Pentagon's 9-11 Wargames Cover-up On-going



Photo copied from NJ ANG website Fair Use

The American mainstream media has collectively agreed that it's time for the nation to move on and that we should all leave the September 11, 2001 terror attacks to the history books. It seems that our entire media establishment concurs that there's nothing else to be said, this would make some people at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense very happy, because the sooner we all get on with getting on with our lives the sooner we will be too busy to bother asking vexing questions about what our military was up to on the morning of the attacks. I can only speak for myself, but I think those answers are far more important than finding out whether or not some ball player lied to congress about taking drugs, but my how wonderful it would have been to have seen the commission take action against military officials that lied to the nation about the military's response on 9-11. Too bad that it wasn't the commission's job to hold anyone accountable.

The military was playing games on September 11, 2001, perhaps if military officials were taking steroids congress and the commission would have probed deeper into their conduct during the 'games'. Eleven years on and few Americans are aware that several components of the U.S. military were distracted by annual computer scenario and live-real world wargames known as simulations in military parlance. Each year the military practices waging war and on that Tuesday our military was practicing for war in fictional attack and defense scenarios played out on computer screens (CPX/Command Post Exercise) as well as live real time events (FTX/Field Training Exercise). The wargames took place both abroad and inside the United States which meant that fewer fighter jets would be available to defend America.

From the midwest, the south to the northeastern US, American servicemen and women in the Army, the Marines, Air National Guard, the U.S. Navy, and the Air Force "played" out mock attacks against one another during the U.S. Strategic Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Vigilant Guardian-Global Guardian, Amalgam Warrior, Amalgam Virgo, Operation Northern Denial exercises and operations beginning as early as August 2001.

Vigilant Guardian Special Instructions via NARA FOIA

Global Guardian 2001-2 After Action Report Page 287

9-11 commission NORAD interview available at nara.gov/commission- search MFR's

December 5, 2003 Bergen Record Page A-20

Red and Blue teams (Blue Force Simulation Cells/Red Force Simulation Cells) attacked each other playing out previously written instructions called the Master Scenario Events List (MSEL) much like actors follow a script when filming on a movie set.

2001 Vigilant Guardian Controlled Staff Instructions (COSINS) via FOIA Request

Tasked with investigating the military and intelligence communities failures, the 9-11 Commission learned about the military's wargame/simulations very early into their investigation but what the commission learned at closed door interviews was rarely discussed during televised questioning of military officials.

For example, the 9-11 commission made a conscious decision not to publicly ask NORAD Commander in Chief (CINCNORAD) General Ed Eberhart, or STRATCOM Commander Admiral Mies, both of whom established the Exercise Control Group for NORAD's Vigilant Guardian and STRATCOM's Global Guardian, Apollo Guardian [et. al] exercises, why the Red and Blue forces continued fighting until 11:25 a.m. all the way through the attacks while Americans were dying.

STRATCOM Global Guardian 2001-2 After Action Report Page 8

9-11 Commission March 1, 2004 interview with NORAD Commander Ed Eberhart nara.gov/911commission/MFR

Despite the commission learning in 2003 that the Pentagon's National Military Command Center was monitoring "all" on going exercises in the U.S. none of the commissioners bothered to ask senior military officials from the Pentagon why no one monitoring the movements of American air assets was able to direct any of our already airborne military planes in the field to intercept any of the hijacked planes before they could reach their targets.

July 28, 2003 Commission Interview at Reagan Nat'l Airport & Andrews AFB nara.gov/911commission/MFR

9-11 Commission June 12, 2003 FAA Interview nara.gov/911commission/MFR

 Notice the reference to military traffic in the Northeast sector. On 9-11 there was a military refueling tanker in military airspace over Narragansett Rhode Island known as Whiskey 105. Again the commission did not do it's job of determining what other military aircraft were in that area, how many, when they arrived and why none of those military craft were not immediately sent to New York since they were already airborne?

September 22, 2003 Commission Interview with Dan Bueno FAA Boston Ctr nara.gov/911commission/MFR

 Yet another interview that was not televised, the highlighted section reveals that Boston Center may have issued a No Pass Through Air Defense warning advising all aircraft to avoid military airspace, possibly Whiskey 105 as part of NORAD's Vigilant Guardian exercise. This is at least an indication that military aircraft were in fact using airspace in the Northeastern United States on the morning of 9-11. Instead of losing precious minutes ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, then later ordering them to scramble, the fighters already airborne in the NE sector could have been used to intercept or at least utilized to help identify and locate the missing hijacked planes.

None of the members of the 9-11 commission publicly asked military officials why fighters over North Carolina weren't recalled immediately as soon as it was realized that the nation was under attack.

March 4, 2004 Commission Staff interview w/NORAD personnel

Global Guardian 2001-2 After Action Report page 334- STRATCOM FOIA Request April 2011

Also unexplored by the commission was the subject of when STRATCOM stopped injecting "realistic" terrorism events called inputs, onto the radar screens of NORAD, STRATCOM and other participants involved with the Global Guardian-Vigilant Guardian exercise. According to some published reports, NORAD and STRATCOM exercises ended shortly after the second plane Flight 175 crashed into the South Trade Center Tower. It was at that point that military officials say they realized that there was an on going coordinated attack. As with everything else...the devil is in the details. Within STRATCOM's own end of  exercise report known as an After Action Report (AAR), a mandatory requirement after every exercise, page 8 of the Global Guardian AAR reveals that STRATCOM did not end their exercise right away as reported. In fact, the report shows that STRATCOM continued their exercise until 1525Z = ZULU which translates to 11:25 AM Eastern Standard Time once Daylight Savings Time is factored.

11 is the day of the month 1525 is Greenwich Mountain Time and Sep 01 = September 2001

Other than a vague reference to NORAD's Vigilant Guardian exercise on page 20 of the 2006 re-released Commission Report and the footnote 116 found on page 458 in the back of the book:

 Few of our neighbors, family, co-workers and friends have ever heard of Vigilant Guardian because there is only this indeed very vague reference given to us by the investigators and there is no mention of STRATCOM's exercise which linked with the NORAD exercise. Why? Simple. The less Americans know about it, the less questions Americans will ask. It is extremely important to note that while people were dying in World Trade Center and the Pentagon one faction of the military continued tricking and distracting the other faction by injecting realistic terrorism inputs onto the military radar technician's display screens.

NORAD personnel were instructed at the end of August 2001 to make sure that their radar screens were prepared to display simulated injects/"Sim Tracks" over their real world radar displays so that the simulated injects would be perceived to be real and would be treated as though they were real time live events unfolding. The $64,000 question never asked publicly by members of the commission was how on earth were four hijacked planes able to reach their targets with all of the extra military personnel on duty taking part in numerous military exercises on the morning of September 11, 2001? How, with military planes from New Jersey's 177th Fighter Wing already airborne in the Northeastern United States taking part in an exercise, were two hijacked planes able to get anywhere near the World Trade Towers without being intercepted? And why weren't any of the other military planes already airborne immediately recalled to stop Flight 77 and Flight 93?

Although, the commissioners had top military leaders from the Pentagon in front of them, no one inquired about the NMCC monitoring and participating in STRATCOM's Global Guardian exercise nor was there any mention of other exercises the Pentagon's NMCC might have "played" in. Commissioners also passed up a chance to find out why NORAD/ U.S. Space Command did not end their Apollo Guardian exercise immediately and focus their satellites on the Northeastern US to help locate the missing hijacked airliners that reportedly disappeared from radar.

Arguably the most important aspect, the 9-11 commissioners did not ask military officials exactly when the Vigilant Guardian power outages ended, at what phase of the attacks or time of day did the intentional power outages take place and for how long, and when the ban on using personal phones or outside lines was lifted.

NORAD 2001 Vigilant Guardian COSIN NORAD FOIA

NORAD now claims that it is a matter of National Security that you do not find out what time they ended their exercises, where their military aircraft were located on the morning of the attacks, and what US Space Command was using their satellites for before and during the attacks.

Not only does NORAD claim it is a matter of National Security that you do not find out what they were doing while the nation was being attacked, NORAD also claims that it would be an invasion of someone's personal privacy if this information were to be released to you.

Take a few seconds to let this sink in.

Releasing this information is both a threat to the security of America as well as an invasion of someone's personal privacy.

You can help to put an end to this cover up by supporting a legal fund to bring a FOIA Lawsuit against NORAD for illegally applying the B(1) and B(6) exemptions.

Talking about the cover up for another year or more will not stop it, only court action will. 

Strange Things About 9-11

A page from the FBI's High Fiver Report detailing an interview with a female employee of Urban Moving Systems Inc. a  Mossad, Israeli intelligence front company according to the March 15, 2002 publication called The Forward:

During the interview, she told FBI Agents that she saw a still picture on the internet after walking over to a nearby co-worker using a computer who said that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center.
Wouldn't you like to know how a still picture of a plane crashing into the towers wound up on the internet a few minutes after it happened?

Page A.8-September 12, 2001 Bergen Record, Page A.9-September 10, 2001 Washington Times, Page 8 March 15, 2002-Forward

U.S. ARMY & CIA Bin Laden Deception-Cover-Up Continues

He may be holding a microphone, but do you really know what he said? For nearly four years I thought...I believed that I knew, because like most people I trusted our news media and government officials who translated the bin laden videos that members of the military were lucky enough to find while raiding a house in Afghanistan. But the mother-of-all-head-scratchers appeared from our many blind spots back in 2008 revealing that high ranking government leaders from America and many other countries watched a "simulated" video of Usama bin Laden claiming credit for a nuclear attack on Brussels. Page 7 of the 2004 Black Dawn Exercise (conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies) casually describes the fake bin Laden video:

(visit csis.org enter Black Dawn Exercise in the upper right search box to download the full 16 page May 2004 report)


I stopped laughing at Omar bin Laden's April 17, 2008 claim that "maybe they make a copy of my father" when it was revealed in 2010 that...well..."they" actually did make a copy of his father. Literally. Former CIA Officer and Washington Post Spy Talk Blogger Jeff Stein reported on May 25, 2010 that the CIA and the U.S. ARMY did in fact create a fake video of Usama bin Laden and his cronies "sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from "some of us darker skinned employees" he said:

I decided to send FOIA requests to both the CIA and U.S. ARMY for all information regarding our military and intelligence agency ostensibly using taxpayer dollars to make fake videos of bin Laden, but yet again I was told that releasing such information would pose a threat to the safety of America...see for yourself:

These cover-ups last so long because we do nothing more than talk about them. Your help is needed to fund a FOIA Lawsuit to stop this cover-up. Yes, talk is a lot cheaper. Giving lip service is less expensive than giving money for a lawsuit...but that only helps to ensure that the cover-up remains firm for another 11 years. Think about it.

King Street Truck Explosion Cover-Up Continues

Few Americans are aware that on September 11, 2001 after 11:00AM several New York Police Officers stopped a rented truck on King Street between 6th (Avenue of the Americas) and 7th Avenue/Varick known to local NY residents as South 7th Avenue. Two men took off running away from the truck which exploded according to the NYPD radio recordings. The only print media report of this incident was on page 8 of an September 16, 2001 New York Times article by Adam Nagourney titled "After Shining Decade, City Dwellers Reasssess Face of Their Reality" excerpt here:

No mention of the occupants running away, thus "abandoning" the truck


This is the beginning of King Street and 6th Avenue 

This is 7th Avenue, Varick is known locally as the Southern End of 7th Ave

I wanted to know more about this so I filed a FOIA request with NYPD, which was denied on the grounds that the records of the two individuals detained by NYPD were withheld due to pending/future law enforcement proceedings. When I appealed their decision stating that the detainees have long since been deported and that there are no existing or scheduled court proceedings against them, I received a response to my appeal stating that a second search was conducted and that no records existed. Odd. So...the records that were located...that could not be released...somehow ceased to exist some time after my appeal was filed.

The 9-11 cover-up will continue until people like you support a legal fund to bring the NYPD and FBI to court for violating the FOIA Law. The FBI used a similar 'minor' legal tactic to bring mobsters to court for tax evasion, the Freedom of Information Act tool should be used by all to get the information that is being withheld. Talking about this on blogs year after year will not stop this cover-up.

 

Let's all do more than just talk about this incident. Let's get involved.

Share this video with everyone you know and encourage them to get involved. Please.

FBI Illegally Withholding Hijacker Autopsy Reports

On June 13, 2012, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES) at Dover Air Force Base asking for copies of the autopsy reports for the passengers aboard Flight 77 that reportedly crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. A response letter from AFMES dated June 20, 2012 stated that they (AFMES) do not release autopsy reports, citing the (b)(6) FOIA Law exemption for "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy", the letter also cited privacy concerns for the decendents and surviving family members.

A few days after faxing a response back to AFMES, I spoke with Mr. Paul Stone, the AFMES FOIA officer, I naively attempted to clarify what I thought was a simple misunderstanding of the law on his part. I explained that according to case law, which I cited in my faxed reply to his office, autopsy reports are in fact public records and that according to the law the autopsy reports were supposed to be released. The law further stipulates that if protecting privacy rights of surviving family members is cited as cause for denial, then the names of the family members opposing the release of the reports must be listed in writing. Mr. Stone simply forwarded my request to the FBI.

Aside from the fact that the FBI violated the 20 day acknowledgment of receipt requirement of the FOIA Law. I learned earlier today (Thursday August 30, 2012) that the FBI closed my case/request without telling me after I responded to their July 24, 2012 denial of release citing the same case law and further asserting that privacy rights only apply to U.S. citizens and not dead foreigner terrorists also that whether American or not, the courts have long decided that when you die so too does your right to privacy.

On August 3, 2012 I sent a response to the FBI's denial letter via fax back to the FBI and as suggested in their letter, I checked their website for an update on the status of my request. It was on Wednesday night that I learned via the FBI website that my case number was no longer in their database. After a brief round of phone tag, I received a return call from David Sobonya at the FBI's Records Information Division informing me that my case was in fact closed and that the records were exempt from release.

It is very unusual for a FOIA request to be closed without me being informed in writing, and even more unusual that a case is closed before the appeal process has run it's course. Although, in the FBI's July 24, 2012 denial letter, I was given 60 days to appeal, the FBI seemingly abruptly closed my case without waiting for the outcome of an appeal. More to come soon.