Miles Kara, ex 'staffer' sia della Joint Inquiry sia della 9/11 Commission prosegue le "indagini" della Commissione, ma... le omissioni e i silenzi continuano!!! [ CONTIENE UN AGGIORNAMENTO ]
***questo post contiene un aggornamento
Per chi non lo sapesse, Miles Kara ( ufficiale dell'Intelligence civile e militare, 'testimone' nei pressi del Pentagono, avendo all'epoca l'ufficio al Crystal City, e quindi facente parte sia del Team "Other Agency" della Joint Inquiry sia del "Team 8" della 9/11 Commission ) ha da poco tempo aperto un proprio blog [ http://www.oredigger61.org/" ], per continuare a seguire e analizzare i fatti dell'undici settembre 2001.
Il perchè Kara abbia deciso di scrivere a proposito del 9/11 non è un mistero ( a differenza di quello che accadde quel giorno ); infatti lo possiamo apprendere direttamente dalle sue parole:
"Both the Commission and the Joint Inquiry operated under tight time constraints and there was simply not enough time to do everything we wanted to do. With the recent and continuing release of Commission files I have the opportunity while things are still reasonably clear in my mind to revsit my work, hence the title of this blog."
Ricordo che è anche grazie alle 'indagini' svolte da Kara e dai teams in cui collaborava, che è stato scritto il famigerato capitolo della 9/11CR: "We Have Some Planes» - Chapter One
Kara infatti ha prestato la sua intelligenza in settori di indagine quali:
*1- "On the Joint Inquiry I served on the «Other Agency» Team. Teams were dedicated to three specific organizations; the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Another team examined policy and history leading up to 9-11. My team, then, had a very large plate–the Department of Defense, less NSA, but including the Defense Intelligence Agency, the, then, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office; the Departments of Energy, State, Treasury and Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and the Secret Service. Our mandate was to look at intelligence issues; we did not examine in any detail the actual events of 9-11, itself"
ai tempi dalla Joint Commission, e
*2 - "On the Commission I served on Team 8; our task was to look at the events of the day in the sky outside the airplanes. A different team looked at the airlines and events inside the airplanes. Our focus was on two specific organizations, FAA and NORAD and its components, specifically the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). We established the essential facts of the day and told our story as «We Have Some Planes,» Chapter One of the Commission Report."
ai tempi del 9/11 Commission Report.
Le sue parole e i suoi scritti, non possono essere considerati "complottisti", tutt'altro, anzi! Diciamo anche però che la capacità verbale espositiva e logica non gli manca.
Ma ricordando ancora trattarsi di uno degli estensori di quel vuoto che è il 9/11CR, e che anche si tratta di una persona strettamente legata all'Intelligence ( con tutti i vincoli scritti e non che ciò implica )... non possiamo che muoverci coi piedi di piombo!
Gli va anche riconosciuto il merito di essere disponibile a rispondere alle domande che gli si inviano, ma:
- Come e quanto effettivamente 'risponde'?
- Quanto chiariscono le sue parole?
- Con quale 'certezza' vanno prese queste?
- Si tratta tutto di 'oro colato'?
E infatti c'è chi ha pensato bene di stilare una serie di domande alle quali Kara potrebbe rispondere... meglio di come ha provato a fare: "non ricordo", "silenzi" e tentativi di "spostare il boccino"!
Tale serie di domande si basano sulle anomalie e omissioni presenti appunto nel 9/11CR, in particolar modo per quello che può concernere settori di indagine toccati da Miles kara e colleghi, ed è stato possibile 'assemblarle', anche grazie all'ottimo lavoro che stanno svolgendo i Truth Seekers di History Commons Groups, che continuano a reperire e rendere di pubblico dominio tutto il materilale che piano piano viene desecretato.
Tale serie di domande, scritte da Erik Larson, può essere trovata in originale QUI e QUI.
Sono articolate su 17 punti principali, con una serie di 'sotto-domande' per alcuni argomenti.
Domande che già avrebbero dovuto avere risposta ai tempi della 9/11Commission: infatti tale Commissione era stata istituita appositamente con l'obbligo di fornire ai cittadini americani un "full and complete accounting" dei "facts and circumstances" circa la tragedia dell'undici settembre.
Fornire un"full and complete accounting" dei "facts and circumstances"?
e dove mai questo sarebbe accaduto?
non certo con la pubblicazione del relativo Report ( come David Ray Griffith ha ampiamente dimostrato )!!!
Ma quella frase mandatoria resta comunque scritta nero su bianco, e se Kara - oggi a distanza di anni - decide di proseguire effettivamente il lavoro svolto in modo "incompleto" 'per mancanza, all'epoca, di tempo'... è benvenuto, a meno che ( come da sua risposta fornita ) non intenda continuare a seguire le orme del vuoto Omission Repport!!!
Comunque, in questo articolo vi propongo sie le domande formulate da Larsen, sia ( in coda ) la 'risposta' di Kara.
Siccome dò per assodato che sappiate leggere l'inglese ( anche perchè se no, sul 9/11 avreste veramente potuto leggere poco! ), non mi dò la briga di tradurvi nè le domande nè le risposte ( anche perchè non ho molto tempo a disposizione ).
Nel caso lo riteniate necessario... lasciate un messaggio!
/// - LE DOMANDE - /// [link]
1. What were the name(s) and scenario(s) of the hijack exercise(s) that NORAD conducted or planned to conduct on September 11, 2001?
At least one hijack exercise is documented by the NEADS tapes, and was reported on by Michael Bronner for Vanity Fair in 2006. Bronner provides some details of the exercise, and quotes Major Kevin Nasypany, who helped design the exercise:
"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.
2. Why was the hijack exercise (or exercises) scheduled for September 11, 2001 not included in your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table?
3. Why was the hijack exercise (or exercises) not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, or made into a subject at the Commission hearings?
4. Why does the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1 endnote 116 restrict itself to a description of Vigilant Guardian on September 11, 2001 as having «postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union», without mentioning other exercise scenarios, and in particular omitting hijack exercises? (458n116)
Endnote 116 is the reference for the following conversation, which is also featured in the Vanity Fair article, and in your article 9/11: Training, Exercises and War Games:
NEADS: «Is this real world or exercise?»
FAA: »No, this is not an exercise, not a test.» (20)
As quoted by Bronner (see 1. above), Nasypany indicated the questions he and many other military personnel had about «real world or exercise» were due to the hijack exercise coinciding with the 9/11 real world events- not a Soviet Bomber attack exercise, as implied by endnote 116.
Your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table lists 9 versions of Vigilant Guardian from 9/6/01 to 9/10/01, all of which involved a hijack scenario.
5a. What was total number of military exercises involving aircraft that took place on September 11, 2001?
5b. What were the names and scenarios of these exercises? (Other than the hijack exercise(s) you name and describe in response to question 1. above)
6a. Which exercises involved the use of computer-simulated aircraft aka «injects» (or «inputs») on 9/11, and how many injects were being used?
6b. Which radar screens were the injects on, and what time were they cleared?
6c. Why was the use of injects in NORAD exercises on September 11 not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
7. On your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table, you highlighted certain text in Red, Yellow and Bold; what was your reason for doing this?
8. You say in your article 9/11: Training, Exercises and War Games, «The [NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary] was prepared to list what we knew about exercises before we traveled to NORAD Headquarters.»
How was this information used in the interviews?
9. What is the reason Ken Merchant stated «that [NORAD hijack exercises] were always resolved peacefully, that is, NORAD did not project shooting down a hijacked aircraft."? (3)
Your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary" table lists at least 3 exercises which included a shoot-down scenario; Vigilant Guardian 10/26/98 and 9/6/01, and Amazon Condor 10/21/99.
Ken Merchant's MFR states:
"Mr. Merchant is the joint exercise design manager for NORAD, and has been with NORAD J3 (or J38) for 17 years."
10. In a comment on your 9/11: Training, Exercises and War Games article, you said, «there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn’t have anything to do with the other three». Please cite sources for information on this exercise (or provide links).
10a. What was the name, scenario and purpose of this DOJ exercise?
10b. Why was this DOJ exercise not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
11a. Why was the 2001 Global Guardian exercise rescheduled from October to the week of September 11?
11b. What are the names of those responsible for rescheduling Global Guardian?
11c. Why was Global Guardian not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
12. What are the names and roles of those who were in charge of coordinating the military, intelligence, law enforcement and emergency management exercises scheduled for September 11, 2001?
13. The 9/11 Commission Report says, «Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons.» (17)
13a. What information was this threat-identification based on; what NORAD documents describe this threat, what do they say, and are Bin Laden and/or Al Qaeda mentioned in any of them?
13b. What did the Commission learn about this threat-identification from interviews?
14. Why does the 9/11 Commission Report say, «Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States—and using them as guided missiles—was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.»? (17)
In this unclassified Amalgam Virgo 01-02 exercise scenario (also described in your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table), a suicide pilot took off from Clearwater, Florida with a plan to crash into SEADS- in order to disrupt NORAD’s ability to intercept drug-smuggling flights.
In addition to other ‘planes as missiles’ plots, Commissioner Ben-Veniste noted at the May 23, 2003 hearing, «September 12th, 1994, a Cessna 150L crashed into the South Lawn of the White House, barely missing the building, and killing the pilot. Similarly, in December of 1994, an Algerian armed Islamic group of terrorists hijacked an Air France flight in Algiers and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. In October of 1996, the intelligence community obtained information regarding an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and crash it into Tel Aviv.»
General McKinley responded, «It's obvious by your categorization that those events all took place and that NORAD had that information.»
And the 9/11 Commission Report noted that, «in February 1974, a man named Samuel Byck attempted to commandeer a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with the intention of forcing the pilots to fly into Washington and crash into the White House to kill the president.» (561n21)
15. Why was Osama Bin Laden’s picture used on the cover of the Amalgam Virgo 01 exercise proposal?
16. DOD Document Request No. 4, Item 20 requested «The final briefing and intelligence scenario for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) exercise scheduled on 9/11 concerning a plane crash into NRO headquarters.» This DOD Document Index (emailed by Dan Levin) says it was delivered 7/15/03.
17a. What was the full NRO exercise scenario- and did it involve an accidental plane crash, or an intentional one?
17b. In what ways, if any, was this NRO exercise connected with the other exercises happening on 9/11?
17c. Why was this NRO exercise not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?
/// - LA RISPOSTA (sic!) - /// [link]
good morning, and nice to hear from you. I am relying heavily on you and your effort to get our work files in the public domain in some sensible fashion.
I can’t answer your questions piecemeal, I simply don’t have enough information in front of me and my recall from memory is problematic. For example, I had no active memory recall of the exercise spreadsheet until Phil Shenon jogged my memory.
Here’s part of the problem. What you are seeing in the NARA files is just the tip of the iceberg. NARA hasn’t even begun to touch our audo files or any of the electionic files, including master data bases. I have suggested that they make the audo file of our NORAD visit to J37 a high priority, by the way.
Let me comment on what I can, at this point. First, we are talking notional injects into exercises. There were no planes in the skies involved. There was a series of three Guardian exercises, NORAD, SpaceCom and StratCom; I think NORAD played in two of those, according to Myers testimony at the McKinney hearings. Those were both CPX. There was no impact on the air defense mission other than as I have stated–battle cabs were fully manned.
I don’t recall the DoJ exercise and I don’t recall working on that. Not sure how I got linked to that; please check how you made that equation.
Nothing detracted from the work on the NEADS floor; the only military element that actually ‘fought’ the battle that day. It is quite clear that the ID Techs are solely focused on getting any information they could and that the Surveillance Techs were continuously looking for tracks and that the WD/SD section under Fox was doing what it was supposed to be doing. I listened to these tapes multiple times and the concentration on the real-world task at hand is clear. Occasional exercise-related comments are just that; occasional and understandable.
We spent a lot of time working through this whole issue and at the end of the day it was an intervening variable, but not one that was significant.
I can comment on the NRO exercise since I’m the one that worked that. Eventually our released files will show that NRO provided us the details and there was nothing related to 9-11. NRO lives and works under one of the approach/takeoff paths to Dulles. They have long known that they were vulnerable to an accident. They scheduled an exercise predicated on an accidental crash, nothing more. There is no correlation to anything having to do with hijackings or with the events of 9-11 as they unfolded. The exercise was cancelled.
For now, let me close with a question of my own. What exactly is it that NORAD was supposed to do if they had received timely notification, which they did not? Once hijacked, a happening totally beyond NORAD’s control, those four planes were going to come down violently. I was about 1/4 mile from the Pentagon on 9-11, see the picture in my article on becoming a Commission Staff member, and I could easily have become a victim, depending on where AA77 came down.
Thanks again for your hard work on uploading files.
/// - ///
Non c'è che dire... anche in questo caso: fornire un"full and complete accounting" dei "facts and circumstances" è risultato al di là delle capità di chi ha lavorato presso la 9/11Commission!!! E dire che questa volta si trattava solo di rispondere ad alcune domande e non a tutti i 'facts and circumstances'!
Nel caso poi andiate a leggere i suoi articoli ufficiali... ma links a supporto delle affermazioni che fa... perchè semplicemnete mancano?!
***AGGIRNAMENTO del 2 luglio 2009
Riporto qui di seguito la seconda 'risposta' di Kara...
pensate che abbia risposto punto su punto alle domande postegli?
Pensate che abbia risposto?
beh... leggete quanto segue e stay tuned!!!
/// - 2° risposta di Kara - /// [link]
hi, I’ve given some thought to your lengthy list of questions and I want to provide you a response that helps further your own efforts.
First, let me estabish the common ground. We are both interested in making public as much of the Commission’s files as possible. We both have the same reason for doing that, to establish the facts of the day. To that end I will do what I can to assist with NARA.
Second, as I told Jon Gold, Kyle Hence, and Kevin, I am not interested in debating the facts of the day. That is counterproductive to my own stated objectives but more important for your own endeavors. What will happen is we will enter an endless “do loop” where I answer questions and the answers are found wanting, which leads to more questions, on ad infinitum.
As I told one of the three, in two cases where I was the sole staffer working the issue–Payne Stewart and the seismic 10:06 time for UA 93–it didn’t matter. The answers were not “right,” and not accepted in some quarters. I have now done that in a 3d case, NRO. I was the sole staffer working that issue and as I’ve told you it is a non-issue.
Third, I have my own question on the table. What is it, exactly, that NORAD was supposed to do? Take it one step further, given perfect information and the time to respond, what is it, exactly, that NORAD was supposed to do? I have had in place a Google Alert “9-11 Commission” since late 2004. I am not aware of anyone who has ever tried to answer that question. It is, in your world, the ‘elephant in the room.’ Might be time to acknowledge that.
Finally, I have a suggestion to help you and your colleagues further your own work in a meaningful way. It is ultimately not productive for you to engage in a continuing exchange with a single staffer whose personal recall on many of the facts of the day is nearly five years removed from the relevant work files. I submit that many of your colleagues intuitively understand this and its futility. So, if you are truly serious in getting at the issues of the day here is my suggestion.
First, write an article in a mainstream publication outside the ‘blogosphere.’ I suggest the Washington Post sunday magazine as I example of where to publish. Or, do as Michael Bronner did and publish in a magazine such as Vanity Fair.
Second, file suit in a court of your choice. I’m sure there are lawyers in your group who can take on this task.
Third, petition a Congressman or Senator to task the statutory Inspectors General to open an investigation. This is the course of action I recommend. Any number of people have had success doing this. The mother of a Marine killed in El Salvador in the ‘Zona Rosa Massacre.’ petitioned Senator Shelby to find out why her son died. Senator Shelby tasked multiple statutory Inspectors General to answer that question, in detail. A private citizen, Jose Basulto, CEO of Brothers to the Rescue, petitioned Representative Dan Burton to find out why Cuba MiGs were allowed to pursue him within three nautical miles of the Continental US. Representative Burton tasked the DoD Inspector General to answer that question, in detail. You will be interested to know that Jose Basulto leveraged his own website to further his cause. The POW/MIA concerned citizens petitioned Senator Bob Smith to champion their cause. He caused an ad hoc special committee to convene and, unhappy with those results, caused the concerned statutory Inspectors General to conduct a detailed investigation. Finally, Jennifer Harbury, widow of a slain Guatemalan guerrilla leader caused the US Government to investigate the death of her husband. That was accomplished through tasking to the statutory Inspectors General by the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Erik, I have given considerable thought and have taken the time to give you a detailed response so that you have some meaningful options beyond just nitter-nattering with a single Staffer who happens to have started a blog site to continue his work on the events of the day of 9-11. I need time to do that and engaging in endless questions and answers is not the way I choose to go.
/// - la 'contro risposta' di Larsen - /// [link]
His question "what is it, exactly, that NORAD was supposed to do?"
Wouldn't this from 9/11 Family Member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza answer his question?
Basically, from the outset, the planes... they didn't follow protocol. There should have, uh... planes sent to accompany the commercial airlines once transponder, which is the identification the FAA uses to track planes.... Once that went off, that's, in itself, reason enough for fighter jets to be sent up into the air, and it's not on.. they're not... their purpose isn't necessarily shoot down an errant plane, that's the last resort, but they do have the means to... um... they're supposed to go on the side of a plane, rock their wings, that's an indicator that the pilot should turn some type of communication on with these fighter jets, let them know that every thing's ok onboard, that... that... ya know, there isn't a hijacking, or a pilot hasn't, ya know, gotten sick. Um... All of those things can happen without you shooting down a plane, and those jet fighters could rock their wings, they can actually knock, if there were hijackers actually flying those planes, they could have knocked those people, um... off their feet. So, there were many measures that could have been taken, and should have been taken, and those were written in protocols, and were not followed on 9/11. And that's with FOUR commercial jet airliners having been hijacked. I ask you how is that possible? We spend more money in military than more than half the countries totaled in the world. And again, we couldn't get one plane up in time to accompany those four planes that were wildly off course.
With regards to his recommendations... what does he think we've been doing for all of these years? I've contacted every politician that has "represented" me several times over, and others that don't represent me, as I know others have as well. Does he not see how the media treats us? 9/11 is off limits. No one wants to touch it, and those that did, have been driven out of office. Blair Gadsby had a hunger strike outside of John McCain's offices, and was ignored for the most part. John McCain, an endorser of PM's "myths" book.
/// - ///
dice di voler "indagare", ma quando gli pongono domande alle quali è di sicuro in grado di rispondere, dice di non ricordare, cerca di spostare l'attenzione con una domanda 'fuori contesto', e quindi suggerisce ( ilarità generele, please!!!), di pubblicare un articolo su un quotidiano main-stream e di rivolgersi ai politici!!!
No. Non fosse che stiamo parlando di una tragedia, ci sarebbe da sbellicarsi dalle risa!!!
Comunque mi sento in vena di rispondergli io alla sua 'straw-argument' domandina...
"what is it, exactly, that NORAD was supposed to do? / che cosa è, esattamente, che il NORAD avrebbe dovuto fare?".
Semplice: sarebbe stato abbastanza che avesse fatto il proprio dovere...
"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace".
E per "territorial airspace", ricordiamocelo bene, la terminologia militare intende: "Airspace above land territory, internal waters, archipelagic waters, and territorial seas."
[ Military Dictionary - Terms Defined ]
Miles Kara ( staffer della 9/11 Commission ) si butta nella mischia, ma risposte non ne fornisce! - le 'omissioni' continuano!!!
Miles Kara, ex 'staffer' sia della Joint Inquiry sia della 9/11 Commission prosegue le "indagini" della Commissione, ma... le omissioni e i silenzi continuano!!! [ CONTIENE UN AGGIORNAMENTO ]