Author Topic: **EXPOSED: DHS plans mass relocations to Halliburton/General Electric FEMA Camps  (Read 21128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEOs) = Katrina/FEMA camps/Haiti Humanitarian Disaster Relief

"Terrorist attacks are, in fact, media events" - the RMA exposed
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=165427.msg983447#msg983447


YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.  THE ENTIRE ARTICLE COULD BE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/May/Pages/MassEvacuationSimulationforStadiums.aspx

DHS Program Develops Mass Evacuation Simulation for Stadiums

May 2010

By Austin Wright


Sports venues are supposed to be prepared for emergencies — such as a bombing or a lone shooter — that could require a quick evacuation of more than 70,000 fans.

But venue managers “are not training their staffers as well as we would like,” says Lou Marciani, director of the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security. “They’re not doing training exercises,” he says, noting that it’s costly to conduct live drills for events of this magnitude.

Marciani is one of the leading researchers in a project that seeks to fill these training deficiencies. The Department of Homeland Security’s science and technology directorate partnered with the University of Southern Mississippi and several other organizations to create a computer program called SportEvac that uses human avatars to simulate the behaviors of panicking crowds in sports stadiums.

“Our goal was to try to find ways to reach security planners and give them a tool suite they can use for practicing these scenarios,” says Marciani.

The program can be customized to fit the specifications of individual stadiums. It uses algorithms to predict the behaviors of large groups, and it factors in variables such as irrational, drunken fans and wheelchair-bound spectators.

Managers can determine how long an evacuation would take, how many people would crowd each exit and where signs could be placed to improve efficiency.

The underlying concepts can be applied to evacuation simulations for shopping malls, concert halls and other crowded events, Marciani says.

“This is just the beginning of the capabilities,” he adds. “I hope that this modeling is carried over to other areas of critical infrastructure as a gift from the sports world.”

In March, developers began testing the software by applying its models to actual stadiums. They’re also looking into options for commercializing the software, which they hope to get into the hands of as many stadium managers as possible.


DHS spent $1.3 million on the project.
______________________________
Remember this?:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=121884.msg758592#msg758592
Texas town of 72,000 evacuated due to chemical fire or fake wargames? FEMA NLE09

Remember this?:
All riot data is fed into AI predicitve inference engine to ensure martial law
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=144019.0
Excerpt of document.  Download and read in entirety:  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA416783&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf



Remember how the NWO uses algorithmic AI software for other purposes as well such as:

**Computer algorithm that automatically targets cancer patients for termination
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=167873.msg998340#msg998340

Offline GhostofTsenzei

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
Essentially the implication here is that previously "unavailable" technology that would apply to Crowd Control mechanisms, has manifested publicly as a "evacuation model" tool (but is also applicable to evacuations of larger areas; and, as a result, also to concentrating populations that would otherwise be spread out).  Feel free to elaborate if I missed something.

A good article though.  Only thing it's missing is a link to the actual FEMA camp "emergency response" plans.
There is no "gray" when it comes to what is good or evil, it is always black and white.  People have the potential to be as evil as Hitler, or as good as Gandhi or MLK Jr.  However, most people are more like zebras.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Essentially the implication here is that previously "unavailable" technology that would apply to Crowd Control mechanisms, has manifested publicly as a "evacuation model" tool (but is also applicable to evacuations of larger areas; and, as a result, also to concentrating populations that would otherwise be spread out).  Feel free to elaborate if I missed something.

A good article though.  Only thing it's missing is a link to the actual FEMA camp "emergency response" plans.

actually that piece has been exposed since Texe Marrs exposed it in the 1990's. So fo 20 years we have known about these camps but now we have the documentation showing actual war games for the relocations.

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

Offline GhostofTsenzei

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
actually that piece has been exposed since Texe Marrs exposed it in the 1990's. So fo 20 years we have known about these camps but now we have the documentation showing actual war games for the relocations.

that was the missing ling previous to this thread being posted.

I'm aware of them, I just meant so far as being a complete and relatively self-contained document (not needing knowledge from other articles).  I don't have links to specific plans on hand, or I would've posted them.  I'm sure someone can/will post them however.
There is no "gray" when it comes to what is good or evil, it is always black and white.  People have the potential to be as evil as Hitler, or as good as Gandhi or MLK Jr.  However, most people are more like zebras.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
bump

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny


Meet Lou Marciani:
Bio retrieved from:
http://www.sporteventsecurity.com/marciani.php

Lou Marciani is the Director of the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security at The University of Southern Mississippi. The Center was founded with initial funding from the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security as the country’s first academic center dedicated to spectator sports safety and security research, professional development, enhanced training and outreach.

His extensive sports management role provides him great insight into addressing the issues constituting potential and actual threats and risks to the ongoing security and safety of fans at sporting events and venues. His background includes an extensive career in sport management serving as intercollegiate athletic director at several universities and executive director of two national sports governing bodies.

He is the principal investigator in over 7.8 million dollar externally funded grants through the Office of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Education. His work at the Center focuses on the development and implementation of a sport risk management curriculum and decision support system for sport venues to include simulation modeling for stadium evacuations. The Center has a national outreach, actively working with professional sport leagues, NCAA, National Collegiate Directors of Athletics, private sector and government agencies in enhancing sport safety and security. Currently, his effort is involved in developing a national sport security laboratory at the National Center. Dr. Marciani is an active speaker on sport safety and security at international and national sport organization annual conferences. He also serves as a resource for the U.S. Office of Homeland Security on sport safety and security issues.

His National Sport Security Laboratory's website:
http://lab.ncs4.com/


Lou gives an interview on how his sports security firm (7 minute vid):
http://www.securitydirectornews.com/video.php?cat_id=4&v_id=108

Lou promotes the "Avigilon HD surveillance system" in this article:
http://secprodonline.com/articles/2010/07/07/ip-surveillance-london-complex.aspx

check out the Avigilon HD surveillance system:
http://www.avigilon.com/products/

This Powerpoint Presentation (converted to PDF) co-authored by Lou admits an Oak Ridge Lab connection:
http://www.orau.gov/dhssummit/2007/Presentations/Marcianiy.pdf

Excerpt:


In a recent article (August 2010), Lou called for a "See something, Say something" campaign:
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/The+Latest/dhs-calls-public-private-partnerships-with-sports-industry

Random Example of a See Something - Say Something propaganda poster:


After reading about Lou's work, it all integrates nicely in with this other post done by Anti_Illuminati:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=185624.0









Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny


Let's visit:  http://lab.ncs4.com/   and see some excerpts







Laboratory Functions

The primary mission of this dedicated virtual National Laboratory will be to advance global sports security by serving as the epicenter for the enhancement of technology, training and research.

The National Laboratory will be designed to support the following functions:

    * Act as a permanent showcase for cutting-edge physical protection equipment, technology and training at sports venues

    * Perform laboratory testing on related products and services

    * Measure the conformance of candidate technologies, equipment and operational concepts to standards and best practice

    * Certify test performance results

    * Provide facilities and capabilities for both benchmarking and on-site evaluation of products and services to inform their continued development, including facilities at Southern Miss and off site (selected providers of specialized capabilities, certified third party test houses, etc.)

    * Develop new software tools related to sports security

    * Integrate laboratory capabilities into training and exercises

    * Provide a simulated emergency operation center

    * Perform collaborative and sponsored R&D on subjects related to sports security facilities, equipment, processes and personnel in order to review customer feedback

    * Assist in the development of national standards for testing/evaluating relevant products and services

    * Support the commercialization of new security products supporting large-scale sports venues






The following process evaluation steps are administered for every laboratory test:

    * Candidate System/Solution Screening – Systems and solutions are identified through market research or by vendor proffering as a result of improved or newly available capability that might meet perceived industry requirements. The screening process may not be exhaustive but will be representative of commercial offerings available to the community of interest.

    * Establish Vendor Agreement – Represents a formal process of commitment by a solution provider to deliver and support their product components in a trial. This commitment acknowledges this overall evaluation process and its purposes to serve the spectator sports community of interest through a systematic and open evaluation process. It also entails executing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the solution provider to obtain, configure and install the evaluation component suite with required vendor support commitments during the evaluation period. In general, the expectation is that vendors will provide systems and support without charge for the evaluation period.

    * Prepare Operational/Technical Requirements – Based on data collection of business and operational priorities further the Lab Engineering Oversight organization defines the specific process flows, functional requirements, and performance requirements for the prospective solution components in a specific area of interest (e.g. access control, person screening). Detailed operational procedural and possible human factors requirements are produced. This should be input to the subsequent peer review step for the LAC and candidate industry evaluators to establish baseline requirements for evaluation.

    * Define Evaluation Approach/ Establish Weighted Criteria – Develop evaluation approaches and criteria collaboratively with the Engineering Oversight Team and the Lab Advisory Council. Assign criteria to an overarching set of categories such as cost, capabilities, installation ease, maintainability, and operator usability (these are patterned after the SAVER categories but may be revised for each technology trial instance). Weights will be assigned to each category based on the importance of the category in the solution and published with the results to clarify and bound the evaluation result.

    * Acquire Trial Hardware and Software – Complete vendor delivery and scheduling commitments for acquisition and installation into the lab environment or alternative University of Southern Mississippi vendor site for evaluation.

    * Peer Review – Complete a technical review of the operational and technical requirements, the evaluation approach, the defined criteria and assigned weights, vendor participation agreements, and finalize the details and/or apply final evaluation process changes as necessary.

    * Lab Configure and Install – With appropriate vendor support, whether on-site or remote as agreed upon, complete installation and configuration as required for the evaluation interval. Complete sanity checks and initial readiness tests prior to the execution of evaluation scenarios. Basic setup performed by the Lab Engineering Oversight team and integrated vendor resources.

    * Execute Assessment – Execute evaluation test streams, functionality tests, and throughput and performance tests. Integrate industry evaluators into the evaluation process flow to provide further verification and validation of the results.

    * Analyze Test Results – Systematically collect all evaluation test results and validate with participants including lab personnel, industry evaluators and vendor participants. Ensure that the analysis follows established objective criteria and weighting. Assemble the results and review with all designated stakeholders.

    * Produce Evaluation Report – Documentation and production of the evaluation report. The report will contain the analysis associated with the candidate vendor solutions initially reviewed, the set of criteria and weighting will be documented, requirements and performance checklists will be noted, vendor functionality claims will be verified in accompanying matrices, results correlated to the criteria, and the resulting score quantitatively described and summarized. The resulting document will be routed to all the constituents in the evaluation process for agreement and concurrence. The report will also be issued to selected external agencies for a third-party review. Once past all objective scrutiny, the report will be made available for Web site publication and dissemination through distribution channels.

    * Decommission Hardware and Software - At the conclusion of trials or phase evaluation and demonstration events decommission hardware assets and return software keys and licenses in accordance with the MOA terms and conditions.

These represent a high-level view of the execution steps of the evaluation process and the roles and responsibilities of the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security Advisory Board, the Lab Advisory Council, the Lab Engineering Oversight organization and the vendor community. The agreed-upon processes will also be incorporated into the Technology and Process Evaluation Plan which will be a living document subject to periodic changes as dictated by the end-user community.



Overall Planning Activities

As prerequisites to the evaluation execution process the following steps are noted above. Below are the overall planning activities.

    * Periodic Collection of Industry Needs (Survey) – Previously described were the roles and responsibilities of the NCS4 National Advisory Board, the Laboratory Advisory Council and the Lab Engineering Oversight organization in terms of the periodic collection of business and operational needs through the community of interest participants. This initial activity produces the priorities in the Technology and Process Evaluation Plan (TPEE). It is anticipated that this priority gathering process will be renewed annually and will drive revisions to the Technology and Process Evaluation Plan subject to the review of the NCS4 LAC and the Lab Engineering Oversight organization.

    * Development of the Technology and Process Evaluation Plan – This is an iterative development process that will produce plan revisions based on the annual collection and recalibration of needs. Plan contents subject to revision have been described in the previous section.

    * Establishment of the Lab Engineering Oversight Organization – This activity will produce the initial operating oversight organization. Organizational changes will be administered as a result of process and efficiency improvements derived from lessons learned and ongoing operational experience.

    * Preparation of the Lab Infrastructure – This is a recurring activity that defines and implements the required hardware, power, space and physical facility modifications to the testing environment to support evaluations and trials of the prioritized technologies. The sports venues at The University of Southern Mississippi site may be actual laboratory facilities or related venue facilities outfitted for operational deployment trials and evaluations. This will need to be revisited periodically to accommodate the next set of evaluation technologies and the decommissioning of those already evaluated.





READ THESE TECHNICAL REPORTS:

http://lab.ncs4.com/reports/AssessmentreportAvigilon.pdf

http://lab.ncs4.com/reports/AssessmentreportPixel.pdf

http://lab.ncs4.com/reports/ISSsnapshot.pdf



NSSL National Advisory Council

The National Sports Security Laboratory will base its priorities on the periodic review of operational and business needs of the industry. These scenarios and requirements will be solicited from the venue operators and the responsible security personnel forming a spectator sports community of interest.

It is anticipated that the NCS4 National Advisory Board will represent those constituencies and interests and provide a forum for the annual evaluation of priorities and any accompanying recommendations for process improvements.

Currently the NCS4 National Advisory Board includes security and operations principals from professional sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL, MLS, NASCAR, INDY Racing League, USTA, PGA, LPGA, SMA); collegiate and amateur associations (NCAA, NACDA, USOC); and affiliations with DHS, law firms and private industry.

Role of Laboratory Advisory Council (LAC)

In order to provide direct laboratory planning support an operational NCS4 Lab Advisory Council (LAC) has also been formed with the following high-level objectives:

    * Provide strategic guidance based on security priorities and goals for sports venues based on evolving missions, user needs and resource use priorities.
    * Provide tactical reviews of the lab Technology and Process Evaluation Plan (TPEE), support the definition of evaluation approaches and criteria for each technology evaluation, and support peer reviews of specific technology assessment projects.
    * Provide oversight for the laboratory to ensure that program activities are clearly aligned and traceable to sports venue operational and business needs.

Lab Advisory Council (LAC)

Milt Ahlerich, National Football League
Darren Blankenship, Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies
Gary Gardner Consultant
TJ Kennedy SAIC
Lou Marciani, - The University of Southern Mississippi
Bill Squires Consultant
Jerry Surak SAIC

 

Role of Laboratory Engineering Oversight Organization in concert with Lab Advisory Council (LAC)

This plan has been developed by the NCS4 Lab Engineering Oversight Organization in concert with Lab Advisory Council guidance. The plan will:

    * Identify and describe key technology areas of interest to spectator sports venue operators as determined from periodic industry data collection and surveys;
    * Define priorities for security products and solution areas in a one to three year schedule of evaluation events;
    * Maintain the description of agnostic processes for the criteria, testing approach, evaluation and results reporting of sports security solutions evaluations;
    * Define procedures for managing and operating industry days in the future;
    * Describe laboratory infrastructure, network and computing requirements; and
    * Describe other technology evaluation resources that can support lab evaluation objectives.

Lab Engineering Oversight Organization

As noted in the above diagram, the NCS4 Lab Engineering Oversight Organization has been established to manage and execute the daily operational functions of the laboratory.

They will plan and schedule evaluations or industry day events, screen candidate systems and solutions, document criteria and approaches, execute evaluation processes with industry evaluator support, and produce results documentation.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: **EXPOSED: DHS Stadium plans
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2010, 02:09:03 am »


Redfish Group conducts simulations for various scenarios.

Visit their Website:
http://www.redfish.com/services.htm

One of their projects is the stadium evacuation models for DHS.

Watch their stadium evacuation simulation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA-ZMYyuIE0


Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: **EXPOSED: DHS Stadium plans
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2010, 04:21:45 am »

Please Read:
http://www.securitydirectornews.com/?p=article&id=sd201005oh9x00
(includes 3 min YouTube Video within)

Quote
“Security is increased exponentially on event day,” said Hill. “As a target, this facility is more desirable with people in it.” The stadium conducts bomb sweeps of the building prior to an event and the Arlington Police Department bring in bomb-sniffing dogs to sweep fan vehicles and parking areas. No vehicle is allowed inside the 100-foot bollard line that surrounds the building without first being swept for explosives. “Cars are swept by bomb dogs and occasionally one gets a hit,” said Hill. “Recently a dog smelled something and it backed up traffic, but people recognize it’s a necessary inconvenience.”

In addition to bollards and stonewalls, which create multiple barriers to the building, the facility also installed a hydraulic barrier on the tunnel leading into the facility as a last resort to stop any vehicles from entering the building.

The stadium also installed 263 primarily IP cameras on the interior and exterior of the building, which are monitored at nine workstations in the stadium’s command center. It also has integrated access control prox readers from Siemens on the majority of its doors and elevators.


Here's an example  of a Siemens access control proximity reader:
http://www.eci.siemens.com/marketplaces/servlet/EciDownloadDocument?sdc_p=c169fil3m34o1000000000003psuz&sdc_sid=33223145324&sdc_rh=&productId=4126440&documentName=%2Fproducts%2Fdocumentation%2Fes_ES%2F48524.pdf&sdc_bcpath=1000000000003.s_0%2C&sdc_m4r=






Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: **EXPOSED: DHS Stadium plans
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2010, 08:43:56 am »
Please Read:
http://www.securitydirectornews.com/?p=article&id=sd201005oh9x00
(includes 3 min YouTube Video within)


Here's an example  of a Siemens access control proximity reader:
http://www.eci.siemens.com/marketplaces/servlet/EciDownloadDocument?sdc_p=c169fil3m34o1000000000003psuz&sdc_sid=33223145324&sdc_rh=&productId=4126440&documentName=%2Fproducts%2Fdocumentation%2Fes_ES%2F48524.pdf&sdc_bcpath=1000000000003.s_0%2C&sdc_m4r=







Siemens?

Somebody mention Siemens?


Pentagon's Cyber Attack against Iran's Nuclear Reactors Targets Siemens Control Systems

Stuxnet malware is a Pentagon Cyber Weapon which Targeted Iran's Nuclear Reactor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/327178

One researcher's findingsLangner's research, outlined on his website Monday, reveals a key step in the Stuxnet attack that other researchers agree illustrates its destructive purpose. That step, which Langner calls "fingerprinting," qualifies Stuxnet as a targeted weapon, he says.  Langner zeroes in on Stuxnet's ability to "fingerprint" the computer system it infiltrates to determine whether it is the precise machine the attack-ware is looking to destroy. If not, it leaves the industrial computer alone. It is this digital fingerprinting of the control systems that shows Stuxnet to be not spyware, but rather attackware meant to destroy, Langner says.  Stuxnet's ability to autonomously and without human assistance discriminate among industrial computer systems is telling. It means, says Langner, that it is looking for one specific place and time to attack one specific factory or power plant in the entire world.  "Stuxnet is the key for a very specific lock – in fact, there is only one lock in the world that it will open," Langner says in an interview. "The whole attack is not at all about stealing data but about manipulation of a specific industrial process at a specific moment in time. This is not generic. It is about destroying that process."

So far, Stuxnet has infected at least 45,000 industrial control systems around the world, without blowing them up – although some victims in North America have experienced some serious computer problems, Eric Byres, a Canadian expert, told the Monitor. Most of the victim computers, however, are in Iran, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. Some systems have been hit in Germany, Canada, and the US, too. Once a system is infected, Stuxnet simply sits and waits – checking every five seconds to see if its exact parameters are met on the system. When they are, Stuxnet is programmed to activate a sequence that will cause the industrial process to self-destruct, Langner says.

Langner's analysis also shows, step by step, what happens after Stuxnet finds its target. Once Stuxnet identifies the critical function running on a programmable logic controller, or PLC, made by Siemens, the giant industrial controls company, the malware takes control. One of the last codes Stuxnet sends is an enigmatic “DEADF007.” Then the fireworks begin, although the precise function being overridden is not known, Langner says. It may be that the maximum safety setting for RPMs on a turbine is overridden, or that lubrication is shut off, or some other vital function shut down. Whatever it is, Stuxnet overrides it, Langner’s analysis shows.  "After the original code [on the PLC] is no longer executed, we can expect that something will blow up soon," Langner writes in his analysis. "Something big."  For those worried about a future cyber attack that takes control of critical computerized infrastructure – in a nuclear power plant, for instance – Stuxnet is a big, loud warning shot across the bow, especially for the utility industry and government overseers of the US power grid.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately