Author Topic: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team  (Read 43139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline chrsswtzr

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
What's your opinion of Ptech's involvement in the 9/11 false flag op?

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
What's your opinion of Ptech's involvement in the 9/11 false flag op?

There is no opinion, read the documents, see the videos, and learn the incontrovertible truth for yourself.

Offline lordssyndicate

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,141
  • Stop The New World Order
    • LinkedIn Profile
The Above post is a highly abridged outline showing that the Who --- let me say this again exactly who -- let me say this again exactly who--  specifically created PTECH for this purpose  remote control of all systems on the Grid. Then helped implement them so  remote  systems at Cheyenne  Mountain  could control planes as part of the "war drill scenario" to test their new mandatory functionality of being able to use commercial aircraft as Kamakazi type missiles...

This new functionality was implemented as part of a direct plan to insure that all current saftey controls that prevented hijackers from taking down air craft that were in place as of the early 90's were no longer able to stop specifically authorized individuals in the DoD / Executive branch from CRASHING planes.

Enough said thank you for playing Mr Dalton.

"Biotechnology it's not so bad. It's just like all technologies it's in the wrong HANDS!"- Sepultura

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
but this explains ONLY the 1999 capability to control the planes NOT the MSM (mainstream media's) total and utter involvement in the project.

is it just because the ENTIRE WORLD GOVERNMENT is now so compartmentalised (over years of confused policy scrabbling) that the global left hand doesn't really know what the global right hand is doing?

are there REALLY (in USA at least, and maybe in every country) TWO RIVAL GOVERNMENTS?

Mike
PS: arrest warrents still need to be issued for these 911 corporate criminals.

Offline RonPaulRocks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,643
  • Neocons Beware!
    • Calgary 9/11 Truth
I agree with this thread.  Expose 9/11!

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.  -- George Orwell

Offline dissident99

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Bump for later .
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -Edmund Bourke

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
- Benjamin Franklin


Offline chrsswtzr

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
There is no opinion, read the documents, see the videos, and learn the incontrovertible truth for yourself.
Thanks AI, and I did read and learn for myself. I was, of course, asking for your opinion.

Offline wolfman86

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
The 9/11 lie has been destroyed...most people just don't know it yet.

Offline the general

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462


The exposure of 911 would bring about a colossal paradigm shift in the way people think about government. Never again, or at least in the near future, would it be possible for a government to commit false flag terror attacks, or to assasinate a President for not playing ball. All the defenders of the official story would get a much-deserved dose of humility.

The current order of evil would be overturned, and a new era would emerge. The talking heads which have been pushing the official story would either fade into obscurity, or brought to justice. The bush-clinton crime families’ grip on power would loosen. At that time, it may even open up the possibility for the Rockefeller-Rothschild world mafia to be brought down. The essential checks and balances specified by the U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty of nations would be revived in a way which has not been experienced in our lifetimes.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness --
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,547
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE

http://images.google.com/images?q=mitre%3Eimages&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=
UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Zk_8SYWjO6G-tAOswujgAQ&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1


I just have this one question .... why did the owners of this corporation name it: MITRE?

That is the name of the infamous pointed 'fish hat' worn by the POPE.


Illuminati DAGON worship?







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Cheney, The OODA Loop, SAIC, Ptech Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2009, 06:16:59 pm »
Source

If you really want to do some homework, I challenge you to read about Lt. Col. John Boyd (USAF) (deceased). There is a biography, and several web sites devoted to him, his ideas, and his work. In addition to being a top-flight pilot, founder of the Air Force combat pilot training system that the Navy adopted and morphed into its TopGun school, and much, much more, he is most famous for his OODA Loop Theory [OODA is an acronym that stands for a rapid, repeated cycle of Orient, Observe, Decide, Act.]

Go and read about the OODA Loop, and come to understand how he applied it to high-speed aerial combat, and then how he applied it to ground combat (his work was embraced by the US Marine Corps), and then how he briefed the Secretary of Defense on his theory just before Desert Storm, and how that theory was successfully applied to the initial knock-out punch thrown at Saddam in Kuwait.

And when you come to a higher understanding about the OODA Loop, and how it uses information gleaned from the opponent and the environment and thrust into the decision-making loop rapidly so that you may stay one step ahead of your opponent, then I want you to remember that Dick Cheney was briefed on it.

And then I want you to ponder, for a minute, the use of Total Information Awareness campaigns, data-mining, and various intelligence-gathering methods available to the US government; these are the sources for information that are pumped into the complex loop.

And then I want you to remember that Cheney was briefed...

And then I want you to consider how this OODA loop has likely been used for domestic political purposes....

And then I want you to consider, given the explosive theories suggested by Ruppert and Singh relative to the war games, and the use of very sophisticated software (PROMIS and PTECH), how the OODA loop may have played a role on 9/11.

I went out this weekend and bought the biography of Boyd (Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art of War, Robert Coram, Back Bay Books/Little, Brown & Co., 2002, ISBN 0-316-79688-3). I'd read it previously and have dozens of articles in my PC related to it.

The OODA loop appears to be a relatively simple cycle. However, given the multiple feedback loops, it is actually very complex. The best practitioner learns to simplify it and apply it instinctively and intuitively...literally, to fly by the seat of their pants...

Here is the explanatory text that Boyd used under the OODA loop diagram:

"Note how orientation shapes observation, shapes decision, shapes action and, in turn, is shaped by the feedback and other phenomena coming into our sensing or observing window.

Also note how the entire "loop" (not just orientation) is an ongoing many-sided implicit cross-referencing process of projection, empathy, correlation, and rejection."

In simpler English, if someone can get you to "see" certain things and understands how you will "forecast" forthcoming events based on what you "see", how you will feel emotionally about what you "see", how you will put two and two together to get five, and how you can be led to reject or disbelieve what you think you see, then you can be led by the nose to a certain action. This is what happens in a military airplane dogfight, in the misdirection of a football play, in the way the media is being used and was perhaps used that day, and likely in the way the radar injects were inserted into the day-to-day system during the war games.

If you can be led to see something and believe it, then you will act in a way that can be quite effectively predicted based on your traditions, your heritage, your prior experience (which may also have been "cooked" (e.g., the numerous terror warnings), and the way you think (whether that is correct or not). Then all your opponent has to do is to introduce some "new information", and you will "decide" and act in a way that allows me to get behind you and take advantage of your misperception.

If you understand how Boyd thinks, all you need is one short opportunity for advantage; then repeat the process rapidly. Boyd’s nickname” was “40-second” Boyd. No one in his entire history could ever, in a simulated dogfight, avoid being "killed" by Boyd in under 40 seconds.

In the Desert Storm event, the 6th largest army on the planet put their hands in the air and surrendered in 36 hours. Some units literally surrendered to drones.

NORAD and the FAA were confused for 90 minutes. America threw its hands up in confusion when asked to think about what happened on 9/11. They can't see what happened because they too have been misled and confused on purpose.

--
From Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, Robert Coram, Back Bay Books, Little Brown & Co., Boston 2002, p. 335-6:

“Understanding the OODA Loop is difficult. First, even though it is called a “loop”, it is not. A drawing of the Loop shows thirty arrows connecting the various ingredients, which means hundreds of possible “loops” can be derived….Even Boyd’s Acolytes do not always agree with what Boyd meant by the OODA Loop… The OODA Loop briefing contains 185 slides. “

The OODA loop is based on Boyd’s earlier thesis entitled “Destruction and Creation”, which links Godel’s Proof, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, and the second law of thermodynamics.

“…Boyd spent four years researching and writing and then distilling his [thesis] down to eleven pages; the result has the specific gravity approaching that of uranium. It is thick and heavy and ponderous, filled with caveats and qualifiers and arcane references that span theories never before connected. To read [it] is to fully appreciate the term “heavy sledding”. [Page 323]

--

You can download the pdf of Boyd’s “Destruction & Creation” here: http://www.goalsys.com/id17.htm

--

An important part of the thesis is an elaboration on the idea that a relationship exists between the observer and what is being observed. This idea is not original, but the author presents a new explanation of how we perceive physical reality. Several people can look at the same process or same event and each might see it in an entirely different fashion. A crowd streaming into a college football stadium is seen in significantly different ways by a fraternity member, a TV cameraman, the beer distributor, the security officer, and the college president. Furthermore, each process of observation changes what is being observed. The people in the football stadium, knowing that they are being recorded by a TV camera, might wave or shout or begin a spontaneous demonstration. The same crowd, knowing that security officers are monitoring them, might become subdued, or perhaps confrontational. If we are aware of the changes that take place during a dynamic interaction, we can and must reassess and recalculate our own relationship with that which we are observing; the process not only shapes what is being observed, but feedback reshapes the observer's outlook. The TV cameraman searches out people who are not waving. Security officers become more vigilant because they know people in the crowd are disguising their behavior. A cycle begins, and it is repeated over and over again.

--

The OODA loop is used to create “the fog of war”.
--

“The act of observation is, of course, filtered. We usually see what we expect to see, not what is actually taking place. And what we do manage to observe is colored or tinted by our past experience. Once we actually observe something, our brain attempts to orient itself to the new information. Does it match our past experience, or our cultural background, or our genetic make-up? If not, is it powerful enough to significantly change our view of the world? One way or another, it becomes part of our new reality.”

Source: http://isobe.typepad.com/sketchpad/


And our past experience, in a media-driven world, is colored by the images, stories, headlines, pronouncements and “leaks” given to us repetitively and programmatically.

Suggestion is a powerful tool. Keep that in mind when you listen to a car salesman.

--

Lt. Col. Rich Liebert, who teaches tactics at the Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., agreed that Boyd’s thinking was visible during Desert Storm. "The constant references to and the delay of the 'shock and awe' bombing campaign, is the kind of psychological warfare that Boyd recommended to paralyze the enemy," he said. [from http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030321boydnatp5.asp ]

“Boyd proposed a way of achieving our national goal based on his OODA loop theory. He said that the US should penetrate the adversaries “moral-mental-physical” being, aiming to dissolve his moral fiber, disorient his operations, and overload his system. Once this has been achieved, the enemy would be psychologically paralyzed, and his will to resist would collapse.

By operating inside the adversaries’ OODA loop, the US can generate mismatches between the events and efforts the enemy sees or imagines and those he must react to. The enemy will then be immersed in an amorphous, menacing, and unpredictable world, and he will be strategically defeated. Boyd explained that the US should maneuver the enemy into a position where he can neither divine our intentions nor focus his efforts to cope with the strategic design to splinter, isolate, envelop, and overwhelm him.”
From http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY04/5602/5602K.pdf

“According to Col John Boyd's observation-orientation-decision-action (OODA) loop theory, this kind of offensive effort can "enmesh [the] adversary in a world of uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, chaos . . . and/or fold [him] back inside himself so that he cannot cope with events/efforts as they unfold."

[from http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/airchronicles/man1.htm ]

--

“Boyd's view of combat manifests itself in his OODA Loop, a loop which shows the human decision making process. In warfare, both sides fight the conflict by working through this loop. Boyd's belief is that the opponent who works through the loop faster has gained a measure of moral agility. With this agility, he can then act to cause his opponent to react. His actions can confuse, and disorient his opponent's moral force, by consistently forcing an opponent to play catch-up. The destruction of an enemy's armed forces, if it must be done at all, becomes secondary to the need to get into his loop and force him to over- and under-react.

The employment of Boyd's system is the management of chaos. To spread chaos among the enemy and to stem the chaotic effects upon one's own. Boyd's warfare is a moral one. By moral, I mean the psychological ability for an enemy to apply intellectual effort to the complicated tasks of war. The first goal of an aggressor, and in Boyd's philosophy the advantage always lies with the aggressor, is to confuse and blind an opponent. In Boyd's OODA loop, the single largest component is that of observation. Cut that and the enemy is virtually defeated.

The next component is orientation. For this component, I must first give a few words on the idea of shock. An enemy's military force is like the human body. The human body can sustain a good deal of trauma, however, multiple injuries multiply their effects. [shock] These multiple injuries greatly enhance the difficulties a human body faces when trying to deal with the damage. Warfare is much the same. Multiple strikes against a variety of targets, not only increases the number of actions within a certain amount of time which an enemy must take to save himself; it also increases the strain put on subsystems, like logistics, communications, command and control, co-ordination, and so on. The result is the spread of confusion and uncertainty [awe]. Add to this the increased affect of further strikes and chaos spreads, ultimately ending in an opponent's complete paralysis. This is the effect of striking an opponent's orientation. Confuse him, do the unexpected, rapidly shift around, and eventually destroy his moral functions.

The third component of Boyd's OODA Loop is decision. By introducing traumatic shock to an opponent's orientation, his decisions become increasingly reactive and desperate. He'll either be forced to skip this component all together, by falling back on pre-planned operations, or strike blindly at any perceived menace.

The last, and final, component is action. This component represents the physical elements' reaction to the previous three moral components. With the rest of the loop suffering moral shock, physical damage can be introduced with relative ease, if even needed at all.”

[from http://www.neokaw.com/interests/boyd_tsu_clause.php]


--
For a thorough look at Boyd’s work, see www.belisarius.com and www.d-n-i.net (“Defense and the National Interest”). These are web sites run by one of Boyd’s Acolytes and focus on how the OODA loop can be applied to business and to “defense in the national interest”.

One of the areas to which Boyd turned his attention was Pentagon procurement; one of his other Acolytes was Franklin Spinney.

--
On Network Centric Warfare: http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-NCW-JanFeb-05.html

For more on information systems applications, see http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/airchronicles/crawford.htm

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c2/v3c2-1.htm

http://aupress.au.af.mil/SAAS_Theses/Fadok/fadok.pdf (on strategic paralysis)

http://www.shockwavewriters.com/Articles/PGL/4.htm

The great article “Got a Second?”, on how the OODA Loop can be applied by law enforcement officers, can be found here:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html

http://www.goalsys.com/id68.htm “Operationalizing Sun Tzu…”

The D-N-I web site also has a great article on how the OODA Loop can be taught within the context of a sports team.

--

Excerpts from Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art of War:

“For a time, Boyd and Spinney were reluctant to fully explain the OODA loop; it was far too dangerous.

If someone truly understands how to create menace and uncertainty and mistrust, then how to exploit and magnify the presence of these disconcerting elements, the Loop can be vicious, a terribly destructive force, virtually unstoppable in causing panic and confusion and – Boyd’s phrase is best – “unraveling the competition”.

This is true whether the Loop is applied in combat, in competitive business practices, in sports, or in personal relationships.

The most amazing aspect of the OODA Loop is that the losing side rarely understands what happened.”


This may also be what has happened in domestic politics since before 9/11.

And it may be what happened to the NORAD/FAA chain of command on 9/11.

--

The 9/11 People’s Commission presentations by Ruppert and Singh detail the war games run by Cheney on 9/11 and suggest the possible use of software like that of PROMIS and/or PTECH (described as of risk management and enterprise architecture, or “back door” surveillance and operational intervention capability software with an artificial intelligence core):

--

FBI Agent Robert Wright said his investigation into the founders and financiers of Ptech and their financing shell, something called BMI, was also shut down. BMI stands for “Bait ul Mal,” which later turned out to be a front for Hamas and al Qaeda. Governor Kean did a $24 million land deal with a sub [SIC – Subsidiary] of BMI, three percent of which the commission went back to BMI. The Kean Commission does not mention Ptech at all. They were going to air the Ptech story nationwide and the lead story in the first year anniversary of 9/11… There were many other networks that had gotten wind of it and all the networks were going to run the Ptech story on the first year anniversary. However, the White House got wind of the investigation – [Indira Singh] has proof of that – and shut the story down in late August. Ptech was with Mitre [Corporation] in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11. Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA, that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything it would have been Ptech along with Mitre. And that ties right back to Michael Ruppert’s information….The functionality that Michael [Ruppert] is claiming that Dick Cheney utilized is the exact same functionality I was looking to utilize Ptech for in the bank. I was looking to set up a shadow surveillance system on everything going on, every transaction and the ability to backdoor, [to] look at information unobtrusively and to backdoor intelligent agents out there to do things that other people would not be aware of.

Another company known to have PROMIS, aside from DynCorp, is Lockheed Martin, on whose board of directors sat Lynne Cheney, the Vice President’s wife. She was also in the PEOC, Presidential Emergency Operations Center, with her husband on the morning of 9/11. How did she get in? She didn’t hold a government office. But if you consider the two companies, Lockheed Martin and DynCorp control all the financial auditing of the Department of Defense, the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and about 10 other departments in the U.S. government and the fact that the Pentagon has lost, quote, unquote, $3.3 trillion of your money to the accounting system that they refuse to account for. The money just disappeared. That also is PROMIS software in action. DynCorp also operates the telephone systems for the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. ”

[ Source: http://justicefor911.org/September-Hearings.doc]



This indeed may be an explanation for how all the puzzle pieces fit into the approach used to paralyze the minds of many filling roles within the normal day-to-day system at the FAA, NORAD and other agencies at all.

This also makes the issue of conspiracy look much more functional because people don't have to be co-conspirators.

If you understand how someone thinks and normally acts, you can then use that against them, or as a shield behind which you can hide, or through which you can dupe them into being compliant without knowing that they are compliant.

It may also explain numerous other sideline anomalies that have never been explained. Perhaps these were the remnants of a set-up that was not used or required.

--

Excerpts from Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art of War,
Robert Coram, Back Bay Books/Little, Brown & Co., 2002, ISBN 0-316-79688-3.

From the Epilogue (p. 447): “Vice President Cheney has his own ideas about Boyd’s place in military history. “We could use him again now. I wish he was around now. I’d love to turn him loose on our current defense establishment and see what we could come up with. We are still oriented toward the past. We need to think about the next one hundred years rather than the last one hundred years.”

--

For a slide show on Misperception, Self-Perception and Information Warfare, go to http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/courseware/cse468/Lectures/IWAR-2005-LB-Slides.pdf

--

A number of articles by Franklin “Chuck” Spinney, one of Boyd’s Acolytes,
can be found at the web site run by another of those Acolytes;
here’s one http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c549.htm

--

To help readers revisit the military exercises question, here are the timelines:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Cheney, The OODA Loop, SAIC, Ptech Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2009, 06:19:59 pm »
Source

OODA, Rumsfeld, TIA, NSA

“According to Colonel Boyd, “the O-O-D-A loop can be thought of as being the C&C [command and control] loop.” Surely, Boyd is actually referring to all aspects of what we call C3I—command, control, communications, and intelligence (or what many people now call C4I—the fourth C standing for “computers”).

Logically, then, (1) intelligence* provides observation (in accordance with command elements' requirements); (2) working together, intelligence and command elements provide orientation (i.e., they determine what to observe, which observed information is of greatest value, and how it is to be used in making decisions); (3) command elements make necessary decisions and direct the actions required to execute those decisions; and (4) field units and their discrete elements (aircraft, tanks, people, etc.) execute the directed actions (and contribute to observation through post-action reports, at which point the cycle begins again). All these elements are interconnected through the communications element of C3I (and computers of C4I).”

“The difference between information and knowledge may seem very subtle at first, but in warfare it is truly critical. On the one hand, information is passive and always exists (at least in the abstract) whether anyone pays attention to it or not. Among other things, it can be collected, collated, analyzed, “fused,” packaged, disseminated, and even managed….. it can be stored, protected, and concealed or suppressed, sometimes even from one's own decision makers. It can also be jammed up in a system of data flow that will eventually deliver it to decision makers but perhaps not in time to be useful to them.”

from http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/b-2/mannch9.htm

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

“Gingrich had been out of the House for nearly 3 years, but he was an ally of Rumsfeld and a member of his Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory group. Gingrich was also one of a number of military theorists in the nineteen-eighties who tried to imagine a new American military suited to a world beyond the Cold War. Their intellectual patron was the late Air Force Colonel John Boyd, whose cardinal tenet was a concept that he called the “OODA loop”: success in war is a matter of observing, orienting, deciding, and then acting faster than the enemy. Boyd’s brainstorm generated others, and for military thinkers the great quest was figuring out ways to “get inside the other guy’s loop.”

From http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030630fa_fact3

-- -- -- -- --

Courtesy of TalkingPointsMemo.com:


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

The graphic above depicts at least part of a hand-written note provided to the Vice President by Senator Rockefeller. The last sentence: "As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprang to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology and surveillance."

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Cheney, The OODA Loop, SAIC, Ptech Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2009, 06:24:54 pm »
The OODA Loop & CyberSecurity on 9/11

Mar 25 2006, 03:08 PM
Cybersecurity and the OODA Loop

In addition to the use of the OODA loop in strategic management and operations with multiple war game scenarios, the OODA loop also has widely accepted application within computer programming circles, especially as it pertains to cybersecurity.

The following will give you an introduction and may introduce some surprises.

I have not found reference to some of these events and issues in the common “literature” of 9/11, nor any major reference on the timelines, nor any major discussion of same in any detail within the 9/11 Commission Report.

A quick review of several of the primary 9/11 web sites did not disclose any discussion of cybersecurity issues and events in or around 9/11.

--- --- --- --- ---
Selected excerpts from a book:

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

http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/downloads/products/0072227877/0072227877_ch07.pdf

One of the first things that all U.S. military officers are taught is to accept the inevitability of the “fog of war,” a phrase that refers to the uncertainty and confusion that often arises in the heat of battle as a result of a commander lacking adequate information about the enemy and terrain, or receiving faulty intelligence. More importantly, however, is the emphasis that U.S. military officer training courses place on being able to operate effectively and decisively under such circumstances. And on September 11, 2001, that training would be put to the test in America’s own backyard.

On the fifth floor Strategic Information and Operations Center at the FBI’s headquarters facility in Washington, D.C., Ron Dick, former director of the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center and a 24-year veteran of the FBI, began the process of setting up a 24-hour Cyber-Crisis Action Team (C-CAT) that would be responsible for not only helping Brenton Greene’s physical recovery effort in New York but also monitoring the Internet infrastructure for signs of a follow-on cyber-attack that might target additional sectors of the economy. “There were a lot of unknowns,” recalled Dick.

-- --

While Greene was rushing back to the NCS operations center to get a better understanding of what had happened in New York, civilian and military officials were boarding a militarized version of a Boeing 747, known as the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC), at an airfield outside of the nation’s capital. They were preparing to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise.

There are four E-4Bs, code-named “Night Watch,” in the U.S. military arsenal. They exist to provide the president, vice president, and Joint Chiefs of Staff with an airborne command center that can be used to execute war plans and coordinate other emergency government operations in the event of a national emergency or destruction of ground command and control centers. As a result, they are often referred to unofficially as “the doomsday planes.” One E-4B remains on alert at all times.

As the crew of the E-4B was preparing to begin the regularly scheduled training exercise, including the use and testing of the aircraft’s various advanced technology and communications equipment, the FAA was ordering all New York City area airports to cease flight operations. Minutes later, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ordered all bridges and tunnels in the new York area closed. The fog of war was thick and officials were left wondering if other airplanes were about to come careening out of the haze like jet-powered artillery shells.

President George W. Bush, who had been speaking to second graders at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, was notified immediately of the unfolding crisis. At 9:30, Bush informed his audience and the nation that America had become a victim of “an apparent terrorist attack.” Ten minutes later, the FAA ordered a historic nationwide grounding of all air traffic. It was clear to many officials, however, that the crisis was far from over. And that fact was driven home at 9:43, when American Airlines Flight 77 plowed through the thick concrete walls of the Pentagon. There were thousands of airplanes still in the air and heading toward airports all over the country. And one of them, a 747 code-named “Night Watch,” had only just taken off and was immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center. America was under attack.

-- -- --
As the president was being whisked off to a secure command and control facility at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, the White House began an evacuation of all nonessential personnel. Specific concerns had been relayed by the intelligence community about the potential targeting of the White House and the Capitol building. It was an apparent effort to decapitate the government and sow mass confusion.

Clarke, acting on direct orders from the president and vice president, then initiated the emergency continuity of the government plan, which called for all federal departments to relocate to alternate sites and for the Speaker of the House of Representatives to be moved to a secure location outside of Washington. Although the secretary of defense remained at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, was moved to an alternate military command and control center. Shortly thereafter, all ports and border crossings were ordered closed, and all available military fighter aircraft were launched.

For Clarke, most of the morning was spent ensuring that all of the various orders relating to the emergency action plan were being carried out. Members of Clarke’s staff would remain in close contact with the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center. Meanwhile, as the public watched the horrible human tragedy unfold live on television, Clarke, Dick, and their respective staffs were forced to deal with another possibility: that the morning’s attacks could be one phase of a multi-pronged assault that could include attacks against the digital infrastructure of the U.S. economy. If that was the case, then they were staring at the one scenario
that had often kept them awake at night.

Across town at the NIPC, Dick summoned his key advisors into an emergency meeting to analyze all available cyber-intelligence. Among those Dick relied on for expert advice were Bob Gerber, a career CIA officer who had been detailed to the NIPC to serve as the agency’s chief of analysis and warning; Navy rear admiral James Plehal, who served as Dick’s deputy and was a key link to the Defense Department establishment; and LesWiser, the FBI agent responsible for tracking down CIA spy Aldrich Ames. A major cyber-attack now would prove absolutely devastating to the rescue and recovery effort and would almost certainly amplify the sense of fear and uncertainty far away from the epicenter of the main attack in New York. Such an assault had to be stopped at all costs.

But with the crash of hijacked American Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, the fog of war had settled firmly over official Washington. Despite the billions of dollars invested every year in advanced information technology designed to provide key government and military decision-makers with what is known in military parlance as “situation awareness,” the fog of September 11 proved too thick to see through. America’s national security community was thrown off-balance and had lost (in fact, may never have had) the initiative. What should have been an offensive war of maneuver had quickly turned into a reactive war fought from trenches and hardened bunkers.

September 11 was far from over when a small cadre of highly respected national security experts began warning of the potential for the physical attacks to be followed by cyber-attacks.

Marv Langston, the former deputy CIO at the Defense Department, characterized the events during an interview with Computerworld magazine as an act of war and said the country needed to be on alert for what he described as an “electronic Pearl Harbor.” Likewise, retired Air Force Lt. General Al Edmonds, who at one time headed the Defense Information Systems Agency, said he feared a cyber-attack could be next and added that such an event would be “absolutely paralyzing.”

Meanwhile, Atlanta-based Internet Security Systems, Inc. (ISS), which operates the IT industry’s Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), placed its operations center on what it called AlertCon 3 (the highest is AlertCon 4), “in order to focus IT security efforts on the potential for (and defense against) an Internet component to these attacks.” The IT-ISAC was one of several ISACs established in cooperation with the FBI and the NIPC to share information between the government and the private sector about cyber-threats.

In a threat assessment issued to the private sector members of the ISAC, ISS stated, “This is a time to partner all security assets on what is most important to your enterprise. While physical security concerns are paramount, it is essential to keep some eyes on the networks focused on malicious activity. We can expect a significant increase in disaster-recovery activity—plans being activated, dusted off, etc. No doubt the [disaster recovery] industry will be sorely stressed at this point, and it would behoove staffs to consider security as a move to alternate sites is contemplated or enacted.”

At FBI headquarters, the NIPC began what Dick characterized as “harvesting” physical threat information pertaining to critical infrastructures and pushing that data out to thousands of private-sector companies that owned and operated those facilities, such as power plants, telecommunications facilities, water companies, and financial institutions. Dick relied on the FBI’s InfraGard program and the various private-sector-run Information Sharing and Analysis Centers for much of that outreach effort. On September 11, ISACs had already been established in the Financial Services sector, the Electric Power sector, the Telecommunications sector, the Information Technology industry, and the computer software anti-virus industry. In addition, the NIPC would set in motion a daily threat briefing schedule for the Water sector, the Oil and Gas sector, and the Aviation and Railroad sectors.

Accurate and timely information was the only thing that could cut through the fog of war. And the government was doing everything it could to get that information flowing to the right people at the right time.

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

Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Lima, Peru, attending a meeting of the Organization of American States when he received word of the 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. OODA is an acronym for the cycle of Observation, Orientation, Decision, and Action. For Powell, it was absolutely critical that he be inside of his counterpart’s or enemy’s loop. But on September 11, Powell got a taste of what communications must have been like for his early nineteenth-century
counterparts.

“I never felt more useless in my life than on the morning of the 11th of September,” Powell told members of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) during a meeting held at the State Department on March 13, 2002. For most of the seven-hour return flight, Powell was unable to communicate with other senior government leaders in Washington. “Phones[were] gone because of what happened here and what happened to the [communications] system here in Washington,” he said. “They couldn’t get a phone line through. I was able to get some radio communications—two radio spots on the way back—but for most of that seven-hour period, I could not tell what was going on here in my capital, and I’m the Secretary of State.”

The implications of the communications failure on September 11 went beyond the seven-hour window during which Powell was unable to communicate with Washington. For Powell, this meant that there was the chance he and his department could be severed from the world again in the future, removing the initiative from America’s diplomatic and foreign policy efforts around the world. “Power to me now, as Secretary of State, is to be inside of everybody else’s information loop or decision loop,” he told the group of telecommunications experts. “I had called the President of Pakistan last Friday [March 8] to talk some business and just as I was concluding I said ‘I’m sorry to hear about the deaths that occurred in Karachi today.’ And he said, ‘what deaths?’ I’m inside his information loop.”

Powell was not alone in his distress. The National Airborne Operations Center that had converted literally on the fly from exercise status to real-world crisis management also had its share of trouble deciphering what was happening around the nation. Although the details are not known, a classified after-action report was produced that, according to one official who was on board the aircraft on September 11, does not paint a favorable picture of the government’s overall crisis management capabilities. According to one government official, the nation was “deaf, dumb, and blind” for much of that horrible day in September.

Back in Arlington, Virginia, Brenton Greene and the NCS staff began preparing for 24-hour operations—a state they remain in as of this writing. As afternoon turned to evening, officials began to piece together the true nature of the digital devastation in and around New York City and the Pentagon. In short, the destruction amounted to “the most significant challenge that the National Communications System had ever seen,” recalled Greene.

In addition to the immediate wireless circuit overload, the collapse of the towers sent a massive steel beam slicing through a bundle of critical fiber-optic communications cables buried eight feet below the streets of Manhattan. The hulk of steel destroyed more than four million high-speed access lines and ruptured water lines that filled underground switching vaults with more than ten million gallons of water. As many as 300,000 voice telephone lines and 139 fiber rings in surrounding buildings and 26 building-specific fiber rings also failed as a result of the physical devastation. The damage also knocked out 1.5 million circuits that served the financial district, threatening the country’s economic stability with each passing minute. The loss of connectivity to Wall Street was so severe that President Bush would soon establish three top priorities and communicate them personally to the NCS managers: rescue, recovery, and getting Wall Street back online.

The collapse of the towers had knocked out all primary power for much of lower Manhattan, and backup power, which was running on diesel fuel generators, began to fade quickly. Emergency responders and corporate disaster recovery specialists had failed to anticipate the physical impediments to getting fuel and spare parts onto Manhattan Island, which was now essentially surrounded by a blockade of bridge and tunnel police officers and military personnel at sea and in the air. Complicating matters was the fact that air transportation was no longer an option. Therefore, getting fuel delivered to keep the back-up power generators running was delayed due to the significant preplanning that was required to pass through security. In fact, security precautions and lack of planning denied Verizon officials timely access to their own facilities at the disaster site. Other telecommunications companies who had pledged support to the restoration effort had been completely denied entry into the disaster site and would only be able to get through using Verizon identification badges. Those delays had a direct impact on the time it took to restore services to the financial district.

The electronic damage also extended to the transportation industry, cutting the electronic circuits that fed data to the tollbooths on the various bridges in the New York Area. When the first jetliner struck the north tower of the World Trade Center, it destroyed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey headquarters facility, which housed 2,000 staffers and the central host servers for the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system. It would take a team of 15 engineers to recover the toll system, helping to ensure the flow of traffic, including emergency vehicles, into and out of Manhattan. When the towers collapsed, 75 Port Authority workers were among the more than 2,800 who perished.

Despite these difficulties, Greene was amazed at the sense of community and patriotism that had taken hold throughout the various private companies that only a day earlier considered each other ruthless competitors. Lucent Technologies, Inc., in Murray Hill, New Jersey, one of Verizon’s main systems providers, rushed a 100,000-line switch to the scene to replace another massive switch that had been sent crashing through the window of the Verizon building at 140 West Street. The company also put all of its customer requirements on hold and made its entire inventory available to rescue services.

“Companies that were competitors with each other were all bending over backwards to help each other,” recalled Greene. “There was a clear recognition of the urgent need to get our economic machine—Wall Street—back online.”

-- -- -- --


On the morning of September 18, the world woke up to the Nimda Internet worm, malicious code that can destroy data and has the ability to self-replicate and find its way through the Internet to other vulnerable computers. Nimda, which contained five different malicious payloads, infected all 32-bitWindows systems it encountered, including Windows 98, 2000, Millennium Edition, XP, and NT. It scanned systems for as many as 100 different vulnerabilities and automatically exploited them when found. Within 30 minutes of being discovered, Nimda had become a global problem.

At the White House, Clarke was immediately alarmed. Nobody could tell him who was responsible for the worm, which meant anybody could be responsible, including a nation-state sponsor of terrorism or some other surrogate of Osama bin Laden. Almost immediately, experts were warning that Nimda was spreading faster and more aggressively than any other worm they had ever seen and could easily begin to have an impact on overall Internet performance. Although there was no way to know for sure, this could have been part of the series of follow-up attacks that the national security community had been expecting.

“Nimda was a devastating attack,” recalled Clarke, who remained on a 24-hour rotation in the White House Situation Room. “We had been expecting another wave of attacks. We were all still worrying about conventional terrorism. We didn’t know if it would be more airplane attacks, truck bombs, chemical or biological or cyber attacks. And suddenly the cybersecurity team came to me and said there was a major worm going through the Internet and it was knocking off major companies.”

Initially, the consensus among Clarke’s staff of experts was that Nimda could have been related in some way to the September 11 attacks.“ We still don’t know for sure,” he recalled during an interview in his office in December 2002. “But had Nimda happened on September 5, it would have been a big news story. A lot of companies, particularly in the financial world, shut down major pieces of their operations. It destroyed and corrupted databases. It was quite devastating, causing several billion dollars in damage.”

---
For more about the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007222787...glance&n=283155

-- -- --

NIMDA is ADMIN spelled backwards.

-- -- --
From another source:

“As you may recall, Nimda appeared one week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Using multiple exploit vectors, the worm rampaged through the Internet, causing massive network outages. Nimda also left a backdoor on infected systems that, in theory, could be exploited by its creators. The backdoor, of course, could also be exploited by a "chaser" program written by someone else.

Enter the E911 virus. Back in March 2000, some 18 months prior to 9/11, AV experts began tracking a low-level virus that caused modems on infected computers to endlessly dial 911, wait for an answer, and then hang up. The evil genius of this program was that it exploited the unique functionality of the 911 emergency response system. In ordinary telephone calls, the caller controls the connection--once he hangs up, the switch drops the call. But in 911 systems, the switch works in reverse: Only the 911 console can drop the connection. That way, emergency services can trace the call even if the caller hangs up.

If some malicious opportunist had reprogrammed the E911 virus to exploit Nimda's backdoor, and then released it as a chaser on Sept. 19, millions of infected computers would have DoS'd the nation's 911 systems. If you tried to call 911 during that time, you'd get a busy signal.

Such an attack, Geer correctly surmises, would have caused a "grand mal seizure" on the nation's already fragile psyche and, worse yet, resulted in needless deaths of people waiting for emergency services.”

From  http://infosecuritymag.techtarget.com/ss/0,295796,sid6_iss446_art928,00.html

--- ---
Please see the following:  http://www.dandurand.uqam.ca/download/pdf/...004/gagnonb.pdf

I am not allowed to “quote” from this pdf but I direct your attention to the last two paragraphs on the first page, and the first paragraph on the second page, as well as the recounting of the exercise known as Eligible Receiver on pages 3 and 4.

He sees a pattern. Can you?

--- --- ---

http://events.um.edu.mt/bileta2006/22%20Savirimuthu.doc
“Webs of Deceit and the Art of War”

--

A PowerPoint presentation:  http://www.dfrws.org/2004/bios/day2/D2-Dussault-OODA.ppt#256,1

Forensics, Fighter Pilots and the OODA Loop
The Role of Digital Forensics in Cyber Command & Control
Heather Dussault, Ph..D., Asst.Professor of Electrical Engineering,
SUNY Institute of Technology

An accompaning pdf : http://www.dfrws.org/2004/bios/day2/Dussault-OODA.pdf

--- --- ---

Should the question occur to the reader as to what the OODA loop developed for mid-air and other combat has to do with cyber crime, it should be noted that Boyd developed his Energy-Maneuverability theory (applied to the design of the F-15) despite the fact that the military would not give him access to the computer time he needed. He got the job done anyway. Some time later, the Air Force was going to charge him with the theft of $1 million worth of computer time, but could never prove that he did it. This is recounted in the biography by Robert Coram.

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

To industry outsiders like myself, it may appear as though the massive focus on cybersecurity ramped up significantly after 9/11, given the fact the 9/11 Commission did not discuss cybersecurity in any detail yet chose to make recommendations on improving it, and given the “demotion” of Richard Clarke from counter-terrorism tzar to cyber-security tzar. (He’d been talking about the possibility of a digital Pearl Harbor well in advance of 9/11).

But this paper ( http://www.cert.org/research/isw/isw2000/papers/13.pdf ) notes, in footnote #3, a 1999 presentation on the use of the OODA loop in cybersecurity:

"3 Wood, Bradley and Schudel, Gregg “Modeling Behavior of the Cyber Terrorist”, pre-publication draft presented at various 1999 DARPA Workshops. This paper identifies an adversary cycle that leads to such a “packet of death”. This cycle consist of an Adversary Orient, Observe, Decide and Act (OODA) loop consisting of intelligence gathering, preparation, and development, live network discovery, test-practice-replan, attack and damage assessment processes.

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

“Information warfare, in its essence, is about…the way humans think and, more important, the way humans make decisions.” (Stein, 1996)

Effective information operations entail some of the most extreme warfighter demands ever encountered. This is especially true for information operations, where the prospects include the fastest, most numerous, most anonymous, and most rapidly reconstitutable attackers in military history. The information operations mission must beaccomplished in an environment (“cyberspace”) where “fog” is common and routine access can become pure “friction.” Moreover, the operations tempo is marked in milliseconds, and this makes information operations the warfighting effort most reflective of Col. John Boyd’s (1987) analysis in terms of adversaries’ OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Loops.

High performance information operations entail global situation awareness (SA), efficient threat identification, and effective attack assessment. To achieve these ends watch center staff must monitor, manage, and manipulate data streams and information artifacts large in number, high in complexity, and dynamic in the extreme.

From a paper published on March 23, 2000 entitled “CYBER WARRIOR: INFORMATION SUPERIORITY THROUGH ADVANCED MULTI-SENSORY COMMAND AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES” found here:

http://www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/n-101.pdf .


----

“Decision-support systems for situational awareness are tightly coupled with data fusion systems. The basic decision system—observe-orient-decide-act (OODA)— is the classic decision-support mechanism used in military information operations. OODA provides a cognitive mapping of the lowest level of cyberinference to knowledge-based personnel actions. This cyberfusion process requires the utilization of techniques ranging from processing algorithms and statistical estimations, to heuristic methods such as template correlation, or expert systems to assess situations and threats in cyberspace.

The ID systems observe functions include the technical and human collection of data, comprising ID sensors, network sniffers, and computer system log files. The orient function includes data mining concepts to discover or learn previous unknown characteristics in the recorded data and computer files. The orient function also encompasses the application of templates for intrusion detection and association in data fusion processes. In the decision function, cyberinformation is further refined into threat knowledge used in the determination of an appropriate action or countermeasures. Act functions include both automated and human responses. Simple responses to cyberattacks may be automated, however, more complex decisions will always require human intervention. [which is problematic if buildings have been evacuated]. The OODA decision-support process may be mapped into the three levels of abstractions. Data is the measurements and observations. Information is the data placed in context, indexed, and organized. Knowledge or intelligence is information explained and understood. These abstractions make up the ID data-fusion model, illustrated in Figure 3, introduced by Waltz [11] for physical targets.”

From another paper from April 2000: http://www.silkroad.com/papers/pdf/acm-p99-bass.pdf

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

Text of the slide presentation for DARPA in 1999 can be found here:
http://www.darpa.mil/darpatech99/Presentations/Scripts/ISO/ISO_StrategicCyberDefense_Saydjari_Script.txt

--- ---
http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/cyberwarfare.html
( a compendium of articles on cyberwarfare)

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Cheney, The OODA Loop, SAIC, Ptech Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2009, 06:36:15 pm »

Apr 14 2007, 06:40 AM
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part IV: Ptech, the OODA Loop and SAIC


    "By 8:56 a.m., it was evident that Flight 77 [which hit the Pentagon] was lost. The Federal Aviation Administration, already in contact with the Pentagon about the hijackings out of Boston, notified the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, of American 77 at 9:24, 28 minutes later."

    "'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller", New York Times, 16 October 2001

****

    "I want to get though to the White House to reiterate that we need air cover."

    New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
    at the World Trade Center just after the second attack on the World Trade Center
    Time Magazine, 7 January 2002

****
Indira Singh describes the software she sought, the search for which brought her to PTECH:

“The job of this software was to think about all the information that represented what was going in the enterprise at any given time…. For example, it would, it would be a surveillance software that would look at trading patterns that indicated someone was up to no good and then do something about it, send a message somewhere, send a transaction information somewhere, perhaps shut their system down, perhaps shut another system down, perhaps start something up elsewhere… I asked all my colleagues who were industry gurus what would they recommend for this. My buddies recommended PTECH…. it has an artificial intelligence core…. “

“… the networks were going to run the Ptech story on the first year anniversary. However, the White House got wind of the investigation – I have proof of that – and shut the story down in late August.”

http://911citizenswatch.org/September-Hearings.pdf
Bob Ruppert: p. 90 ff Indira Singh: p. 126 ff

A transcript of a radio interview with Indira Singh Audio here

Mr.John Pike, GlobalSecurity.org:

    When you look at all of the different military security agencies that [Ptech has] as customers, it's very difficult to imagine how they would not be encountering sensitive information, classified information.

*****
“The company, once known as PTech (now GoAgile), has been contracted to provide sophisticated computer software to several government agencies, including the Army, the Air Force, Naval Air Command, Congress, the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, Customs, the FAA, the IRS, NATO, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the White House.

Shortly after 9/11, the company’s primary investor, Yassin al-Qadi (al-Kadi), was identified by the US government as a specially designated global terrorist. Officials describe al-Qadi as one of Osama bin Laden’s "chief money launderers," and allege he transferred as much as $3 billion to al-Qaeda during the 1990s.

Al-Qadi is a wealthy Saudi with connections to banking, diamonds, chemicals, construction, transportation, and real estate. He once headed Muwafaq, an Islamic charity the US Treasury Department described as an “al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen.” Al-Qadi also maintained an unusually close relationship with notable US politicians. While attempting to defend Ptech, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Massachusetts (ADCMA) revealed the fact that al-Qadi “was prominent in Washington circles and even showed President Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney around during their visits to Saudi Arabia.”

Al-Qadi told an Arab newspaper in October of 2001 that he “spoke to [Dick Cheney] at length” and they “even became friends.” Similarly, while speaking with Computer World Magazine, Ptech cofounder Oussama Ziade said that al-Qadi “talked very highly of his relationship with [former President] Jimmy Carter and [Vice President] Dick Cheney."

Ptech, under al-Qadi’s ownership, supplied the US government with what is known as enterprise architecture. According to Glenn Watt of Backbone Security, "Enterprise architecture is really the design, the layout, the blueprint if you will for the computer networks and computer systems that are going to go into an organization." In regard to Ptech, he said, “The software they put on your system could be collecting every key stroke that you type while you are on the computer. It could be establishing a connection to the outside terrorist organization through all of your security measures." John Zachman, who is considered the “father” of enterprise architecture, said, "You would know where the access points are, you'd know how to get in, you would know where the weaknesses are, you'd know how to destroy it."

Former FBI counterterrorism analyst Matthew Levitt has said, “For someone like [al-Qadi] to be involved in a capacity in an organization, a company, that has access to classified information, that has access to government open or classified computer systems would be of grave concern.”

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_570.shtml
Please read the entire article at the link above…

as well as this one:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17730

See also (and read in their entirety) the Cooperative Research notes on Ptech which note:

“Ptech will help build “the Military Information Architecture Framework, a software tool used by the Department of Defense to link data networks from various military computer systems and databases.”

*******

Mike Ruppert:

“Whoever plotted 9/11 definitely viewed the FAA as an enemy that morning. Overriding FAA systems would be the most effective way to ensure the attacks were successful. To do this, the FAA needed an evolution of PROMIS software installed on their systems and Ptech was just that; the White House & Secret Service had the same software on their systems - likely a superior modified version capable of "surveillance and intervention" functions…. Enterprise architecture software is designed with the express purpose of knowing everything that is going on throughout the entirety of the enterprise in real-time.” [Doesn’t that sound like having good situation awareness?]

Ptech Inc. Confidential Business Plan: Page 37 of 46 11/7/2001:

    “The FAA recognized the need for leveraging its IT investment, with a means of centralizing activities and introducing consistency and compatibility within the operating systems environment. A Ptech consulting team was organized to use activity modeling to identify key functions that could be examined for improvement in network management, network security, configuration management, fault management, performance management, application administration, network accounting management, and user help desk operations.”


Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.

Mitre knew the FAA's technological enterprise inside and out, including any simulation-and-testing (war game) technology operated by the FAA.

************

According to Ruppert:

    “ Ptech is Total Information Awareness . . .“Programs based on datamining are powerful analytical tools; finding meaningful patterns in an ocean of information is very useful. But when such a tool is driven by a high-caliber artificial intelligence core [P-tech], its power gets spooky. The datamining capability becomes a smart search tool of the AI [Artificial Intelligence] program, and the system begins to learn. . . . ’Neural Network’ programming is modeled on the computational techniques used by the human brain - an electrochemical computer that uses neurons instead of semiconductors; the firing or non-firing of neurons instead of ones and zeros. With neural networking, software has become much smarter than it had been . . .

    “ . . . Ptech's Framework can exploit the patterns it detects and extrapolate future probabilities. Then it can integrate itself with the computers from which it's getting the information and intervene in their functioning. The result is a tool for surveillance and intervention. The program can identify suspect streams of cash in a banking network and allow a bank officer to freeze the suspect assets. Of course, a user could direct the same program to prevent detection. It can discover salient anomalies in a person's movements through a city and either flag those anomalies for further scrutiny, or erase them from the record. And it can find errant flights in an air traffic map and initiate an intercept response. Or not.”


Read about the DOJ and FBI investigations of Ptech here.

Note also that Chertoff was minority counsel in the first Senate investigation related to the death of Vincent Foster and majority special counsel in the second such Senate investigation. See http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=81709 .


Neither Indira Singh, nor Ptech, warrant a mention
in the official 9/11 Commission report.

******************************

The OODA loop is used to create “the fog of war”.

According to Col John Boyd's observation-orientation-decision-action (OODA) loop theory, this kind of offensive effort can "enmesh [the] adversary in a world of uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, chaos . . . and/or fold [him] back inside himself so that he cannot cope with events/efforts as they unfold."

If someone truly understands how to create menace and uncertainty and mistrust, then how to exploit and magnify the presence of these disconcerting elements, the Loop can be vicious, a terribly destructive force, virtually unstoppable in causing panic and confusion and – Boyd’s phrase is best – “unraveling the competition”.

The most amazing aspect of the OODA Loop is that the losing side rarely understands what happened.”

    “Gingrich had been out of the House for nearly 3 years, but he was an ally of Rumsfeld and a member of his Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory group. Gingrich was also one of a number of military theorists in the nineteen-eighties who tried to imagine a new American military suited to a world beyond the Cold War. Their intellectual patron was the late Air Force Colonel John Boyd, whose cardinal tenet was a concept that he called the “OODA loop”. (From http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/arti.../030630fa_fact3)

In addition to the use of the OODA loop in strategic management and operations with multiple war game scenarios, the OODA loop also has widely accepted application within computer programming circles, especially as it pertains to cybersecurity. Some examples:

    Wood, Bradley and Schudel, Gregg, Modeling Behavior of the Cyber Terrorist, (pre-publication draft presented at various 1999 DARPA Workshops). This paper identifies an adversary cycle that leads to such a “packet of death”. This cycle consist of an Adversary Orient, Observe, Decide and Act (OODA) loop consisting of intelligence gathering, preparation, and development, live network discovery, test-practice-replan, attack and damage assessment processes.

    “Information warfare, in its essence, is about…the way humans think and, more important, the way humans make decisions.” (Stein, 1996)

    ”Effective information operations entail some of the most extreme warfighter demands ever encountered. This is especially true for information operations, where the prospects include the fastest, most numerous, most anonymous, and most rapidly reconstitutable attackers in military history. The information operations mission must be accomplished in an environment (“cyberspace”) where “fog” is common and routine access can become pure “friction.” Moreover, the operations tempo is marked in milliseconds, and this makes information operations the warfighting effort most reflective of Col. John Boyd’s (1987) analysis in terms of adversaries’ OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Loops.

    High performance information operations entail global situation awareness (SA), efficient threat identification, and effective attack assessment. To achieve these ends watch center staff must monitor, manage, and manipulate data streams and information artifacts large in number, high in complexity, and dynamic in the extreme.”

    From a paper published on March 23, 2000 entitled “CYBER WARRIOR: INFORMATION SUPERIORITY THROUGH ADVANCED MULTI-SENSORY COMMAND AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES” found here: http://www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/n-101.pdf.

SAIC

SAIC has been involved in military simulation.

SAIC was one of four contractors selected to provide support for Phase I of the U.S. Air Force Distributed Mission Training Operations and Integration program. See http://www.saic.com/news/sept99/news09-15-99.html.

“SAIC has unique experience in information security, Internet-based video networks, video search and indexing. SAIC’s government services expertise, specifically its reputation in supplying security solutions for the DOD, NSA and FBI, provides Onstream Media and its customers with top-notch engineers and the highest DOD-level security infrastructure.”

In 1998-1999, SAIC was also involved in a study of functional system performance parameters and decomposition of air traffic control/air traffic management. See http://as.nasa.gov/aatt/rto/Br19.pdf (See especially page 15).

According to SourceWatch:

    “Christopher Ryan Henry, SAIC's corporate vice president for strategic assessment and development, previously worked at the the Pentagon as deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, serving with Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith." In 2006, they were dropped from an Iraq war psy-ops project.

According to Mark Lewellen-Biddle in his December 2003 article Voting Machines Gone Wild!,

    “… Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego, to assess the security of the company’s voting software.... Many SAIC officers are current or former government and military officials. Retired Army Gen. Wayne Downing, who until last summer served as chief counter-terrorism expert on the National Security Council, is a member of SAIC’s board. Also on the board is former CIA Director Bobby Ray Inman, who served as director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of the CIA and vice director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. During the first Bush administration and while on the board of SAIC, Inman was a member of the National Foreign Intelligence Board, an advisory group that reports to the president and to the director of Central Intelligence.

    Retired Adm. William Owens, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who sits on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board, served as SAIC’s president and CEO and until recently was its vice chairman. He now is chairman of the board of VoteHere, which seeks to provide cryptography and computer software security for the electronic election industry. Robert Gates, ex-CIA director, former SAIC board member and a veteran of the Iran-Contra scandal, also is on the board of VoteHere.”

Non-Linear Dynamics of War

It was previously noted that war and the events of 9/11 were dynamic. There is an additional factor of such dynamism, that of non-linear dynamism. Dr. Linda Beckerman of SAIC wrote a paper in 1999 entitled 'The Non-Linear Dynamics of War". Interestingly, she references the OODA loop several times:

    The Boydian approach tracks extremely well with the nonlinear dynamics of war. He advocates that we "Operate inside adversary's observation-orientation-decision-action loops to enmesh adversary in a world of uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, chaos,..and/or fold adversary back inside himself so that he cannot cope with events/efforts as they unfold." He refers to the Strategic Game as "A game in which we must be able to diminish adversary's ability to communicate or interact with his environment while sustaining or improving ours".

    "Generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity, as well as disorient, disrupt, or overload those that adversary depends on, in order to magnify friction, shatter cohesion, produce paralysis, and bring about his collapse."

    … At the same time, we deny the adversary the same ability by disrupting his interactions to create non-cooperative centers....

    It is interesting to view Boyd's legacy to us in light of the role that new technology plays in our ability to wage war. It has become very vogue in some circles to invoke Boyd's OODA Loop as justification for new, superior technology to win "the information war". The idea is that we can be almost omniscient with regards to situational awareness, and become capable of replan and redirection at ever increasing speeds.

That article is hosted at a web site run by folks whose “methods closely follow the ideas of the late American strategist, Col John R. Boyd, USAF, particularly his concepts for dislocating competitors before engaging in decisive actions. We bring over 30 years of experience in this area, including several years working directly with Col. Boyd on applications of his strategy to business competition. Our services include training, consulting, and preparation of business plans and strategies. We also built and operate Defense and the National Interest which retains Col Boyd's original focus on military applications. This site specializes in the emerging "fourth generation" of warfare such as we experienced on September 11, 2001.”

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2009, 06:26:25 pm »
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10182
http://parapolitics.info/category/wargames/

9/11 Carbon Credit Murders for A Faculty of Fraud
Filed Under (Insurance Fraud, People, Wargames) by admin on 15-09-2007

9/11 Carbon Credit Murders for A Faculty of Fraud

www.911blogger.com/node/10182

Synopsis: Invitation to dialog on “Carbon Credit Murders for A Faculty of Fraud” with David Hawkins, Captain Field McConnell, and Peter Tedesco, Forensic Economists at Hawks’ CAFE

Open e-mail invitation sent July 23, 2007 to:

Dr. Thomas Barnett, [email protected] .com Senior Managing Director Enterra Solutions Washington Operations Center Enterra Solutions, LLC, 11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 7500 Reston, Virginia 20190 Tel: 571.336.0072

Dr. John M. Deutch [email protected] Department of Chemistry, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 6-215 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA Phone: (617) 253-1479

Invitation to dialog on “Carbon Credit Murders for A Faculty of Fraud” with David Hawkins, Captain Field McConnell, and Peter Tedesco, Forensic Economists at Hawks’ CAFE http://www.hawkscafe.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hawkscafe/

Copies: Representative Ron Paul, 14th. District of Texas, [email protected] house.gov, Representative Duncan Hunter, 52nd District of California [email protected] com
Pilots For 911 Truth [email protected] yahoo.com

Michael Badnarik, ‘Lighting the Fires of Liberty’ [email protected] nPreservation. org Alex Jones [email protected] com

Copies to file:
Civil Case 3:07-cv-24 “McConnell v. Boeing and ALPA”
Civil Case 3:07-cv-49 “Hawks CAFE v. Global Guardians”
Clerk’s Office, Federal District Court of North Dakota
655 1st Ave. North, Suite 130, Fargo ND 58102

Re: Carbon Credit Murders for A Faculty of Fraud

DH: Peter, why did Saddam’s Oil-for-Food bank, Paribas, join the May 2000 war games pitting Dr. Barnett’s Naval War College or Dr. Deutch’s CIA agents against traders employed by Cantor Fitzgerald, Espeed and CO2e.com atop the North Tower?

PT: [BNP] Paribas hired agents to infiltrate and surveil Cantor’s offices and subsidiaries for two reasons; first, to obtain intelligence about CO2e.com’s daily carbon offset and emissions trading operations and its security measures and, second, to learn how to use Espeed’s TreasuryConnect software and switch Cantor’s $70 trillion per year sovereign debt and CO2 trades to Paribas investors (including OBL and Saddam!). By 9/11, after months of war gaming, the agents had learned how to switch trades to Paribas and the kickback trustees of their own pension funds after a real-staged terror event.

DH: Field, could Dr. John Deutch’s Raytheon-Thales and Citigroup-AMEC partnerships have placed incendiary-laden planes or Otis elevators just below Cantor Fitzgerald’s offices so that 652 victims would be burnt alive or forced to jump on 9/11 and help Dr. Barnett produce what he claims to be “the first live-broadcast mass snuff film in history”?

FM: Yes, in fact either or both. I opine they did both for two reasons; greater probability of success and greater difficulty for crime scene investigators in the Ground Zero rubble, to determine the method of introduction of the two halves (Otis elevators and Boeing planes) of what are “binary incendiary cluster bombs”. Raytheon-Thales modified Boeing war game jets illegally with QRS11 GyroChips embedded in flight guidance hardware. On 9/11, Deutch’s backers guided the Boeing drones precisely into targeted floors and used AMEC sabotage tests to conceal the same type of explosives in elevator cars, elevator machinery room and elevator shafts at the floors hit by the Boeings. When private equity, profit and intelligence are mixed the product is treason and public carnage.

DH: Peter, why were the NYC firefighters Motorola radios swapped out in Q1, 2001? Why did the repeater antenna on WTC#5 fail on 9/11? Why did Dr. Barnett bring 50 now-terrified FDNY senior officers to the US Naval War College in December 2001?

PT: A media search shows the antiquated Motorola Saber III systems ‘failed’ on 9/11 and were reintroduced supposedly or only because the new Motorola XTS 3500 digital radios acquired by the NYPD were not available for the FDNY. On 9/11, the repeater control center originally located in WTC 5, was transferred to the lobbies of WTC 1 and 2 respectively.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-8Executive%20Summary.pdf . I suggest firefighters’ communications were sabotaged during bogus 9/11 war games in a deception operation staged for Barnett and Deutch by the Office of Naval Intelligence or the CIA. FDNY whistleblowers who knew of the ambush, the deception, the murder for hire and use of incendiaries to destroy evidence, then became targets for threats or bribes (pension fund kickbacks) at the meeting with Barnett (?) at the US Naval War College.

DH: Peter, Barnett is a former professor of Marxism and knows nothing about global warming so was he hired to arrange war-game murders of Espeed staff and extort carbon credit traders to enrich BNP Paribas and its private-equity World Trade Center network?
http://www.bankofthewest.com/BOW/assets/vcmStaticContent/MediaFiles/SWF/trade_world.swf

PT: To paraphrase Dr. Barnett, the ‘great struggle of the age’, whether it be the war on terror or global warming, is designated as such by its potential to further globalization. He makes it abundantly clear that he prefers to classify global warming as the overarching issue of the age because it is more pragmatic in achieving global transformation. Through this lens, we can then understand the rationale of his alleged employers on 9/11 - stage a terror attack and in the process, seize control of the carbon credit trading industry, a surely profitable market if the ‘great struggle of the age’ is to be global warming. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/jul/15/barnett-ending-todays-crisis-easy-naming-tomorrows/

DH: Field, who could have coordinated the likes of Raytheon-Thales, AMEC-Citigroup, CAI-Carlyle Canada private equity groups, CIA, Naval War College and Boeing through assassinations, triphibious war games and event arbitrage or hedge fund frauds of 9/11?

FM: Only people with access to virtual private networks and the common operational picture for both the red-team attackers and the blue-team defenders. By a process of elimination, I end up with Barnett and Deutch as principal suspects; Barnett used the Office of Naval Intelligence Detachment (ONI DET) and Deutch used MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence to execute 9/11.

DH: Peter and Field, is there enough evidence to indict Drs. Barnett and Deutch for securities fraud in respect of their apparent churning, insider/outsider trading and pump-and-dump of carbon credits and their apparent racketeering use of credits to pay for war-game murders of Espeed staff and share kickbacks with Paribas’ private-equity partners?

PT: Well, incendiaries have destroyed much of that evidence needed by a jury beyond reasonable doubt to convict them for murder-for-hire operation where assassins are paid with carbon credit. I think however that we can win our claim for damages in a Federal civil court in respect of the 9/11 wrongful deaths and carbon credit frauds by showing that Drs. Barnett and Deutch are related through a RICO murder-for-hire enterprise.
http://www.hawkscafe.com/107.html

DH: Peter and Field, what message would you like to send to Drs. Barnett and Deutch?

PT: We welcome their comments to ’show cause’ by e-mail or phone and would publish same to our readers, but I don’t anticipate this type of respnse to be forthcoming.

FM: I would like to meet with you one-on-one or together and make a video recording to share with the American public your knowledge and interpretation of the events of 9/11. I can travel to any place at any time and date of your choosing. I warn you however that while the maxim of Hawks CAFE’s forensic economists is “Accuse no innocent. Shelter no guilty”, we intend to avenge the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans in general and, in particular, the murder of Chic Burlingame, my USNA classmate and the captain of AA77 who was killed by a conspiracy of cowards who appear to be in your faculty of friends on the morning of September 11, 2001. I suggest you invite your friends to the meeting to learn the difference between war gaming for carbon credits and warfare with their fellow citizens.

FM. Join in this analysis - call or e-mail one of us below. Tell us what you see in terms of Naval War College or CIA roles in the 9/11 war games. What is the next game? (David plays red-team attack roles - Field McConnell and Peter Tedesco plays defense).

Field McConnell, Tel: 218 329 2993
28 year airline and 22 year military pilot,
23,000 hours of safety
[email protected] com

David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891
[email protected]il. com

Notes: “Carbon Credit Murders for A Faculty of Fraud”

“Ending today’s crisis as easy as naming tomorrow’s scarier one [related to alleged violations by Thomas Barnett of False Claims Act re fraudulent claims of links between CO2 emissions and global warming] By Thomas P.M. Barnett (Contact) Sunday, July 15, 2007 Read article here: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/jul/15/barnett- ending-todays- crisis-easy- naming-tomorrows /

“List of Presentations Given [related to alleged violations by Thomas Barnett of False Claims Act re fraudulent claims of links between CO2 emissions and global warming] Our summary brief was presented to the following individuals/ entities (in addition to representatives from other organizations who attended one or more of our four workshops in 1998-1999): http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/projects/y2k/y2k_index.htm

President and Provost, U.S. Naval War College (numerous times)

Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Under Secretary of the Navy (2X)

N3/5 (Policy and Plans), OPNAV (2X)

J7 Staff, Joint Staff

National Contracts Management Association/ Rhode Island Chapter (2X)

J38, Joint Staff

J2 Y2K Planning Cell, Joint Staff

Principle Deputy & Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications & Intelligence (2X)

University of Virginia (2X)

Defense Intelligence Agency

Central Intelligence Agency

National Intelligence Council Y2K National Intelligence Estimate Team

Cantor Fitzgerald LP (2X)

Center for Naval Analyses (2X)

Y2K National Contingency Planning Group, Government of Canada

J2/J3 Staff of Joint Force Headquarters, Government of Canada

Chief of Naval Operations, Republic of Turkey

Staff , U.S. Senate Special Committee for the Year 2000 Technology Problem

U.S. Atlantic Command Staff

Department of Defense Intelligence Information Systems (DoDIIS) 1999 Global Conference

Defense Intelligence Agency’s Directorate of Intelligence Operations Staff

U.S. Central Command Staff

Chief Information Officer, Department of Navy (2X)

U.S. Information Agency International Y2K Staff

U.S. Air Force Y2K Director

National Security Council Senior Director and Staff

U.S. Air Force Year 2000 Technical Exchange Meeting

U.S. Southern Command Staff

Electric Power Research Institute’s 6th Y2K Embedded Chip Workshop

U.S. Special Operations Command Staff

Deputy Commander-in- Chief , U.S. Central Command

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence

Principal Director, Year 2000, Office of ASD C3I

Deputy Secretary of Defense

Director, President’s Council for Year 2000 Conversion Information Coordination Center (and senior staff)

Chair, President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion

The Arlington Institute

The Industrial College of the Armed Forces

Commander in Chief and Senior Command Officers, U.S. Special Operations Command

U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC)

Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC)

Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC)

Student Body and Teaching Staff , U.S. Naval War College

Asst. Secretary of Navy, RD&A

CINCUSNAVEUR Command Staff

U.S. Agency for International Development

USAID Bureau for Europe and Eurasia Y2K Consequence Management Workshop (representatives also from World Bank, Department of State, USAID Management Bureau, USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Response, and the Russian Republic Y2K Office)

USAID-wide Y2K Consequence Management Workshop (representatives also from Department of State)

Dept. of Navy Chief Information Officer Y2K Expert Forum Workshop

Brainstorm National Year 2000 Symposium Series ( New York )

Brown University “Virtual Y2K” Conference

USAID Administrator, Dep. Administrator, and all Assistant Administrators

USAID Asia and Near East (ANE) Bureau Mission Directors

Banking Industry Technology Secretariat/ The Bankers Roundtable

Prof. Betty Sue Flowers, University of Texas

Electronic Funds Transfer Association

National Intelligence Council Executive Roundtable at Booz-Allen & Hamilton.

http://www.thomaspm barnett.com/ projects/ y2k/y2k_index. htm

In an analogy with the US army use of deception below, we allege that Dr. Barnett’s Naval War College, the Office of Naval Intelligence Detachment and the CIA office in WTC#7 were staffed to deceive and defraud civilians during the 9/11 war games.

“Deception Staff Element A focal point for deception planning and execution is crucial to successful deception operations. At the joint force level, the deception staff element (DSE) plans, coordinates, and monitors deception operations. The DSE is headed by a deception officer who reports directly to the J3 . Other joint force staff members required to plan a particular deception are assigned to the DSE as needed. For example, the DSE should include representatives from the joint force special operations component (JFSOC) when it is part of the deception plan. In addition, representatives from the component staffs would participate in DSE activities as required.

The DSE is responsible for — Planning deception activities based on the commander’s guidance — Coordinating deception operations among components — Monitoring ongoing operations in order to plan future deceptions — Integrating C3CM deception into overall theater campaign planning as requested by the C3CM planning cell. As members of the commander’s operational staff, DSE personnel are familiar with the commander’s desires, policies, and operational schemes. They function as a coordinated and integrated element to develop deception concepts and plans. The JFC designates DSE personnel based on expertise and the desired level of security. Generally, the three levels of DSE access are commander only, limited staff, and full staff. Commander Only - The JFC keeps the details of deception planning to himself.

He implements deception through direct orders to his staff and subordinate commanders. The staff and component commanders are never fully aware of the JFC’s intentions. This technique has the advantage of high OPSEC and presents virtually all the support patterns of an actual commander’s plan. Potential disadvantages are — The lack of full staff expertise during planning and execution — The chance of the staff working at cross-purposes and degrading the effectiveness of the deception and the actual operation. Limited Staff - The JFC details limited numbers of personnel from the joint staff to assist the deception officer in planning.

The deception officer coordinates the completed plan with selected joint staff section heads and components and sends the plan to the JFC for approval. Expeditious handling and good OPSEC are advantages of this technique. However, the plan may fail to take full advantage of the collective expertise of the entire joint staff. Full Staff - The JFC expands participation in the planning and execution to more elements of his staff. Additionally, deception officers from the component commands may also participate. This method uses the full resources and expertise of the joint and component staffs. Since more people are aware of the planned deception, OPSEC is more difficult.” http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm90-24/ch2.htm#2-1

incoherent, not enough context or background or even sourced information. my internship centers around carbon credit research, and I’m interested in this subject (and possible loose connections to 9/11) in lieu of the global financial industry’s interest in carbon markets (AIG, JP Morgan, etc.).

I recently contributed to:

“State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2007″
http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCar

Hi there,

I am sorry this posting was not detailed enough for you.

Here is a summary of what we at http://www.hawkscafe.com believe occurred on 9/11 re: the Carbon Credit Trade. I hope this can boost your opinion of the post from a 1 to a 10!:

Between May 2000 and September 2001, Dr. Thomas Barnett of the US Naval War College conducted “war games” with Cantor Fitzgerald and its emissions brokerage subsidiary CO2e.com. You can read about this in his own words here: http://www.knoxnews .com/news/ 2007/jul/ 15/barnett- ending-todays- crisis-easy- naming-tomorrows.

Now, as all of us know, Cantor Fitzgerald lost 650+ employees on 9/11 when the first drone struck the North Tower. In the process, the brokerage business of CO2e.com ended up in the custody of BNP Paribas.

We allege that Dr. Barnett was commissioned by Paribas agents to infiltrate Cantor’s operations in the run up to 9/11 to guarantee a smooth seizure of assets. By 9/11, after months of war gaming, the agents had learned how to switch trades to Paribas and the kickback trustees of their own pension funds after a real-staged terror event.

Three of Dr. Barnett’s US Naval War College Colleagues signed the infamous PNAC document. In addition, he has referred to 9/11 as the “”first live-broadcast, mass snuff film in human history.”

I encourage you to join our ongoing discussion and pursuit of justice at [[http://www.hawkscafe.com]] where you can sign up to our yahoo group.

interesting stuff here:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/jul/15/barnett-ending-todays-crisis-ea

I’ve been aware of Hawks cafe since Valis initially hosted his site. The investigations are interesting, however a lot it is often speculation based on loose association of certain entities and their actions. When I get out of work today, I’ll definitely give this a closer look.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2009, 06:33:10 pm »
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part I (of 7): 9/11, Simulation and “Red Teaming”


What was the time span
between the awareness of the US military of the second hijacking
(a clear indication of an aberrant event, confirmed in a short time by the first and second WTC impacts)
and the impact on the Pentagon?


It is tempting to see the totality of 9/11 as a single event, but in reality those events played out over hours -- yet were sometimes measured in minutes, or seconds (or even milliseconds) over multiple locations from Boston to Washington to Florida and beyond.

9/11 was a series of inter-connected events.

Furthermore, we know that there were extensive warnings in advance by sources both inside and outside the US. Indeed, there was a palpable prodrome (a period of time during which early warning signs can be observed or experienced) that was acknowledged and noted at that time by many. (The 9/11 prodrome was so palpable that the US military community drilled for it for years in advance.)

We also know -- despite the fact that we think that 9/11 came to a close as the dust settled and the President returned to Washington to address the nation -- that the events of 9/11 continued on beyond that day, as evidenced by the anthrax events, the clean-up, and the discussions about investigations that dragged on for years, as well as the wars, infringement of liberties, torture, governmental abuses and cover-ups in its wake.

But even when thinking only about that “severe clear” September morning, it must be acknowledged that any encounter of a modern-day military nature must necessarily be a dynamic event … in other words, it can change nature, tempo and focus as it evolves through multiple bifurcations, Moebian twists and the forced false perceptions of mind war.

The Battle of the Bulge, for example, can be seen as a single event, but it had a prodrome that extended for months, and Patton’s G-2 smelled out the attack before it occurred; the event had several phases, critical moments, and critical locations, each with their distinct nature and characteristics; the whole event lasted for ten days, two weeks, or a month, depending on how you want to see the event in retrospect.

War-gaming since its inception was developed to explore this dynamism: multiple scenarios, multiple roles, simulated “injects” and “wild cards” are used to introduce such change, and numerous methods and approaches are used to mimic or simulate “the fog of war”. Note that the motto of the agency which coordinates the development of military computer simulation technologies (STRICOM) is “All But War Is Simulation”. In recent history, war-gaming and simulation have been used extensively inside and outside the military as a means of creating indirect experience with these dynamics. The value of such indirect experience is discussed on the first page of the first chapter of the seminal book Strategy by Sir. B. H. Liddell Hart, published in 1954.

See also, for example, the various publications and books by James Dunnigan, especially The Complete Wargames Handbook published in 1980.

[Of note, Dunnigan’s colleague and co-author Austin Bay is a “9/11 debunker”.]

Note as well:

Peter P. Perla, The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists (Annapolis: Naval Inst. Press, 1990).

Thomas B. Allen, War Games: The Secret World of the Creators, Players, and Policy Makers Rehearsing World War III Today (New York: McGraw Hill, 1987).

Wargaming: The Key To Planning Success” (in the Bosnian conflict).

Simulation gaming was even suggested in the field of emergency medical services and emergency management as early as 1990; see, for example, Mass-Casualty Computer Simulations: Tomorrow’s Disaster Drill?, in the March-April issue of Rescue (a JEMS Publication).

See also "Theaters of War" and note the relevance of simulation to Desert Storm and the battle of 73 Easting. Captain Joe Sartiano, commander of Troop G at the battle of 73 Easting during Desert Storm, was asked how his troop had been able to do so well their first time in combat. He answered that it wasn’t their first time: the troop had been exposed to combat repeatedly through the National Training Center and an array of simulations. [See Into the Storm: A Study in Command, by Tom Clancy & Gen’l Fred Franks Jr. (Ret’d)].

The Clancy/Franks book also has an excellent description of a synchronization matrix and its use during Desert Storm. Synchronization is "the ability to focus resources and activities in time and space to produce maximum relative combat power at the decisive point."

    “This paper* proposes an automated technique (labeled the "Dynamic Synchronization Matrix") for synchronizing forces at the operational level. The Dynamic Synchronization Matrix is a simple adaptation of a commercial project management program, run on a personal computer, which improves upon existing capabilities because it combines the two distinct major improvements of PERT methodology and automation. This decision support tool improves upon the two-dimensional synchronization matrices that enable modern tactical planning, command and control by making connections between time, space, forces, functions, actions, and effects which the average human would have difficulty making and storing…. The net gains in employing the DSM include more disciplined planning, greater flexibility in subsequent planning and execution, multiple display options, greater speed, agility, and accuracy, enhanced situational awareness and information management, insights into one's own plans, and enemy strengths and vulnerabilities, and linkage and applicability to subordinate echelons and other levels of war.”

    From “The Dynamic Synchronization Matrix: An Automated Decision Support Tool for the Campaign Planning Staff”, Kevin S Donohue, Army Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

    Descriptors: *AUTOMATION, *ARMY PLANNING, *DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, TIME INTERVALS, METHODOLOGY, WARFARE, COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, DECISION MAKING, DATA MANAGEMENT, MILITARY DOCTRINE, DISPLAY SYSTEMS, COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS, JOINT MILITARY ACTIVITIES, STRENGTH(GENERAL), ENEMY, MICROCOMPUTERS, ARMY, ARMY OPERATIONS, MILITARY COMMANDERS, COMBAT FORCES, PERT, AIR LAND BATTLES.

    Subject Categories : OPERATIONS RESEARCH, MILITARY OPERATIONS, STRATEGY AND TACTICS, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, MILITARY FORCES AND ORGANIZATIONS, COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING & MAN MACHINE SYSTEM

    Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

    Published in 1994, it can also be found here:
    http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA289230



Red Team/Team B

One of the key elements in military-caliber simulation gaming is the use of “Red Teaming”, an approach that is in close parallel to the use of “Team B” as developed during the Reagan administration under the tutelage of his DCI, George Herbert Walker Bush. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B .

The “Red Team”: Forging a Well-Conceived Contingency Plan”, by Col. Timothy Malone and Major Reagan Schaupp (both USAF), describes the use of “red-teaming, synchronization matrices and simulation for improved mission planning and mission rehearsal. The use of “a group of subject-matter experts (SME), with various, appropriate … disciplinary backgrounds, that provides an independent peer review of products and processes, acts as a devil’s advocate, and knowledgeably role-plays the enemy and outside agencies, using an iterative, interactive process during operations planning.” ["an iterative, interactive process"--repeatable and repeated]

“An effective Red Team can pinpoint key Blue decision points, identify planning shortfalls, show deviations from doctrine, reveal overlooked opportunities, and extrapolate unanticipated strategic implications.”

“Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke’s adage ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ is true. But through Red Teaming, a plan can be refined after each contact with a Red Team. This process is valuable because it brings a contingency plan, together with the reasoning and information behind it, under the scrutiny of a well-simulated enemy. Better still, the Red Team can imitate outside agencies, higher headquarters, and even “Murphy’s Law.” A plan that survives this kind of treatment should be healthy indeed. To modify Gen George S. Patton’s famous quotation, ‘A good plan, well rehearsed, is better than a perfect plan unrehearsed’.”


The Red Team can also discover (through drills, exercises, table-tops and simulations) how protocols, communications, and command thinking function in a given scenario.

Simulation and operations are simply two sides of the same coin.

Review, at the end of this series, the range of exercises and drills that were focused on 9/11-like scenarios for years prior to 9/11.

"an iterative, interactive process"--repeatable and repeated...

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2009, 06:41:31 pm »
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part II: TADMUS and Situation Awareness


Since the incident involving the USS Vincennes, the US military has invested a significant degree of money in TADMUS research.

TADMUS stands for tactical decision-making under stress.

Google “TADMUS” and browse the entries. Here are a few examples:

Implications for Individual and Team Training (1998);

Decision-Making Schemas in Rapidly Changing Situations (1995-1998);

A Comprehensive Bibliography.

    “In the wake of the tragic shoot-down, the Navy began a multiyear, multimillion dollar research program to formally study teamwork and team training interventions. The program, known as Tactical Decision Making Under Stress (TADMUS), began in 1990 and led the Navy to breakthrough advances in team training. As noted by William Howell, then head of the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association, "By almost anyone's standard, TADMUS has turned out to be an unqualified success."


Interestingly, research which pre-dated the 1990-1998 TADMUS work was done for air traffic controllers; see Seamster, T.L., Cannon, R.R., Purcell, J.A., Pierce, R.M., Fisher, S.G., & Redding, R.E. 1991. Analysis of controller communication in en route air traffic control. Published in ERIC reports.

By 1999, the TADMUS research was well enough regarded that it was adopted, via the Federal technology transfer program, to the law enforcement/prison industry. See http://www.oletc.org/oletctoday/0309_tdt.pdf.)


Similarly, a great deal of research has been done in the field of situation awareness, most notably by Mica Endlsey et al at SA Technologies, and focused heavily on the aeronautical applications. Google any or all of those three for an in-depth look at the research and publications since the late 1980’s.

See the SA Technology publications focused on air traffic control here: http://www.satechnologies.com/publications/list.php?topic=2.

One example is the 1998 article entitled Shared situation awareness in the flight deck-ATC system.

    “Numerous studies have been performed to assess the validity of SAGAT [situation awareness global assessment technique] (e.g., Endsley, 1995). SAGAT has been shown to have a high degree of reliability (e.g., Endsley & Boldstad (1994), to possess sensitivity to condition manipulations (Endsley, 2000), and to be effective across a variety of domains, including

    air traffic control (Endsley, Sollenberger, Nakata, & Stein, 2000);
    infantry operations (Matthews, Pleban, Endsley, & Strater, 2000);
    commercial aviation(Endsley & Kiris, 1995; Kaber, Endsley, Wright, & Warren, 2002); and
    teleoperations (Kaber, Onal & Endsley, 2000; Kaber, Wright, & Hughes, 2002).”
    See also http://www2.hf.faa.gov/workbenchtools/default.aspx?rPage=Tooldetails&subCatId=9&toolID=240


Endsley defined situation awareness as

"1) the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space [or a specific context];

2) the comprehension of their meaning; and

3) the projection of their status in the near future".

Two years later, she defined it as "knowing what is going on around you".

The term “situation awareness” was used in this 1996 article The Digital General: Reflections on Leadership in the Post-Information Age, by Paul T. Harig, Parameters, Autumn 1996, pp. 133-140, and attributed to Thomas J. Czerwinski, "Command and Control at the Crossroads," Marine Corps Gazette, October 1995, pp. 13-15.

There was a clear understanding of the term situation awareness in military circles well in advance of 9/11. Indeed:

    “The [9/11] Commission then states that the Secretary of Defense did not join the NMCC’s [air threat] conference call until just before 10:30AM. The Secretary of Defense himself told the Commission he was just gaining situation awareness when he spoke with the Vice-President at 10:39AM. That transcript is on page 23, page 43.”

Yet the FBI arrived at the FAA’s Boston Center, in Nashua, New Hampshire, “minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center,” (circa 8:50 AM) and seizes tape recordings of radio transmissions from the hijacked plane. (See the Cooperative Research timelines for 9/11.) “At 8:43 a.m., [Master Sergeant Maureen] Dooley's technicians [at NEADS], their headsets linked to Boston Center, heard of a second plane, United Flight 175, that also was not responding. It, too, was moving to New York.” [See Hart Seely, “Amid Crisis Simulation, 'We Were Suddenly No-Kidding Under Attack,’” Newhouse News Service, January 25, 2002. ] According to this story, NEADS knew by 8:43 that UA 175 was problematic.”

According to Laura Brown, the Deputy in Public Affairs at FAA headquarters:

    “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service. . . . The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD. . . . The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest. . . .”

‘When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, however, it contained no mention of [Brown’s] memo or its account. The Commission implicitly claimed, in fact, that the memo’s account could not be true by claiming that the FAA-initiated conference -- which according to Brown’s memo had begun about 8:50 -- did not begin until 9:20. As usual, inconvenient facts were simply eliminated.” (See “9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?” by David Ray Griffin.)


David Ray Griffin speaks of “the now established fact that the military has lied about 9/11… And if the previous story, which only partly absolved the military from suspicion, was a lie, should we not suspect that the new story, which fully absolves it, is also a lie?’

“Relevant here is the fairly new technology of “voice morphing” (which is one of the forms of “digital morphing,” with others being video and photo morphing). This technology has been available for several years, as shown in a 1999 Washington Post article by William Arkin. [William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...45085-2000Feb28 ).]

As an example of what was already possible at that time, Arkin described a demonstration in which General Carl Steiner, former Commander-in-Chief of the US Special Operations Command, was heard making a statement that began:

    “Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.”

In another demonstration, the voice of Colin Powell was heard to say:

    “I am being treated well by my captors.”

Neither Steiner nor Powell had ever uttered those statements. They were complete fabrications.

What is required to produce such fabrications? “By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of [anyone’s] voice,” Arkin reported, voice morphing experts can “clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile,” causing people to appear to have said things that they “would never otherwise have said.” Although earlier voice morphing techniques required cutting and pasting, often producing robotic intonations, the new software “can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks.”

This new technology, developed in the Los Alamos National Laboratory, can be used equally by Hollywood and by military and intelligence agencies. “For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.”

One agency interested in this weapon, Arkin reports, is “the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.”

Referring to what the military calls PSYOPS, meaning psychological operations, Arkin explains that these operations “seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations.” But voice morphing, I would add, could equally well be used as a weapon to exploit human vulnerabilities in a government’s own population. The “human vulnerabilities” in the US population could include the public’s ignorance of such technologies plus its tendency to trust its political and military leaders and to reject “conspiracy theories.”

Arkin, pointing out that video and photo manipulation had already “raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world,” teaching it that “seeing isn’t necessarily believing,” points out that the addition of voice morphing means that “hearing isn’t either.” Or at least it shouldn’t be. Surely, given the existence of this technology plus the manifold problems in the 9/11 Commission’s story based on the NORAD tapes, our media should be questioning the authenticity of these tapes.”

To search the Cooperative Research timelines for “Secret Service”, click here.

To search the Cooperative Research timelines for “FAA”, click here.

According to all official accounts, the exercises were called off by 9:16 – well before 9:25 when "Phantom Flight 11" comes on the scene. [See Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, p. 444 (quoting from Air War Over America, p. 59).] Why was a phantom blip showing up then? Did it, or are we just being told that it did?

If all warfare is based on deception, who was (or is) deceiving whom?

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2009, 07:15:49 pm »
Some of this is redundant, so I will be leaving out some things already present in abundance on this site (regarding Singh/Ptech in the bottom half of this).

“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part III: Wired?

“PROMIS software (originally Prosecutor Management Intelligence System) appeared in the early 1980s. It was developed by a small Washington, DC, company, Inslaw Inc., and proved to be the perfect intelligence tool. Though designed for the Department of Justice to help prosecutors in case management, it hooked the attention of corrupt officials and Israeli intelligence. Subsequently stolen from Inslaw, the software was hacked and given a “trap door.” This trojan gave it the power to retrieve info for the US and Israel from the very foreign intelligence services and banks it had been sold to in some 40 countries.

The software helped the US win the Cold War against the Soviets, but also helped the Russian mafia, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden & Company and any number of spies and crooks.

In 1985 Mossad spy and British media tycoon Robert Maxwell, opened the “trap door” secret to Chinese Military Intelligence (PLA-2), at the same time selling them a copy of PROMIS for $9 million, turning it against the US. Unfortunately, in the mid-90s PLA-2 hacked the databases of Los Alamos and Sandia laboratories to cop US nuclear secrets.

The KGB also bought PROMIS from Maxwell, and also received the back door trojan to plant in a tender part of the FBI. Yes there is no honor among thieves. We also provided PROMIS to Russia and China to backdoor their intelligence, figuring the 64 federal agencies they could expose did not outweigh the many other look-sees PROMIS provided the US.

Actually, using the same PROMIS bought from Russia, Saddam and his regime shifted major money through the banking system. Some of these funds still feed Iraqi anti-coalition and resistance fighters.

Unfortunately, when Maxwell tried to extort more money from the KGB to pay off his huge corporate debts, he ended up falling off the back of a yacht into the deep blue drink, stung by a hot shot needle, this with a little help from his friends. Nevertheless PROMIS was, as Michael Ruppert described in Crossing the Rubicon:

“ . . . software that could think, understand every major language in the world, that provided peepholes into everyone else’s computer ‘dressing rooms,’ that could insert data into computers without people’s knowledge, that could fill in blanks beyond human reasoning, and also predict what people would do — before they did it? You would probably use it wouldn’t you? But PROMIS is not a virus. It has to be installed as a program on the computer systems that you want to penetrate. Being as uniquely powerful as it is, this is usually not a problem. Once its power and advantages are demonstrated, most corporations, banks, or nations are eager to be a part of the 'exclusive' club that has it. And, as is becoming increasingly confirmed by sources connected to this story, especially in the worldwide banking system, not having PROMIS -- by whatever name it is offered -- can exclude you from participating in the ever more complex world of money transfers and money laundering. As an example, look at any of the symbols on the back of your ATM card. Picture your bank refusing to accept the software that made it possible to transfer funds from LA to St. Louis or from St. Louis to Rome.”

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1322.shtml

“According to Federal court documents, PROMIS [software] was stolen from Inslaw by the Department of Justice directly after Etian's 1983 visit to Inslaw (a later congressional investigation preferred the word "misappropriated").[Rafael Etian, chief of the Israeli defense force's anti-terrorism intelligence unit] And according to sworn affidavits, PROMIS was then given or sold at a profit to Israel and as many as 80 other countries by Dr. Earl W. Brian, a man with close personal and business ties to then-President Ronald Reagan and then-Presidential counsel Edwin Meese.

A House Judiciary Committee report … found evidence raising "serious concerns" that high officials at the Department of Justice executed a pre-meditated plan to destroy Inslaw and co-opt the rights to its PROMIS software. The committee's call for an independent counsel have fallen on deaf ears. One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted to tell the story (see sidebar), and boxes of documents relating to the case have been destroyed, stolen, or conveniently "lost" by the Department of Justice.

But so far, not a single person has been held accountable.”

--snip --

“WIRED has spent two years searching for the answers to the questions Inslaw poses: Why would Justice steal PROMIS? Did it then cover up the theft? Did it let associates of government officials sell PROMIS to foreign governments, which then used the software to track political dissidents instead of legal cases? (Israel has reportedly used PROMIS to track troublesome Palestinians.)

The implications continue: that Meese profited from the sales of the stolen property. That Brian, Meese's business associate, may have been involved in the October Surprise (the oft-debunked but persistent theory that the Reagan campaign conspired to insure that US hostages in Iran were held until after Reagan won the 1980 election, see sidebar). That some of the monies derived from the illegal sales of PROMIS furthered covert and illegal government programs in Nicaragua. That Oliver North used PROMIS as a population tracking instrument for his White House-based domestic emergency management program.

Each new set of allegations leads to a new set of possibilities, which makes the story still more difficult to comprehend. But one truth is obvious: What the Inslaw case presents, in its broadest possible implications, is a painfully clear snapshot of how the Justice Department operated during the Reagan-Bush years.

This is the case that won't go away, the case that shows how justice and public service gave way to profit and political expediency, how those within the administration's circle of privilege were allowed to violate private property and civil rights for their own profit.

Sound like a conspiracy theorist's dream? Absolutely. But the fact is, it's true.”

--

“Among the many strong conclusions of the "House Judiciary Committee Report on the Inslaw Affair" was this rather startling and brief recommendation: "Investigate Mr. Casolaro's death."

The House Committee Report contained some no-holds-barred language on the issue of stonewalling:

"One of the principle reasons the committee could not reach any definitive conclusion about Inslaw's allegations of a high criminal conspiracy at Justice was the lack of cooperation from the Department," the report states. "Throughout the two Inslaw investigations, the Congress met with restrictions, delays and outright denials to requests for information and to unobstructed access to records and witnesses.

"During this committee's investigation, Attorney General Thornburgh repeatedly reneged on agreements made with this committee to provide full and open access to information and witnesses ... the Department failed to provide all the documents subpoenaed, claiming that some of the documents ... had been misplaced or accidentally destroyed." [Sound familiar?]

"There appears to be strong evidence," the report states, "as indicated by the findings in two Federal Court proceedings as well as by the committee investigation, that the Department of Justice 'acted willfully and fraudulently,' and 'took, converted and stole,' Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS by 'trickery fraud and deceit.' "

"While refusing to engage in good faith negotiations with Inslaw," the report continues, "Mr. Brewer and Mr. Videnieks, with the approval of high- level Justice Department officials, proceeded to take actions to misappropriate the Enhanced PROMIS software."

Furthermore, the report states, "several individuals have stated under oath that the Enhanced PROMIS software was stolen and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain to Dr. Brian and to further intelligence and foreign policy objectives for the United States."

The INSLAW Octopus: Software piracy, conspiracy, cover-up, stonewalling, covert action: Just another decade at the Department of Justice
By Richard L. Fricker , March/April 1993, Wired http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw_pr.html

* * * * * * * * *

According to Wkipiedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_Management_Information_System ):

In early 1999, Gordon Thomas, a British journalist and author, published an authorized history of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency. The book, entitled Gideon's Spies: the Secret History of the Mossad, included extensive admissions about the theft and re-sale of PROMIS by the long-time former deputy director of the Mossad. He claimed that Israeli intelligence had collaborated with the U.S. Justice Department on the theft of PROMIS from Inslaw, that the FBI and CIA were among the agencies of the U.S. intelligence community that adapted PROMIS to track the intelligence information they produce, that U.S. intelligence also adapted PROMIS to track financial transactions in the banking sector, and that U.S. and Israeli intelligence created a Trojan horse version of PROMIS and sold in excess of $500 million worth of that version to foreign intelligence agencies to spy on them.

In 2001, The Washington Times and Fox News each published reports about PROMIS which they attributed to federal law enforcement and/or intelligence officials familiar with the debriefing of former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen, whom the FBI had arrested for espionage for the Soviet Union and Russia in February 2001. Each of these news reports stated that Hanssen had stolen for the Soviet KGB copies of the PROMIS-derivative software used in the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies to keep track of the intelligence information they produce and copies of the PROMIS-derivative software that U.S. intelligence installed in banks to track the financial transactions of terrorists and others. Both news reports also stated that Osama bin Laden later bought copies of these software systems on the Russian black market for $2 million and that al Qaeda used the software to penetrate U.S. intelligence database systems so that it could move its funds through the banking system and so that it could evade detection and monitoring by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

See also http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.summary

“… Promis, after improvement with [artificial intelligence], had allegedly been mated with the software of Jackson Stephens' firm Systematics. In the late seventies and early eighties, Systematics handled some 60-70% of all electronic banking transactions in the U.S. The goal, according to the diagrams which laid out (subsequently verified) relationships between Stephens, Worthen Bank, the Lippo Group and the drug/intelligence bank BCCI was to penetrate every banking system in the world. This "cabal" could then use Promis both to predict and to influence the movement of financial markets worldwide.”

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/052401_promis.html
(note especially his explanation of “the Nagasaki syndrome”)

* * * * * * * *
As Michelle Malkin suggestively notes: “The odor of a cover-up is unmistakable. To this day, the Justice Department, FBI and other government agencies continue to insist that they have never possessed or used any pirated version of PROMIS. Career Justice officials who oversaw the theft of the Hamilton’s software program in the 1980’s remain in place today. And according to my sources, the 9-11 Commission created by President Bush had declined to investigate this spy software fiasco and its possible role in facilitating the terrorist attacks on America.”

* * * * * * * *

Wall Street, the CIA and 9/11

“One of the primary functions of the Central Intelligence Agency by virtue of its long and very close history of relationships with Wall Street -- I mean to the point where the current executive vice president of the New York Stock Exchange is a retired CIA general counsel -- has had a mandate to track, monitor, all financial markets worldwide, to look for anomalous trades, indicative of either economic warfare, or insider currency trading or speculation which might affect the US Treasury or, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, to look for trades which indicated foreknowledge of attacks like we saw. One of the vehicles that they use to do this is a software called Promis software, which was developed in the 1980s, actually 1979, by Bill Hamilton and a firm called INSLAW, in [the] Washington D.C. area. And Promis is very unique for two reasons: first of all, it had the ability to integrate a wide range of databases using different computer languages and to make them all into one readable format. And secondly, in the years since, Promis has been mated with artificial intelligence to even predict moves in markets and to detect trades that are anomalous, as a result of those projections.

… the UAL put options were primarily held by Deutsche Bank-A.B. Brown. And its very important to note that the current Number Three at CIA, the Executive Director, a man by the name of A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, was, until 1998, the chairman of A.B. Brown. The company went from being owned by Banker’s Trust to being owned by Deutsche Bank. But this is a man effectively running CIA, who came from the bank that handled the trades.

Historically speaking, we go back to 1947, we look at Clark Clifford, who wrote the National Security Act, in 1947. He was a Wall Street banker, and a lawyer from Wall Street. He was the chairman of First American Bancshares that brought BCCI onto US shores in the late 1980s. He was given the design for the CIA by John Foster and Allen Dulles, two brothers: John Foster becoming Secretary of State, Allen becoming director of Central Intelligence, who was fired by John Kennedy. They were partners in what is until this day the most powerful law firm on Wall Street: Sullivan Cromwell. Bill Casey, the legendary CIA director from the Reagan/Iran Contra years, had been chairman of the Securities and Exchange commission under Ronald Reagan. He, in fact, was a Wall Street lawyer and a stockbroker. I’ve already mentioned Dave Doherty, the Vice President of NYSE [New York Stock Exchange] who is the retired CIA general counsel. George Herbert Walker Bush is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, very influential on Wall Street. “Buzzy” Krongard is there. John Deutsch, the former CIA director, who retired a couple of years ago, a few years ago, is now on the board of Citibanc or Citigroup. And his number three, Nora Slatkin, the Executive Director at CIA is also at Citigroup. And Maurice “Hank” Greenburg, who is the chairman of AIG insurance, which is the third largest investment pool of capital in the world, was up to be the CIA director in 1995 and Bill Clinton declined to nominate him. So there is an inextricable and unavoidable relationship between CIA and Wall Street.”

The CIA’s Wall Street connections, Transcript of interview with Michael C. Ruppert on Guns and Butter: The Economy Watch, with Kellia Ramares and Bonnie Faulkner, aired on KPFA 94.1 FM, Berkeley, CA Friday, October 12, 2001
_______________________________________________________________________________
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part IV: Ptech, the OODA Loop and SAIC

    "By 8:56 a.m., it was evident that Flight 77 [which hit the Pentagon] was lost. The Federal Aviation Administration, already in contact with the Pentagon about the hijackings out of Boston, notified the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, of American 77 at 9:24, 28 minutes later."

    "'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller", New York Times, 16 October 2001

****

    "I want to get though to the White House to reiterate that we need air cover."

    New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
    at the World Trade Center just after the second attack on the World Trade Center
    Time Magazine, 7 January 2002

Excerpt by Mike Ruppert:

"Enterprise architecture software is designed with the express purpose of knowing everything that is going on throughout the entirety of the enterprise in real-time.” [Doesn’t that sound like having good situation awareness?]

Ptech Inc. Confidential Business Plan: Page 37 of 46 11/7/2001:

    “The FAA recognized the need for leveraging its IT investment, with a means of centralizing activities and introducing consistency and compatibility within the operating systems environment. A Ptech consulting team was organized to use activity modeling to identify key functions that could be examined for improvement in network management, network security, configuration management, fault management, performance management, application administration, network accounting management, and user help desk operations.”

Read about the DOJ and FBI investigations of Ptech here.

Note also that Chertoff was minority counsel in the first Senate investigation related to the death of Vincent Foster and majority special counsel in the second such Senate investigation. See http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=81709.

Neither Indira Singh, nor Ptech, warrant a mention
in the official 9/11 Commission report.

******************************

The OODA loop is used to create “the fog of war”.

According to Col John Boyd's observation-orientation-decision-action (OODA) loop theory, this kind of offensive effort can "enmesh [the] adversary in a world of uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, chaos . . . and/or fold [him] back inside himself so that he cannot cope with events/efforts as they unfold."

If someone truly understands how to create menace and uncertainty and mistrust, then how to exploit and magnify the presence of these disconcerting elements, the Loop can be vicious, a terribly destructive force, virtually unstoppable in causing panic and confusion and – Boyd’s phrase is best – “unraveling the competition”.

The most amazing aspect of the OODA Loop is that the losing side rarely understands what happened.”

[INSERT:  Including an extended excerpt for the following link]:

From:

THE NEW WAR MACHINE
How General Tommy Franks joined Donald Rumsfeld in the fight to transform the military.
by PETER J. BOYER
Issue of 2003-06-30
Posted 2003-06-23 

"Gingrich had been out of the House for nearly three years, but he was an ally of Rumsfeld and a member of his Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory group. Gingrich was also one of a number of military theorists in the nineteen-eighties who tried to imagine a new American military suited to a world beyond the Cold War. Their intellectual patron was the late Air Force Colonel John Boyd, whose cardinal tenet was a concept that he called the “ooda loop”: success in war is a matter of observing, orienting, deciding, and then acting faster than the enemy. Boyd’s brainstorm generated others, and for military thinkers the great quest was figuring out ways to “get inside the other guy’s loop.”

One result was the rediscovery of the art of maneuver warfare, an old fighting doctrine that became a new article of faith for military reformers. The idea of maneuver warfare is to defeat the enemy by disrupting his capacity to fight rather than by overcoming him in a head-on contest of firepower. A maneuver attack might feature a ferocious assault on the enemy’s front as a means of distraction while flanking forces dash to the adversary’s rear, enveloping the opponent’s force and collapsing it. The German tank blitzkrieg against France in May of 1940 is one of the best-known examples.

The themes of maneuver warfare—speed, agility, flexibility—became the language of the military-reform movement. As a Presidential candidate, George W. Bush had associated himself firmly with the reformers, and with a particular wing of the movement that placed its faith in the transformative power of microchip technology in warfare. This group, which included Rumsfeld and a handful of key defense intellectuals who would form his executive core at the Pentagon, believed in a “revolution in military affairs” triggered by the advent of precision-guided munitions. A smart bomb was the apotheosis of the speed-over-mass ideal, the reformers’ fundamental creed.

In office, Rumsfeld and his team synthesized sundry elements of the reform movement into a firm ideology, which they called “transformation.” They began a months-long comprehensive review of the military, in which weapons systems, force structures, and even the senior military leadership were measured against the transformation ideal. Precision weapons and a space-based missile defense system were adjudged transformative. A mammoth artillery system called the Crusader, costing eleven billion dollars, was not. (The program was eventually killed.) In any assessment that values speed over mass, the Army is going to lose. Army resentment was so pronounced that some officers in the Pentagon began to refer to Rumsfeld as “the enemy” and to plot strategies to defeat his transformation plans.

Over the years, pockets of reform had appeared within the Army, most notably in 1999, with President Clinton’s promotion of General Shinseki to Army Chief of Staff. Shinseki announced a transformation program that anticipated Rumsfeld’s, but the Rumsfeld team deemed his effort insufficient. Rumsfeld marginalized him and frustrated his program, and the Army, in turn, used its political influence to impede Rumsfeld on Capitol Hill. Rumsfeld, a lightning rod without a strong constituency in the press or in Congress, was the media’s choice as the new Administration’s Cabinet secretary most likely to be eased out of his job."

In addition to the use of the OODA loop in strategic management and operations with multiple war game scenarios, the OODA loop also has widely accepted application within computer programming circles, especially as it pertains to cybersecurity. Some examples:

    Wood, Bradley and Schudel, Gregg, Modeling Behavior of the Cyber Terrorist, (pre-publication draft presented at various 1999 DARPA Workshops). This paper identifies an adversary cycle that leads to such a “packet of death”. This cycle consist of an Adversary Orient, Observe, Decide and Act (OODA) loop consisting of intelligence gathering, preparation, and development, live network discovery, test-practice-replan, attack and damage assessment processes.

    “Information warfare, in its essence, is about…the way humans think and, more important, the way humans make decisions.” (Stein, 1996)

    ”Effective information operations entail some of the most extreme warfighter demands ever encountered. This is especially true for information operations, where the prospects include the fastest, most numerous, most anonymous, and most rapidly reconstitutable attackers in military history. The information operations mission must be accomplished in an environment (“cyberspace”) where “fog” is common and routine access can become pure “friction.” Moreover, the operations tempo is marked in milliseconds, and this makes information operations the warfighting effort most reflective of Col. John Boyd’s (1987) analysis in terms of adversaries’ OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Loops.

    High performance information operations entail global situation awareness (SA), efficient threat identification, and effective attack assessment. To achieve these ends watch center staff must monitor, manage, and manipulate data streams and information artifacts large in number, high in complexity, and dynamic in the extreme.”

    From a paper published on March 23, 2000 entitled “CYBER WARRIOR: INFORMATION SUPERIORITY THROUGH ADVANCED MULTI-SENSORY COMMAND AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES” found here: http://www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/n-101.pdf. (link no longer works, but entire document will be posted further down)

For a more detailed look at the OODA Loop and its applications, please see my three earlier blog entries:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&showentry=601

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&showentry=604

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&showentry=605

SAIC

SAIC has been involved in military simulation.

SAIC was one of four contractors selected to provide support for Phase I of the U.S. Air Force Distributed Mission Training Operations and Integration program. See http://www.saic.com/news/sept99/news09-15-99.html.

“SAIC has unique experience in information security, Internet-based video networks, video search and indexing. SAIC’s government services expertise, specifically its reputation in supplying security solutions for the DOD, NSA and FBI, provides Onstream Media and its customers with top-notch engineers and the highest DOD-level security infrastructure.”

In 1998-1999, SAIC was also involved in a study of functional system performance parameters and decomposition of air traffic control/air traffic management. See http://as.nasa.gov/aatt/rto/Br19.pdf (See especially page 15).

According to SourceWatch:

    “Christopher Ryan Henry, SAIC's corporate vice president for strategic assessment and development, previously worked at the the Pentagon as deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, serving with Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith." In 2006, they were dropped from an Iraq war psy-ops project.

According to Mark Lewellen-Biddle in his December 2003 article Voting Machines Gone Wild!,

    “… Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego, to assess the security of the company’s voting software.... Many SAIC officers are current or former government and military officials. Retired Army Gen. Wayne Downing, who until last summer served as chief counter-terrorism expert on the National Security Council, is a member of SAIC’s board. Also on the board is former CIA Director Bobby Ray Inman, who served as director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of the CIA and vice director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. During the first Bush administration and while on the board of SAIC, Inman was a member of the National Foreign Intelligence Board, an advisory group that reports to the president and to the director of Central Intelligence.

    Retired Adm. William Owens, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who sits on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board, served as SAIC’s president and CEO and until recently was its vice chairman. He now is chairman of the board of VoteHere, which seeks to provide cryptography and computer software security for the electronic election industry. Robert Gates, ex-CIA director, former SAIC board member and a veteran of the Iran-Contra scandal, also is on the board of VoteHere.”


Non-Linear Dynamics of War

It was previously noted that war and the events of 9/11 were dynamic. There is an additional factor of such dynamism, that of non-linear dynamism. Dr. Linda Beckerman of SAIC wrote a paper in 1999 entitled 'The Non-Linear Dynamics of War". Interestingly, she references the OODA loop several times:

    The Boydian approach tracks extremely well with the nonlinear dynamics of war. He advocates that we "Operate inside adversary's observation-orientation-decision-action loops to enmesh adversary in a world of uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, chaos,..and/or fold adversary back inside himself so that he cannot cope with events/efforts as they unfold." He refers to the Strategic Game as "A game in which we must be able to diminish adversary's ability to communicate or interact with his environment while sustaining or improving ours".

    "Generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity, as well as disorient, disrupt, or overload those that adversary depends on, in order to magnify friction, shatter cohesion, produce paralysis, and bring about his collapse."

    … At the same time, we deny the adversary the same ability by disrupting his interactions to create non-cooperative centers....


    It is interesting to view Boyd's legacy to us in light of the role that new technology plays in our ability to wage war. It has become very vogue in some circles to invoke Boyd's OODA Loop as justification for new, superior technology to win "the information war". The idea is that we can be almost omniscient with regards to situational awareness, and become capable of replan and redirection at ever increasing speeds.

That article is hosted at a web site run by folks whose “methods closely follow the ideas of the late American strategist, Col John R. Boyd, USAF, particularly his concepts for dislocating competitors before engaging in decisive actions. We bring over 30 years of experience in this area, including several years working directly with Col. Boyd on applications of his strategy to business competition. Our services include training, consulting, and preparation of business plans and strategies. We also built and operate Defense and the National Interest which retains Col Boyd's original focus on military applications. This site specializes in the emerging "fourth generation" of warfare such as we experienced on September 11, 2001.”

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2009, 07:24:22 pm »
“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?”

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATUS911undefended.htm#armitage

See also http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/armitagecheneyasia.htm

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…

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/armitageman.htm

“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]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a938clarkeorders
_______________________________________________________________________________
“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."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0813-08.htm
******

“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.”

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040812110237946

********

“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.”

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040801011459507

*********

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 http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html ]

***********

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) http://www.tenc.net/indict/update630.htm

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2009, 07:35:43 pm »
“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11

Part VII: Creating Reality


“‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued.
‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you’re studying that reality —judiciously, as you will—
we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too,
and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you,
all of you,
will be left to just study what we do.’ ”

INSERT:  Your "reality" has been permanently exposed and it will never work again, you have failed, and you WILL be PUNISHED for what you have done.


(Bush entourage entering Offutt AFB bunker)


"an iterative, interactive process"--repeatable and repeated...


At some point between 1991 and 2001, a regional NORAD sector holds an exercise simulating a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a prominent building in the United States, the identity of which is classified. According to military officials, the building is not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. The exercise involves some flying of military aircraft, plus a “command post exercise” where communication procedures are rehearsed in an office environment. [CNN, 4/19/2004]

1998: Training Exercise Held at the White House, Based Around Militants Using a Plane as a Weapon

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [ Slate, 7/22/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 345, 457-458]

According to USA Today, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conduct(s) exercises simulating what the White House [later] says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of these imagined targets is the World Trade Center. According to NORAD, these scenarios are regional drills, rather than regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises. They utilize “[n]umerous types of civilian and military aircraft” as mock hijacked aircraft, and test “track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination; and operational security and communications security procedures.” The main difference between these drills and the 9/11 attacks is that the planes in the drills are coming from another country, rather than from within the US. Before 9/11, NORAD reportedly conducts four major exercises at headquarters level per year. Most of them are said to include a hijack scenario (see Before September 11, 2001). [USA Today, 4/18/2004; CNN, 4/19/2004]

A 1998 presidential directive gave the National Security Council authority to designate important upcoming events as National Special Security Events (NSSEs) (see May 22, 1998). The US Secret Service is in charge of planning and implementing security for NSSEs, and the FBI and FEMA also have major security roles. [CSO Magazine, 9/2004; Scripps Howard News Service, 1/11/2005] Louis Freeh, director of the FBI for much of the 1990s until June 2001, will later tell the 9/11 Commission that in the years 2000 and 2001, the subject of “planes as weapons” was always one of the considerations in the planning of security for “a series of these, as we call them, special events,” and “resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat.” He confirms that “the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions” was “part of the planning” for NSSEs. [9/11 Commission, 4/13/2004] According to the Secret Service, “there is a tremendous amount of advance planning and coordination” for NSSEs, sometimes taking months or even years. Various training initiatives are conducted, including “simulated attacks and medical emergencies, inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises.” [United States Secret Service, n.d.; US Congress, 7/9/2002] Presumably the use of airplanes in suicide missions is incorporated into some of these simulated attacks.

June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US

The US military conducts Amalgam Virgo 01, a multi-agency planning exercise sponsored by NORAD involving the hypothetical scenario of a cruise missile being launched by “a rogue [government] or somebody” from a barge off the East Coast. Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise. [American Forces Press Service, 6/4/2002] The exercise takes place at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. [GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002] The next Amalgam Virgo exercise, scheduled to take place the following year, will involve two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. Planning for the exercises begins before 9/11 (see Before September 11, 2001).


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).

NORAD plans for the Amalgam Virgo 2 exercise. The exercise, scheduled for June 2002, involves two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. One, a Delta 757, with actual Delta pilots and actors posing as passengers, will fly from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Honolulu, Hawaii. It will be “hijacked” by FBI agents posing as terrorists. The other will be a DC-9 hijacked by Canadian police near Vancouver, British Columbia. US and Canadian fighters are to respond and attempt to escort the hijacked planes to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska. But they possibly could “mock” shoot down the aircraft. [CNN, 6/4/2002; American Forces Press Service, 6/4/2002; USA Today, 4/18/2004] USA Today will note that this is an exception to NORAD’s claim that the agency focused only on external threats to the US and did not consider the possibility of threats arising from within the US. [USA Today, 4/18/2004] 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. [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003]

According to an FBI official interviewed by journalist Seymour Hersh, for several years prior to 9/11, the US government reportedly plans for “simulated terrorist attacks, including scenarios [involving] multiple-plane hijackings.” This presumably refers to more than just the Amalgam Virgo 02 (see Before September 11, 2001) exercise, which is based on the scenario of two planes being simultaneously hijacked. [New Yorker, 9/24/2001] Similarly, NORAD will tell USA Today that before 9/11, it normally conducted four major exercises each year at headquarters level. Most of them include a hijack scenario, the newspaper reports [USA Today, 4/18/2004] , and some of them were apparently quite similar to the 9/11 attacks (see Between 1991 and 2001) (see 1999-September 11, 2001).

(8:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Computer Specialists in WTC for ‘Emergency Drill’

An “emergency drill” has been scheduled for today, to take place on the 97th floor of the WTC South Tower. [New York Times, 3/31/2006; New York Times, 4/1/2006] A team of technology consultants from California is visiting investment firm Fiduciary Trust for this drill. (Fiduciary Trust has offices on the 97th floor.) [USA Today, 9/13/2001; Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, pp. 77; New York Times, 3/30/2006] No further details are reported as to what it entails, or who the technology consultants are. However, California-based software company Oracle Corp. will later report that six of its consultants were working on the 97th floor of the South Tower on 9/11 and are subsequently missing. So presumably these were the workers involved with the drill. [InfoWorld, 9/13/2001; Associated Press, 9/14/2001]

8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Away From Washington on Training Exercise in California

USA Today reports that at this time, “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” is on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Consequently, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still [hasn]‘t found a way to fly back to Washington.” [USA Today, 9/11/2001] The US politics website evote.com adds that the FBI has deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” So at the time of the attacks, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes [is] being AWOL.” [Evote [.com], 9/11/2001]

8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: US Military Holding ‘Practice Armageddon’ Nationwide Training Exercise

As the 9/11 attacks are taking place, a large military training exercise called Global Guardian is said to be “in full swing.” It has been going on since the previous week. [Omaha World-Herald, 2/27/2002; Omaha World-Herald, 9/10/2002] Global Guardian is an annual exercise sponsored by US Strategic Command (Stratcom) in cooperation with US Space Command and NORAD. One military author defines Stratcom as “the single US military command responsible for the day-to-day readiness of America’s nuclear forces.” [Arkin, 2005, pp. 59] Global Guardian is a global readiness exercise involving all Stratcom forces and aims to test Stratcom’s ability to fight a nuclear war. It is one of many “practice Armageddons” that the US military routinely stages. [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 11/12/1997; Associated Press, 2/21/2002; Omaha World-Herald, 2/27/2002; Omaha World-Herald, 9/10/2002]

It links with a number of other military exercises, including Crown Vigilance (an Air Combat Command exercise), Apollo Guardian (a US Space Command exercise), and NORAD exercises Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior [US Department of Defense, 5/1997; GlobalSecurity (.org), 10/10/2002] Global Guardian is both a command post and field training exercise, and is based around a fictitious scenario designed to test the ability of Stratcom and its component forces to deter a military attack against the US. Hundreds of military personnel are involved. [US Congress, n.d.; Collins Center Update, 12/1999 ; Times-Picayune, 9/8/2002] According to a 1998 Internet article by the British American Security Information Council—an independent research organization—Global Guardian is held in October or November each year. [Kristensen, 10/1998] In his book Code Names, NBC News military analyst William Arkin dates this exercise for October 22-31, 2001. [Arkin, 2005, pp. 379] And a military newspaper reported in March 2001 that Global Guardian was scheduled for October 2001. [Space Observer, 3/23/2001, pp. 2 ]

If this is correct, then some time after March, the exercise must have been rescheduled for early September. Furthermore, there may be another important facet to Global Guardian. A 1998 Defense Department newsletter reported that for several years Stratcom had been incorporating a computer network attack (CNA) into Global Guardian. The attack involved Stratcom “red team” members and other organizations acting as enemy agents, and included attempts to penetrate the Command using the Internet and a “bad” insider who had access to a key command and control system. The attackers “war dialed” the phones to tie them up and sent faxes to numerous fax machines throughout the Command. They also claimed they were able to shut down Stratcom’s systems. Reportedly, Stratcom planned to increase the level of computer network attack in future Global Guardian exercises. [IAnewsletter, 6/1998 ] It is not currently known if a computer attack was incorporated into Global Guardian in 2001 or what its possible effects on the country’s air defense system would have been if such an attack was part of the exercise.

At 8:43 a.m., Major James Fox, the leader of the NEADS Weapons Team, comments, “I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

… three special military command aircraft with sophisticated communications equipment, based at Offutt, are up in the air the morning of 9/11. These E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes—nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War—are intended to control nuclear forces from the air in times of crisis. They are capable of acting as alternative command posts for top government officials from where they can direct US forces, execute war orders and coordinate the actions of civil authorities in times of national emergency. The Federal Advisory Committee (whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft) is aboard one of these Doomsday planes, being brought to Offutt to observe the exercise. Media accounts indicate Global Guardian is cancelled at Offutt shortly after the second WTC tower is hit (at 9:03 a.m.), with staff switching to “real-world mode.” [US Department of Defense, 1/9/2002; Air Force Weather Observer, 7/2002 ; Omaha World-Herald, 9/8/2002] However, even after Global Guardian is called off, the three E-4Bs remain airborne. [Omaha World-Herald, 2/27/2002; BBC, 9/1/2002]

An “emergency response exercise” is scheduled to take place at 9 a.m. the morning of 9/11, involving the simulated crash of a small corporate jet plane into a government building. The exercise is to be conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in Chantilly, Virginia—just four miles from Washington Dulles International Airport, from where Flight 77 took off, and 24 miles from the Pentagon. The NRO draws its personnel from the CIA and the military, and operates many of the nation’s spy satellites. John Fulton, chief of the NRO’s strategic war gaming office, and his team at the CIA, are in charge of the exercise. It is to involve the jet experiencing mechanical problems then crashing into one of the four towers at the NRO. In order to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits are to be closed off, forcing NRO employees to find other ways to evacuate the building. However, according to an agency spokesman, “as soon as the real world events began, we cancelled the exercise.” After the attacks, most of the agency’s 3,000 staff are supposedly sent home. [National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, 8/4/2002; National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, 8/6/2002 ; Associated Press, 8/21/2002; United Press International, 8/22/2002]

For a more complete listing (from which the above was taken) of the drills, war games and exercises held prior to 9/11/01, please see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...litaryExercises


“Now, people might say, “Oh, this is all conspiracy theory”,
but I would like to remind people that ‘conspiracy’ is very much recognized by the US Federal Code,
and it’s called RICO racketeering and influence…”
(Indira Singh)



What was the time span
between the awareness of the US military of the second hijacking and the impact on the Pentagon?
(It was about 52 minutes.)


End

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2009, 12:57:14 am »
REITERATED FOR CONFIRMATION:

are there REALLY (in USA at least, and maybe in every country) TWO RIVAL GOVERNMENTS, one 'voted in' and one corporate controlled since the 1930's?

Mike
PS: arrest warrents still need to be issued for these 911 corporate criminals.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2009, 03:55:51 pm »
REITERATED FOR CONFIRMATION:

are there REALLY (in USA at least, and maybe in every country) TWO RIVAL GOVERNMENTS, one 'voted in' and one corporate controlled since the 1930's?

Mike
PS: arrest warrents still need to be issued for these 911 corporate criminals.

You know, I put this information up here hoping for collaborative research, vetting, heavily scrutinizing this info to get to the absolute truth.  It would be nice to see things other than general comments which do not fit into that criteria--that's what the general section is for.  This section is for heavy research.
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.911independentcommission.org/ptech32204.html

Military Purchase Order

Please investigate this Dec. 15, 2000 purchase order:

"Description

The 11th Contracting Squadron intends to issue, on a sole source basis, a Firm-Fixed Price Modification to existing Purchase Order F49642-01-P0011. Worldwide News Inc (doing business as UPI) will provide News Wire Services to the National Military Command Center from 1 Jan 01 _ 30 Sep 01. This synopsis is a notice of contract action and shall not be considered a request for offers. See Numbered Note 22”

http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/2000/12(December)/19-Dec-2000/spmsc012.htm

According to news reports, Worldwide News Inc, owned by a Saudi corporation, sold UPI in May, 2000, to News World Communications, associated with the Moon sect. http://cisar.org/000516d.htm

1) How then could Worldwide News, doing business as UPI, be named in a purchase order in Dec., 2000?

2) This order is for news wire services at our National Military Command Center. Why is any foreign owned news service permitted on the presumably secure premises?

3) Is it possible that the hijackers somehow found out about the planned drill from reporters at the National Military Command Center?

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2009, 02:27:15 am »
Quote from: Anti_Illuminati
You know, I put this information up here hoping for collaborative research, vetting, heavily scrutinizing this info to get to the absolute truth.  It would be nice to see things other than general comments which do not fit into that criteria--that's what the general section is for.  This section is for heavy research.

point taken

:)

Offline chrsswtzr

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
Mitre Corp., Ptech, Controlled Opposition and the Internet
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2009, 10:32:14 am »
Mitre Corp., Ptech, Controlled Opposition and the Internet

Indira Singh: "Ptech was with MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11. Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA - that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything – it would have been Ptech along with MITRE."

Since my abandonment of internet journalism two years ago, a wealth of information has been written on this issue. Here are the two most well known examples:

MITRE Corp. The Trojan Horse of 9/11?

THE FAA KNEW! But Were They Set Up?

In the first item, authored by Christopher Bollyn, we have a focus on Israeli involvement. In the second, hosted by From the Wilderness, we have a focus on the Saudi aspects. What I find suspcious is both how Bollyn NEVER mentions Saudi Arabia in his "research" and the fact that Michael Kane, of FTW, NEVER mentions Israel in his "research." Can you say controlled opposition?

Three years ago, as I sat amidst mounds of electronic data regarding this reasearch, one thing that struck me was the close cooperation that seemed to exist between the Israeli Space Agency and the Fahd regime in Saudi Arabia. I had to follow leads from outfits like Booz, Allen, and Hamilton and Arnold's old business partners through Planet Hollywood. As well, we must not forget James Woolsey. James Woolsey and John Schlesinger both have extensive, documentable ties with Mitre Corporation and these two were the FIRST TWO speakers at the 9/11 Commission, i.e. they set the parameters for the whitewash.

Booz, Allen, and Hamilton works closely with Yahoo in maintaining tolerable levels of truth at its forums. What you may not know is that Mitre Corporation helped to develop ARPANET which would, in turn, become the internet. This sure would explain the ease with which these players have stifled balanced research into these issues. It would also explain most of the vast array of security issues I have, personally, had online. As well, now I know the source of those "unknown" hits at my blog from McLean, Virginia.


Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2009, 11:50:27 am »
A_I - I haven't found this elsewhere on the forum... if it's been posted, then just delete...

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

The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation

William S. Lind, Colonel Keith Nightengale (USA),
 Captain John F. Schmitt (USMC), Colonel Joseph W. Sutton (USA),
and Lieutenant Colonel Gary I. Wilson (USMCR)
Marine Corps Gazette
October 1989, Pages 22-26
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm

The peacetime soldier's principal task is to prepare effectively for the next war. In order to do so, he must anticipate what the next war will be like. This is a difficult task that gets continuously more difficult.

German Gen Franz Uhle-Wettler writes
:

    "At an earlier time, a commander could be certain that a future war would resemble past and present ones. This enabled him to analyze appropriate tactics from past and present. The troop commander of today no longer has this possibility. He knows only that whoever fails to adapt the experiences of the last war will surely lose the next one."



The Central Question


If we look at the development of warfare in the modern era, we see three distinct generations. In the United States, the Army and the Marine Corps are now coming to grips with the change to the third generation. This transition is entirely for the good. However, third generation warfare was conceptually developed by the German offensive in the spring of 1918. It is now more than 70 years old. This suggests some interesting questions: Is it not about time for a fourth generation to appear? If so, what might it look like? These questions are of central importance. Whoever is first to recognize, understand, and implement a generational change can gain a decisive advantage. Conversely, a nation that is slow to adapt to generational change opens itself to catastrophic defeat.

Our purpose here is less to answer these questions than to pose them. Nonetheless, we will offer some tentative answers. To begin to see what these might be, we need to put the questions into historical context.

Three Generations of Warfare


While military development is generally a continuous evolutionary process, the modern era has witnessed three watersheds in which change has been dialectically qualitative. Consequently, modern military development comprises three distinct generations.

First generation warfare reflects tactics of the era of the smoothbore musket, the tactics of line and column. These tactics were developed partially in response to technological factors — the line maximized firepower, rigid drill was necessary to generate a high rate of fire, etc.— and partially in response to social conditions and ideas, e.g., the columns of the French revolutionary armies reflected both the élan of the revolution and the low training levels of conscripted troops. Although rendered obsolete with the replacement of the smoothbore by the rifled musket, vestiges of first generation tactics survive today, especially in a frequently encountered desire for linearity on the battlefield. Operational art in the first generation did not exist as a concept although it was practiced by individual commanders, most prominently Napoleon.

Second generation warfare was a response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machinegun, and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement, and they remained essentially linear. The defense still attempted to prevent all penetrations, and in the attack a laterally dispersed line advanced by rushes in small groups. Perhaps the principal change from first generation tactics was heavy reliance on indirect fire; second generation tactics were summed up in the French maxim, "the artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Massed firepower replaced massed manpower. Second generation tactics remained the basis of U.S. doctrine until the 1980s, and they are still practiced by most American units in the field.

While ideas played a role in the development of second generation tactics (particularly the idea of lateral dispersion), technology was the principal driver of change. Technology manifested itself both qualitatively, in such things as heavier artillery and bombing aircraft, and quantitatively, in the ability of an industrialized economy to fight a battle of materiel (Materialschlacht).

The second generation saw the formal recognition and adoption of the operational art, initially by the Prussian army. Again, both ideas and technology drove the change. The ideas sprang largely from Prussian studies of Napoleon's campaigns. Technological factors included von Moltke's realization that modern tactical firepower mandated battles of encirclement and the desire to exploit the capabilities of the railway and the telegraph.

Third generation warfare was also a response to the increase in battlefield firepower. However, the driving force was primarily ideas. Aware they could not prevail in a contest of materiel because of their weaker industrial base in World War I, the Germans developed radically new tactics. Based on maneuver rather than attrition, third generation tactics were the first truly nonlinear tactics. The attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the enemy's combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them. The defense was in depth and often invited penetration, which set the enemy up for a counterattack.

While the basic concepts of third generation tactics were in place by the end of 1918, the addition of a new technological element-tanks-brought about a major shift at the operational level in World War II. That shift was blitzkrieg. In the blitzkrieg, the basis of the operational art shifted from place (as in Liddell-Hart's indirect approach) to time. This shift was explicitly recognized only recently in the work of retired Air Force Col John Boyd and his "OODA (observation- orientation- decision- action) theory."


Thus we see two major catalysts for change in previous generational shifts: technology and ideas. What perspective do we gain from these earlier shifts as we look toward a potential fourth generation of warfare?

Elements That Carry Over


Earlier generational shifts, especially the shift from the second to the third generation, were marked by growing emphasis on several central ideas. Four of these seem likely to carry over into the fourth generation, and indeed to expand their influence.

The first is mission orders. Each generational change has been marked by greater dispersion on the battlefield. The fourth generation battlefield is likely to include the whole of the enemy's society. Such dispersion, coupled with what seems likely to be increased importance for actions by very small groups of combatants, will require even the lowest level to operate flexibly on the basis of the commander's intent.

Second is decreasing dependence on centralized logistics. Dispersion, coupled with increased value placed on tempo, will require a high degree of ability to live off the land and the enemy.

Third is more emphasis on maneuver. Mass, of men or fire power, will no longer be an overwhelming factor. In fact, mass may become a disadvantage as it will be easy to target. Small, highly maneuverable, agile forces will tend to dominate.

Fourth is a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him. Targets will include such things as the population's support for the war and the enemy's culture. Correct identification of enemy strategic centers of gravity will be highly important.

In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts.

The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear.

Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity. Major military facilities, such as airfields, fixed communications sites, and large headquarters will become rarities because of their vulnerability; the same may be true of civilian equivalents, such as seats of government, power plants, and industrial sites (including knowledge as well as manufacturing industries). Success will depend heavily on effectiveness in joint operations as lines between responsibility and mission become very blurred. Again, all these elements are present in third generation warfare; fourth generation will merely accentuate them.

Potential Technology-Driven Fourth Generation


Reminder... This is from October 1989

If we combine the above general characteristics of fourth generation warfare with new technology, we see one possible outline of the new generation.

For example, directed energy may permit small elements to destroy targets they could not attack with conventional energy weapons. Directed energy may permit the achievement of EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effects without a nuclear blast. Research in superconductivity suggests the possibility of storing and using large quantities of energy in very small packages. Technologically, it is possible that a very few soldiers could have the same battlefield effect as a current brigade.

The growth of robotics, remotely piloted vehicles, low probability of intercept communications, and artificial intelligence may offer a potential for radically altered tactics. In turn, growing dependence on such technology may open the door to new vulnerabilities, such as the vulnerability to computer viruses.

Small, highly mobile elements composed of very intelligent soldiers armed with high technology weapons may range over wide areas seeking critical targets. Targets may be more in the civilian than the military sector. Front-rear terms will be replaced with targeted-untargeted. This may in turn radically alter the way in which military Services are organized and structured.

Units will combine reconnaissance and strike functions. Remote, "smart" assets with preprogrammed artificial intelligence may play a key role. Concurrently, the greatest defensive strengths may be the ability to hide from and spoof these assets.

The tactical and strategic levels will blend as the opponent's political infrastructure and civilian society become battlefield targets. It will be critically important to isolate the enemy from one's own homeland because a small number of people will be able to render great damage in a very short time.

Leaders will have to be masters of both the art of war and technology, a difficult combination as two different mindsets are involved. Primary challenges facing commanders at all levels will include target selection (which will be a political and cultural, not just a military, decision), the ability to concentrate suddenly from very wide dispersion, and selection of subordinates who can manage the challenge of minimal or no supervision in a rapidly changing environment. A major challenge will be handling the tremendous potential information overload without losing sight of the operational and strategic objectives.

Hmmmm.... sounds like a job for Promis/Ptech...

Psychological operations may become the dominant operational and strategic weapon
in the form of media/information intervention. Logic bombs and computer viruses,
including latent viruses, may be used to disrupt civilian as well as military operations.


Fourth generation adversaries will be adept at manipulating the media to alter domestic and world opinion to the point where skillful use of psychological operations will sometimes preclude the commitment of combat forces. A major target will be the enemy population's support of its government and the war. Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions.

This kind of high-technology fourth generation warfare may carry in it the seeds of nuclear destruction.
Its effectiveness could rapidly eliminate the ability of a nuclear-armed opponent to wage war conventionally. Destruction or disruption of vital industrial capacities, political infrastructure, and social fabric, coupled with sudden shifts in the balance of power and concomitant emotions, could easily lead to escalation to nuclear weapons. This risk may deter fourth generation warfare among nuclear armed powers just as it deters major conventional warfare among them today.

A major caveat must be placed on the possibility of a technologically driven fourth generation, at least in the American context Even if the technological state of the art permits a high-technology fourth generation and this is not clearly the case — the technology itself must be translated into weapons that are effective in actual combat. At present, our research, development, and procurement process has great difficulty making this transition. It often produces weapons that incorporate high technology irrelevant in combat or too complex to work in the chaos of combat. Too many so-called "smart" weapons provide examples; in combat they are easy to counter, fail of their own complexity, or make impossible demands on their operators. The current American research, development, and procurement process may simply not be able to make the transition to a militarily effective fourth generation of weapons.

A Potential Idea-Driven Fourth Generation

Technology was the primary driver of the second generation of warfare; ideas were the primary driver of the third. An idea-based fourth generation is also conceivable.

For about the last 500 years, the West has defined warfare. For a military to be effective it generally had to follow Western models. Because the West's strength is technology, it may tend to conceive of a fourth generation in technological terms.


However, the West no longer dominates the world. A fourth generation may emerge from non-Western cultural traditions, such as Islamic or Asiatic traditions. The fact that some non-Western areas, such as the Islamic world, are not strong in technology may lead them to develop a fourth generation through ideas rather than technology.


The genesis of an idea-based fourth generation may be visible in terrorism. This is not to say that terrorism is fourth generation warfare, but rather that elements of it may be signs pointing toward a fourth generation.

Some elements in terrorism appear to reflect the previously noted "carryovers" from third generation warfare. The more successful terrorists appear to operate on broad mission orders that carry down to the level of the individual terrorist. The 'battlefield" is highly dispersed and includes the whole of the enemy's society. The terrorist lives almost completely off the land and the enemy. Terrorism is very much a matter of maneuver: the terrorist's firepower is small, and where and when he applies it is critical.

...(skipping ahead)...

Terrorism also appears to represent a solution to a problem that has been generated by previous generational changes but not really addressed by any of them.

...(skipping ahead)...

The military culture, which has remained a culture of order, has become contradictory to the battlefield. ....

The contradiction between the military culture and the nature of modern war confronts a traditional military Service with a dilemma. Terrorists resolve the dilemma by eliminating the culture of order. Terrorists do not have uniforms, drill, saluting or, for the most part, ranks. Potentially, they have or could develop a military culture that is consistent with the disorderly nature of modern war. The fact that their broader culture may be non-Western may facilitate this development.

Even in equipment, terrorism may point toward signs of a change in generations. Typically, an older generation requires much greater resources to achieve a given end than does its successor. Today, the United States is spending $500 million apiece for stealth bombers. A terrorist stealth bomber is a car with a bomb in the trunk—a car that looks like every other car.

Terrorism, Technology, and Beyond


Again, we are not suggesting terrorism is the fourth generation. It is not a new phenomenon, and so far it has proven largely ineffective. However, what do we see if we combine terrorism with some of the new technology we have discussed? For example, that effectiveness might the terrorist have if his car bomb were a product of genetic engineering rather than high explosives?

To draw our potential fourth generation out still further, what if we combined terrorism, high technology, and the following additional elements?

    * A non-national or transnational base, such as an ideology or religion.
(Like a 'muslim brotherhood' perhaps?)
Our national security capabilities are designed to operate within a nation-state framework. Outside that framework, they have great difficulties. The drug war provides an example. Because the drug traffic has no nation-state base, it is very difficult to attack. The nation-state shields the drug lords but cannot control them. We cannot attack them without violating the sovereignty of a friendly nation. A fourth-generation attacker could well operate in a similar manner, as some Middle Eastern terrorists already do.

    *A direct attack on the enemy's culture. Such an attack works from within as well as from without. It can bypass not only the enemy's military but the state itself. The United States is already suffering heavily from such a cultural attack in the form of the drug traffic. Drugs directly attack our culture...

   
* Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through manipulation of the media, particularly television news...

All of these elements already exist. They are not the product of "futurism," of gazing into a crystal ball.

We are simply asking what would we face if they were all combined?
Would such a combination constitute at least the beginnings of a fourth generation of warfare?


One thought that suggests they might is that third (not to speak of second) generation militaries would seem to have little capability against such a synthesis. This is typical of generational shifts.

The purpose of this paper is to pose a question, not to answer it. The partial answers suggested here may in fact prove to be false leads. But in view of the fact that third generation warfare is now over 70 years old, we should be asking ourselves the question, what will the fourth generation be?

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2009, 11:59:23 am »
nice find Pilikia!

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2009, 12:06:52 pm »
http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2009/01/the_following_is_an_attempt.php

The XGW Framework: Classification and Creation of Doctrines for Conflict and Confrontation
By Arherring on January 26, 2009 12:32 PM











The following is an attempt to categorize the principles behind the doctrines that comprise each gradient of the XGW framework. Please note that the XGW framework is not the Generations of Modern Warfare model described by Lind, Nightengale, Schmitt, Sutton and Wilson in The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation. The XGW framework is a descendant of that model and shares some characteristics such as the carryover of elements from one gradient to the next.

Other authors and thinkers whose ideas and concepts greatly contributed to this framework include, but are not limited to; Robert Leonhard, John Boyd, Thomas X. Hammes, Rupert Smith, Tom Barnett, Howard Bloom, Dan Abbot, Curtis Gale Weeks, ‘Purpleslog,’ and John Robb. I stand on the shoulders of giants.

Special thanks are owed to the commentators who through constructive argument and devil’s advocacy helped refine the framework into its current incarnation.

Introduction to the Framework


Premise of Conflict and Confrontation:

The XGW framework is based upon the concept of conflict and confrontation from General Rupert Smith’s  The Utility of Force. The XGW framework addresses any instance where two or more actors come into conflict and/or confrontation be it physical, ideological or political.
 

Premise of Basic Principles:


Each gradient of XGW embodies the basic principle behind an expression of Force. This addresses not the ‘how’ but ‘why’ each gradient of doctrine functions as it does. Each gradient is intended to be broad and inclusive to account for all possible doctrines. The XGW framework is also intended to allow for new gradients to be created, accounting for doctrines that do not fit in any of the six existing gradients, 0GW through 5GW.


Kinetic and Non-kinetic Force:

The doctrines of the XGW framework embody expressions of Force both kinetic and non-kinetic In the XGW framework, kinetic Force has greater utility at lower gradients of the framework, and less utility at the higher gradients of the framework. This utility is mirrored by the utility of non-kinetic Force, which is lowest at the lower gradients of the framework and greatest at the highest gradients of the framework.
 

Technology:

Being premised upon base principles, the doctrines of the XGW gradients are effectively independent of technological innovation. In principle, a practitioner should be able to pursue any gradient of doctrine with any available technology.
 

Classification and Application:


The XGW framework is intended to have two separate but complimentary functions. The framework is first a guide to classify and understand the principle behind doctrines being employed by actors in any conflict or confrontation. Second, a practitioner should use the knowledge gained by this classification in order to devise doctrines that perform at a higher gradient than those being used by their opponent. This problem-solving process is expressed as x+1 where ‘x’ is the gradient of doctrine being used by an actor and ‘+1’ is the next higher gradient of doctrine. Each gradient of doctrine’+1’ possesses, in principle, an inherent advantage over doctrines of the previous gradient.

 
The XGW Framework

0 (Base) Gradient - Darwinian Warfare - 0GW

Confrontation and Conflict at its most basic level is an expression of natural selection. This genetic imperative is the principle behind any doctrine that is essentially the projection of Force for the survival of an individual organism.
Note: Howard Bloom argues in  The Lucifer Principle that ideas/memes act in the same manner.

First Gradient - Cooperative Warfare - 1GW

Cooperative warfare doctrines are based upon the principle of creating organizations that require the individual to surrender control to the group in order to project Force to accomplish goals that are necessary to the survival of the group.

Second Gradient - Attrition Warfare - 2GW

The Principle behind attrition warfare describes doctrines that use the strength of the attacker to target the strength of the opponent.
 

Third Gradient - Maneuver Warfare - 3GW
 
Maneuver Warfare doctrines are based upon the principle of avoiding the strength of the opponent in order to attack the critical vulnerability of the opponent.
 

Note: The principles of 2GW and 3GW are informed mostly by the thinking of Col. Robert Leonhard’s books,  The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle, and  The Principles of War for the Information Age. He bases these principles upon the concepts and writings of Sun-Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, John Boyd, William Lind, and B. H. Liddell-Hart, among others.
 

Fourth Gradient - Moral Warfare - 4GW


Fourth gradient doctrines are based upon the principle of the attainment of a functional invulnerability that prevents the opponent from being able to orient upon a threat and creates a perception that saps the ability of the opponent to function effectively.


Fifth Gradient - Contextual Warfare - 5GW


Fifth gradient doctrines are based upon the principle of manipulation of the context of the observations of an opponent in order to achieve a specific effect.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2009, 02:29:28 pm »
Surely, if PTECH architecture software had a guiding hand in the events of the 9-11 global crime, it would have left a DEFINITE FOOTPRINT in the trail of data - it's what ISN'T there that'll betray the presence of such an intrusive 'ghost in the machine' no?

:)


Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,771
Re: Barnett-Air Force Research Lab-OODA Loop-SAIC, Pentagon VPN Red Team
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2018, 02:02:58 pm »
bump e911
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