Former 9/11 Commission Staffer Responds to New Military Exercises Revelations
Miles Kara, who was a professional staff member of the 9/11 Commission, has posted an entry on his Internet blog (copied below), in response to recent revelations about training exercises held by the U.S. military prior to the 9/11 attacks.
The new information about the training exercises appears in a 9/11 Commission document found in the U.S. National Archives by a contributor to the History Commons website. The document reveals that, among other things, two days before 9/11, NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) conducted an exercise scenario based around "Terrorists with explosives who plan to detonate them over NYC." Three days earlier, another scenario conducted as part of the same exercise involved a fictitious terrorist group hijacking a Boeing 747 and threatening to "rain terror from the skies onto a major U.S. city unless the U.S. declares withdrawal from Asian conflict."
The document outlines numerous other hijacking exercises held in the three years prior to 9/11. For example, a 1998 exercise included the scenario of terrorists hijacking a 747 with the intent of committing a "suicide run into [a] metropolitan area of" San Francisco.
Although Kara's blog posting reveals few significant details about the 9/11 military exercises beyond what has already been stated in the 9/11 Commission Report, it does mention that the NORAD exercises document "is one of many work papers I created during my work on the 9/11 Commission staff." It was "prepared to list what we knew about exercises before we traveled to NORAD Headquarters. On that trip, concerning exercises, we were primarily interested in talking to Ken Merchant," the joint exercise design manager for NORAD, who was "purported to know more about the history of NORAD exercises than anyone else."
9-11: Training, Exercises, and War Games; some collected thoughts
9-11 Revisited, June 16th, 2009
Yesterday, June 15, 2009, I received an email from author Phil Shenon asking what I knew about a recent document posted on Scribd by History Commons. That document, posted and discussed here, is one of many work papers I created during my work on the 9-11 Commission Staff. I had forgotten about it until Phil jogged my memory. The document was prepared to list what we knew about exercises before we traveled to NORAD Headquarters. On that trip, concerning exercises, we were primarily interested in talking to Ken Merchant, purported to know more about the history of NORAD exercises than anyone else. A copy of the MFR of our conversation with him prior to going to NORAD is here.
Training
Every day in the military is a robust training day. 9-11 was no different, especially in the air. Fighters were airborne in multiple locations, especially on the Atlantic seaboard. At Otis Air Force Base, six fighters were in the air on a training mission immediately after the two air defense alert aircraft took off in response to the events in New York City. When I saw that activity on the radar files of the day I immediately sent an e-mail to CONR asking how many aircraft Otis scrambled? The answer was just two; Panta 45 and 46, the dedicated air defense aircraft.
Before Panta 45 and 46 were scrambled three fighters from Andrews Air Force Base took off for scheduled training at Dare Range over eastern North Carolina, even though the Wing had just returned from an extended training mission in Nevada and was on a training stand down.
The Virginia/North Carolina border area on the coast was an especially busy place in the air that morning. Among others the alert fighters at Langley, themselves, were scheduled for two v two training with the regular Wing at Langley. Because it was a robust training day tankers were plentiful and NEADS was easily able to refuel its air defense fighters.
Exercises
A good web discussion of NORAD exercises (and war games) is this analysis. The analysis is consistent with my recall of what the Commission staff learned. It concludes, as did we, that ongoing exercises involving NORAD--Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian--did not interfere with NORAD's real world mission that day. At NEADS, exercises as an intervening variable was dismissed in seconds when Boston ATC called for the first time.
Jeremy Powell: "Is this real world or exercise?"
Dan Bueno: "... not an exercise, not a test."
That simple exchange focused NEADS on the task at hand. As with training, the overall impact of exercises was positive. Key staff was already in position at all NORAD echelons which meant that the Battle Cab at NEADS was fully manned and operational when Powell sounded the alarm.
Wargames
The most serious event and potential threat of the day was a scheduled Russian cruise missile live-fire exercise. This was a first in nearly a decade and signaled a return of the old Soviet threat. In response, NORAD was participating in Operation Northern Vigilance; not an exercise. Although air defense aircraft were forward deployed in Canada and Alaska, there was only one slight effect on the air defense mission for the Continental United States. Because air defense fighters were loaded with extra armament and fuel their top speed was limited, but that didn't matter. The Otis and Langley fighters were not going to go that fast anyway.
Air defense techniques and procedures are well established and they call for air defense fighters to fly subsonic. NORAD specified in its September 18, 2001, press release that the time for the fighters to travel to a given location could be determined using a speed of .9 Mach. There are very good reasons for this. First, the fighters must arrive safely at their destination through traffic without running into something. Second, they need the capability to remain on target--dwell time–until tanker support can be arranged. Third, they need to be going slow enough on arrival to spot a slower moving target.
Issues
There are two issues concerning training, exercises, and war games. First is the notion that the US Government, NORAD specifically, had an exercise history which specified that hijackers would seize multiple aircraft and use them as weapons. Second is the impression that ongoing exercises and war games on 9-11 impeded or hampered the air defense response. The answer to the first issue is that the exercise history did not prepare either NORAD or the US Government to face the threat it did on 9-11. While exercise scenarios generally included a hijack as one event, such play was notional, a paper exercise. The answer to the second issue is that the ongoing training, exercises and war games were a net positive for the air defense response that day.
Source: http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=67
- Shoestring's blog
- Login to post comments
Will the lying never cease?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
A net positive
Yes, obviously the war games were a "net positive" for the day. I mean, just look at the results....
Also, why did NORAD generals lie to the 9/11 Commission?
Why did...
Richard Myers respond to a question about our response in the negative to Richard Clarke by referencing military exercises that were currently underway (according to Richard Clarke), why has that conversation never been addressed, why were NONE of the personnel that participated in the wargames (pilots, ground crews, etc...) made to testify publicly, and why were NONE of the wargames (with the exception of one) mentioned in the 9/11 Report considering the 9/11 Commission's job was to give a full and complete accounting of the facts and circumstances regarding the 9/11 attacks?
And what about...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a837mistakeforexercise#a8...
Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design the day’s exercise. Thinking the reported hijacking is part of it, he actually says out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.”
In the ID section, at the back right corner of the NEADS operations floor, technicians Stacia Rountree, Shelley Watson, and Maureen Dooley react to the news. Dooley, the leader of the ID section, tells the other members of her team: “We have a hijack going on. Get your checklists. The exercise is on” (see (8:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Rountree asks, “Is that real-world?” Dooley confirms, “Real-world hijack.” Watson says, “Cool!”
When NEADS Commander Robert Marr sees his personnel reacting to the news of the hijacking (see (8:40 a.m.) September 11, 2001), he reportedly thinks the day’s exercise “is kicking off with a lively, unexpected twist.” Even when a colleague informs him, “It’s a hijacking, and this is real life, not part of the exercise,” Marr thinks: “This is an interesting start to the exercise. This ‘real-world’ mixed in with today’s simex [simulated exercise] will keep [my staff members] on their toes.”
Major General Larry Arnold, who is at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also later says that when he first hears of the hijacking, in the minutes after NEADS is alerted to it, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?”
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.”
You can't tell me that there isn't reason to believe some of the confusion was a result of those exercises.
Edit: Wow... I didn't realize Miles Kara referenced JREF. Just wow.
Edit: I just sent an email to the individuals in this movement who are most knowledgeable concerning the wargames asking that they write something...
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Yes, and did you look at the JREF entry?
The guy claims there were only 3 war games on 9/11. Like magic, he makes the other documented exercises disappear....
The JREF guy also references the NORAD tapes as unproblematic evidence. Again, I would have to say at the very least we have NORAD generals lying and multiple timelines given for that morning; so how can the tapes be unproblematic, given the contradictions they present? Griffin points out that the lies told by NORAD generals don't make sense. If they had told the "truth" (according to the tapes) in the first place, they would have made themselves look better. Instead, the "truth" they told actually makes NORAD look really bad and potentially culpable. The tapes present Phantom Flight 11 as the main reason the latter two flights were not intercepted, but no one mentions Phantom 11 for over two years prior to the release of the tapes!
When I saw...
The reference to JREF, I automatically thought of this.
That site is filled with slanderous, vicious individuals who would like nothing more than to see the 9/11 Truth Movement fail.
Edit: That JREF "analysis" was written in December 2006. According to Miles, who is responding to a document that was posted in the last few days, it is "consistent with" Miles' "recall of what the Commission staff learned." I have a problem with a 9/11 Commission staffer going to a site like JREF to find something that is "consistent" with the 9/11 Commission's findings.
Edit Part II: Is his site, www.oredigger61.org? Look at the links on the right hand side. It looks like a debunker site.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Could that mean
that people related to the 9/11 commission, NORAD, or other government bodies are writing articles on JREF?
What other reason would there be to source JREF if JREF sources you?
I doubt it
Probably means this guy did an Internet search and found the JREF entry to be his favorite "debunking". On his blog, he also recommends other debunking sites.
I can only assume
that the erection of this 'blog' is part of the Grand Propaganda Offensive that kicked off with the Holocaust denial nonsense.
I've noticed that these people try to make their propaganda efforts seem less 'obvious' by stating up front who they are and what their affiliations are. (CIP: Mike Baker)
From Kara's blog:
"I established this site to continue my work" "wanted to know more" "that quest continues"
So you start a blog in June 2009? What have you been doing all these years since the report? Please. I can hardly believe the nauseating hubris of this stooge. You were a paid cover-up traitor then, and you are still one now. You're certainly not going to publicly second-guess the 9/11 commission on a 'blog' without explicit consent and direction by former and/or current superiors.
"Fool me once........shame on........shame on you.........fool me can't get fooled again" -- GWB
"Fool me once........shame
"Fool me once........shame on........shame on you.........fool me can't get fooled again" -- GWB
Words of Wisdom from the Fool-In-Chief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-oWLyn7wNQ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
Andy Dick is right
Ironically, I think AD is right. I do think it involves deliberate acting. The below video hypothesizes dementia, but I have heard Bush speak informally when he thought he wasn't being recorded, and the handicapped speaker act is nowhere near. Never forget, the most important job of a politician who wants power is to lie and deceive convincingly.
Andrews AFB jets away for training on 9/11
Kara does make one particularly interesting point, something I hadn't read before. He refers to the three F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base, near the Pentagon, that were more than 200 miles away from base for a training mission in North Carolina at the time of the first attack in New York, and which didn't arrive back at their base until after the Pentagon attack. Kara says that "three fighters from Andrews Air Force Base took off for scheduled training at Dare Range over eastern North Carolina, even though the Wing had just returned from an extended training mission in Nevada and was on a training stand down."
What a coincidence! On September 11, of all days, the jets went miles away from Washington for a training mission, even though their wing was on a "training stand down."
Check out the following Complete 9/11 Timeline entries for more relevant information about this:
Late August-September 8, 2001: Most Washington National Guard Pilots Are Away at Nevada Exercise
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0801redflag&scale=0
8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Fighters Are Training over North Carolina; Not Recalled to Washington until Much Later
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a846carolinafighters&scale=0
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com
Good point
I missed that.
details like that are why Kara blogging is a golden opportunity
Kara says on his welcome page: "I established this site to continue my work as a professional staff member of the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9-11 Commission."
Whatever- whether Kara tells the whole truth or spins or even lies in response to questions, this is a member of the 9/11 Commission staff going on public record. If he gives up true facts, this will help us establish what happened, and will help us establish what the most important areas for investigation are. If he offers spin, distortion or lies, this will help us further establish the lack of credibility of the Commission and its report, further making the case for a full investigation, including into the Commission itself.
The more these people talk, the better- I suggest people ask him questions with a mind to get information, not to convince him or get him to admit anything- as a former Commission staff member he's a resource, whether or not he's an ally in the search for truth- he was in the forefront of the investigation, he's a witness to it, and he knows all kinds of things about the Commission and about what they found. He may not be willing to share everything he knows, but he knows a lot more about some things than we do, and he's shown a willingness to engage with the public. With some well-crafted (and polite, even if direct) questions we should be able to get a lot of good, useful info from him- imho. Again, if we don't get the truth, we'll at least get him on record ignoring facts or even dissembling. I haven't contacted him yet, trying to come up with some good stuff.
Here's another detail- Kara says, "On that trip, concerning exercises, we were primarily interested in talking to Ken Merchant, purported to know more about the history of NORAD exercises than anyone else." and links to Merchant's MFR, which says:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00790.pdf
"Mr. Merchant is the joint exercise design manager for NORAD, and has been with NORAD J3 (or J38) for 17 years. His focus is owith other Commands and with the Joint Staff."
"Mr. Merchant cannot remember a time in the last 33 years when NORAD has NOT run a hijack exercise,"
The MFR is from 2003; according to Merchant, NORAD has run a hijack exercises EVERY YEAR since 1970. 1974 was the year that Samuel Byck tried to hijack a commercial airliner from BWI (just outside DC) with a plan to crash it into the White House- did that reeaaaalllly not get the attention of NORAD, FBI and the Secret Service????
http://demos.vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&v%3Asources=911&v%3Ap...
And there were many, many instances of attempts to use planes as missiles after that, and mentions of the possibility in government reports, and steps taken to counter the threat- like closing the airspace over the Olympics in 1996, and over every presidential inauguration since then- and over Genoa, Italy, Summer 2001 for the G-8 Conference- the Commission mentions a threat from aircraft, but omits the fact that that threat had been linked to Bin Laden, Bush was kept offshore and anti-aircraft batteries were set up.
The following list was submitted to the Commission, and it's not even a complete list, just what Motley-Rice was able to dig up:
http://www.motleyrice.com/terrorism/downloads/TimelineAndAttachments.pdf
Merchant quote continues: "but stated that they were always resolved peacefully, that is, NORAD did not project shooting down a hijacked aircraft."
According to Kara's HIjack Summary, this is a bald-faced lie- or Merchant's clueless, or Kara got a bunch of info wrong; the Hijack Summary has a Vigilant Guardian shoot-down scenario 10/26/98 AND 9/6/01, and Amazon Condor in 99- and details are missing for many exercises.
Clearly, the whole story has not been told by the Commission.
http://911reports.com
Coincidence Indeed...
On September 11, of all days, Andrews fighter jets went miles away from Washington for a training mission, even though their wing was on a "training stand down." Which allowed our Pentagon to be attacked by a hijacked airliner flying over restricted airspace, flown by a pilot who "couldn't fly at all" in a plane for which there are no BTS take-off logs for? (apparently). And wouldn't there be a protocol to always keep a pair of fighters on at Andrews-- whose job is to protect the capitol?
Who is lying?
"We had combat air patrol over at least six cities in ten minutes." Adm. Tim Keating (NORAD) to the corporate press on Oct 11, 2006 after Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle's plane hit a Manhattan apartment building. This is the way it always worked until Rummy began screwing with it in early 2001, and then it miraculously started working again this way on 9/12/2001. I wonder why? World wide, false flag terror must be exposed, those involved held accountable, and the practice outlawed by international treaty. If you are pro PEACE start making more noise, especially at your Congress persons offices.
Truth vs Treason
The 9/11 Commission is involved in High Treason.
Pure and Simple.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
This thread is an appropriate place to put a link
to Shoestring's recent article:
The F-16s That Failed to Protect Washington on 9/11: Was the Langley Jets' Emergency Response Sabotaged?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20204
http://911reports.com
Miles Kara is a
a career intelligence officer, military and civilian. Has anyone ever met him?
He and I...
Have been going back and forth a bit. Here is the last thing I said to him...
Miles, do you happen to have a breakdown of each of the wargames that were taking place in the days prior to, and on the day of 9/11? What were the different scenarios they were each running through, etc… Do you have a list of the individuals that were involved in each of the exercises? Do you know where this information exists? Thank you.
HIs response...
Jon, hopefully that information will emerge as our work files are released by NARA; that will take time. I believe we obtained the MESL (exercise sequence lists) for at least Vigilant Guardian.
Andrew Burfeld’s rundown (he is Gumboot in the blog world) is accurate and the best existing source on the web. I link to it in my article. I understand from my cousin who follows the blog world that the fact that I happened to reference a JREF posting is suspect. I only did that because Burfeld’s posting is the most available version of his work. Consider him the source, not JREF. The two CPX were Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian; CPX not FTX. I don’t recall the details of either; but hijackings were not the only theme and certainly not the main theme.
Be careful on the use of the term “war games.” That is loose language. If there was a “war game” it was the Russian live fire exercise and the NORAD (and national) response to it. That was serious business and several efforts were made early on to get the Russians to call off their plan, which they did.
I’ll keep a lookout for our on site interview with Ken Marchant, he is the key. In fact, next time I go to NARA I’ll ask for that one, specifically. The one I link to is a pre-visit telephonic interview with him.
Jon, I appreciate your calm, rational approach to asking questions, much appreciated.
Miles
My response...
Miles, you state that “the two CPX were Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian; CPX not FTX.”
Can you please provide for me a source that states Global Guardian was, in fact, a “CPX?” Thanks…
Also, according to the Timeline…
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a830globalguardian#a830gl...
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.
Miles, do you know who would have rescheduled Global Guardian?
Incidentally Miles, you are correct. Linking to a “debunker’s” work (keeping in mind that debunkers are the ones that slander, viciously attack, and lie about anyone that questions the highly questionable official account of 9/11) is “suspect” at best. I’m curious as to why you don’t have a list of the families’ unanswered questions on your site, or their request for a new investigation. Also, was Philip Zelikow involved in the hiring process for you? Thanks.
His response...
Jon, we are getting into debate mode here, which I am not going to do. You use this terminology, “the highly questionable official account of 9/11.” There is no need for us to proceed, if that is your premise. The Commission, and the Joint Inquiry before it established the facts of the day. They are not going to change. Go ahead and convene a new investigation or even two working separately, but parallel. They will come up with the same findings we did; that is all the evidence will allow.
We all had the families questions close at hand; the history commons 9-11 files have multiple examples of this. I, alone, worked two of the questions–Payne Stewart and the seismic time of 10:06 for UA93. Both were answered; the answers, ground truth, apparently weren’t acceptable to some since they weren’t the “right” answer.
Miles
My response...
Miles, the Joint Congressional Inquiry redacted 28 pages that we are still not allowed to see. It was the inadequate investigation of the JICI that led the families to fight for a so-called “Independent” commission.
The official account is highly questionable Miles. The 9/11 Report is highly based on KSM’s tortured testimony. The 9/11 Commission ignored, and censored 9/11 Whistle-blowers with pertinent 9/11 information. NORAD lied… the commissioners, Sen. Mark Dayton, and others have written about, and talked about this, and no one was held accountable. Bush & Cheney never testified publicly or under oath.
I hope we do have a new investigation Miles. One that doesn’t come to the “right” conclusion, but instead, the “correct” conclusion.
Thank you for your time.
His response...
Jon, you’re welcome. I stand by our work, it was a fact-based effort, both of them. I was also on the professional staff of the Joint Inquiry. My cv is readily available on the history commons site. In the upper right corner you will find a hand-written notation to the effect that I worked BTTR. That is why I was hired. Also, read the item on my site, NORAD’s sudoku puzzle. Don’t forget we made referrals to the DoD and the DoT Inspector Generals to further pursue why the story that came out in the aftermath of 9-11 was not accurate. The fact that the story that emerged wasn’t accurate does not change, in any way, the story that we told, which is accurate. The more history commons uploads our files the more the accuracy of our report is confirmed.
Keep tuned to my site as I add items.
Get back to me again in awhile after you’ve had time to digest things a bit more.
Amicably,
Miles
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Cousin
I would like to take this time to say hello to Miles' "cousin" who is "following the blog world".
Hello.
Thanks Jon
I'd like to hear why WTC7 collapse was not mentioned in the Commision report & ask him about the Peer-reviewed Scientific paper discovering explosives in the dust.
At least the guy is being civil.
I'd love to hear a similar open exchange between Miles & Dr.Griffith or Paul Thompson.