|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
NEADS wargames before 9/11
Hi there,
I know, the wargames stuff has been beaten to death here, and gumboot has done valuable work on this. However, I´m currently doing some private work on wargames before 9/11. Since it may be useful for some JREFers, I´ll share it here, to be dealt with in detail in the near future. This is all just work in progress, so don’t expect too much. http://www.archives.gov/legislative/...rt=affiliation The NEADS interviews which can be found at the above link are the whole material I base my comments on at this time, which refer to the question how well prepared NEADS was to counter 9/11. I specify this question to what wargames NEADS practiced before 9/11. I won´t discuss the post-Cold-War changes/non-changes in general. 9/11 included multiple suicide hijackings from the interior US using planes as weapons and the cases were handled by NEADS and the FAA, both of which could see primary signals only (UA 175 excluded). For my question, I had to split these features into eight: (i) FAA participation (ii) No simulated, but real planes (iii) Hijack mission (iv) Suicide mission (v) Plane being used as weapon (vi) Multiple hijackings (vii) Planes from the interior and in the interior (viii) No transponder signal This is what NEADSians told about wargames before 9/11. (i) Concerning FAA participation:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(i) FAA participation Just in small scale, if at all. (ii) No simulated, but real planes Mostly simulated, denial of any hijack live exercise by Deskins and Powell, affirmation from Marr. (iii) Hijack mission Multiple exercises involving this, no surprise. (iv) Suicide mission Anticipated without plane being used as weapon. One unsure from Deskins about plane as weapon. (v) Plane being used as weapon Denial from most NEADSians, but the one unsure memory from Deskins, and at least briefings on this possibility by Stuart. (vi) Multiple hijackings Not anticipated (vii) Planes from the interior and in the interior In combination with a hijack, yes, concerning to Marr, but it didn´t work well. No, concerning to the other ones. General agreement that none of the scenarios included the National Capital Area. McCain mentions internal flights in combination with a course change, not hijacking. (viii) No transponder signal Anticipated, but overseas. TBD, and have a nice day. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Interesting, you may want to PM MikeW, Brainster, and ref (and any of the other usual suspects I am forgetting at the moment) to let them know for linking purposes. Thanks for sharing!
I noticed a few transcription typos, did you want these corrected? |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,767
|
Good work, Progge, I will link this at SLC in the morning.
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
I wanted to do this... I'm glad I don't have to, though! Do you have a permanent online home planned for the finished work, when it's done? If not, I'll happily host it.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
Additional comments, this time including NORAD/CONR and relevant material from box t-0148-911MFR-boxes-11-15.
(i) FAA participation
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Mostly affirmation of what was already said, some new information on transponder-related issues; there is a recurring pattern visible: NEADS/NORAD employee x says “There was no such exercise, AFAIK” (e.g. loss of transponder signal in the interior), NEADS/NORAD employee says “Um, yes, there was, but mostly it was otherwise” (e.g. loss of transponder signal outside Continental US airspace). No big difference with respect to 9/11 preparation, IMO, but I´ll have to check the details. Gladly! When I´m gone through all the available and relevant material (which includes the stuff at Scribd and 911Myths as well), I´ll cite all relevant statements in one posting, and check them before – but massive overlooking of transcription typos is guaranteed, so your corrections are appreciated. Nice to hear, thanks. Yes, but probably in German, and not before 2010. You can use every material I post here for whatever purpose. Just be sure to check the sources for yourself, I might make mistakes as every other person (-> kinda pointless to tell this to you, I know ![]() OK, back to RL for now. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
|
Save yourself some time...
The government via the 9/11 Commission has already provided the relevant information to you.
It is too bad you are slow to find this because you wouldn't have wasted the time or space cherry-picking quotes with this post: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/N...Hijack-Summary This 9/11 Comission document already proves much of your summary wrong. ![]() |
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
Thanks Swing, I know the above document. As you might have seen, I said that this is all work in progress - first things first, and for now I decided to start with NEADS statements. One of the next steps will be to look at exercises we know (e.g. the ones you refer to) and then to compare with NEADs statements, and then to evaluate.
I did a quantitative analysis of the above document (in German, at the present stage), and I have some comments on it, too; but I´d like to document the NEADS statements first, if you allow me to. So, postponed is not abandoned. I´ll come back to this later, and I hope you have the patience to wait until then. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 806
|
Both of which are unsurprising really.
Looking back it's often difficult to realise just how much 'That Day' changed everything, but before 9/11 the ideas of using a commercial plane as a weapon, rather than using its passengers as bargaining chips or of hijackers being on a suicide mission rather than 'making a point' and disappearing after the hijack, were surely unimaginable in any western country. If the planes had been hijacked in the UK, then they'd probably have just been told to head for Stansted and await instructions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/633654.stm It can never be stated enough that that was never how the 'game' was played for all those decades prior. It's why I usually assume that anyone who questions the reaction times and protocols on the day can only have been a teenager, or younger, in 2001. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Nice work, interesting read.
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
FAA on NORAD wargames before 9/11
So far I´m gone through the relevant stuff at NARA, and didn’t find any real significant additions at Scribd, except few comments from Duffy, Worcester and Stiers, echoing what was already said.
I hold the so far explored body of statements to be representative for the NEADS/NORAD/USAF side. I will cite all NORAD statements in the next posting to have them clustered for later reference. This posting is meant to document FAA statements on the wargames issue, i.e. about participation in NORAD exercises and pre-9/11-contact to NORAD in general. I will not address FAA training independently from NORAD, and I will not address FAA-NORAD issues independently from wargames and pre-9/11-contacts (although some statements cover this, too). ZNY:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Source |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
NORAD/Military on NORAD wargames before 9/11
This is what NORAD employees told about wargames before 9/11.
(i) Concerning FAA participation:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(i) NORAD exercises either didn’t involve any FAA facilities at all, but a FAA cell which was played by NORAD employees, or involved individual FAA centers. The latter would be rare, and there was no FAA participation on a national level. (ii) Live Fly hijack exercises were rare, if they happened at all. (iii) Hijack exercises are standard, routine etc. (iv) Suicide exercises were rare. Bianchi remembers a blow-up threat; Deskins has an unsure memory about a plane-as-weapon-like or suicide or crash exercise. (v) Plane-as-weapon exercises are denied by most NORAD people. They never participated in one and they believe that no such exercises took place. Stuart claims he anticipated such events and briefed about them, Hawley thinks that in the FAA it was hold to be a real possibility, too. The only one remembering a plane-as-weapon exercise is Deskins with the unsure memory mentioned in (iv). (vi) No multiple hijack events were practiced. (vii) Most scenarios would be over water. No defense scenario took place in the National Capital Area. Marr remembers a hijacking scenario in the interior US, but it went bad. (viii) Loss of transponder was practiced, but if, then mostly/always over water. Source |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=J36k8r...com/node/19181 Call 1
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=JgjnTq...com/node/19181 Call 2 http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGBE0...com/node/19181 Call 3 This 4th NEADS tape is also very interesting not to say revealing. Why do they need to be careful what they say ? This was recorded at 09:16 on 9/11. Even if they swore I don't think anybody would notice, See how ridiculously calm they all are ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&h...ilynews?page=1 Call 4 |
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
|
Remaining calm in the midst of a crisis is a mark of professionalism while swearing is not.
|
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
Link broken.
Link broken. Link broken. You seem to suggest you know the answer, why don’t you give it to us? I for my part found even more revealing evidence! DRM1 DAT2 Channel 2 MCC Op, min1:04:25, a guy says “Hey, just remember everything you say is being recorded.“ Isn’t that interesting, not to say revealing? Yawn. I wonder if you take yourself seriously while presenting such, um, evidence. Apart from that, please post your objections in the appropriate threads. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
|
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
I didn't find it all that intersting.
BTW, not cursing, and remaining calm, is professionalism. I have never cursed on the radio while at work. Even on 9/11, I do not recall anyone cursing, or really panicing while on the radio. Sounding emotional and urgent, sure. But never cursing. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,073
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
|
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
NORAD hijacking scenarios 1998-9/11, Introductory comments
Back again. Next I’ll try to take a look at this document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/N...Hijack-Summary A few comments to put this document and my comments on it in perspective: It is not a NORAD document. It was prepared by 9/11 commission staffer Miles Kara (visit his excellent website here) before the commission’s Team 8 staff travelled to NORAD HQ. NORAD had forwarded a bunch of documents about wargames which had taken place before 9/11, and Mr. Kara selected interesting features. Therefore, this document is a selection, twice: 1. It presents hijacking scenarios only, which were part of larger scaled exercises. 2. It presents these hijacking scenarios in an incomplete fashion. The whole purpose of an exercise might have been very different from what the work paper from Mr. Kara indicates, and in some cases it was indeed very different, i.e. the snippet this documents presents were just by-the-way-injects, or for some NORAD members only etc. (detailed examples will be given below). The primary source materials for this are NORAD papers on their exercises. These papers are not available at the moment, even not to Mr. Kara. Re: “Truthers” vs. “debunkers” on wargames. AFAIK, truthers often state that NORAD/DoD/US-Government anticipated much more than the 9/11 commission outlined with the “failure of imagination” comment, and the NORAD people themselves stated. In this dissent, truthers - in some way - have an advantage with Mr. Kara’s wargames document, because of its 9/11-related selection of exercise features, and the missing context to the selection. To rebuild the context, the primary source material should be checked someday. Before this happens, this document does not tell us whether the 9/11 commission or NORAD got it right or not. Consequently, this document - at the present stage and without knowledge of the primary source material - should not be treated as an equivalent to what NORAD members said they hold to be realistic threats - to check their claims, so to speak. It’s an addendum, at the most. I’ll go through this document in two steps. First step will be a pure quantitative analysis. The purpose of this analysis is first to isolate a body of interesting exercises for future qualitative review, and second to put the NORAD wargames in perspective. For this purpose, I’m using the eight-feature framework which I already established in my first posting in this thread. The quantitative analysis will be somewhat over the top, since it is based on an incomplete data set. Bear this in mind while reading. Second step will be qualitative analysis. I’ll evaluate the selected body of interesting exercises, taking as a basis for comparison the comments from the people at NORAD. I give the NORAD statements a slightly higher value for the sake of producing conclusions, and everyone is invited to switch values. I’ll sort of guess in many cases, and again everyone is invited to guess otherwise – but remember: Don’t forget what you’re doing, it’s just guessing. The qualitative analysis also is intended to differ between exercise features which can be easily explained in terms of what NORAD told, and exercises about which we need more information. On occasion, I’ll refer to this MFR, which is not included in the above compilation of NORAD statements (my bad, I just forgot it). The MFR contains Ken Merchant’s and Paul Goddard’s comments on some of the wargames from Mr. Kara’s work paper, and is different from the Ken Merchant MFR on the NARA website. As the Exercise Design Manager, Ken Merchant knows more about NORAD exercises than anyone else. Everyone here should read the interviews with him, if any. I’ll refer to the particular MFR at scribd.com as “Paul Goddard, Maj., & Ken Merchant, Exercise Design Manager for NORAD”. All citations will be from the work paper of Mr. Kara, although stated otherwise. This low level analysis effort, again, will be about wargames before 9/11. For wargames on 9/11, enjoy this piece from gumboot. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
NORAD hijacking scenarios 1998-9/11, Quantitative Review
1. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
1.1 MATERIAL & METHOD NORAD hijacking scenarios between 1998 and 2001. Before, I presented eight selected features of the situation NORAD had to react to on 9/11: (i) FAA participation (ii) No simulated, but real planes (iii) Hijack mission (iv) Suicide mission (v) Plane being used as weapon (vi) Multiple hijackings (vii) Planes from the interior and in the interior (viii) No transponder signal I will apply these features to the scenarios presented in the above document. Note 1: With respect to (i), it’s not clear whether there was a real FAA participation or a staged FAA participation. I won’t differ between both in quantitative analysis. Note 2: I count every bomb threat as (iv). Note 3: I do not differ between inside-outside and inside-inside, both counts as (vii). Note 4: I write “perhaps” in some cases because of ambiguity with respect to 9/11; e.g.: Does blowing up a plane over NYC mean using the plane as a weapon? In some broad sense yes, but it’s nonetheless not the 9/11 case. The ambiguous cases are cited below*, and will be discussed later. Every ambiguous case counts as ½ case for the sake of quantitative analysis. 1.2 APPLICATION 10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, Deviation HIJCK: (i), (iii) 10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK A/C: (i), (iii) 10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX: (i), (iii), (iv), (v) 10/27/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK Europe to East Coast: (i), (iii) 10/27/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK JUNTA JUBBA: (i), (iii) 1/21/1999: Coronet White 99, Live AST Hijack from JFK to Miami: (i), (ii), (iii), (vii) 1/22/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack Miami to Oklahoma City: (iii), (vii) 1/23/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack San Diego to Anchorage: (iii), (vii) 4/11/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack diverted to unknown US location: perhaps (i), (iii) 9/30/1999: VFFI 99-1, Hijacked Aircraft with Demands: (iii), (iv) 10/21/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack with WMD on board: (iii) 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) 4/12/2000: VO 00, HIJACK DAL: (i), (iii) 4/14/2000: Amalgam Warrior 00-2, Hijack by an armed crew member: (iii), (vii) 4/16/2000: VO 00, HIJACK seized by terrorists: (iii), (viii) 4/19/2000: VO 00, Crop Custer Chemical Incident: (iii), (vii) 10/20/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK London to Cairo: (i), (iii) 10/21/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK WADS/CANR/ANR: (i), (iii) 6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission: (iii), (iv), (v), (vii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 1/6: (i), (iii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 2/6: (i), (iii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 3/6: (i), (iii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6: (iii), (iv) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 2/6: (iii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 3/6: (iii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 4/6: (iii) 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) 9/10/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Special 23-Hijack (Cuba): (i), (iii) I bolded some exercises which might be of particular interest for their sheer volume of features. 1.3 ANALYSIS There are at least three methods of counting the exercises: Count the trained scenarios as one per line, which would be 28**. Best method, IMO, because names don’t matter, scenarios do. However, I will also count the scenarios by name, which would be 12*** or 10****; 12 if you count every disruption with another scenario/exercise (or multiple other scenarios/scenarios) as the end of the old scenario, and 10 if you don’t and just go by name. 1.3.1 COUNTED AS 28 Analysis of features:
Numerical analysis:
Bolded are the ones which should be subject of further review in the future. 1.3.2 COUNTED AS 12 Analysis of features: Note 5: Every hit within an accumulation of different scenarios under one name counts as a hit for the whole accumulation.
Numerical analysis: Note 6: The highest number within an accumulation will be counted as a hit for the whole accumulation.
Bolded are the ones which should be subject of further review in the future. 1.3.3 COUNTED AS 10 Analysis of features: Note 7: Every hit within an accumulation of different scenarios under one name counts as a hit for the whole accumulation.
Numerical analysis: Note 8: The highest number within an accumulation will be counted as a hit for the whole accumulation.
Bolded are the ones which should be subject of further review in the future. 1.4 FIRST RESULTS 1.4.1 ANALYSIS OF FEATURES Whatever method of counting you choose: - No anticipation of multiple plane hijackings between 1998 and 9/11. - Almost no anticipation of primary only hijackings between 1998 and 9/11. - Almost no Live Fly hijacking scenarios between 1998 and 9/11. On the other hand: - Some degree of anticipation of plane-as-weapon or plane-as-weapon-like events. Needs to be carefully evaluated and then compared to the statements from NEADS personnel. - Some degree of anticipation of interior US happenings. Needs to be carefully compared to the statements from NEADS personnel. - Big degree of FAA participation (50%-60%), at least staged. Needs to be carefully compared to the statements from NEADS personnel. - Some degree of suicide missions, usually as a bomb-on-board/blow-up threat. 1.4.2 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS Whatever method of counting you choose: - No matches above half of the 9/11 features - Most matches share only two of the 9/11 features, usually hijacking and FAA participation. The three/four-matches should be subject to further review. Footnotes to 1: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
NORAD hijacking scenarios 1998-9/11, Qualitative Review
2. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
2.1 AMBIGUOUS PARTS 4/11/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack diverted to unknown US location: perhaps (i), (iii)
Quote:
It doesn’t matter, for reasons explained below (2.2). 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)
Quote:
In some sense, yes: The plane is claimed not “only” to blow up, but to blow up in a populated area; i.e. the blowing up of the plane is used to murder not only people inside, but also outside the plane. In some sense, no: The whole scenario is not about deliberately flying a plane into a building full of human beings, and this is what “plane as weapon” usually is meant to say. Therefore, I do not count this as a contradiction to what NEADS told. 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)
Quote:
2.2 FAA PARTICIPATION On the first glance, there was a big degree of FAA participation in NORAD wargames before 9/11, whatever method of counting you choose; also, there was participation from NMCC and DoD. However, I do not count this as a contradiction to what NEADS told for three reasons: 1. I assume the FAA participation was mostly staged by NEADS people (cf. Deskins, Speicher), or real, but on a regional basis and only to watch over military planes until they reach military airspace (cf. Aires, Merchant). I do so to bring the NEADS statements to account. 2. Often the FAA participation reads as “FAA contacts NORAD/SEADS/NMCC” – compare this to the FAA statements: E.g. no controller remembers exercises with NORAD, and in Cleveland Center even the Military Operations Specialist wouldn’t have known whom to call at NORAD. To bring this to account, I again assume the exercise procedure must have been either restricted to very few well selected people within the FAA, or it must have been completely staged by NORAD people. 3. Paul Goddard, Maj., & Ken Merchant, Exercise Design Manager for NORAD:
Quote:
2.3 SUICIDE MISSIONS 2.3.1 MATERIAL 10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX: (i), (iii), (iv), (v) 9/30/1999: VFFI 99-1, Hijacked Aircraft with Demands: (iii), (iv) 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) 6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission: (iii), (iv), (v), (vii) 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6: (iii), (iv) 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) 2.3.2 COMMENTS 10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX: (i), (iii), (iv), (v) Will be covered later (2.4). 9/30/1999: VFFI 99-1, Hijacked Aircraft with Demands: (iii), (iv)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Will be covered later (4). 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6: (iii), (iv)
Quote:
Quote:
9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)
Quote:
Also, one has to put this scenario in the context of the whole exercise: There are nine VG I items in Mr. Kara’s work paper. Alaska, Canada, and CONR are performing the same scenario (or two variations of this scenario), seven of the nine VG I items describe this scenario, which is an aggressive hijacking, but without suicide or a plane being used as weapon; arguably, this scenario seems to be the main purpose of the exercise. And apparently, NEADS didn’t have anything to do with it, but did its one thing, and, like SEADS, performed a smaller scenario. Did they just need something to do? Whatever possibility and explanation, more information on this particular exercise is needed for evaluation. In general, I do not find the suicide exercises (= blow up threats) revealing in any interesting sense, if not combined with a plane-as-weapon feature. There are some NEADS people remembering no suicide exercises, and some who have memories. It was a case for NORAD, sometimes, but apparently not central. The work paper of Mr. Kara doesn’t prove that anything about the NEADS memories is suspicious, concerning this feature. Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack is worth to further look into, though. 2.4 PLANE AS WEAPON SCENARIOS 2.4.1 MATERIAL 10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX: (i), (iii), (iv), (v) 6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission: (iii), (iv), (v), (vii) 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) 2.4.2 COMMENTS 10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX: (i), (iii), (iv), (v) This is the plane-as-weapon mission involved:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No reason to believe this? At least, it fits very well with all other things established already. And this is an official statement on this particular exercise. But, of course, this – at the present stage – is a question of belief. 6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission: (iii), (iv), (v), (vii)
Quote:
The goal of this scenario, according to the exercise description:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
According to these sources, (i) Amalgam Virgo 01 was about detecting, tracking and intercepting “CM and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) threats”. (ii) For SEADS, this meant they had to intercept a small aircraft directed to fly into a SEADS building, and the aircraft wouldn’t respond to them, and wouldn’t change course. (iii) Interestingly, this aircraft wouldn’t be a CM or UAV, though, but a Cessna with a random person, suffering from AIDS and wanting to fly into a SEADS building after being wooed by drug dealers. I think we can all agree that the scenario with the fatally ill Cessna guy is really far out, and probably no NORADian feared something like that. Therefore, it’s more likely that the scenario was built on other fears. Truthers might want to argue that it was built on fears of manned planes being used as weapons in general, whatever motive of the murderers, and whatever building, and whatever type of aircraft. Debunkers might want to argue that it was about detecting, tracking and intercepting aircraft with some common characteristics of CM or UAV (like NORDO, the missing course change after interception efforts, and the direction at military targets), and a bizarre narrative was built around that task. IMO, debunkers are in advantage here for two reasons: First, in (iii) nothing is added to the task of the exercise described in general in (i), and in detail in (ii). Second, this interpretation fits with what NORAD told. But then, this exercise isn’t particularly interesting anymore, and doesn’t contradict NEADS statements. 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) Covered in 1 & 3. 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v) Covered in 1 & 3. 5. INTERIOR HAPPENINGS 5.1 MATERIAL 1/21/1999: Coronet White 99, Live AST Hijack from JFK to Miami: (i), (ii), (iii), (vii) 1/22/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack Miami to Oklahoma City: (iii), (vii) 1/23/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack San Diego to Anchorage: (iii), (vii) 4/14/2000: Amalgam Warrior 00-2, Hijack by an armed crew member: (iii), (vii) 4/19/2000: VO 00, Crop Custer Chemical Incident: (iii), (vii) 6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission: (iii), (iv), (v), (vii) 5.2 COMMENTS Not many comments needed. These were all “ordinary” hijacking scenarios - no suicide, no plane as weapon -, except Amalgam Virgo (which is covered in 4). Apparently no protection of the National Capital Region (NCR) missions for NORAD, like the NORADians claimed. Coronet White 99 involves the most interesting hijacking scenario here - it not only happened in the interior US, but also is the only live fly scenario in the worksheet, and was worked out by NEADS. Cf. Col. Marr to this:
Quote:
Two scenarios explicitly involve fighters scrambling to the interior US: Amalgam Virgo (which is covered in 4), and Amalgam Warrior 00-2:
Quote:
No real contradiction to any NORAD statements visible to me, but check this out for yourselves. 6. CONCLUSIONS It’s hard to definitely judge on this matter, but at first glance (well, and second, too) it’s possible to evaluate this document in the light of the manifold NORAD statements documented here and here. Most of the exercises can be easily explained in terms of what is already public knowledge – this also needs some guessing (but no stretching), though. Amalgam Virgo 01 sounds interesting at the first glance, but more context to the exercise supports the assumption that this exercise just isn’t that revealing it seems to be. Questions remain with respect to Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack and Vigilant Guardian 99. Disclaimer: This work represents the views of the author alone, no agency etc. Appreciation to Mr. Kara for PM communication about his work paper and helpful background information. On my head be any remaining mistakes in this work. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
|
Bill, a word of caution to you, the unwise, unknowing, & untruthful little person you tend to portray.
Don't ever joke about junior firefighters. They're a part of the brotherhood & you're mocking Triforcharity. Don't do it again or you will get a very prompt & serious PM from me. You want to joke about firefighters, do it on your own time, not on JREF. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,570
|
While not directly related to the hijacking scenario above, there is a document on an NRO command post exercise that exhibits the same characteristics. The plotline is that an aircraft has come down in a carpark and exploded (Not a terrorist act BTW.)
The strange thing is that the scenario document provides details such as the names of the pilots and CVR transcript of the accident flight which does not seem relevant to the exercise planned. I'm guessing that providing background information like this, even if it does not form part of the scenario itself is standard procedure. |
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... Last edited by Graham2001; 26th October 2009 at 08:53 PM. Reason: Fixed link to point directly to the document I referred to. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
|
I can't speak on how NORAD or the Air Force schedules their drills but I might give you some insight into how they are scheduled based upon my time on submarines. These insights might help you focus in on some aspects of when and why drills are scheduled.
Your 28 drills conducted over 45 months (assuming that you started on January 1st 1998) seems to me more like mandatory scenarios proscribed in a manual somewhere. I highly doubt that NORAD did only those 28 drills in 3.75 years. I do think that they were drilled on many other, more likely scenarios, much more often. We had some mandatory drills and they had a lifetime of +/- 24 hours from the previous drills end until the next one started. Security drills (essentially how quickly we could arm people) were no more than 7 days apart, these were almost always done just before field day commenced and you could set a clock to them. Missile emergency drills were 30 days apart (they were usually spread as far apart as possible because they took about 1/2 of the days drilling time in setup, execution and critique). Torpedo emergencies were the same as far as time spacing goes but were much quicker because it was always a few drops of fuel from a faulty relief valve and not a flood of fuel because the manual also said that you will suck rubber until you hit port if that happens. With that being said we had well over a dozen drills per week more (on top of what I just mentioned) about real concerns. Fire first and flooding second and then reactor casualties third. (Not OMFG we are melting, but instead the bad chemistry in the primary loop is corroding the pipes which will lead to a shorter reactor life kind of casualties). And maybe later I'll get into inspection cycles within the military... |
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
|
That's the thing about the military as described by Civil War soldiers:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Exercise scripters are always expected to flesh out the scenario with colourful and mostly irrelevant details to add a sense of realism. We had a major exercise here which involved the military deploying in a "foreign island state" to conduct various peace keeping and humanitarian missions. The scripters went to the extent of providing a whole history and even a national flag for this fictional country.
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
One thing I noted from the first post:
Quote:
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 171
|
Thanks for additional insight, Graham, Sam, gumboot.
Here’s some general information for the USAF (doesn´t tell about specific scenarios). NORTHCOM exercise schedule for five years (2008), pp. 6 et seq. Looks like a tight schedule to me. This is after 9/11, of course. Yes, sure. The 28 exercises are just a selection of all hijacking scenarios. One can compare this Vigilant Overview & Unified Defense description from 2004 to put such a selection in perspective. It counts as FAA participation only in a broad and sort of trivial sense, yes. I included it nevertheless to avoid cherry picking accusations. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,570
|
Amalgam Warrior, is also the only one of those scenarios even loosely based on an actual event.
In 1994 an attempt was made to hijack FedEx fight 705 by an employee as part of an insurance scam, according to wikipedia (the usual warnings apply), he planned to crash the plane into FedEx Headquarters... |
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|