quick." But they were still 12 minutes away from Washington when Flight 77 crashed in the Pentagon.

Moreover, the man who had McKinley's job on Sept. 11, retired Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, told the panel that he could not have ordered the hijacked airliners shot down even if either set of F-16s had been able to make it to the capital in time.

"To my knowledge, I did not have the authority to shoot it down at that time," he said, adding later of Flight 77, "even if we were there, I don't think we would have shot it down."

He said that he only learned President Bush had made the decision to give him that authority five minutes after the last plane, Flight 93, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania because passengers who had learned the fate of the other airliners apparently stormed the cockpit.

A quote from video transcript (reportedly from CSPAN's video of Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission).

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

Windows Media
Real Media
Quicktime

I can't vouch for the authenticity of the video or transcript, but thought it was worth including as is nonetheless. Apparently, that part of the video record never made it into the 9/11 Commission's video archive (or at least had not at some point, it may be there now, since I was able to find the transcript for it). Read more on that story here.

Written transcript of that testimony from the 9/11 Commission's site follows. I will quote a larger block of that testimony below:

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?

MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.

MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.

MR. MINETA: I did not.

MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: No, sir.

MR. HAMILTON: But there were military planes in the air in position to shoot down commercial aircraft.

MR. MINETA: That's right. The planes had been scrambled, I believe, from Otis at that point.

MR. HAMILTON: Could you help me understand a little the division of responsibility between the FAA and NORAD on that morning?

MR. MINETA: Well, FAA is in touch with NORAD. And when the first flight from Boston had gone out of communications with the air traffic controllers, the air traffic controller then notified, I believe, Otis Air Force Base about the air traffic controller not being able to raise that American Airlines flight.

A quote from the Aviation Week and Space Technology article called F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93

The Andrews-based 121st Fighter Sqdn. was not standing alert on Sept. 11, because the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) unit was not assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command air defense force. Norad had already scrambled three F-16s from their alert base at Langley AFB, Va., but they were about 12 min. from Washington when the Pentagon was struck at 9:37 a.m. (AW&ST June 3, p. 48).

The 121st squadron's day had started normally. Three F-16s were flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 180 naut. mi. away. At Andrews, several officers were in a scheduling meeting when they received word that the World Trade Center had been hit by an aircraft. Minutes later, after United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the second WTC tower, a squadron pilot called a friend in the Secret Service "to see what was going on. He was told some bad things were happening. At that time, we weren't thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system," said Lt. Col. Marc H. (Sass) Sasseville, the current 121st FS commander. On Sept. 11, he was the director of operations and air operations officer--the acting operations group commander under the 113th Wing.

Soon thereafter, the Secret Service called back, asking whether the squadron could get fighters airborne. The unit's maintenance section was notified to get several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Anticipating such an order, Col. Don C. Mozley, the 113th Logistics Group commander, had already ordered his weapons officer to "break out the AIM-9s and start building them up." The missiles had to be transported from a bunker on the other side of the base, which would take a while.

"After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners] coming. Not 'might be'; they were coming," Mozley recalled.

Sasseville grabbed three F-16 pilots and gave them a curt briefing: "I have no idea what's going on, but we're flying. Here's our frequency. We'll split up the area as we have to. Just defend as required. We'll talk about the rest in the air." All four grabbed their helmets, g-suits and parachute harnesses, and headed for the operations desk to get aircraft assignments.

Another call from the Secret Service commanded, "Get in the air now!" Almost simultaneously, a call from someone else in the White House declared the Washington area "a free-fire zone. That meant we were given authority to use force, if the situation required it, in defense of the nation's capital, its property and people," Sasseville said.

AWACS in training and exercises on 9/11

2006-06-17T23:11:00.000-07:00

Quotes from the Code One magazine article Conversation With Major General Larry Arnold, Commander, 1st Air Force, Tyndall AFB, Florida

People were generating aircraft and getting airborne. The Northeast Air Defense Sector diverted some tankers to support the fighters covering New York. Our picture over DC was pretty poor. And the communication was poor. So the aircrews themselves coordinated the refueling and the combat air patrols. An AWACS flying a training mission nearby arrived. The AWACS could talk to the Northeast Sector and provide a better picture to them.

Another AWACS was flying a training mission off the coast of Florida. President Bush was in Sarasota. We moved the AWACS towards the president. Then we received tasking from the Secret Service through the Joint Staff and NORAD to follow the president and protect him. I had set up an arrangement with their wing commander at Tinker some months earlier for us to divert their AWACS off a normal training mission to go into an exercise scenario simulating an attack on the United States. The AWACS crew initially thought we were going into one of those simulations.

Could this live-fly exercise scenario involving AWACS and "simulating an attack on the United States" have been Amalgam Warrior, which has been linked in the past with exercises such as Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian? If the Fall '01 Amalgam Warrior (east coast CINCNORAD exercise) had been moved up from the typical October time frame (as Global Guardian was) then that would have put it in fiscal year '01 instead of fiscal year '02. Therefore, it would likely be known as Amalgam Warrior 01-3 if it did occur. What exercise(s) were the AWACS participating in on 9/11?) Amalgam Warrior seems typically to involve intercepts, hijackings, and such things. Hmm... How would these exercises have affected the events of 9/11? The Commission would have you believe that NORAD was extra prepared because of exercises. The FAA dropped the ball. The FAA disputes this, saying that within minutes of the first plane hitting the WTC they established phone bridges wherein they were communicating events in real time. Official notice may have been given at the times stated by the 9/11 Commission, but that hardly means that the FAA was not making NORAD and other agencies aware of things as they unfolded before they made official announcements.

WTC 7

2006-06-03T22:40:00.000-07:00

(Thanks to wtc7.net for the animated image and video links)

Once again, another topic which can hardly be done justice to short of a book length posting, so I will just bring up a few points about it (in addition to what I've already mentioned) and add a few links which readers can use their skepticism about in terms of discerning the validity (or not) of the arguments presented.

I strongly recommend viewing at least one of the videos of the collapse of WTC 7 (preferably at least one which also includes the collapse of the east penthouse a few seconds before the rest of the building collapses)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7big.rm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi

Close comparison of the two photos (one from the video inserted within the other) will show that while the photographers may have been elbow to elbow to get their shots, there were two cameras used to take them. Look at how far WTC 7 has fallen for the timing of the shots. Look at the alignment of the rear passenger window in relationship with the building on the right side of the picture. Look at the space visible between the car and the Police van across the street. Clearly close cousins, but two cameras. Then compare the buildings on the left and right sides of the high quality photos with the same buildings shown in FEMA's Figure 5-23 (page 26) (I would upload a copy, but the ones I've seen copied lose too much resolution in the shadows, so best to compare directly). You'll see that a third photographer (credited to Roberto Rabanne, but so are the video stills FEMA shows which are clearly from an elevated perspective since you can look down on the roofs of buildings, so I'm not sure who took which shots)was taking shots from perhaps half a block or so further back. I wonder how many photographers there were standing around on that street just waiting to capture the big moment on film? Anyway, that was fun. Now let's take a look at what we can find as far as photographic evidence of damage to the south face of WTC 7 shall we?
According to FEMA in at least in one mention of figure 5-16 (a copy of which is shown below- the one with the red box in it) it shows

damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 at approximately floors 8 to 20, 24, 25, and 39 to 46

But, if we compare with figure 5-17 and count down from the top of this 47 story building we can see that the burn damage on the west face of the building is at floors 29-30. Using that as a reference point, we can see that the side of the Verizon building (and/or smoke) obstructs the view of all floors below the 16th or thereabouts. Note that the angle and positioning of the camera make the wedding cake layering shape of the Verizon building appear rather like big gouges are missing from it; a front on perspective of the damage on to the Verizon building shows this to be a trick of the angle. See below:

But, never fear, FEMA, I'll help you out and provide another image of the damage

I can see damage there down to about floor 10 or thereabouts. Once again, however, I notice a photographic perpective angle which seem to me to be chosen for a psychological effect. When one actually counts across on each floor level to see how many windows one can see undamaged on each floor, for instance, the damage does not appear as great as it does at first glance at that photo. Not to minimize the damage which did occur, but let's put it in a bit of perspective, shall we? The following photo shows the damage to the Banker's Trust Building, which was closer to the South tower than WTC 7 was to the North tower (which supposedly damaged it sufficiently that fires later made it collapse).
Oddly enough, the Banker's Trust building did not collapse. I've yet to see a photograph showing damage even that extensive to the south face of WTC 7. Wouldn't something like that be worth documenting on a building which apparently some people on 9/11 thought was going to come down that day?

For further skeptical reading on WTC 7, you might try Chapter 5 of the FEMA report and/or WTC 7's annotated version of that report. The 9/11 Commission didn't seem to have anything to say on the topic, as I've mentioned previously.

You might also try NIST's report, though I'm not certain whether or not this is actually their final version.

You might want to keep in mind the observed length of time it takes WTC 7 to fall from roof height to the ground (or alternately towards ground level in 5 seconds) in comparison to the time claimed for a significantly shorter (13 apartment stories + 3 parking garage stories) partially completed building to undergo progressive collapse mentioned previously as follows:

The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. source

. Unfortunately, that quote is of limited usefulness, since it talks about 2 different towers. The difficulty in such a progressive collapse explanation is that each successive floor provides resistance to the collapse. If the top layer collapses onto the one below it, the one below has to begin moving towards the ground from a rest acceleration position. If the collapse begins from (or near) the bottom of the building (as was apparently the case with WTC 7, then each bottom floor has to be crushed (or pulverized) by the floors above it in order for the collapse to proceed. Does the observed collapse timing, movement and resulting debris pile correspond well with similarly observed times and movements on non controlled demolition collapses? I don't know. It would be nice to have more data about such things.

If you are interested in looking at some of the information regarding a controlled demolition explanation for the collapses, I would recommend Steven Jones's paper as a good place to start research on that topic. Once again, be skeptical of all of these sources is my recommendation.

In conclusion

2006-06-03T02:42:00.000-07:00

Given all the information I have looked at in writing this multi part essay, I feel that research and documentation of possible 9/11 evidence would be a valuable pursuit for concerned citizens, academic professionals and military and intelligence officials worldwide. I feel that thorough documentation and fact checking is very necessary. I consider it to be a likely possibility that there is a significant degree of disinformation which has been used to discredit and/or discourage and confuse those who would seek the truth about the events of 9/11. I also feel that potentially significant information has been made less accessible and/or changed in the years following 9/11.

I feel that the strongest arguments in a quest for a true accounting will seek to compare verifiable data from pre- 9/11 with the events of 9/11. Using information or events which have only surfaced in the post 9/11 world in comparison leaves open the possibility that that data may be suspect.

I may continue to add and make slight modifications to the web pages in this essay (such as adding links to sourced material, adding tags and cross linking the posts, for example), but for the most part I would like to leave them mostly as they stand. They may not be perfect and I'm sure they show my biases, but so be it. At some point one has to say "good enough". If I encounter new evidence which I want to bring forth, I will do that separately and link to it from the bottom of this page.

my new Eli Lake diary post

2006-06-02T17:11:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been working on it for a few days now, but it's finally up. You can check it out at Daily Kos. It's long. Neocon notes and quotes - featuring Eli Lake

Some Richard Perle quotes reported by Eli Lake

2006-06-01T19:43:00.000-07:00

Iranian Dissident to Seek Support For Opposition

The admiration is mutual. Of Mr. Fakhravar, Mr. Perle said, "He is very impressive. I formed that opinion by talking to him on the telephone. It is even more evident in person. He is obviously a man of great courage and conviction. He has been enormously frustrated at the lack of outside support, not just from the United States but the free world generally."

Pentagon Is Winner Over CIA By ELI LAKE
- Staff Reporter of the Sun

May 8, 2006

reposted here

The former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, said he does not expect the next CIA director to have better luck with leakers. "The crackdown on leaking will make people more careful," he said, adding that leakers at the CIA will just get information out through former CIA officers who are cleared to get the information.

"Until they get serious about leaks, which is to put people on polygraphs after every major leak, it is going to go on. Remember, this is an institution that is steeped in covert operations and misinformation. We train people to lie and we are shocked when they lie."

RAID ON CHALABI’S HEADQUARTERS WAS DISCUSSED IN WHITE HOUSE
Makiya, a Rights Activist, Also Gets a Visit

In Washington, supporters of Mr. Chalabi were shocked at the decision by American authorities to raid his house.

A scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Richard Perle, said, “As far as I know, the CPA has not arrested a single individual responsible for acts on Americans. And they managed to find the resources to go after the INC. I think this is appalling, a disgrace.”

WHITE HOUSE ORDERED SEVERING TIES TO CHALABI OVER IRAN LEAKS

Free Iraqi Leader Offers To Address Congress

A scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Richard Perle, said, “I don’t believe he has ever been given top U.S. classified information, let alone anything of a highly classified nature….I believe the whole operation is politically motivated. The accusations, the embellishment of the accusations, I believe this is fundamentally malicious and politically motivated by people who became fearful that Ahmad Chalabi might emerge as a major figure in Iraq.”

COMMITTEE ON PRESENT DANGER IS BEING REVIVED

Lieberman, Kyl Focus On Islamic Terror STRATEGY FOR VICTORY SOUGHT

"Speaking from his summer home in France, Mr. Perle told the Sun he plans on joining the committee when he returns to America. He said the real rift within the Republican Party today was with what he called “paleoconservatives.”

“They are reverting to a brand of isolationism. If they understood the danger, they would be prepared to make a more robust effort to counter it. The emphasis of the Democratic party is on easy ways of providing security like signing agreements. They don’t like taking risks or resorting to the use of force,” he said."

Undersecretary of Defense Feith Quits; Strong Proponent of the War in Iraq

"Mr. Perle said that didn't surprise him: "He gets up every day at 4 am and leaves the office at 7 pm He doesn't have any time to spend with his four young children. And that is a relationship that is very important to him."

Rice Tells Mullahs That Democracy On the Way to Iran reposted here

"Mr. Perle said that through his conversations with Mr Batebi he is persuaded that the opposition in Iran yearns to hear the kind of words Ms. Rice said yesterday. "They are hoping to get a message through to the administration, they need moral support, there has been no suggestion that they want military intervention or anything like that. They want Americans to know they have been deprived of basic human rights and want Americans to support them," Mr. Perle said."

Bush Poised To Move His Afghanistan Envoy to Baghdad

"Richard Perle was also pleased by the news. "He's very capable. He has done an excellent job in Afghanistan. He has White House experience which will be invaluable in his service as ambassador in Baghdad," he said yesterday"

Senator Voinovich Forces a Delay In Bolton Vote

"A friend of Mr. Bolton and former Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle, said yesterday that the delay in the vote was a "setback." "It's a setback, but it is by no means lost," he said.

Carney Upends Democrats in Pennsylvania

"Mr. Perle, who was Mr. Jackson's national security adviser, said he would support Mr. Carney's candidacy. "I think he is a very smart, capable guy," he said."

Bush To Detail Diplomatic Priorities

An adviser to the president during his 2000 campaign, Richard Perle, said, "If I were a dictator I would start to worry about this. Regimes that mistreat their own people will ultimately mistreat others. The president is going to do what he can to counter them."

Mr. Perle, one of the top advisors to the governor on foreign policy, said that he was sure Mr. Bush would oppose pressuring Israel to make concessions with which it was uncomfortable. "Any public figure is going to be cautious commenting about the details of a sensitive negotiation of which he is not fully informed. If the results are unsatisfactory," Mr. Perle added, "I have no doubt Governor Bush will make his view very clear."

source

Critics of the Clinton administration's Iraq policy point out that Mr. Gore sent the INC a similar letter of support in 1993, but that America later abandoned the group, leaving scores of Iraqi freedom fighters to be slaughtered when Saddam's forces moved into Northern Iraq in 1996. The administration has also lagged in implementing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. "This is the same administration that has sabotaged the Iraq Liberation Act at every opportunity. They have refused to spend the money allocated, they have done the utmost to sow dissension among the Iraqi people. Their idea of a concrete proposal is sending wooden desks to London for the use of the Iraqi opposition," said a man who served as assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, Richard Perle. Mr. Perle is a foreign-policy adviser to Governor Bush.

source

time for a real world break

2006-05-29T02:38:00.000-07:00

Thanks to LondonYank for reminding me to take some time off from all the depressing stuff I've been sifting through online lately. It keeps me busy and seems like useful projects, but I can easily OD, I think. Good to get outside and some fresh air away from the neocons' reek.

wow! wikipedia - 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy article already up.

2006-05-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

Already wikipedia has an article up on the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy. I'm impressed.

Outing the MSM, a growing cooperative movement

2006-05-22T03:55:00.000-07:00

(orignial posting at Daily Kos)

Just in case you haven't been paying attention, there does indeed seem to be a growing desire/movement in the blogosphere to call the MSM's blatant propaganda pieces for exactly what they are, and to back it up with solid research. Here are a few examples of sites/threads where such things are going on.

Some of these have been around for quite awhile, some are recent threads, but I will include several along with some brief descriptions of what seems to be happening.

Over at Democratic Underground we have this recent thread:

What If Dems Fought Back Against Corporate Media Shills Like Tim Russert?

which seems to be primarily Tim Russert and Telecommunications Act of 1996 focused, but looks to have a desire for research and cooperation to expose these shenanigans for what they are.

Then we have the popular thread at DailyKos

PsyOps: Walking Back the Cat which has as a primary focus an effort to "retrace the train of evidence and assumptions until the double agent, the false source or the analytic error is identified" primarily at least with respect to propaganda pieces pointing towards war with Iran, but also looking towards research and cooperation.

The Huffington Post has a couple of features:

Russert Watch where the descriptive blurb reads, ""Russert Watch" is where we take on one of the Beltway's major media players, Meet the Press' Tim Russert. Every Sunday, after the show, we'll count the bodies... and the missed opportunities."

and Eat The Press with the description- ""Eat the Press" is the Huffington Post's ongoing coverage of and commentary on the media. Hosted by Harry Shearer and his band of media critics, this is where we turn our gaze on the ever-more powerful fourth estate--keeping watch on the watchdogs."

Then we have such cooperative efforts and organizations as

SourceWatch

"a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy (http://www.prwatch.org) to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda."

ePluribus Media community

"We are "dedicated to researching and exposing truth and encouraging the highest standards of ethics and journalism."

Our goal is to shine a light on government propaganda and restore the dignity and integrity of the free press, the lifeblood of democracy in America. Our objective is to enhance the vitality and effectiveness of the American news media, an institution vital to the future of this nation."

The Center for Cooperative Research

"The Center for Cooperative Research seeks to encourage grassroots participation and collaboration in the documentation of the public historical record using an open-content model."

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

"FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints."

This list goes on, I'm sure. That's where you can help. Add links in the comment section.

Another suggestion: if you feel called to do this, try linking to postings which expose propaganda using keywords for the propaganda. This will help to put the debunking in view in the search engines. Example:

Iran yellow band debunking

Use tags as well in this effort.

This trend ties in well with some of my earlier posts, I think, which were designed to be expanded on and to get people started looking at the bigger picture and techniques (read: tricks and lies) being used. See, for example

tricks and lies vs. truth, love and hope: part of an attempt to see the bigger picture and Looking for the forest themes amongst some recent media story trees

Tags:

Mainstream media propaganda debunking, MSM, lies, spin, PsyOps, cooperative research, truth, factual reporting

some more tricks and tools

2006-05-21T20:31:00.000-07:00

(dirty)Tricks:
PsyOps
PsyOps tracking
character assassination
Ad hominem arguments

Tools:
research
education

tricks-and tools

POPULATION: Global Food Supply Near the Breaking Point - time to start growing spirulina?

2006-05-21T05:06:00.000-07:00

"The world is now eating more food than farmers grow, pushing global grain stocks to their lowest level in 30 years.

Rising population, water shortages, climate change, and the growing costs of fossil fuel-based fertilisers point to a calamitous shortfall in the world's grain supplies in the near future, according to Canada's National Farmers Union (NFU).

Thirty years ago, the oceans were teeming with fish, but today more people rely on farmers to produce their food than ever before, says Stewart Wells, NFU's president.

In five of the last six years, global population ate significantly more grains than farmers produced."

Read more here:

POPULATION: Global Food Supply Near the Breaking Point

Time to start to grow your own spirulina perhaps?

From what I've read, it has a protein per acre yield of 40 times that of soybeans (the next highest protein per acre yield). It has been eaten, harvested and cultivated for centuries in Africa and by the Aztecs among others. It is NOT the same as "Klamath Blue Green Algae" which is not a single unique species. Based on what I've read, the amount of land needed to grow enough spirulina to meet the world population's protein needs would be about the same size as the state of Kansas. Coincidentally, this is roughly the same size as Lake Chad in Africa where spirulina grows naturally. Live spirulina cultures can be purchased from the University of Texas at Austin's algae collection among other places. The one to get is spirulina platensis, LB 2340.
The nutrient ingredients are generally pretty inexpensive if purchased in large quantities (50 pound bags usually) They range from about 5 to 25 US dollars per 50 lb bag, with the more expensive ones generally being used in pretty small quantities. The dry ingredients will mix up into many thousands of gallons of nutrient solution (I haven't attempted to figure out how much, exactly, but it translates as lots, basically).

In survival conditions, the information states "In case of necessity ("survival" type situations), nitrogen, phosphate, sulfate, sodium, potassium and magnesium can all be brought by urine (from persons or animals in good health, not consuming drugs) at 5 ml/l and iron by a saturated solution of iron in vinegar (use about 0.1 ml/l)." I would guess that in such a situation, probably the simplest way to bring the pH up to the optimal range would be by using wood ash.

More information, links etc. can also be found in the wikipedia entry for Algaculture, which of course includes other algaes besides spirulina as well as information which will be useful for spirulina cultivation.

From what I've read, I believe there have been several projects aimed at getting villagers in third world countries growing their own spirulina.

spirulina
grow-your-own-spirulina
world-hunger
global-food-supply

Thank you Jean Rohe

2006-05-21T02:48:00.000-07:00

Why I Spoke Up by Jean Rohe

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." Carl Schurz

Tags:

jean-rohe, thank-you-jean-rohe, speaking-truth-to-power, john-mccain, Iraq, 2006, New-York-Times, Fox-News, Israel, George-W.-Bush

I hate having to give personal information to newspaper websites to read stories

2006-05-21T00:16:00.000-07:00

How about you? 1.- there are enough people and organizations out there tracking or trying to track personal information without having to give it away to those sites as well, and 2.- these are the sources of "information" which I'm often sceptical of, and which seem to me to be increasingly "bought and paid for" as I've mentioned. Whether I'm looking for a quote (or story) to illustrate an example of stellar journalism or one to offer up as an example of what I don't like is immaterial. I just hate the principle. That's why I like this site-

Bugmenot.com

for logging in to sites with free passwords to avoid cumpulsory registration.

continuing the looking for forest themes post

2006-05-20T02:27:00.000-07:00

Okay, so Jason's Rove indictment story at truthout turned out to be a black eye for the left/liberal blogosphere - henceforth the "blogosphere". I had thought that we might see an official indictment announcement on Friday (yesterday), but no such luck. Nonetheless, I was sure that in either case this whole thing could/would be spun as the "blogosphere" is inaccurate. So what? Well, get used to it.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to back up all the things I'm going to mention now with "hard proof" (though if someone else wants to take on some of that, more power to them). Whether or not you believe in some or all of the following things I mention is not particularly important to the overall arc of my continuing argument. If it doesn't resonate with you as you read it, that's fine, too.

Whether or not you can take one or more of the things mentioned here and find (or create) a hole or weakness in it is not that important to me either. You see, I'm painting with very broad strokes now, and the framework I'm using to present this is like a cable rather than like a chain. A few weak or broken threads in a cable will weaken it, but it can still hold weight, unlike a chain. So, below follows some more food for thought, some of which may have played a role in that story or in the bigger picture I'm looking at (i.e.- more trick of the trade):

Moles
Trolls
divide and conquer
black ops
disinformation
lies
fear
playing both sides

Keep looking for the bigger picture. Sniping at each other won't help. Feeding the trolls won't help. Losing sight of the bigger picture to get involved in championing a single issue or cause won't help (at least not much). What will help? If I told you that, I would be suspicious of me if I were you. The fact is, I don't know for sure. I can give you a list of some tools which I think we have at our disposal, which I will do at the end of this essay.

How deep does the rabbit hole we seem to be in go? I dunno. I'll just mention a few of the points which I feel beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that I've passed personally. There are some others that I'm pretty sure I've passed as well, but I won't mention them in this essay. That way I can be labelled as only a middling (as opposed to way out there)wacko conspiracy theorist when you proceed to conflate me with all the other conspiracy theorists for dismissal.

If I were on a jury asked to determine beyond a reasonable doubt on the following questions, they would be answered at this point in my mind:

Q: 9/11 (Kean commission) report, taken as a whole- lie? Yes
Q: Majority of Congress bought and paid for? Yes
(so while I think that this impeachment button is a great idea in an ideal world, I have to say that I have doubts about its effectiveness under current conditions)
Q: Majority of the Judicial branch of government bought and paid for? Yes
Q: Majority of the mainstream media bought and paid for? Yes

BushCo.- Guilty as charged pretty much whatever you want to bring to the table IMO.

So, here is my list of what I think might be a few of the tools at our disposal:

Elimination of the imposible (lies) to the best of our ability using
reason, logic, critical thinking, discernment, scientific methodology, etc.

Cooperation
Truth (if you can find it)
Fun
Nature
Humor
Irony
Satire
Playfulness
Light
Outside the box thinking (cliched as that may be at this point)

Tuning up and using your own personal truth/bullshit detector as much as possible.
My theory on this is that it is somewhat like a metal detector and somewhat like having an ear for music. "That rings true" "That really resonates with me", etc. We have so much BS flying through the airwaves at this point that if we aren't careful our truth detectors can get clogged up. A personal media fast and purge may be in order in some cases. While some people have "perfect pitch" and others have "tin ears" in musical terms, perfect pitch can be learned at least to some degree, I seem to recall reading. I suspect tuning up our own personal truth/bullshit detectors to be similar in nature.

Love
Hope
Spirituality
I don't recommend holding your breath for a "hail Mary pass" I haven't seen much evidence that that is on the immediate horizon. Perhaps that's my myopia, perhaps it's not 4th down yet (though it sure seems close to it to me). My personal suspicion is that the adage "God helps those who help themselves" is pretty accurate. Seems like BushCo. etc. are helping themselves, but I sure hope that's not what the phrase means, otherwise I'm already in hell and I ain't got a hope. Well, except that there may be a bigger God than the one that's helping them out.

One of my favorite lines in literature is from The Sandman series by Neil Gaiman (that's right, from a "comic book") Here's a brief set up for the quote: Dream is playing a game of "reality" in hell with the demon Choronzon, where the stakes are getting his helm back vs. eternal torment.

"I am anti-life, the beast of judgement. I am the dark at the end of everything. The end of universes, gods, worlds... of everything. And what will you be then, Dreamlord?"
"I am hope."

of course, that wins the game for Dream.

intervention

2006-05-19T06:01:00.000-07:00

I know this guy (well, to be honest, we aren't close)who shows (from what I can tell anyway) classic symptoms of being an addict who is about to hit bottom. He is surrounded by enablers, yes-men(and women) and, of course, his suppliers. His friends are useless in fixing this; they seem to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

A few guys have tried talking to him about his problem, but I don't think he has gotten the message. He may well be about to lose his mind according to some sources. He has certainly been exhibiting questionable behavior and his sanity has come under doubt in certain quarters. I firmly believe that he poses threat to others and needs to be stopped somehow. What he is doing is illegal. If he can't be stopped, it may be time for an intervention. If he can be rehabilitated, I believe we can find him a new job closer to home among the available employment opportunities. Finding his replacement may be challenging, but surely we can find someone who would do a better job and doesn't have his problem

ABC News: New Tape Stirs Up 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

2006-05-19T02:05:00.000-07:00

Not that I'm holding this story up an an example of stellar journalism (investigative or otherwise), but at least it doesn't conflate various conspiracy theories and theorists. It also has some substantive quotes from the parties being written about. See, I don't conflate the mainstream media. There are actually quite a few mainstream media articles which have been valuable for the work done towards 9/11 truth, as you can see here (among other places). Without mainstream media coverage, we would know very little in comparison to what we currently do about what did/did not/might/might not have happened on 9/11.

Tags:
MSM
mainstream-media
9/11
conspiracy-theories
9/11-truth-movement
conflation

Let's talk about conflation

2006-05-18T19:15:00.000-07:00

Now, I haven't studied formal logic or debate etc., so I'm not an expert on all this stuff. Just putting forth my 2 cents. You can see here what wikipedia says about conflation. Now, perhaps there is a somewhat different term which is more apt to what I was describing earlier (bloggers/"conspiracy theorists" etc. lumped together as a group so that they can be dismissed), but for right now let's go with the word conflation as the best one I know of to describe this phenomenon.

Okay- here are some examples of it to my mind (sources included)

"On Friday, Truthout posted another story by the same correspondent, Jason Leopold, reporting that Mr. Rove had told President Bush and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten that he would be indicted imminently."

"The Rove attorney says he spent part of that day at the vet with his cat and that Mr. Fitzgerald was in Chicago. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

The denials set off a round of blogging. One site said Mr. Leopold was the victim of White House disinformation. Another cast doubt on whether Mr. Rove's attorney took his cat to the vet."

"Mainstream news organizations say bloggers can say something is going to happen every day for months and then claim to be ahead of the pack when it does -- or forget about it when it doesn't. Bloggers complain that traditional reporters don't credit them for scoops when they are proved right." All from the Wall Street Journal

It seems to me that little distinction is being made here between Jason Leopold and your average Joe blogger. Hence, to my mind, conflation.

The next several paragraphs are quoted from an article called Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet published by the Washington Post in October of 2004.

quote-

David Ray Griffin considers himself an unlikely recruit to what is called the "9/11 Truth Movement." The retired theologian, who taught religion for three decades at Claremont School of Theology, initially dismissed the notion that it was not an airliner that hit the Pentagon. But after visiting several Internet sites raising questions about the attack, he ended up writing a book. "The New Pearl Harbor," published in the spring, argues that a Boeing 757 would have caused far more damage and left more wreckage strewn around the Pentagon.

"There are reasons why people doubt the official story," he said. "There are photographs taken, and there is no Boeing in sight."

Suspicions formed as the Pentagon still smoldered.

For 2 1/2 years, the attack on the Pentagon has been discussed and researched by members of Knight-Jadczyk's online group, the Quantum Future School.

The group's talks formed the basis for articles in which Knight-Jadczyk argues that after the attack on the World Trade Center, eyewitnesses at the Pentagon were predisposed to see a large airliner. She believes that the Pentagon was attacked by a smaller plane and that members of the Bush administration were somehow complicit because it was beneficial for war-profiteers and Israel.

Interviewed by telephone from what she said is a 17-bedroom castle outside Toulouse, where she lives with her Polish physicist husband and five children, Knight-Jadczyk acknowledged that her group is considered "fringe."

Knight-Jadczyk, 52, a Florida native, has been a psychic and a channeler. She is now involved in experiments in what she calls "superluminal communication," which she described as involving "time loops" that would enable people to communicate with their former selves.

Knight-Jadczyk said she never imagined anyone outside her group would ever view "Pentagon Strike."

-endquote

My beef here is that David Ray Griffin and Knight-Jadczyk (whoever that is) are being conflated or lumped together under the category of conspiracy theorists; since we can all read for ourselves what a "wacko" Knight-Jadczyk seems to be (reads the subtext), we can therefore dismiss Griffin as well, simply by association.

Okay, so what if you know basically nothing about U.S. print journalism and were reading an article which I wrote entitled something like: "Large circulation newspapers can't be trusted to report accurately on the facts"

In that putative article I write the following The New York Times said this (demonstrably incorrect fact, neglecting to mention the retraction made the next day, of course)
and then went on from there to give you several innacuracies reported in the National Inquirer. Get the idea?

Wait a minute, you might say, aren't you conflating when you refer to the MSM as an entity? Well, to a degree, yes. Let's look at the context. I'm a left/liberal blogger. If I had a readership, it would likely consist of left/liberal readers. I blog about things that other left/liberal bloggers blog about a lot. See, for example- here, here, here, or here

I am also thrilled when I am able to point out an example of good investigative reporting by the more mainstream press, as I think are the majority of other left/liberal bloggers. Most of us are more peanut gallery observers than anything else, but we are generally pretty discerning (and acerbic if needed). So, no I don't lump the NYTimes with the National Enquirer. Here's a bit of evidence to the contrary in terms of any tendency I might have to conflate the mainstream media. So I take issue with David Ray Griffin's name being mentioned in that article in that context.
If the author of that piece were actually to offer substantive comparisons of the two (Griffin and Knight-Jadczyk), their views, points, etc. in a compare/contrast manner (and change the title of the article, please), then I have no beef.
Get it? Also, if the author of the piece were a "conspiracy theory blogger" writing for an audience of other "conspiracy theory bloggers" I have less beef (though I doubt I would continue reading the blog beyond the point that I've quoted. Anyone who can draw that little distinction isn't worth my time to read (except as an excercise in setting an example of how to conflate/dismiss).

End of conflation diatribe.

Tags:
MSM
blogosphere-is-inaccurate
9/11
conspiracy-theories
blogosphere
conflation

Looking for the forest themes amongst some recent media story trees

2006-05-18T19:12:00.000-07:00

I don't often take the time to write pieces like this, but I started reflecting this morning and decided now might be a good time to take a bit more of a look at the forest (instead of getting lost among the trees). As a metaphor- consider an aspen stand. Looks like a bunch of different trees, but actually they are all essentially part of a larger single organism- same DNA, same root structure. One big tree despite appearances to the contrary.

Now with this analogy in mind, I'm going to take a quick look at some of the recent news stories and their spin(s) in the MSM vs. the blogosphere. This is all just hypothesis, of course.

What are some of our recent themes? Let's see-

Bad Reporter (no cookie)/ Good Reporter (don't report/spin)

Recycled News

The blogosphere is an inaccurate source of information.

9/11 was the way we say it was (or maybe incompetence, depending on which spin works better)

NSA wiretapping is legal, but it's for national security purposes (not for say finding leakers (which is legal if we do it despite what Fitz might say))

Spying is for your own good, America

Don't look at that, here's something else to distract your attention

recent evidence- Jason Leopold

the MSM spin- silence, denials by interested parties (Robert Luskin), a general discrediting of the blogosphere

A good analysis here

My prediction: we get the official Karl Rove gets indicted mainstream (look for it here first- then press conference) announcement on Friday, most of Jason Leopold's article turns out to have been substantially true (the times were red herrings), the blogosphere gets a black eye from the MSM. Nice one Karl.

(themes- bad reporter, leaking is legal if we do it, the blogosphere is an inaccurate source of information)

Judith Miller- old news, not reported on, Administration was incompetent on 9/11. Good reporter. A distraction from involvement in the case bad reporter was reporting on. Now that's news!

(themes- good reporter, 9/11 incompetence, old news, don't look at that)

Pentagon release of security video and MSM spin

(9/11 is the way we say it was, the blogosphere is inaccurate, don't look at that, recycled news)

NSA wiretapping

(old news, wiretapping legal, leakers bad unless we do it, spying is for your own good)

Stephen Colbert (NYTimes considers it newsworthy only several days later and only as an example of what those crazy bloggers are up to)

(themes- don't look at that (silence), those crazy bloggers)

I could go on, things seem to have a way of tying in with each other- (general Hayden, immigration (spying) etc.) but I think you start to see the gist of things here.

now for my hypothesis- all this is more or less a holding manuever until they can get the internet locked down. We are no longer being ignored- we are definitely in the ridicule and fight stages. Whether we can win or not is still open to question.

some of the tactics being used are-

distraction

conflation (all bloggers (conspiracy theorists, etc.) are lumped together for dismissal) my conflation rant

straw man arguments- pick an easily demolished (and often set up and/or trivial argument to destroy, destroy it and then imply that you've proven the case that x has no validity)

and of course, spin.

Pick it apart and tell me why I'm wrong, please. That's what scientific methodology is all about. That's what you won't hear from their side of the fence.

(originally posted at Dailykos- please feel free to critique, shoot down (rationally), support, enhance, pass along, etc. It is intended as a seed article, and could easily be expanded upon. I may do that at some point, but feel free to take the initiative for yourself.)

Tags:
MSM
blogosphere-is-inaccurate
9/11
Plame-leak-case
NSA-wiretapping
net-neutrality

while I was looking for pentagon 9/11 photos

2006-05-17T06:20:00.000-07:00

I ran across this article by Christopher Dickey. Now I have no realistic hope that Newsweek will actually print my e-mail commentary, but the general gist of it was something along the lines of- "great nice strawman argument there. Loose Change quotes Hunter S. Thompson, therefore all 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" are clearly wackos. Go back to sleep America, the corporate media and the goverment have everything under control." What doesn't seem to get mentioned enough is that most of the best so called "9/11 consiracy theory sites" are actually primarily conspiracy debunking sites. The consiracy being debunked is the one about the 19 hijackers. Obviously a consiracy involved there, right? They didn't just coincidentally decide to go out and hijack 4 planes independently. So we have an official conspiracy theory palmed off as the truth of how it happened. The problem is, that particular consiracy theory has more holes in it than your average sieve. Most of the best 9/11 sites are simply pointing out those holes. Occasionally, they will attempt to offer a scenario which better fits the known facts. You know, scientific methodology? Falsifiable and testable theories? That kind of stuff. Anyway, I know I'm unlikely to ever have the blog readership to start my own personal "digital lynch mob", but sometimes I'd like to. Then again, sometimes, despite the fact that I don't believe in hell or eternal damnation, sometimes I think I might like to sit in judgement for 15 minutes or so, so that Shrub would have eternal punishment (starting immediately, but I'd have to figure out Cheney as well) in the Crawford McDonald's. "Y'all want fries with that?"

Tags:
Loose-Change
9-11
digital-lynch-mob
video
Christopher-Dickey
straw-man-arguments
debunking-the-9/11-party-line-conspiracy-theory
generally-snarky-and-self-referential-tags
self-referential-tags
go-directly-to-hell-dubya-do-not-pass-go-do-not-collect-$200M