Navy Simulated 4/6/2012 VA Beach Jet Crash Just Months Before on 12/15/2011

Author Topic: Navy Simulated 4/6/2012 VA Beach Jet Crash Just Months Before on 12/15/2011  (Read 13885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oyashango

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,524
  • 43 Trillion and counting
BREAKING: Navy Jet Reportedly Slams Into Apartments Near Virginia

04/ 6/2012 1:06 pm Updated: 04/ 6/2012 1:15 pm

A U.S. Navy jet reportedly crashed near Virginia Beach, Virginia, on Friday afternoon. CNN reports that the plane slammed into apartments, setting two on fire. reported that the plane in question was an F18 Strike fighter squadron 106.

The Associated Press reports:

    VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) -- Media reports say a Navy jet crashed in Virginia Beach and the two aviators aboard are believed to have ejected before the impact.

    There are no reports of any injuries on the ground. Photographs from the scene showed black smoke billowing from near some buildings.

    The Virginian-Pilot quoted a spokesman for Naval Air Force Atlantic who said the F/A-18 Hornet crashed Friday in the vicinity of Birdneck Road.

    A Navy spokesman reached by phone could not immediately comment. posted photos of the crash, which reportedly shut down traffic on I-264.

WTKR NewsChannel 3, a CBS affiliate, also posted photos of the crash on Facebook.

This is a breaking news update. Please stay tuned for details.

Offline oyashango

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,524
  • 43 Trillion and counting

Offline oyashango

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,524
  • 43 Trillion and counting

Offline Freebird100

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,950
I like this comment from the readers.

"wait.  isn't the plane supposed to vaporize into thin air a la pentagon attacks?"
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

Thomas Jefferson

Offline poncho

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 787
The hole ripped by the small fighter jet, is larger than the initial impact hole of what hit the pentagon... :D

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,657
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Ryujin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Remember, remember the eleventh of September....
And note, the building is still standing. I guess the planes on 9/11 must of been just loaded up with evil terrorist kerosene that burned with the rage of Allah
You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
Something is fishy here. They held a drill about a navy jet crash just a little less than 4 months BEFORE a navy jet crashes in practically the SAME location, Virginia Beach.

Navy simulates jet crash in Va. Beach

Updated: Thursday, 15 Dec 2011, 6:54 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 15 Dec 2011, 7:52 AM EST

    Leanna Caplan

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) - On Thursday, the Navy simulated a jet crash near Old Pungo Ferry Road in Virginia Beach.

The drill was organized to train Virginia Beach and Chesapeake first responders. The scenario: A navy jet is unable to make the return trip to Oceana and has crashed near Back Bay in Virginia Beach.

The goal was to develop and exercise coordination efforts between the two cities and the Navy's first responders, according to a news release from NAS Oceana.

CAPT James Webb, the CO of NAS Oceana, said, "We're totally relying on all the cooperation. The first responders have to come from the surrounding community."

The drill included numerous emergency services personnel and vehicles responding to the Navy's fire trainer, which was placed in the parking lot of the old Capt. George's restaurant.

"There are specific responder issues in dealing with aircraft that they wouldn't normally face," NAS Oceana Dist. Fire Chief Kenneth Snyder said.

Like unexploded ordinance and extremely flammable composite materials.

NAS Oceana personnel practice at least annually for the potential of a military aircraft crash, and the drill often involves the city's first responders, but this is the first time a drill will involve both Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<


  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,830
  • Commander
BREAKING: Navy Jet Reportedly Slams Into Apartments Near Virginia

04/ 6/2012,  1:06 pm Updated: 04/ 6/2012 1:15 pm

A U.S. Navy jet reportedly crashed near Virginia Beach, Virginia, on Friday afternoon. CNN reports that the plane slammed into apartments, setting two on fire. reported that the plane in question was an F18 Strike fighter squadron 106.

The Associated Press reports:

    VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) -- Media reports say a Navy jet crashed in Virginia Beach and the two aviators aboard are believed to have ejected before the impact.

    There are no reports of any injuries on the ground. Photographs from the scene showed black smoke billowing from near some buildings.

    The Virginian-Pilot quoted a spokesman for Naval Air Force Atlantic who said the F/A-18 Hornet crashed Friday in the vicinity of Birdneck Road.

    A Navy spokesman reached by phone could not immediately comment. posted photos of the crash, which reportedly shut down traffic on I-264.

WTKR NewsChannel 3, a CBS affiliate, also posted photos of the crash on Facebook.

This is a breaking news update. Please stay tuned for details.

Something is fishy here. They held a drill about a navy jet crash just a little less than 4 months BEFORE a navy jet crashes in practically the SAME location, Virginia Beach.

Navy simulates jet crash in Va. Beach

Updated: Thursday, 15 Dec 2011, 6:54 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 15 Dec 2011, 7:52 AM EST

    Leanna Caplan

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) - On Thursday, the Navy simulated a jet crash near Old Pungo Ferry Road in Virginia Beach.

The drill was organized to train Virginia Beach and Chesapeake first responders. The scenario: A navy jet is unable to make the return trip to Oceana and has crashed near Back Bay in Virginia Beach.

The goal was to develop and exercise coordination efforts between the two cities and the Navy's first responders, according to a news release from NAS Oceana.

CAPT James Webb, the CO of NAS Oceana, said, "We're totally relying on all the cooperation. The first responders have to come from the surrounding community."

The drill included numerous emergency services personnel and vehicles responding to the Navy's fire trainer, which was placed in the parking lot of the old Capt. George's restaurant.

"There are specific responder issues in dealing with aircraft that they wouldn't normally face," NAS Oceana Dist. Fire Chief Kenneth Snyder said.

Like unexploded ordinance and extremely flammable composite materials.

NAS Oceana personnel practice at least annually for the potential of a military aircraft crash, and the drill often involves the city's first responders, but this is the first time a drill will involve both Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.

How the hell was this not done deliberately?
Automatic User Post Signature:
The message has to be put out in the right way.
Website Still Needs to be updated ||

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802

How the hell was this not done deliberately?

What are the odds that a navy jet would actually crash in nearly an identical location in only a few months after the simulation? I don't believe it was a coincidence.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

July 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat From Inside the US
NORAD is already planning for the Amalgam Virgo 02 exercise. This exercise, scheduled for June 2002, will involve the simulation of two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. One plane, a Delta 757, flown by Delta pilots, will fly from Salt Lake City, Utah to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. It will be “hijacked” by FBI agents posing as terrorists. The other plane will be a Navy C-9 bound from Oak Harbor, Washington to Vancouver, British Columbia, and will be “hijacked” by Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On both planes, military personnel will act as civilian passengers. US and Canadian fighters are to respond, and either force the planes to land or simulate shooting them down. Describing Amalgam Virgo 02 to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD’s Major General Craig McKinley later says, “Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.” About 1,500 people will participate in the exercise. USA Today will note that this is an exception to NORAD’s claim that, prior to 9/11, it focused only on external threats to the US and did not consider the possibility of threats arising from within the US. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste will similarly comment that this planned exercise shows that, despite frequent comments to the contrary, the military considered simultaneous hijackings before 9/11. [CNN, 6/4/2002; American Forces Press Service, 6/4/2002; Associated Press, 6/5/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; USA Today, 4/18/2004]

Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building
A mass casualty exercise, involving a practice evacuation, is held at the Pentagon. General Lance Lord of US Air Force Space Command, one of the participants in the exercises, later recalls: “[It was] purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building.” Lord will also say that on 9/11, “our assembly points were fresh in our minds” thanks to this practice. [Air Force Space Command News Service, 9/5/2002]

August 15, 2001: Army to Limit Public Access to Bases Around Washington
The US Army is preparing to severely restrict public access to its posts in the Washington, DC area. For decades, visitors have been able to enter these bases freely. But now, as a probably permanent change, barriers will be erected across many roads leading into them, funneling traffic to a few roads staffed by guards. Drivers entering without proper registration will be sent to a visitor’s center to obtain a guest pass. [Washington Post, 8/15/2001] The new measures will mean commanders know who is entering their installations 24 hours a day, and give them the capability to adjust security measures immediately if required. [MDW News Service, 8/3/2001] The changes will occur at all installations belonging to the Military District of Washington (MDW). [MDW News Service, 7/2001] These include forts Hamilton, Meade, Belvoir, Ritchie, Myer, and McNair. Several of these bases will be reported as having implemented the changes in the following weeks, prior to September 11 (see August 20, 2001)(see September 4, 2001)(see September 5, 2001). Whether the changes take place at the other MDW installations prior to 9/11 is unknown. Part of MDW’s stated mission is to “respond to crisis, disaster or security requirements in the National Capital Region through implementation of various contingency plans.” [Military District of Washington, 8/2000; GlobalSecurity (.org), 11/28/2001] It will therefore be much involved with the rescue and recovery efforts following the 9/11 Pentagon attack. [Army, 10/2004] The restriction of access to MDW posts stems from guidance from Army leadership and specifically from MDW Commander Maj. Gen. James Jackson. [MDW News Service, 7/2001] It is reportedly part of a nationwide security clampdown due to concerns about terrorism, following such attacks as the Oklahoma City bombing and the attack on the USS Cole. [Washington Post, 8/15/2001]

Mid-August-September 11, 2001: New York Air National Guard Unit in Saudi Arabia as Part of Operation Southern Watch
About 100 members of the 174th Fighter Wing, part of the New York Air National Guard, are deployed to Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, to patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, as part of the ongoing Operation Southern Watch. This is the unit’s second deployment there, its first having been in March 2001. [Post-Standard (Syracuse), 9/11/2001; Post-Standard (Syracuse), 9/12/2001; US Congress, 3/1/2005; 174th Fighter Wing, 12/9/2005] The 174th FW is located at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base, five miles north of Syracuse, in Central New York State. It is currently equipped with 17 F-16 fighters. These are kept in a six-bay shelter where they are, reportedly, “ready to fly in any weather, at a moment’s notice.” [Airman, 1/2001; Post-Standard (Syracuse), 9/25/2001; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/26/2005] However, Hancock Field is not one of NORAD’s two “alert” sites in the northeast US. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] The unit has 350 full-time staff and 650 part-timers, who work one weekend each month plus two full weeks a year. [Post-Standard (Syracuse), 9/25/2001; Post-Standard (Syracuse), 10/24/2001] The 100 members of the unit who go to Saudi Arabia are due to arrive back at Hancock Field at around 3 p.m. on 9/11, but as a consequence of the day’s events are diverted to Canada. [Post-Standard (Syracuse), 9/14/2001] They will eventually arrive back at the base on September 14. [Post-Standard (Syracuse), 9/15/2001] In the months after 9/11, 174th FW fighters are involved in flying combat air patrols over New York City. [Post-Standard (Syracuse), 12/8/2001; New York State, 3/26/2003]

August 20, 2001: Fort Meade Increases Base Security
Fort Meade, a US Army installation located between Baltimore and Washington, DC, begins strict new entrance restrictions. For decades, visitors such as churchgoers and parents taking their children to schools on the base have been able to enter the post freely. But the Army is now closing seven access points, with only four points remaining open full time and four others part time. The restrictions, part of a security crackdown ordered by Army leaders concerned about terrorism, will require visitors to stop at a visitor’s center and obtain a day pass allowing them to enter and travel on the base. [Washington Post, 8/15/2001; Laurel Leader, 8/23/2001; Laurel Leader, 8/23/2001] Fort Meade is home to about 10,000 military personnel and 25,000 civilian employees. Its major tenant units include the National Security Agency (NSA), the US Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), and the US Air Force’s 694th Intelligence Group. [Military District of Washington, 8/2000; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/9/2002] All other installations in the Military District of Washington are currently implementing similar access restrictions (see August 15, 2001). [MDW News Service, 7/2001]

August 27-31, 2001: Power Failure at Washington Medical Center Helps Prepare 9/11 Response
Walter Reed Army Medical Center. [Source: US Army]
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, DC suffers a four-day power loss following an electrical transformer fire on August 27. Backup generators ensure patient care is minimally affected, but as a precaution 77 of the hospital’s roughly 100 patients are moved to other facilities until it regains full power. Most go to the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) in Bethesda. According to Capt. Tom Sizemore, the acting commander of the NNMC, precautionary measures are necessary due to the size of the patient transfer. So on August 28 he sets the hospital into a mass casualty condition. Usually such a condition is only set in response to a major incident with many seriously injured people. Sizemore says, “This most unfortunate opportunity has provided NNMC with a very special opportunity. We were able to exercise our response system, with real patients, but (thank God) not with patients involved in some mass disaster.” [Stripe, 8/31/2001; Bethesda Journal, 9/6/2001; Stripe, 9/6/2001; Office of Medical History, 9/2004, pp. 146] Walter Reed is about six miles from the Pentagon, and its ambulance teams will respond to the attack there on September 11. Many believe that coping with the power failure helps prepare them for this. One member of staff later says, “A lot of the procedures that we used in the September 11 tragedy, we had just come out of this power loss where we had implemented a lot of what we did. We had good procedures in place that we had already just executed. It was really eerie.” [NurseWeek, 9/17/2001; Office of Medical History, 9/2004, pp. 145-146] A similar incident also occurs around this time at DeWitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir, an army base roughly 12 miles south of the Pentagon. The details of this are unspecified. [Stripe, 9/20/2001] Ambulance teams from DeWitt will also be involved in the emergency response to the Pentagon attack. [Office of Medical History, 9/2004, pp. i]

Late August-Early December 2001: Fighters from Langley Air Force Base Deployed to Iceland for Operation Northern Guardian
In late August 2001, two-thirds of the 27th Fighter Squadron are sent overseas. Six of the squadron’s fighters and 115 people go to Turkey to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. Another six fighters and 70 people are sent to Iceland to participate in “Operation Northern Guardian.” The fighter groups will not return to Langley until early December. [Flyer, 7/1/2003] (Note that the word “operation” specifies that Operation Northern Guardian and Northern Watch are not exercises, but actual military actions or missions. [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 4/23/1998 ; US Department of Defense, 11/30/2004] ) Operation Northern Guardian is based at Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland, the host command for the NATO base in that country. The US sometimes assists Iceland with extra military forces in reaction to Russian military maneuvers in the region. Approximately 1,800 US military personnel and 100 Defense Department civilians are involved. [GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/9/2002; Flyer, 6/4/2004; Iceland Defense Force, 6/30/2004] The 27th is one of three F-15 fighter squadrons that make up the 1st Fighter Wing, the “host unit” at Langley Air Force Base in Langley, Virginia. The other two are the 71st and 94th Fighter Squadrons. [Langley Air Force Base, 11/2003; GlobalSecurity (.org), 8/2/2004] Langley is one of two “alert” sites that can be called upon by NORAD for missions in the northeast region of the US. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Langley’s 71st Fighter Squadron also participates in Operation Northern Watch and Operation Northern Guardian at some (unstated) time during 2001. [Air Combat Command News Service, 6/13/2002] Whether this deployment of fighters diminishes Langley’s ability to respond on 9/11 is unknown. However, Air Force units are cycled through deployments like operations Northern and Southern Watch by the Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) Center, which is at Langley Air Force Base. [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 4/23/1998 ; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/26/2005] And according to NORAD Commander Larry Arnold, “Prior to Sept. 11, we’d been unsuccessful in getting the AEF Center to be responsible for relieving our air defense units when they went overseas.” [Filson, 2004, pp. 99]

Entity Tags: 27th Fighter Squadron, Operation Northern Guardian, Operation Northern Watch, US Department of Defense, 71st Fighter Squadron, 94th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base,
August 31, 2001: Transportation Department Holds Plane Hijacking Exercise
A tabletop exercise is held at the Department of Transportation (DOT) in Washington, DC, as part of its preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. According to Ellen Engleman, the administrator of the DOT’s Research and Special Programs Administration, this is “actually much more than a tabletop” exercise, though she does not explain how. She will later recount, “During that exercise, part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially hijacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event [of 9/11].” [Mineta Transportation Institute, 10/30/2001, pp. 108] Further details of this exercise are unknown. The DOT’s Crisis Management Center will be heavily involved in the 9/11 crisis response, acting as a focal point for the transportation response to the attacks (see 9:00 a.m. September 11, 2001).

September 4, 2001: Army Restricts Access to Fort Belvoir
The Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters Complex at Fort Belvoir. [Source: US Army] (click image to enlarge)
The US Army sharply restricts public access to Fort Belvoir, one of its installations about 12 miles south of the Pentagon. After being an open post for over 25 years, Belvoir has now erected barriers across many of the roads leading into it, leaving only six guarded gates as points of entry and exit. Twenty access points are being permanently closed. Visitors must now register their vehicles at a visitor’s center or get a day pass to enter the base. [MDW News Service, 7/2001; Washington Post, 8/15/2001] The access restrictions will allow commanders to know who is entering the base 24 hours a day and adjust security measures immediately if needed. [MDW News Service, 8/3/2001] All other Military District of Washington (MDW) installations are implementing similar changes, due to Army concerns about terrorism (see August 15, 2001). Fort Belvoir has about 20,000 workers and is home to many different agencies, including the US Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), plus the headquarters of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Technical Information Service. [Military District of Washington, 8/2000; Washington Post, 8/15/2001; GlobalSecurity (.org), 10/21/2001] Occupying over 500 acres at Belvoir is Davison Army Airfield. The 12th Aviation Battalion, which is MDW’s aviation-support unit, is stationed at Davison. This operates UH1 “Huey” and UH60 Black Hawk helicopters in support of training and “contingencies” for various MDW units. [Military District of Washington, 8/2000; GlobalSecurity (.org), 1/5/2002] The Washington Post has reported, “Fort Belvoir will be holding exercises the next two Tuesdays to test the changes” in access to the base. [Washington Post, 8/15/2001] This will therefore include September 11 (a Tuesday). Other reports will confirm an antiterrorism exercise being conducted at Belvoir on 9/11 (see 8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001).

September 5, 2001: US Army Bases Implement ‘Full Access Control’
Fort Myer and Fort Lesley J. McNair, both within two miles of the Pentagon, implement “full access control,” which means they increase the level of military police surveillance of those who enter them. Visitors are now required to register and sign in at a visitor center, and obtain a temporary pass. The measures, part of a security crackdown due to concerns about terrorism, will allow commanders to know who is entering their installations 24 hours a day and adjust their security measures immediately as needed. [MDW News Service, 8/3/2001; Washington Post, 8/15/2001] All other Army posts in the Washington, DC area are currently implementing similar access restrictions (see August 15, 2001).

September 8, 2001: High Level Air Force Discussions Call for Dismantling NORAD’s Alert Sites
The future of “continental air sovereignty” over America is in doubt. Discussions at the Air Force’s highest levels call for the dismantling of NORAD’s seven “alert” sites around the US and its command and control structure. [Filson, 2004, pp. 149] Earlier in the summer of 2001, “a reduction in air defenses had been gaining currency in recent months among task forces assigned by [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld to put together recommendations for a reassessment of the military.”(see Summer 2001)

September 9-11, 2001: NORAD Begins Northern Vigilance Military Operation
NORAD begins Operation Northern Vigilance. For this military operation, it deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Arctic and North Pacific Ocean, scheduled for September 10 to September 14. The Russian exercise involves its bombers staging a mock attack against NATO planes that are supposedly planning an assault on Russia. [BBC, 2001, pp. 161; NORAD, 9/9/2001; Washington Times, 9/11/2001] The NORAD fighters are due to stay in Alaska and Canada until the end of the Russian exercise. At some time between 10:32 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. on 9/11, Russian President Vladimir Putin will call the White House to say the Russians are voluntarily halting their exercise. [Washington Post, 1/27/2002] It is unknown from which bases NORAD sends fighters for Operation Northern Vigilance, and how many US military personnel are involved. However, in December 2000, it took similar action—called Operation Northern Denial—in response to a “smaller scale” Russian “long-range aviation activity in northern Russia and the Arctic.” More than 350 American and Canadian military personnel were involved on that occasion. [Canadian Chief of Defense Staff, 5/30/2001, pp. 6 ; NORAD, 9/9/2001]

Before September 11, 2001: US Government Prepares for Hijackings, Some of Them Involving Multiple-Planes
Based on interviews with FBI officials, the New Yorker reports that, for several years prior to 9/11, the US government plans for “simulated terrorist attacks, including scenarios [involving] multiple-plane hijackings.” This presumably refers to more than just the Amalgam Virgo 02 exercise (see July 2001), which is based on the scenario of two planes being simultaneously hijacked. [New Yorker, 9/24/2001] Similarly, NORAD will state that before 9/11, it normally conducted four major exercises each year at headquarters level. Most of them included a hijack scenario, and some of them were apparently quite similar to the 9/11 attacks (see Between 1991 and 2001) (see 1999-September 11, 2001). [USA Today, 4/18/2004; CNN, 4/19/2004] John Arquilla, an associate professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, later says that while “No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks against major buildings… the idea of such an attack was well known, [and] had been war gamed as a possibility in exercises before Sept. 11.” [Monterey County Herald, 7/18/2002]

Early Morning September 11, 2001: Medic Is Studying Medical Emergency Disaster Plan for Plane Crash at Pentagon
Sergeant Matt Rosenberg, an army medic at the Pentagon, is studying “a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001] The day before, Rosenberg later recalls in an interview with the Office of Medical History, he called the FBI with questions about who would have medical jurisdiction if such an event were to take place. “Believe it or not, the day prior to the incident, I was just on the phone with the FBI, and we were talking ‘so who has command should this happen, who has the medical jurisdiction, who does this, who does that,’ and we talked about it and talked about it, and he helped me out a lot. And then the next day, during the incident, I actually found him. He was out there on the incident that day.” [Office of Medical History, 9/2004, pp. 9]

(6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001: NORAD on Alert for Emergency Exercises
NORAD’s war room in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado [Source: Val Gempis]
Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins and other day shift employees at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, start their workday. NORAD is conducting a week-long, large-scale exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Deskins is regional mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise. [ABC News, 9/11/2002] Vigilant Guardian is described as “an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide”; as a “simulated air war”; and as “an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.” According to the 9/11 Commission, it “postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.” [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; Filson, 2004, pp. 55 and 122; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 458] Vigilant Guardian is described as being held annually, and is one of NORAD’s four major annual exercises. [GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002; Filson, 2004, pp. 41; Arkin, 2005, pp. 545] However, another report says it takes place semi-annually. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] Accounts by participants vary on whether 9/11 was the second, third, or fourth day of the exercise. [Code One Magazine, 1/2002; Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/2002] Vigilant Guardian is a command post exercise (CPX), and in at least some previous years was conducted in conjunction with Stratcom’s Global Guardian exercise and a US Space Command exercise called Apollo Guardian. [US Congress, n.d.; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002; Arkin, 2005, pp. 545] All of NORAD is participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] Vanity Fair reports that the “day’s exercise” (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is “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.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] However, at NEADS, most of the dozen or so staff on the operations floor have no idea what the exercise is going to entail and are ready for anything. [Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004] NORAD is currently running a real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance (see September 9-11, 2001). It may also be conducting a field training exercise calling Amalgam Warrior this morning (see 9:28 a.m. September 11, 2001). NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command is in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported, except, apparently, its commander, General Eberhart: “The commander of NORAD works from Peterson Air Force Base, and the trip to Cheyenne Mountain can be time-consuming if traffic is bad. On Sept. 11, 2001, Colorado newspapers have reported, the commander spent 45 minutes on the road between his office at Peterson [Air Force Base] and his communications center under the mountain while the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were taking place.” [Washington Post, 7/29/2006] As to NORAD readiness, one article says, “In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on September 11.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; Bergen Record, 12/5/2003] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NEADS, says, “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/2002] However, Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise. (see (8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

No Not That Entwistle…Neil Entwistle!!
July 9, 2008

When compared to the media circus that surrounded the pretrial investigation and ultimate trial and conviction of Scott Peterson in 2005 for the murder of his wife Laci and unborn child Conner, the just concluded Neil Entwistle murder case doesn’t even register a whisper. This is very curious. The Neil Entwistle case had all the elements necessary for a media circus…a wife shot to death in her home along with her 9-month old daughter, plus an international angle where the suspect husband flees back home to England.

One would think that programs such as Nancy Grace, Anderson Cooper 360, Verdict with Dan Abrams and Larry King Live would have milked the tragedy for all it was worth as they had the Scott Peterson case or the still unsolved 2005 disappearance of Natalee Holloway in Aruba incident, but there was no coverage. This silence is a story in itself.

Except for periodic coverage of the trial on Court TV, the only mention in the media of Neil Entwistle after wife Rachel and daughter Lillian were found dead were two curt dispatches announcing Neil’s arrival back in the United States in February 2006 to stand trial, and his conviction on June 25, 2008. That’s it! What caused this self-imposed media blackout costing valuable advertising dollars? Before we get to that story, let’s first examine the many oddities that swirl around the Neil Entwistle case.

The first sign that something was amiss was Neil Entwistle’s extradition flight back to the United States. Instead of flying coach on a commercial airliner as is usual in extradition cases, Neil, in the custody of United States marshals, was "…returning to the U.S. on a private flight" according to British police.1 Hold on, though. The flight back to the United States gets even more interesting. It would seem not only were authorities in Massachusettes interested in getting Neil Entwistle back to the United States, and in a comfortable fashion no less, but so was the Central Intelligence Agency, because the "private flight" Neil flew back on was, according to former NSA officer Wayne Madsen, a "CIA Gulfstream…previously used to fly "renditioned" Al Qaeda suspects around the world."2 Madsen reports "After questions were raised [from reporters] about the use of the Gulfstream, Massachusetts authorities claimed it had merely "rented" the U.S. government’s aircraft for the sole purpose of transporting Entwistle."3 This explanation is, of course, ludicrous. Agency aircraft are not lent out. Such an action would constitute a serious security breach even if the temporary passengers were Americans.

The story gets even odder! After initially landing at "Bangor, Maine, to pass customs, [Neil Entwistle] then flew to…Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Mass."4 So instead of flying directly to Boston Logan Airport, first the CIA Gulfstream lands at Bangor, Maine to pass customs then proceeds to Hamscom Air Force Base. Of course, this round about process could have been handled more expeditiously by landing at Boston Logan Airport in the first place. Then again if Neil Entwistle had landed at Boston Logan Airport, reporters there would not have been so restrained in their coverage of his return as they would be on a military base. Madsen notes one aspect of the media’s restraint at Hamscom as "TV footage of the aircraft [CIA Gulfstream] studiously avoided showing the plane’s tail number."5

You’re probably thinking to yourself this is one strange story, and it couldn’t get any stranger. Wrong. Like a good thriller (or a bad thriller), the odyssey of Neil Entwistle goes seriously serpentine.

Madsen reports, "Entwistle’s firm, Embedded New Technologies (ENT), reportedly had connections to the Braintree, Massachusetts-based firm P-Tech, which was investigated subsequent to 911 by the FBI for ties to Muslim Brotherhood financiers linked to Al Qaeda. P-Tech also had software contracts for the FAA, NORAD, Pentagon, and White House during the 9-11 terrorist attacks."6 Well, well, well, that would certainly explain the keen interest the CIA had in Neil Entwistle.

If you remember, during the 9/11 attacks FAA radar was continuing to pick up false contacts after the NORAD war games going on that morning were called off, confusing Air Traffic Control’s response to the attacks.7 Was this the work of P-Tech who we learn had a software contract with the FAA during the 9/11 attacks? Before we answer that question, we need to know who was behind P-Tech - where did P-Tech get its financing - and how did P-Tech become such an influential provider of software to departments and agencies of the United States government?

A senior consultant to JPMorganChase and Risk, Indira Singh was tasked in April 2002 with developing a next-generation, operational, risk blueprint that "would proactively identify exposures, including money laundering, rogue trading, and illicit financing patterns."8 Indira reached out to the top people in her profession for recommendations on software companies that could assist her on the project. The responses Indira got were unanimous. P-Tech, a software company based in Quincy, Massachusetts, would fit the job Indira was told.

Indira invited representatives from P-Tech to pay a visit to her firm for a demonstration of the company’s software. When they arrived alarm bells immediately started to go off in Indira’s head. P-Tech hadn’t brought the software to the demonstration, but assured Indira that they could develop the software on the laptop they had brought with them. All they needed to do was hook onto the Internet at the workstation Indira had prepared for the demonstration. This is a serious breach of standard operating procedure in the software business, for at the end of the day, according to Indira, "he’s walking out the door and I don’t have anything and he’s walking away with pretty much enough of how we’re thinking about doing operational risk. Operational Risk is about how to spot bad things that are going on in a financial institution, things like rogue trading, money laundering, and so on and so forth."9

With the P-Tech representatives still on site, Indira excused herself and called several colleagues who had initially recommended P-Tech to her. When she informed one individual that P-Tech was on site, the individual asked why she brought them to her work place. The individual advised Indira to watch them closely. These responses were not what Indira expected, especially from individuals who had recommended P-Tech to her. And so started an eight month odyssey where Indira learned from P-Tech employees and FBI agents that P-Tech was a "cutout", "a front…a regular CIA front…"10 Indira also learned that P-Tech’s main financing came from Yassin Al-Kadi, a Saudi businessman, according to Jeff Goins, Vice President of Sales for P-Tech. With this information, Indira went online and discovered that Yassin Kadi had been placed on the FBI terror list in October, 2001.11

On June 28, 2002 Indira Singh was fired from JPMorganChase because she refused to stop investigating P-Tech and warning other businesses and clients of P-Tech’s terrorist linked financing. On December 5, 2002 U.S. Customs, FBI, IRS, Secret Service, INS and the Massachusetts State Police raided the Ouincy, Massachusetts offices of P-Tech.12 The raid, however, was a fraud. The only reason P-Tech was raided was due to the incessant and embarrassing questions Indira was asking about the company and its terrorist linked financing. After the raid P-Tech changed its name to Go Agile, and the FBI investigation fizzled out.

One can now begin to appreciate the reason for the media blackout on the Entwistle case. P-Tech was a "protected" company used by elements within the United States intelligence community. P-Tech’s software allowed the United States intelligence community to manipulate computer networks, such as placing phantom radar contacts on FAA radar monitors during the 9/11 attacks. Just the type of work Entwistle was involved with according to the latest from Wayne Madsen:

"[Madsen] has recently learned from knowledgeable U.S. Intelligence Community sources that Entwistle's contract for P-Tech involved "wiring backdoors" into the computer systems of the FAA, NORAD, Pentagon, and White House to bring about the operational collapse of the computer systems during the morning of 9/11."13

So did Neil Entwistle kill his wife? The forensic evidence supports what Neil Entwistle and defense council maintained at the trial, that Rachel Entwistle murdered her nine-month old child and then killed herself. The police found no gunshot residue in Neil’s car,15 but did find gunshot residue on Rachel’s hands.16

So why did Neil Entwistle flee to England? If he was innocent, certainly fleeing the country is a good indicator that he was guilty, one might conclude. Fleeing the scene of a crime, or the country where the crime was committed, is not proof of guilt. For instance, an innocent individual who witnessed a murder but didn’t know the murder victim, or an innocent individual that witnessed a murder and did knew the victim, but knows that the authorities would have no reason to believe he/she witnessed the murder, flee such crime scenes all the time, and usually do so because the witness doesn’t want to be wrongly implicated in the crime. Running in this instance, however, would present more problems for Neil Entwistle than remaining to face the authorities’ questions. Since Neil Entwistle was the husband and father of the victims, there is every reason for the authorities to suspect that he was the murderer, and therefore there would be no good reason for him to run if he didn’t want to compound the authorities’ suspicions.


Unless you worked for a terrorist funded software company that sabotaged the United States defense computer network on September 11, 2001, thereby resulting in the deaths of 3,000 individuals. With such knowledge, and now with the spotlight thrown on you thanks to your wife’s suicide and the murder of your baby, you might get the feeling that someone out there may try to silence you, not necessarily because they think you will give something away, but because you might give something away, either knowingly or unknowingly. The mere fact that the spotlight is on you would be enough reason in itself to silence you, because now you are widely known to have been associated with a company that was raided by the FBI for alleged terrorist connections, a company that provided key software to several government agencies that inexplicably failed to protect the nation on the morning of 9/11. That spotlight bathing you would make a lot of people nervous. One can therefore understand how Neil Entwistle would feel safer back home in England.

Ironically enough the dearth of media attention in the Neil Entwistle case may afford him better prospects in a new trial. If Neil Entwistle does get a new trial, let it not take place in Middlesex. Emotions there are just too high to afford Neil Entwistle a fair and impartial hearing.

One final note. What of the adult websites Neil Entwistle visited days before the deaths of Rachel and Lillian?17 Well, before you jump to conclusions, could Neil Entwistle have been encoding those sites for the FBI? You find that difficult to believe? Then why didn’t the prosecution present the witnesses that Neil Entwistle had extramarital relationships with? Those witnesses would have been quite easy to find. The reason no such witnesses were presented by the prosecution is because Neil Entwistle wasn’t trolling those websites for personnel reasons. He was literally on the job when he was in those adult websites!
3. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
When terrorist attacks and wargames coincide

11 min - May 28, 2007 -  (26 ratings)

9/11 Wargames WTC Exercise AMALGAM VIRGO tripod vigilante

5 min - Jun 22, 2007 -  (14 ratings)

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney confronts Rumsfeld and Myers

8 min - Sep 16, 2006 -  (46 ratings)

Amalgam Virgo 01 - Wargame from June 1-2-2001

5 min - Jul 4, 2007 -  (7 ratings)

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Multiple NORAD/NRO Exercises in 1999/2000
Planes Crash into NYC Skyscrapers

Here is my latest blog entry, with some important, previously unreported information on some pre-9/11 NORAD exercises that bore a chilling resemblance to the 9/11 attacks. NORAD practiced scenarios based around planes being used as weapons, with intended targets including the UN headquarters (a skyscraper in New York), the White House, and the Statue of Liberty. The original posting, with links to sources, is at, here:
Or on my own blog, here:

NORAD Exercise a Year Before 9/11 Simulated a Pilot Trying to Crash a Plane into a New York Skyscraper--The United Nation Headquarters

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) held a major training exercise in October 2000 that included the scenario of a person stealing a large jet plane, which they planned to crash into the United Nations headquarters building--a 39-story high-rise in New York, just a few miles away from the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a NORAD exercise in June that year included one scenario in which a plane was hijacked with the intention of crashing it into the White House, and another in which a transcontinental flight was hijacked with the intention of crashing the plane into the Statue of Liberty, only a short distance from where the WTC stood.

The existence of these exercise scenarios was revealed in August 2004 by General Richard Myers, at that time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) asked, "Did NORAD"-- the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace--"conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target?" In response, Myers outlined "five exercise hijack events" that NORAD had practiced for between November 1999 and October 2000, which all "included a suicide crash into a high-value target." [1] Yet the details of these chilling scenarios, which were like premonitions of the attacks on New York and Washington that lay ahead, failed to receive the public attention they deserved.

The scenario that included an attempt to crash a plane into the UN headquarters was practiced for twice--on October 16 and October 23, 2000--as part of an exercise called Vigilant Guardian. This annual exercise was conducted by NORAD, and all of the organization, including its headquarters and its three air defense sectors in the continental United States, participated. [2]

The scenario practiced for on October 16 was that, "Due to recent arrests involving illegal drug trafficking in Maine, an individual steals a Federal Express plane and plans a suicide attack into the United Nations building in New York City." The October 23 scenario, according to Myers's summary, was almost identical. It was based around "weapons of mass destruction directed at the United Nations," and in it, "an individual steals a Federal Express aircraft and plans a suicide attack on the United Nations building in New York City." [3] (At the time of this exercise, Federal Express was flying mostly the MD-11 and the DC-10, both large jet aircraft. Presumably one of those planes was the type considered in the scenarios. [4])

The next Vigilant Guardian--for the year 2001--was actually being conducted at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred. [5] One can only imagine what NORAD personnel must have thought when the real-world events of September 11 so closely resembled a scenario they had encountered in the previous instance of that day's exercise--a suicide pilot trying to crash a large jet plane into a New York skyscraper.

On June 5, 2000, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR) was conducting an exercise called Falcon Indian, in which its three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part. [6] Two scenarios were practiced for that day in which hijackers planned to crash an aircraft into a well-known, "high-value" target in New York or Washington.

One scenario involved a Learjet being hijacked, and "maintaining tight formation with [a] Canadair airliner, loaded with explosives," according to Myers's summary. (It is unclear from that summary whether it was the Learjet or the Canadair plane that had explosives on board.) The hijackers "planned to crash" the Learjet "into the White House." In the other scenario, a "Communist Party faction" hijacked an aircraft bound from the western to the eastern United States. The hijackers had "high explosives on board," and intended "to crash into the Statue of Liberty." [7]

The fifth scenario Myers described was from an earlier Falcon Indian, held in November 1999. Again, NORAD's three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part in the CONR exercise. And, again, the exercise included a scenario based around the hijacking of a transcontinental aircraft flying from the western to the eastern United States. In the simulation, a China Airlines plane bound from Los Angeles to JFK International Airport in New York was "hijacked east of Colorado Springs by five terrorists." If the plane was not intercepted by the U.S. military, the hijackers intended "to crash into [the] United Nations building." [8]

Just a few months before Richard Myers revealed the existence of these five exercise scenarios, USA Today and CNN reported that NORAD had conducted exercises in the years before 9/11 that simulated hijackers crashing aircraft into buildings in the United States. Some of the scenarios that had been practiced for were described. It is unclear whether any of them correspond with the five later outlined by Myers, although, from what has been reported, it appears they were separate scenarios, additional to those in Myers's list.

USA Today reported that "in the two years before the September 11 attacks," NORAD conducted exercises simulating "hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." In one exercise, "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center." Another exercise involved fighter jets performing "a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States." These two scenarios were included in "regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises," according to NORAD, and the planes in the simulations were coming from a foreign country, rather than from within the U.S. [9]

CNN reported, "Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of [a] training exercise scenario." That scenario involved the airliner "being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad." The exercise "was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the [NORAD] headquarters." The identity of the building hit by the aircraft was classified, but military officials said that it "would be recognizable if identified, but was not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon." [10]

How could it have happened that the organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace repeatedly practiced scenarios that so closely resembled the 9/11 attacks in the years leading up to those attacks? And considering that the existence of these plane-into-building training scenarios has largely gone unreported, might there have been other, similar scenarios practiced for by NORAD--or other U.S. military organizations--that we do not yet know of? A new investigation into 9/11 is clearly urgently required. And the role of these training scenarios is one of many aspects of the attacks that must be thoroughly examined.

[1] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., August 17, 2004.
[2] Ibid.; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[3] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[4] Greg Schneider, "FedEx to Buy 10 Airbus Super-Jumbo Jets." Washington Post, January 17, 2001.
[5] William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 545.
[6] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community; William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 362.
[7] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons." USA Today, April 18, 2004.
[10] Barbara Starr, "NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building." CNN, April 19, 2004.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
NWO-Please spy on this forum so that you know that everybody knows how you did 911

From Anti-Illuminati years ago...


                                                                                                               Alexander H. Levis, Director, System Architectures Laboratory, Co-Scientist with Dr, Hussein Ibrahim, Ptech, Artificial Intelligence, False Flag terrorism Engineering, (called Effects Based Operations).
160 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Topic#: (800) 747-5608
Hussein Ibrahim

AF 00-116
Title: Advanced C2 Process Modeling and Requirements Analysis Technology
Abstract: This effort will demonstrate the ability to develop an innovative C2 investment decision support system. The objective system springs from a completely original conceptualization of the problem. It will support "product and process modeling of integrated operational and system architectures" and will produce results that can be used within the Air Force spiral development process, C2 management philosophy, and PPBS. This system will improve access to mathematically rigorous, token-based architecture by orders of magnitude. Ptech and George Mason University's System Architectures Laboratory will integrate object oriented C2 architecture modeling and a Discrete Event System model to construct a software system that can: - Synthesize Colored Petri Nets from a set of object oriented products. We will develop and employ a file-based interface between Ptech's FrameWork modeling environment and Design/CPN.- Verify the logical soundness and behaviors of architectures by executing the models and using token-based, state space and behavioral analysis techniques against an agreed set of measures. -Report results in a variety of agreed graphical and textual formats. This Phase I effort includes early proof-of-concept demonstrations to enable the Team to gain favorable position for development funding or approval for FAST TRACK funding.

Publications: Conference Papers (Look at the titles of what they've worked on.) One of the documents in there from 1995 I think looked like they were wargaming a martial law scenario with their software.  It's all highly technical stuff that is beyond anything I can understand, but with some of it, you can get a general idea of what they're doing.  Seems to me what we have here is Ptech AI being used to calculate the most efficient way to overthrow the U.S. with staged avian flu pandemic, and cyber attacks carried out by Northcom/Booz Allen Hamilton; to be blamed on "homeland hackers", or Russians, or the Chinese,, and kill us as as efficiently as possible.  Well, now it's algorithms are going to have to factor in the fact that this is now public.]
See below link for full embedded links sources.

Captain Charles Leidig. [Source: US Navy]

Profile: Charles Leidig
Charles Leidig was a participant or observer in the following events:
8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Rookie in Command of the NMCC

Captain Charles Leidig, the deputy for Command Center operations at the NMCC, takes over temporarily from Brigadier General Montague Winfield and is effectively in charge of NMCC during the 9/11 crisis. Winfield had requested the previous day that Leidig stand in for him on September 11. Leidig had started his role as Deputy for Command Center Operations two months earlier and had qualified to stand in for Winfield just the previous month. Leidig remains in charge from a few minutes before the 9/11 crisis begins until about 10:30 a.m., after the last hijacked plane crashes. He presides over an important crisis response teleconference that has a very slow start, not even beginning until 9:39 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004

Brigadier General Montague Winfield. [Source: US Army]

(Shortly After 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: NMCC Commander Concludes US is Under Attack, Yet Does Not Retake Charge of Center

Brigadier General Montague Winfield, commander of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), the Pentagon’s emergency response center, later says, “When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States.” [ABC News, 9/14/2002] For unknown reasons, Winfield had stepped down from his usual position at 8:30 a.m., and allowed Captain Charles Leidig to temporarily take his place as deputy director for operations in the NMCC (see 8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001).

[9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004 pdf file] Post 9/11 news reports will give the impression that Winfield remained in the NMCC throughout the course of the attacks, and was aware of the unfolding events. None of them will mention him ever having left the center. [CNN, 9/4/2002; ABC News, 9/11/2002] Yet, despite concluding that the US is suffering a “coordinated terrorist attack,” Winfield allows Leidig to continue as his stand-in, and does not take over from him and resume charge of the center until shortly after Flight 93 has crashed. This would presumably be around 10:15-10:30 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
(9:29 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Pentagon Command Center Begins High Level Conference Call

The National Military Command Center, inside the Pentagon. [Source: National Military Command Center]

Captain Charles Leidig is temporarily in command of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), “the military’s worldwide nerve center.” In response to the attacks on the World Trade Center, he convenes a conference call. [CNN, 9/4/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004 pdf file] Telephone links are established between the NMCC located inside the Pentagon (but on the opposite side of the building from where the explosion will happen), Canada’s equivalent Command Center, Strategic Command, theater commanders, and federal emergency-response agencies. At one time or another, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, key military officers, leaders of the FAA and NORAD, the White House, and Air Force One are heard on the open line.

[Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] NORAD command director Captain Michael Jellinek claims this call was initiated “at once” after the second WTC tower was hit. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] However, the 9/11 Commission concludes it starts at 9:29 a.m. According to the commission, it begins as an all-purpose “significant event” conference. But at 9:30, Leidig states that it has just been confirmed that Flight 11 is still airborne and is heading toward Washington, DC. (This incorrect information apparently arose minutes earlier during a conference call between FAA centers (see 9:21 a.m. September 11, 2001).) In response to this erroneous report, the significant event conference is ended at around 9:34. It then resumes at about 9:37 as an air threat conference call, which lasts for more than eight hours. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 37] This is broadcast over a loudspeaker inside the NMCC. [US News and World Report, 8/31/2003] Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who later takes over from Leidig in charge of the NMCC, says, “All of the governmental agencies that were involved in any activity going on in the United States at that point, were in that conference.” [ABC News, 9/11/2002] The call continues right through the Pentagon explosion; the impact is not felt within the NMCC. [CNN, 9/4/2002] However, despite being in the Pentagon when it is hit, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld doesn’t enter the NMCC or participate in the call until 10:30 a.m. (see (10:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

9:39 a.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Is Wanted at Pentagon Teleconference but Cannot Be Reached

This picture of Rumsfeld (center), taken from the US Army website, is captioned, “Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld returns to Pentagon inner offices Tuesday morning after surveying the damage from the hijacked plane which crashed into the building moments before.” This contradicts his claim that he was helping victims for nearly an hour after the attack. However, there is video footage of Rumsfeld helping a person on a stretcher and it is not known when this picture is taken exactly. [Source: US Army]

Captain Charles Leidig, a deputy who is temporarily in charge of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC), is handling the NMCC’s crisis teleconference. He opens the call saying, “An air attack against North America may be in progress.” He mentions reports of a crash into the opposite side of the Pentagon, and requests that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld be added to the conference. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004 pdf file] Rumsfeld has a crucial role to play in coordinating the military response to an attack on the US.

According to journalist and author Andrew Cockburn, since the Cold War, “In an age when an enemy attack might allow only a few minutes for detection and reaction, control of American military power became vested in the National Command Authority, which consists of the president and the secretary of defense. Collectively, the NCA is the ultimate source of military orders, uniquely empowered, among other things, to order the use of nuclear weapons. In time of war, therefore, Rumsfeld was effectively the president’s partner, the direct link to the fighting forces, and all orders had to go through him. Such orders were supposed to be transmitted from… the National Military Command Center.” Cockburn adds that the NMCC is “the operational center for any and every crisis, from nuclear war to hijacked airliners.”

Yet, rather than join the NMCC conference, Rumsfeld has already gone out of the Pentagon to see the crash site, without telling any of his command staff where he was going, and remains out of contact for some time (see Between 9:38 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. September 11, 2001). Therefore, a few minutes after Leidig makes his request, Rumsfeld’s office will report back that he is nowhere to be found. Cockburn concludes, “The chain of command was broken.” [Cockburn, 2007, pp. 4-5; Democracy Now!, 3/7/2007] It is unknown whether Rumsfeld has a cell phone or pager on him, and if so, why he cannot be reached.

9:44 a.m. September 11, 2001: NMCC Conference Thinks Flight 1989, Not Flight 93, Is Fourth Hijack

NORAD briefs the NMCC teleconference on the possible hijacking of Delta Flight 1989. Four minutes later, a representative from the White House bunker containing Vice President Cheney asks if there are any indications of other hijacked planes. Captain Charles Leidig, temporarily in charge of the NMCC, mentions the Delta Flight and comments, “that would be the fourth possible hijack.” Flight 1989 is in the same general Ohio region as Flight 93, but NORAD doesn’t scramble fighters toward either plane at this time. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part V: Powell, Armitage and the Secret Service

“Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Lima, Peru, attending a meeting of the Organization of American States when he received word of the [9/11] attacks. He immediately cut his trip short and boarded a government aircraft for the seven-hour flight back to Washington. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff understood and appreciated the advantage the U.S. enjoyed over most nations when it came to the advanced electronics and communications capabilities. The former Army General had put his name on various Pentagon war-fighting manuals that outlined the Department’s commitment to what the military called “network-centric warfare” and “information superiority.” He had even written an article in Byte Magazine in 1992 titled “Personal Computer Technology May Determine the Outcome of Future Conflicts.” But what really made Powell’s experience on September 11 unique was his understanding and continued devotion to the military’s decision cycle, known as the OODA loop.”

Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism
Chapter Seven : 9/11: The Cyber-terrorist Attack

(Link was incomplete)


“Seated in the White House Vice President Cheney was in command of America's defence response to the hijacking attacks on 911. Once the World Trade Centre was hit why did Cheney, a former Defense Secretary himself under the previous Bush administration, contact Richard Armitage the most senior State Department official in the country at the time, but not Air Force General Richard Myers, the most senior military officer in the country at the time?”

See also

According to the activist group Voices from the Wilderness: 'Armitage has also been routinely exposed as a Bush-era covert functionary who has been linked to covert operations, drug smuggling and the expansion of organized crime operations in Russia, Central Asia and the Far East.'


"So what was the UK's 'national security adviser' doing in America on Sept 11? Was his visit prompted by the terrorist threat that Tony Blair now confirms 'everybody knew' was being planned? Despite his de facto status as Blair's special envoy on foreign affairs and security matters the US State Department appointment records show no scheduled meetings for Manning with Secretary Powell himself during the days immediately prior to the attacks. Those records do, however, show that he was meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on September 10th. Armitage is second in command to Colin Powell who left for a trip to Peru later that day, meaning that the Bush administration's principal 'dove' was out of the country when the attacks happened. In Powell's absence 'when the storm breaks [on 911] Richard Armitage... is at its heart' according to the BBC's Edward Stourton…

“It is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 ] Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House Complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003] Its largest field office with over 200 employees is in New York, in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown.

The Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC headquarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006; Star-Gazette (Elmira), 6/5/2006] Furthermore, since 1974 the Secret Service operations center has possessed a special communications line from the control tower of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This hotline allows air traffic controllers monitoring local radar to inform agents at the White House of any planes that are off course or appear to be on a “threatening vector.” [Time, 9/26/1994]

(9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secret Service Learns Hijacked Plane on Route to Washington, Evacuates White House

“Secret Service Director Brian Stafford informs counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke that radar shows an aircraft headed towards the White House and decides to evacuate the complex. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 5] The Secret Service learns this by monitoring radar and over an open line with the FAA (the “hijack net”), which enable them to receive real time information about the hijacked aircraft. The Secret Service, which has been using an air surveillance system called Tigerwall for some time (see (September 2000 and after), tracks both American 77 and United 93 as they approach Washington and assumes the White House is a target. Secret Service agent Barbara Riggs will later say, “The Secret Service prepared to defend the facility,” although the precise nature of the preparations is unclear. [New York Times, 9/12/2001; MSNBC, 9/22/2001; Daily Telegraph, 12/16/2001; Washington Post, 1/27/2002; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006]
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part VI: Reporting for Duty, Sir!

“Asked point-blank by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick what he had done to protect the nation — or even the Pentagon — during the "summer of threat" preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that "it was a law enforcement issue."

“In his office at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld received word as each plane hit the Twin Towers, but apparently continued his scheduled lecture to a Congressional delegation on the subject of national preparedness against surprise attacks…. Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sept. 11, says he thought the first crash was an accident. He went ahead with a meeting at the offices of Sen. Max Cleland, with whom he discussed the subject of national preparedness.

Rumsfeld: “I had said at -- I had an 8 o'clock breakfast -- that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, 10, 12 months, there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people, again, how important it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that contributes -- that underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability. It's the fact -- we can't have healthy economies and active lives unless we live in a peaceful, stabile world. And I said that to these people.”

And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center.”


“Sheehy: For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington [Rumsfeld] did not show up in the Pentagon's command center.

This may be a veiled reference to a military administrative order of June 1, 2001, which formally included the Secretary of Defense in any decision to authorize the interception of errant civilian planes by military jets.

At least until then, interception of errant flights was a standard procedure, activated automatically once an air traffic controller determines a plane on instrument flight rules (IFR) is significantly off-course or has failed to respond to ground control. No formal authorization was required for the FAA to alert NORAD that an aircraft has deviated from its planned route, or for NORAD to scramble interceptors to reconnoiter and report. On the contrary, this was what was supposed to happen.”


Gail Sheehy put “Lee Hamilton, vice-chairman of the Kean Commission, on the spot with the question, "Where was Rumsfeld on 9/11?":

"We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld's actions," said Hamilton. "He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out."

"He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack," I suggested. Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country's Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?

"I'm not going to answer that question," said Hamilton, and turned away.”
[Original at ]


Montague Winfield was originally scheduled to be at his command post on morning of Sept. 11. But on Sept. 10, he arranged for his deputy to relieve him the next morning at exactly 8:30 a.m. This turned out to be just eight minutes before the military was alerted to the diversion of the first flight (at 8:38 a.m. according to the timeline in The 9/11 Commission Report).

The report mentions Winfield by name only once, as a source in a footnote, without clarification (Ch. 1 fn 190, p. 463). His absence from the NMCC after 8:30 a.m. was first revealed to the Commission in a June 17, 2004 statement by his deputy, Capt. Charles J. Leidig (who was promoted to admiral). (Source document from 9/11 Commission)

Winfield was scheduled to testify before the Kean Commission in public on the same day as Leidig. As on Sept. 11, he was a no-show. Leidig spoke for him, saying under oath that on Sept. 11, "Right after we resolved what was going on with United 93, around that time General Winfield took over" command of the NMCC. ( Transcipt of June 17th hearings )

Thus Gen. Winfield apparently exercised no operational authority until after the attacks were over. In the further absence of Bush and Rumsfeld, the man in charge of the U.S. military during the attacks was apparently Capt. Leidig, a rookie in the job who, in his own words, first qualified in August 2001 "to stand watch as the Deputy Director for Operations in the NMCC."

However, Winfield either forgot his own absence or attempted to gloss over it when he was filmed for a 2002 Discovery-Times documentary, "Attack on the Pentagon." In that interview, he says that the "national leadership" was called to the NMCC "after the World Trade Center was struck." He also describes on camera the process of "resolving" what happened to Flight 93, the final flight, as though he was present.

Was Winfield present at the NMCC at any time during the attacks? If not, why would he try to hide an absence for which no one would otherwise think to blame him, since it was arranged the night before? Where was he during the 90 minutes after 8:30 a.m.?


"Whatever the explanation for the huge [911 defence] failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the 'Incompetence Theory.' Incompetence usually earns reprimands."

'What really happened on Sept. 11th?'
Barrie Zwicker, Straight Goods, 27 January 2002 (New Society Publishers)


"Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma has declared a day of national mourning for the victims of the Lviv air show disaster.... President Kuchma dismissed the country's air force chief and the commander of the air force division which took part in the show.... "

”Ukraine mourns plane crash victims”, BBC Online, 28 July 2002


“Some respond that the whole military was lax before 9-11. Nobody was worried about security. Really? In a dispatch discussing security after 9-11, Associated Press noted that US military bases were already on security alert *before* 9-11.

"Military Tightens Security in Wake of Apparent Terrorist Attacks," AP, (12 September 2001)

A.  Mission Description and Budget Item Justification:

This program provides concept development, requirements definition, technical specifications, proof-of-concept testing, rapid prototyping, technology insertions, systems engineering and integration and technical assessments for National Military Command System (NMCS) Command and Control (C2) systems.  This support provides informed, decision-making linkage between the National Command Authorities (NCA) and the Commanders-in-Chief of the Unified and Specified Commands.  This engineering draws upon improved C2 methodologies and technology insertion opportunities to meet the command, control and information requirements of the NCA and the CINCs for all crises and security threats involving US military forces.  These efforts emphasize interoperability and are designed to contribute directly to the achievement of the global C4I infrastructure.

The primary customer is the Joint Staff.  As the DOD Systems Engineer for the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and the Alternate NMCC (ANMCC), DISA performs planning, integration, and testing/ evaluation of new systems or improvements to existing systems. Support is provided to the Joint Staff in configuration management of over 120 systems.  Engineering support is provided in the planning and implementation of the relocation of the NMCC as part of the Pentagon renovation (NMCC is scheduled to transition to a new location in FY 2003).

Beginning FY 2002, funding from the program C4I for the Warrior (PE 0303149K) will be transferred to this program in order to support the Site R Integration Program (SRIP), which provides backup and mirroring of selected NMCC systems and provides software maintenance of the NMCC Command and Control System (NCCS) Automated Message Handling System (AMHS). This program element is under Budget Activity 07 because it involves efforts supporting operational systems development. This administration has not addressed FY 2003-2007 requirements.  All FY 2003-2007 budget estimates included in this  book are notional only and subject to change.

9/11 as a computer crime?

Davis stated that on the morning of 9/11 there was denial of service to the risk management system designed to block such attacks.  I didn’t say that (although I’ve read it)  - what I said was that the emergency open communications line between the FAA and NMCC went dead - neither party was aware of it and it is my belief that the PTECH software was used to shut it down.

"If that’s the way they did it, it would have been the perfect crime.  One person could have shutdown the line connecting the FAA and NMCC (National Military Command and Control).  “Coincidentally,” the person manning the NMCC on the morning of 9/11 was a first day employee and his boss was away at a meeting.  So, the new man on the job didn’t even know that on the morning of 9/11 the communication between FCC and NMCC was down."

-Vicky Davis
“This three-part series grapples with the risks of a growing dependence on automated information systems to control combat forces. A collection of research papers from the DoD-sponsored C2 Research Program, the series focuses on the difficulties in accurately portraying the uncertainties and ambiguities of war with computer systems.” – Publisher’s description.

JUNE 1993


Brian S. Ray
Alexander H. Levis


A functional architecture of NMCC crisis management is developed beginning with the identification and description of the mission and concept of operations. A functional decomposition of crisis management activities is then built based on current operating instructions and actions officer interviews. The model is validated for a limited set of crisis management requirements by exercising it with data collected during an actual crisis management situation. Functional shortfalls and redundancies are examined. The result is a functional architecture of NMCC crisis management suitable as a foundation for quantitative effectiveness analysis.


Posted 10/5/2005 9:30 AM     Updated 10/5/2005 9:34 AM


Too many weaknesses in FAA information systems
If you already are nervous about flying, this column may not make you feel more comfortable. So let's get right to the point – according to a recent evaluation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suffers from security weaknesses in its information systems, including weaknesses in controls that are intended to prevent, limit and detect access to those systems.


As most of us know, and as explained by the GAO, the FAA performs important functions designed to ensure "safe, orderly, and efficient air travel in the national airspace system." In performing its functions, the FAA must rely upon an extensive "array of interconnected automated information systems and networks that comprise the nation's air traffic control systems." These systems are mission critical as they supply information to air traffic controllers and flight crews to help "ensure the safe and expeditious movement of aircraft."

Interruptions of service by these information systems, as noted by the GAO, "could have a significant adverse impact on air traffic nationwide." And reading between the lines here, one is left with the conclusion that passenger safety potentially could be jeopardized by such interruption.

The GAO explains that it was tasked to evaluate how the FAA has implemented information security controls because such controls are "essential for ensuring that the nation's air traffic control systems are adequately protected from inadvertent or deliberate misuse, disruption, or destruction."

The Evaluation

The GAO concludes, as part of its evaluation, that the FAA "has made progress in implementing information security for its air traffic control information systems." However, the GAO "identified significant security weaknesses that threaten the integrity, confidentiality and availability of FAA's systems – including weaknesses in controls that are designed to prevent, limit and detect access to these systems." According to the GAO, the FAA "has not adequately managed its networks, software updates, user accounts and passwords, and user privileges, nor has it consistently logged security-relevant events." Feeling better yet?

If this were not enough, the GAO found that other FAA information security controls, encompassing physical security, background investigations, segregation of duties, and system changes, "exhibited weaknesses, increasing the risk that unauthorized users could breach FAA's air traffic control systems, potentially disrupting aviation operations." Certainly, the disruption of aviation operations sounds omnious.

The GAO reports that the FAA explained that the possibilities for unauthorized access are "limited." Of course, a better answer would be that such possibilities are "non-existent." The GAO evaluation states that the FAA has "initiatives underway to improve its information security" but notes that "further efforts are needed." The GAO reports that FAA weaknesses that need to be addressed include "outdated security plans, inadequate security awareness training, inadequate systems testing and evaluation programs, limited security incident-detection capabilities, and shortcomings in providing service continuity for disruptions in operations."


(Original link no longer works not does archive of original site)

Investigators found no evidence that aviation officials intentionally misled the Sept. 11 commission when they made inaccurate statements about their response to the 2001 terrorist attacks but recommended that two officials face "appropriate administrative action" for failing to correct the record, according to a report released yesterday.

The findings by the Transportation Department's acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, address a lingering question about the response on Sept. 11 by military and civilian aviation officials, who initially portrayed the reaction as swift and efficient. It was later shown to be neither.

The conclusions echo the findings of a separate inquiry at the Defense Department, which found no evidence that authorities at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) intended to mislead the Sept. 11 panel.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials at NORAD and the Federal Aviation Administration suggested in public statements and testimony that air defenses and aviation officials had reacted quickly to the hijackings and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. That aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to retake control from the hijackers.

In fact, the Sept. 11 commission found, audiotapes and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

The FAA had said on its Web site and in statements to the commission that it informed the Pentagon at 9:24 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked. The commission found that the FAA never notified defense officials of the hijackings but did label the plane missing after it had crashed into the Pentagon.

The FAA also omitted from official timelines the fact that it notified NORAD about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m., after the airliner had crashed in Pennsylvania. It gave an earlier than actual time for the moment when an Air Force official joined an FAA "phone-bridge" focused on the hijackings.

Zinser's report blames the erroneous statements on a series of innocent mistakes, including an erroneous entry in an early FAA timeline and an assumption by some officials that others would correct the record once the errors became clear.

"We did not find evidence to conclude that FAA officials knowingly made false statements," the report said.

At the same time, it said, two unidentified FAA officials should have notified the commission when it became clear that the information was wrong. The report recommended that the FAA consider unspecified administrative action against them.

Although the inaccurate statements have been publicly known for several years, it has only become clear more recently how much the issue had strained relations between the Sept. 11 panel and the FAA and NORAD. They were the only two agencies to receive subpoenas from the commission.

Some commission members and staffers were so angered by the inaccuracies that they advocated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. The panel settled on a compromise, referring the complaints to the two inspectors general.

In their new book, "Without Precedent," the commission's chairman and vice chairman, Thomas H. Kean (R) and Lee H. Hamilton (D), said the panel was "exceedingly frustrated" by the FAA and NORAD.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all the after-action reports, accident investigation, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," they wrote.
The FAA said in a statement that Zinser's report "clarified the record and found no evidence that FAA officials knowingly made false statements or intentionally failed to correct any inaccurate statements while providing more than 6,000 documents and materials to the commission." The FAA also has "made major improvements to its communications capabilities" since the Sept. 11 attacks, the statement said.

Report Urges F.A.A. to Act Regarding False 9/11 Testimony

Published: September 2, 2006

The Transportation Department's inspector general urged the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday to consider disciplinary action against two executives who failed to correct false information provided to the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, whose office acts as the department's internal watchdog, found in a new report that the F.A.A. executives, as well as a third official who is now retired, learned after the fact that false information was given to the commission in May 2003 about the F.A.A.'s contacts with the Air Force on the morning of Sept. 11.

The false information suggested that the aviation agency had established contact with its Air Force liaison immediately after the first of the four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

In fact, the commission's investigators found, the Air Force's liaison did not join a conference call with the F.A.A. until after the third plane crashed, at 9:37 a.m. The 51-minute gap is significant because it helps undermine an initial claim by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for domestic air defense, that it scrambled quickly on Sept. 11 and had a chance to shoot down the last of the hijacked planes still in the air, United Airlines Flight 93.

The inspector general's report, prepared in response to complaints from the independent Sept. 11 commission, found that the three F.A.A. executives failed to act on an ''obligation'' to correct the false information provided to the commission, which found widespread confusion within the aviation agency and the military on the morning of the attacks.

The F.A.A., part of the Transportation Department, declined to identify the three executives, whose names and titles were not revealed in the inspector general's report. Nor did the agency say whether it would consider disciplinary action.

The inspector general's office found that while false information was given to the Sept. 11 commission, there was no evidence that F.A.A. executives had done it knowingly or had intentionally withheld accurate information about the agency's actions on the morning of the attacks.

That finding was welcomed by the F.A.A., which said in a statement that the ''inspector general's investigation has clarified the record and found no evidence that F.A.A. officials knowingly made false statements.'' The Pentagon's inspector general issued a similar finding last month about military officers who provided inaccurate testimony to the commission, saying their inaccurate statements could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.

Richard Ben Veniste, a commission member, said in an interview on Friday that he was troubled that it had taken the inspector general two years to complete his investigation -- ''more time than it took the 9/11 commission to complete all of its work'' -- and that he released the report ''on the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day weekend.''

Mr. Ben Veniste said he was convinced that the failure of the aviation agency and the North American Aerospace Defense Command to provide early, accurate information about their performance had ''contributed to a growing industry of conspiratorialists who question the fundamental facts relating to 9/11.''

Mr. Zinser, the acting inspector general, said in an interview that the investigation had taken so long because of ''the very complicated issues'' his office reviewed.
9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings

New York Times
February 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

But aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security," and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures," the commission report concluded.

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.

Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said.

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

"We had a lot of information about threats," said the spokeswoman, Laura J. Brown. "But we didn't have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

"The fact that the civil aviation system seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security is striking not only because of what happened on 9/11 but also in light of the intelligence assessments, including those conducted by the F.A.A.'s own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990's and into the new century," the report said.

In its previous findings, including a final report last July that became a best-selling book, the 9/11 commission detailed the harrowing events aboard the four hijacked flights that crashed on Sept. 11 and the communications problems between civil aviation and military officials that hampered the response. But the new report goes further in revealing the scope and depth of intelligence collected by federal aviation officials about the threat of a terrorist attack.

The F.A.A. "had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said. Previous commission documents have quoted the CD's reassurance that "fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction."

Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden, the report said.

Still, the 9/11 commission concluded that aviation officials did not direct adequate resources or attention to the problem.

"Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the F.A.A. was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security," the report said.

The F.A.A. did not see a need to increase the air marshal ranks because hijackings were seen as an overseas threat, and one aviation official told the commission said that airlines did not want to give up revenues by providing free seats to marshals.

The F.A.A. also made no concerted effort to expand their list of terror suspects, which included a dozen names on Sept. 11, the report said. The former head of the F.A.A.'s civil aviation security branch said he was not aware of the government's main watch list, called Tipoff, which included the names of two hijackers who were living in the San Diego area, the report said.

Nor was there evidence that a senior F.A.A. working group on security had ever met in 2001 to discuss "the high threat period that summer," the report said.

Jane F. Garvey, the F.A.A. administrator at the time, told the commission "that she was aware of the heightened threat during the summer of 2001," the report said. But several other senior agency officials "were basically unaware of the threat," as were senior airline operations officials and veteran pilots, the report said.

The classified version of the commission report quotes extensively from circulars prepared by the F.A.A. about the threat of terrorism, but many of those references have been blacked out in the declassified version, officials said.

Several former commissioners and staff members said they were upset and disappointed by the administration's refusal to release the full report publicly.

"Our intention was to make as much information available to the public as soon as possible," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Sept. 11 commission member.

© 2005 The New York Times Company

Fear of Flying
Whistle-blowers say the FAA ignored a decade of pre–9-11 warnings
James Ridgeway
Tuesday, February 8th 2005

The staff report from the 9-11 Commission, declassified last week, raises the curtain on a Federal Aviation Administration whose disregard for security is downright ludicrous. Employees of the FAA had been warning for years of the disaster waiting to happen. The FAA's top management not only ignored the warnings, but took steps to make sure the people issuing them shut up.

According to the staff report, in 2001 the agency's security division prepared 105 intelligence summaries for the top brass between April 1 and September 10. Nearly half these mentioned Osama bin Laden by name, but for the most part the summaries said the threats were aimed at targets overseas. Of the 52 notices that mentioned Bin Laden, five discussed terrorists either training for hijackings or already having the capability to carry them out. Two talked about suicide operations, but not having to do with planes. One summary discussed defensive measures being undertaken at Genoa for the G8 summit.

The response of the FAA pooh-bahs to the commission staff's inquiries is mystifying. "[FAA] Administrator [Jane] Garvey told the Commission that she was aware of the heightened threat during the summer of 2001," says the staff report. "However, both FAA Deputy Administrator Monte Belger and his assistant told us in separate interviews that they were unaware of the threat posed by Usama bin Ladin and al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001." Is this just another case of high government officials botching the job, or is someone lying?

Long before the latest report was released, the FAA had been considered among the weakest of the "independent" regulatory agencies. After the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the feds sought to improve security, but the major carriers opposed most measures on the grounds that they were unnecessary, cost too much, and discomfited passengers. Time and again over the last decade, efforts were made to persuade the airlines to reinforce cockpit doors, but to no avail. In an ominous warning of things to come, an internal report from the early 1990s said, "Small knives (blade length of four inches or less), the most frequently employed weapon to hijack aircraft (in the U.S.), were used in three incidents." Yet they remained legal to bring onboard, and were used by the 9-11 hijackers.

Another 1993 report showed that in a test, people without authorization broke through the San Francisco airport security system three out of five times—a failure rate of 60 percent. By 1998, out of 450 attempts by the so-called Red Team to breach security at the same airport, 446 succeeded—a failure rate of 99.11 percent. Testers in 1996 at the Frankfurt airport, where the bomb was placed on Pan Am Flight 103, broke through security in 13 out of 13 tries. The situation was so embarrassing that the FAA security chief ordered the group to end its mission, leaving the job of improving security in the hands of the airlines.

In exasperation, Red Team leader Bogdan Dzakovic went over his supervisors and, citing the numerous failures in the system, pleaded with Administrator Jane Garvey. "The U.S. faces a potential tidal wave of terrorist attacks," he wrote. Garvey never replied.

One internal airline memo accurately described the results investigators had been getting: "They managed to get by passenger X-ray screening repeatedly (7 times), having on them a gun sealed under their belt-buckle. Also, having an automatic Mac machine gun under their jacket on their back." The team "repeatedly" succeeded in getting a laptop with a gun inside through screening. They readily entered airline private lounges and put dummy bombs in passengers' carry-on luggage. They snuck with ease onto Skychef food trucks and put bombs in the food containers, receiving only a cheery "hello" from the drivers—if one happened to be awake.

The Red Team renegades wanted people at the FAA or the Department of Transportation, its parent, to pay attention to what was going on, meeting with the chief criminal investigator for DOT. According to fellow Red Team leader Steve Elson, that man would say only, "The whole FAA is so corrupt, I don't know where to begin."

Dzakovic and Elson took the case to the media, with one TV station after another carrying the story. In April 2001, Deborah Sherman of Boston's Fox News conducted her own investigation of Boston's Logan Airport and repeatedly broke through security. Her probe apparently coincided with a similar one by Mohammed Atta, who at the time was conducting surveillance of Logan in planning the 9-11 attack. A tape of the program was hand-delivered to the office of Senator John Kerry. There was no response.

After 9-11, the Red Team was disbanded. Dzakovic got whistle-blower status and continues to speak out on the issue. Elson quit in disgust and went back to school.
The 9-11 gun

The serious government interest in 9-11 now is not who is to be held responsible but how to make sure the airlines get off the hook. Shortly after the attack, the companies turned to Capitol Hill for a bailout. Now they are faced with lawsuits from victims' families, and a key question will be whether any of the hijackers had smuggled a gun aboard one of the planes. It's one thing to move through security with a legal box cutter in a pocket—quite another to make it through with a firearm. The presence of a gun would clearly illustrate a lack of security. And if a gun had been planted aboard a plane, it could be an indication that Al Qaeda had breached our security system even further than previously supposed.

On 9-11, in the hours after the attacks, the FAA issued an executive summary of what went on aboard Flight 11, which hit the World Trade Center. "At approximately 9:18 a.m., it was reported that the two crew members in the cockpit were stabbed. The flight then descended with no communication from the flight crew members," the report read. "The American Airlines FAA Principal Security Inspector (PSI) was notified by Suzanne Clark of American Airlines Corporate Headquarters that an onboard flight attendant contacted American Airlines Operations Center and informed them that a passenger in seat 10B had shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam al Suqami. One bullet was reported to have been fired."

That afternoon, say Dzakovic and Elson, an FAA security officer in Washington saw the word "gun" on a bulletin board set up to keep staff members abreast of what was going on in the agency's command center. The FAA subsequently changed its report, removing the reference to a gun, and the 9-11 Commission concluded there had never been one.

However, on Flight 93, passenger Tom Burnett, a medical executive, had called his wife, Deena, and, in one version of the call, said, "They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI." Deena immediately called emergency officials. Another version of the call had Burnett saying, "One of them has a gun." Tom's call to Deena was not recorded, but Deena's call for help was; on the tape, she says Tom told her: "They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane." Deena later told the London Times, "He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn't have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was."
The Rushdie connection

The FAA maintains it had no foreknowledge of an attack by Al Qaeda within the U.S., but there is a continuing series of suggestions that the federal authorities, including the FAA, did in fact know something was about to happen.

One little noticed example concerned novelist Sa
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately