NEADS wargames before 9/11

[progge]

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:

14 out of 28 for (i) = FAA participation: 50%
1 out of 28 for (ii) = Live Fly exercise: 3.57%
5 out of 28 for (iv) = Suicide: 17.85% 3 out of 28 for (v) = Plane as Weapon: 10.7%
0 out of 28 for (vi) = Multiple hijackings: 0%
6 out of 28 for (vii) = Planes from/in the interior: 21.4%
1 out of 28 for (viii) = Primary signal only: 3.57%

Numerical analysis:

28 out of 28 scenarios held at least one of the eight 9/11 features: 100%
25 out of 28 scenarios held at least two of the eight 9/11 features: 89%.
3.5 out of 28 scenarios held at least three of the eight 9/11 features: 12.5% 3 out of 28 scenarios held at least four of the eight 9/11 features: 10.71%
0 out of 28 scenarios held at least five of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 28 scenarios held at least six of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 28 scenarios held at least seven of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 28 scenarios held all eight 9/11 features: 0%.

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.

6 out of 12 for (i) = FAA participation: 50%
1 out of 12 for (ii) = Live Fly exercise: 8.3%
5 out of 12 for (iv) = Suicide Mission: 41.6% 3 out of 12 for (v) = Plane as Weapon: 25%
0 out of 12 for (vi) = Multiple hijackings: 0%
4 out of 12 for (vii) = Planes from/in the interior: 33.3%
1 out of 12 for (viii) = Primary signal only: 8.3%

Numerical analysis:
Note 6: The highest number within an accumulation will be counted as a hit for the whole accumulation.

12 out of 12 scenarios held at least one of the eight 9/11 features: 100%
11 out of 12 scenarios held at least two of the eight 9/11 features: 91.6%
3.5 out of 12 scenarios held at least three of the eight 9/11 features: 12.5% 3 out of 12 scenarios held at least four of the eight 9/11 features: 10.71%
0 out of 12 scenarios held at least five of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 12 scenarios held at least six of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 12 scenarios held at least seven of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 12 scenarios held all of the eight 9/11 features: 0%

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.

6 out of 10 for (i) = FAA participation: 60%
1 out of 10 for (ii) = Live Fly exercise: 10%
5 out of 10 for (iv) = Suicide Mission: 50% 3 out of 10 for (v) = Plane as Weapon: 30%
0 out of 8 for (vi) = Multiple Hijackings: 0%
4 out of 10 for (vii) = Planes from/in the interior: 40%
1 out of 10 for (viii) = Primary signal only: 10%

Numerical analysis:
Note 8: The highest number within an accumulation will be counted as a hit for the whole accumulation.

10 out of 10 scenarios held at least one of the eight 9/11 features: 100%
9 out of 10 scenarios held at least two of the eight 9/11 features: 90%
4 out of 10 scenarios held at least three of the eight 9/11 features: 40% 3 out of 10 scenarios held at least four of the eight 9/11 features: 30%
0 out of 10 scenarios held at least five of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 10 scenarios held at least six of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 10 scenarios held at least seven of the eight 9/11 features: 0%
0 out of 10 scenarios held all of the eight 9/11 features: 0%

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:

*Ambiguous parts:

- 4/11/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack diverted to unknown US location: perhaps (i), (iii)
„A Significant Events Conference should result. State Department decision to contact SECDEF/CJCS and NMCC and request NORAD assistance and surveillance. FBI JOC and FAA EAC/ATCSCC are contacted. CJCS is informed by ATCSCC about approximate route information. NORAD tasking is covert shadow. Track monitor is to fly down the airway as though it might be going to Washington DC. Air crew will regain control.“

- 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)
“Terrorists will blow up this aircraft in a populated area of Alaska if there are military actions taken.”

- 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v):
“Terrorists with explosives who plan to detonate them over NYC.”
“Blue Force diverts the aircraft, when terrorists realize they are not near NYC they detonate explosives over land near the divert location. No survivors.”

**Exercises, counted as 28:
[1]: 10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, Deviation HIJCK
[2]: 10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK A/C
[3]: 10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX
[4]: 10/27/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK Europe to East Coast
[5]: 10/27/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK JUNTA JUBBA
[6]: 1/21/1999: Coronet White 99, Live AST Hijack from JFK to Miami
[7]: 1/22/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack Miami to Oklahoma City
[8]: 1/23/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack San Diego to Anchorage
[9]: 4/11/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack diverted to unknown US location
[10]: 9/30/1999: VFFI 99-1, Hijacked Aircraft with Demands
[11]: 10/21/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack with WMD on board
[12]: 2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board
[13]: 4/12/2000: VO 00, HIJACK DAL
[14]: 4/14/2000: Amalgam Warrior 00-2, Hijack by an armed crew member
[15]: 4/16/2000: VO 00, HIJACK seized by terrorists
[16]: 4/19/2000: VO 00, Crop Custer Chemical Incident
[17]: 10/20/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK London to Cairo
[18]: 10/21/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK WADS/CANR/ANR
[19]: 6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission
[20]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 1/6
[21]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 2/6
[22]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 3/6
[23]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6
[24]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 2/6
[25]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 3/6
[26]: 9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 4/6
[27]: 9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack
[28]: 9/10/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Special 23-Hijack (Cuba)

***Exercises, counted as 12:
[1]:
10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, Deviation HIJCK
10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK A/C
10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX
10/27/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK Europe to East Coast
10/27/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK JUNTA JUBBA
[2]:
1/21/1999: Coronet White 99, Live AST Hijack from JFK to Miami
1/22/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack Miami to Oklahoma City
1/23/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack San Diego to Anchorage
[3]:
4/11/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack diverted to unknown US location
[4]:
9/30/1999: VFFI 99-1, Hijacked Aircraft with Demands
[5]:
10/21/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack with WMD on board
[6]:
2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board
[7]:
4/12/2000: VO 00, HIJACK DAL
[8]:
4/14/2000: Amalgam Warrior 00-2, Hijack by an armed crew member
[9]:
4/16/2000: VO 00, HIJACK seized by terrorists
4/19/2000: VO 00, Crop Custer Chemical Incident
[10]:
10/20/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK London to Cairo
10/21/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK WADS/CANR/ANR
[11]:
6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission
[12]:
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 1/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 2/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 3/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 2/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 3/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 4/6
9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack
9/10/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Special 23-Hijack (Cuba)

****Exercises, counted as 10:
Note 12: Chronological order not followed.
[1]:
10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, Deviation HIJCK
10/25/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK A/C
10/26/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK HK to LAX
10/27/1998, Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK Europe to East Coast
10/27/1998: Vigilant Guardian 99, HIJACK JUNTA JUBBA
[2]:
1/21/1999: Coronet White 99, Live AST Hijack from JFK to Miami
1/22/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack Miami to Oklahoma City
1/23/1999: Coronet White 99, Hijack San Diego to Anchorage
[3]:
4/11/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack diverted to unknown US location
10/21/1999: Amazon Condor 00-1, Hijack with WMD on board
[5]:
9/30/1999: VFFI 99-1, Hijacked Aircraft with Demands
[6]:
2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board
[7]:
4/12/2000: VO 00, HIJACK DAL
4/16/2000: VO 00, HIJACK seized by terrorists
4/19/2000: VO 00, Crop Custer Chemical Incident
[8]:
4/14/2000: Amalgam Warrior 00-2, Hijack by an armed crew member
[9]:
10/20/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK London to Cairo
10/21/2000: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK WADS/CANR/ANR
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 1/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 2/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, ANR ROE HIJACK 3/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 2/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 3/6
9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 4/6
9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack
9/10/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Special 23-Hijack (Cuba)
[10]:
6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission

 

[progge]

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)

A Significant Events Conference should result. State Department decision to contact SECDEF/CJCS and NMCC and request NORAD assistance and surveillance. FBI JOC and FAA EAC/ATCSCC are contacted. CJCS is informed by ATCSCC about approximate route information. NORAD tasking is covert shadow. Track monitor is to fly down the airway as though it might be going to Washington DC. Air crew will regain control.

Ambiguous part: “[…] FAA […] are contacted.” By whom, State Department or NORAD?
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)

Terrorists will blow up this aircraft in a populated area of Alaska if there are military actions taken.

Should this count as a plane as weapon?
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)

Terrorists with explosives who plan to detonate them over NYC.
Blue Force diverts the aircraft, when terrorists realize they are not near NYC they detonate explosives over land near the divert location. No survivors.

Same case as Fencing Indian. Further comments on this exercise scenario in 2.3.

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:

Merchant noted that if the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined there was a hijack, they would contact NMCC with a request for a fighter shadow of the hijacked aircraft. NMCC would then contact NORAD to use their aircraft for a covert shadow. NORAD's direction would be taken specifically from the FAA. Merchant noted that they did not have "national play" on a "mundane" exercise like a hijack, but it would be simulated.
Goddard noted that the FAA generated a "Twin Star" hijack exercise in 1995. They invited NORAD to participate since a real commercial airliner was to be shadowed by a fighter intercept. Goddard's understanding is that it involved the entire FAA system, as well as the NMCC. […] Goddard recalls that pre-9/11 there was no vision of ROE escalation being involved in the exercise design. The technical aspects to be exercised were mid-air fueling and lighter wing handoffs. The Battle Staff element involved inter-agency cooperation and planning. The initial planning was to decide who theoretically would be involved in a hijack - including the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the FAA, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a participant in the FAA conference. The planning did was not specific enough to identify a FAA hijack coordinator. […] Goddard commented that from a live perspective the exercises were built upon Sector and Region responsibilities. They go through a five year planning cycle. Based on the missions they were required to do, it was logical to plan in that manner. FAA would be involved to the point of de-conflicting airspace, but no further.

(Cf. also Amalgam Virgo on staging of other agencies, covered in 2.4.)

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)

Terrorists on board with sarin and weapons, threatened to blow up plane.

More information is needed for evaluation. Till then, it kind of fits with what Bianchi told:

Bianchi noted that there were hijack suicide exercises but that those aircraft would be intercepted while over water. Bianchi noted that in these training episodes the suicide bombers were threatening to use a bomb to destroy the aircraft, and that these were not threats on infrastructure.

It might also well be something Deskins remembers:

At this point in the interview Deskins noted to Commission staff that she does believe NEADS exercised scenarios in which a terrorist would take a "small airplane that would run into something", or was full of chemicals, or would be a ground event.

The general purpose of this exercise might have been a chemical attack.

2/16/2000: Fencing Indian 00-2, Hijacked Aircraft with WMD (Sarin) on board: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)

Terrorists will blow up this aircraft in a populated area of Alaska if there are military actions taken.

This is a flight from Tokyo to Anchorage, and therefore another candidate for the Bianchi case:

Bianchi noted that there were hijack suicide exercises but that those aircraft would be intercepted while over water. Bianchi noted that in these training episodes the suicide bombers were threatening to use a bomb to destroy the aircraft, and that these were not threats on infrastructure.

The purpose of this exercise also seems not to be suicide hijack; it’s an exercise about WMD.

Hijacked Aircraft with WMD on Board

And, finally, NORAD wasn’t that involved in this particular exercise, according to Paul Goddard, Maj., & Ken Merchant, Exercise Design Manager for NORAD:

Regarding Fencing Indian '00, Merchant commented that it is an Alaskan Region built exercise, not full NORAD integrated, so he has "no visibility" on the exercise.
Merchant commented that the Sectors and the Region have their own exercise program designed to exercise their own Battle Staff. Merchant is responsible specifically for training at the NORAD level. The two can be cooperative, but the shops are clearly separated.

6/2/2001: Amalgam Virgo 01-02, Suicide Mission: (iii), (iv), (v), (vii)

Will be covered later (4).

9/6/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, HIJACK of KAL 357 1/6: (iii), (iv)

10 members of terrorist org "UN PO" seize airliner and issue demands, threaten to blow up plane if demands not met.

More information is needed for evaluation. This is a flight from Seoul to Anchorage, and therefore another candidate for the Bianchi case:

Bianchi noted that there were hijack suicide exercises but that those aircraft would be intercepted while over water. Bianchi noted that in these training episodes the suicide bombers were threatening to use a bomb to destroy the aircraft, and that these were not threats on infrastructure.

But it may also be that NEADS hadn’t anything to do with this, because of:

9/9/2001: Vigilant Guardian I, Hijack: (iii), (iv), perhaps (v)

Terrorists with explosives who plan to detonate them over NYC.
Blue Force diverts the aircraft, when terrorists realize they are not near NYC they detonate explosives over land near the divert location. No survivors.

Interestingly, no one at NEADS mentions this particular exercise scenario, although it took place just two days before 9/11, and was a NEADS scenario. Cover-up or just not what it seems to be? A pure tabletop, paper “exercise” maybe? Maybe the whole purpose of this exercise was a Blue Force testing exercise, and the detonation near NYC was an imaginative addition without relevance for the purpose of this exercise. Cf. Vigilant Guardian 99 (covered in 4).
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:

Terrorists plan on using plane to commit suicide run into metropolitan area of SF.

This is the purpose of the scenario:

Shoot or not shoot" that is the question that needs to be answered. Either way, the alc will be shot down or explode over water. AlC will never reach land. Need NORAD intel to support event. Objective: Hijack Procedures/shootdown.

This is what NORAD officials Paul Goddard, Maj., & Ken Merchant, Exercise Design Manager for NORAD, told about the exercise, and apparently this particular scenario:

Vigilant Guardian '99 was conducted in October of 1998. From Goddard's perspective, procedurally NORAD would not be able to make the decision to fire upon the aircraft. It was only designed to "push the players", but it was not considered to be based on a threat. This applies to all "out of the box" training scenarios. Goddard and Merchant both agreed that it is a serious misrepresentation to think that the scenario was built on any type of intelligence.

So we have a shoot down exercise, they needed a reason and therefore stated the plane would be used as a weapon, but not even the shoot-down itself was not considered to be based on a real threat.
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)

SEADS to launch with intent to intercept and turn target away. Target remains on course and situation will become an ROE drill that will challenge the battle staff as they work to keep aircraft from impacting SEADS. NORAD leadership is cued by simulated FBI notification of individual with intent to be a martyr. Target aircraft will not answer any calls. Scenario fruition is "up to Blue Forces."

Fortunately, more information on this particular exercise is declassified. There is no hijack, no commercial airliner, no FAA involvement, no multiple planes, but instead a “martyr” suffering from AIDS, and making a deal with some Colombian drug dealers to fly a small Cessna into Tyndall AFB. He writes a wacky goodbye letter, the FBI notes his scramble and tells SEADS that this guy wants to fly his Cessna into a SEADS building (every agency other than NORAD staged).
The goal of this scenario, according to the exercise description:

NOTE: The scenario intention is for SEADS to launch PAM fighters to intercept the target aircraft and after intercept and ID, attempt to turn the target aircraft away from the coastline of Florida. Target aircraft will remain on course to SEADS and will not make the turns.
This will develop into an ROE drill that will challenge the battlestaff as they work to keep the target aircraft from impacting SEADS.

Other features:

The suicide target aircraft will not answer any radio calls from SEADS and fighter. Target will remain on course to KPAM throughout scenario or until simulated shot down. The friendly ASA aircraft flying the similar course will answer all radio calls by SEADS or the fighters. Scenario fruition is now up to Blue Forces.

More NOARD comments on this exercise here.

Exercise Amalgam Virgo took place June 1-2, 2001. The goal of the exercise was to increase the capability to detect, track, and intercept CM and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) threats, using forces under NORAD Control. All simulated CM and UAV launches occurred June 2, 2001. Overall, eight MQM-107 drone CM surrogates were launched during the exercise and four BD-5 (UAV surrogate) sorties were flown. Simulated engagements occurred against all drone and BD-5 sorties. JCMD participation included continuing data collection and risk-reduction efforts for the FT-1/JCIET activity as well as the observation of JIADS system performance.

And here.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: That was Operation Amalgam Virgo.
MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. Specifically Operation Amalgam Virgo, which I was involved in before I retired, was a scenario using a Third World united -- not united -- uninhabited aerial vehicle launched off a rogue freighter in the Gulf of Mexico. General Arnold can back me up -- at the time one of our greatest concerns was the proliferation of cruise missile technology and the ability for terrorist groups to get that technology, get it close enough to our shores to launch it. In fact, this exercise -- in this exercise we used actual drone -- NQM-107 drones, which are about the size of a cruise missile, to exercise our fighters and our radars in a Gulf of Mexico scenario.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: You are referring to Amalgam 01, are you not?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir, Amalgam 01.

Also, check out this somewhat spacy NORAD brochure.
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:

Marr noted he participated once with a live exercise for a hijack headed north from St. Louis in the south. They attempted to scramble aircraft internally in this exercise, and Marr commented that it did not work very well.

However, the Coronet White plane wasn’t flying from St. Louis to the south, but from JFK Airport to the south (Miami), so the exercise Marr remembers might have been a different exercise.
Two scenarios explicitly involve fighters scrambling to the interior US: Amalgam Virgo (which is covered in 4), and Amalgam Warrior 00-2:

F-15s from Portland and F-16s from McChord will shadow.

Amalgam Warrior was an “ordinary” hijacking scenario, nevertheless, the hijacker would give up sometime, and the whole thing would be handled by WADS (and local/staged FAA entities on the civilian side), not NEADS.
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.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What about when you were a fifteen-year old fireman like you were saying the other day ? lol

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.

 

[Graham2001]

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.

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.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That's the thing about the military as described by Civil War soldiers:

One soldier described his days in the army like this: "The first thing in the morning is drill. Then drill, then drill again. Then drill, drill, a little more drill. Then drill, and lastly drill."

The military still drills today. Drilling keeps everyone on their toes. Nothing special about NORAD having a regular drill on 9/11.

 

[gumboot]

I'm guessing that providing background information like this, even if it does not form part of the scenario itself is standard procedure.

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.

 

[gumboot]

One thing I noted from the first post:

"Aires noted that NEADS has worked with individual FAA En Route Centers on exercises, but not with any national FAA entities. Aires noted that all the military exercises would be in special use airspace. He noted that all the FAA would do was control an aircraft until it reached the military airspace."

I don't think this can qualify as "FAA participation". What this is talking about is FAA handling of military aircraft in civil airspace, while enroute to an exercise (which would be conducted in military airspace). The FAA basically always handle military aircraft in civil airspace. Even on 9/11 when AFIO was declared for the fighters scrambled to Washington DC, they were still handled by the FAA, not the military. The only time the military handles aircraft in national airspace is when an Air Defense Emergency is declared and SCATANA is activated.

 

[progge]

Thanks for additional insight, Graham, Sam, gumboot.

I can't speak on how NORAD or the Air Force schedules their drills [...]

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.

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.

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.

I don't think this can qualify as "FAA participation". What this is talking about is FAA handling of military aircraft in civil airspace, while enroute to an exercise (which would be conducted in military airspace). The FAA basically always handle military aircraft in civil airspace.

It counts as FAA participation only in a broad and sort of trivial sense, yes. I included it nevertheless to avoid cherry picking accusations.

 

[Graham2001]

5. INTERIOR HAPPENINGS
4/14/2000: Amalgam Warrior 00-2, Hijack by an armed crew member: (iii), (vii)

Amalgam Warrior was an “ordinary” hijacking scenario, nevertheless, the hijacker would give up sometime, and the whole thing would be handled by WADS (and local/staged FAA entities on the civilian side), not NEADS.

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...