1 of 2

Dana Hyde

From: Kevin Shaeffer

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:55 AM
To: Front Office
Cc: Team 3; Miles Kara ([email protected]); Dana Hyde ([email protected]);
John Azzarello ([email protected]); John Farmer ([email protected]);
Lisa Sullivan; Geoff Brown
Subject: FW: EXERCISE "POSITIVE FORCE"

All,

Last week the press ran a number of articles about a military exercise involving a plane crashing into the
Pentagon. The crash scenario was allegedly suggested by NORAD "exercise developers" and involved a terrorist
group hijacking a foreign carrier commercial airliner and flying it into the Pentagon. Apparently, the scenario was
rejected by the Joint Staff as "too unrealistic" and by Pacific Command out of concerns it would distract from the
exercise objectives. DOD PR spokespeople are on the record as confirming the proposed scenario. Clips of the
news articles are attached.

Team 8 first learned of this exercise from the press clips. We were blind-sided by this issue, despite the fact that
we have submitted two document requests to DoD regarding the subject of training exercises involving planes as
weapons, one of which arguably covers the matter at hand. We have serious concerns that the press is out
ahead of our fact finding, and that the credibility of the 9/11 Commission's "plenary" investigation into these
matters will be undercut by revelations such as this. We believe broader requests on this subject are warranted.

Outlined below are recommended follow-up steps. The organization which broke the news to the press - the
Project on Government Oversight (POGO) - has reportedly sent a letter to the Commission's Chair and Vice
Chair regarding their discovery. The letter is attached, as is the email (written on 9/18/01) from a former NORAD
staffer that is the underlying source of the story. POGO also claims that it has since learned that this scenario
was additionally informed by "Special Operations personnel who are trained to think like terrorists." (~ possibly
SOLIC personnel).

FYI, there are two line items from existing DOD document requests that may cover any documents that possibly
exist relative to the proposed scenario. They are:

- DOD Document Request #1:

11. Intelligence scenarios and briefing papers for all national military exercises, since
January 1993, in which a plane was hijacked and/or used as a weapon and which involved
any of the following DoD entities: NORAD, JCS, and Special Operations Command
(SOCOM)."

- DOD Document Request #18:

12. All documents of NORAD intelligence offices, from January 1,1998 through September 20, 2001,
that relate to the issue of an aircraft being used as a weapon. This request includes, but is not limited
to, documents responsive to this request in the possession of Lt. Col. Stuart at NEADS.

FpHowMJp's:

1. T8 would like to schedule a meeting this week with DOD regarding this issue. The topics for discussion
would include the following:
- Information about the exercise POSITIVE FORCE.
- Information about the proposed scenario that was rejected (including the recent written
acknowledgement by NORAD that the scenario existed - see USA Today article attached).
The specifics as to why it was rejected by DOD, etc.

4/19/2004
 Page 2 of2

2. We believe that there is clear justification for the Commission to broaden our request for DOD to provide
ALL information regarding (1) the threat of a plane being hijacked and used as a weapon, and (2) the more
general threat of planes being used as weapons. The above line items of DOD Document Requests #1
and #18 were purposefully drafted in a broad manner, but now do not appear to be broad enough:
We recommend that the responsiveness of the above line items be certified in writing by DOD.
- And if the broadened request for "all" information it has or knows on the subject is accepted, we
recommend that too be certified in writing by DOD (recognizing the limitations of the "knows"
portion).

Regards,
Kevin
"Never Forget"

4/19/2004
(Source: http://www.pogo.0rg/p/homeland/hl-040402-homelandsecurity.html)

April 14,2004

Hon. Thomas K. Kean, Chairman

Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Vice-chairman
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW, Room 5125
Washington, D.C. 20407

Via facsimile: (202) 296-5545

Dear Chairman Kean and Vice-Chairman Hamilton,

Yesterday the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) made public the attached internal
email from staff assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). It
details the U.S. military's refusal to heed concerns that terrorists might try to strike domestic
targets with hijacked airliners. In April 2001, five months before the devastating attacks on New
York and Washington, NORAD officials wanted to develop a strategy and simulation to respond
to a scenario wherein terrorists commandeer a commercial aircraft and fly it into the Pentagon. As
the email reveals, aides to the Joint Chiefs of Staff refused to authorize this type of exercise
because these senior military officials deemed such an attack as "too unrealistic."

In light of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the Commission and
press reports saying the United States intelligence pipeline offered no insight into how or with
what terrorists might strike domestically, we urge the Commission to investigate this matter and
ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff why it prohibited NORAD from preparing for what we now know was
a very likely, and very deadly terrorist strike.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian
Executive Director
(Source: http://www.pogo.0rg/p/homeland/ha-040401-homelandsecurity.html)

April 13. 2004

Joint Chiefs of Staff Rejected "Airplanes as Missiles" Scenario Five Months

prior to 9/11

TFor Immediate Release

Contact: Peter Stockton, Danielle Brian, or Beth Daley (202)347-1122 or email
[email protected]

According to an email obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), members of

the U.S. military responsible for defending America's airspace were in fact concerned that a
terrorist group would "hijack a commercial airline [sic] (foreign carrier) and fly it into the
Pentagon."

Officials at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in April 2001 - five
months prior to 9/11 - wanted to develop a response in the event that a terrorist group would use
an airliner as a missile to attack the Pentagon, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the scenario
as "too unrealistic." NORAD's mission is to "deter, detect, and defend" U.S. and Canadian
airspace.

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice told the 9/11 Commission in her April 8 testimony that
an August 2001 presidential briefing memo that was recently declassified did not contain specific
threat information. "And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as
missiles," she testified.

However, Rice hedged when asked directly whether she ever saw or heard any memos or
discussions from the FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agencies that talked about using planes
as bombs. She said she had not, but also added, "I cannot tell you that there might not have been
a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst."

"We believe the 9/11 Commission should ask the Joint Chiefs why they prevented NORAD from
training to respond to the possibility that terrorists might hijack commercial airliners and use them
as missiles," said POGO's Senior Investigator Peter Stockton.

POGO has learned that this scenario was being suggested by Special Operations personnel who
are trained to think like terrorists. These highly-trained military units have repeatedly warned that
U.S. nuclear facilities are also inadequately protected against terrorist attacks.

"Maybe the 9/11 Commission should talk to these special operations experts," Stockton said.

Click here to see a copy of the memo.

or
Click here to see a copy of POGO's letter to the 9/11 Commission

POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement,
and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981,
POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that
is accountable to the citizenry.
> Origin*! Message
> from: Ropes, Terry (TROPES)
> Sent: Tuesday, Septaaber IB, 2001 12:34 PM
> To: Steinke, Jed (CSTEINKB); smith, Rodney D (RDSMXTH)} E»trad
•. Arthur
> (AESTKADA); Murphy. Elijah (EMDKPUT); Garcia, Vincent (VCARCIA);
Devis,
> Kirk (KGDAVIS); Abraham, Anthony (AABRAHAM)
> Subject: Exercise Scenario
>
> In defense oC »y la»t unit, NORAD.
> for POSITIVE rORCE/RSOZ In Apr 01, the KORAD exercise developer
9 wanted
> an event having a terrorist group hijacK a comnercial airline(Co
reign
> carrier) and fly it into the Pentagon. FACON didn't want It beca
use it
> would take attention away from their exercise objective*, and Jo
lot Staff
> action officers rejected it «* too unrealistic.
>
> terry

. i
She ork
APRIL 14, 2004 A16

WAR GAMES

Pentagon Rejected Pre-9/11 Hijacking Exercise

By ERIC SCHMCT not fit the war game's objectives, group hijack a commercial airlin-
WASHINGTON, April 13 — At the officials said. er (foreign carrier) and fly it Into
least ftve months before the at- "Several fictitious scenarios the Pentagon," the message said.
tacks of Sept 11, 2001, air defense were posed, and this scenario was "Joint Staff action officers reject-
planners proposed a war-game sit- rejected, as were many others," ed it as unrealistic."
uation in which a terrorist group said Bryan G. Whitman, a Penta- In April 2001, a Pentagon official
hijacked an airliner and flew it into said, "it probably was unrealis-
toe Pentagon, but the Joint Staff Tbe proposal was described in tic." He added. "While Norad had
rejected the idea, Pentagon offi- an e-mail message disclosed on done hijacking scenarios, they nor-
cials said Tuesday. Monday by the Project on Govern- mally landed safely and resulted in
Pentagon officials on Tuesday ment Oversight, an advocacy negotiations."
played down the significance of the group, and was confirmed by mili- The message also said that the
proposal, which they said was tary officials. The message was Navy's Pacific Command also
made at a planning conference for written Sept 18, 2001, by Terry balked at using the hijacking, but a
the training exercise in April 2001, Ropes, identified as a former j|XjftfrflmEn for the command said
and was not based on any specific member of the North American it had never taken a position on it
threat. The exercise was intended Aerospace Defense Command, or An investigator for the advocacy
to test the military leadership's Norad, which is responsible for group, Peter Stockton, said the W-
ability to function at undtsctoaed defending United States airspace. jacting proposal was suggested by
sites outside Washington in an "The Norad exercise developers Special Operations
emergency, and the hijacking did wanted an event having a terrorist trained to think like terrorists.
Pentagon Crash Scenario Rejected Before Sept. 2001
Wed April 14, 2004 01:30 PM ET

By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military rejected a scenario in which a hijacked

airliner flew into the Pentagon as it planned a training exercise months before an airliner
was slammed into the building by hijackers in September 2001, defense officials said on
Wednesday.

The proposed scenario was rejected by the Pentagon's elite Joint Staff as not in keeping
with the April 2001 exercise, which dealt largely with how U.S. forces would be
commanded in a confrontation with North Korea if defense headquarters somehow
became incapacitated.

Defense officials said several scenarios under which military command had to be moved
from the Pentagon were rejected and that the suggestion involving a possible foreign
commercial airliner strike not only appeared unrealistic but could have taken over the
whole exercise.

"They (planners) needed a scenario under which the Pentagon became inoperable. But the
focus of the exercise was command continuity and it was decided that there was enough
(cause) already built in," Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said.

He spoke as an independent commission continued hearings into the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center in New York using hijacked airliners
and whether the government could have done more to prevent the strikes that killed about
3,000 people.

The Pentagon incident, reported on Wednesday in the Washington Post and New York
Times, came to light after a 2-1/2-year-old email message was made public on Tuesday
by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonprofit watchdog group.

WEEK AFTER SEPTEMBER ATTACKS

The message was written a week after airliners commandeered by terrorists were flown
into the buildings. It began: "In defense of my last unit, NORAD."

NORAD is the North American Aerospace Defense Command, a joint U.S.-Canadian

effort designed to protect skies over the two countries.

The brief mail was addressed to several friends of the author, a retired Army officer who
was not identified, and said the hijacking scenario was suggested by a NORAD planner
and rejected by Joint Staff action officers as too unrealistic.

"It was made available to us by those who felt it should be, by those who wanted to
examine timelines for scrambling fighter jets and other protective aircraft," POGO
investigator Peter Stockton told Reuters.

"We believe the 9/11 Commission should ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff why they
prevented NORAD from training to respond to the possibility that terrorists might hijack
commercial airliners and use them as missiles," Stockton added in a posting on the
organization's Web site.

Pentagon officials countered that the main exercise, a major annual look at command and
control, was not designed to protect sprawling Defense Department headquarters on the
banks of the Potomac River in Washington from airliners used as missiles. It was not
designed for counterterrorism or air defense, they said.

Lt. Cmdr. Dan Hetlage, a Pentagon spokesman, told Reuters that the U.S. Pacific
Command ~ which has oversight over American forces in the sprawling Asia-Pacific
region ~ had objected to the idea "because it would have taken attention away from the
exercise objectives."

"It was focused on North Korea and that (a crash into the Pentagon) would have become
a whole exercise in itself. It would have consumed the exercise," Hetlage said.

This service is not intended to encourage spam. The details provided by your colleague
have been used for the sole purpose of facilitating this email communication and have not
been retained by Reuters. Your personal details have not been added to any database or
mailing list.

If you would like to receive news articles delivered to your email address, please
subscribe at www.reuters.com.

© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-
distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or
similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters.

Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not
intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers
shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions
taken in reliance thereon.

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content,

including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior
written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks
and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
16. Pentagon Crash Scenario Was Rejected for Military Exercise

BRADLEY GRAHAM
The Washington Post (4/14/04 page A-16)

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S.
military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the
Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

But the scenario was rejected as not in keeping with the theme of the April 2001 exercise, which
dealt with how command of U.S. forces would be maintained in the event the Pentagon became
unusable during a major war, the officials said.

The episode came to light in a 21/2-year-old e-mail message that surfaced yesterday. The
message, written a week after airliners commandeered by terrorists were flown into the Pentagon
and the World Trade Center, begins, "In defense of my last unit, NORAD." NORAD is the North
American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for defending U.S. skies.

Addressed to several friends of the author, a retired Army officer, the brief message said the
hijacking scenario had been suggested by a NORAD planner and rejected by "Joint Staff action
officers" as "too unrealistic." It also said that U.S. Pacific Command had objected to the idea
"because it would take attention away from their exercise objectives."

The contents of the message were first reported by the Project on Government Oversight, a
nonprofit watchdog group here. A member of the group, Peter Stockton, said a military official had
provided a copy of the e-mail "to show at least that someone was paying attention" to the threat
of an air assault on the Pentagon.

Defense officials confirmed that a NORAD planner had suggested the airliner scenario for the
exercise, which was known as Positive Force. But they said the idea was deemed not to fit with
the exercise's general purpose.

"It wasn't a counterterrorism exercise or an air defense exercise," said Army Lt. Col. Barry
Venable, a Pentagon spokesman.
 Page 1 of2

Dana Hyde

From: Mark Bittinger

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:49 AM
To: Team 8; Team 7
Subject: NORAD had drills of jets as weapons (USA Today)

All - In today's USA Today. Mark

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the
time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it
was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios
outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement
said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack
procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications
security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD
exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the
possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security
adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail
written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-
mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't
think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation
were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based
elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two
countries.

4/19/2004
 Page 2 of2

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and
conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked."
Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked
aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the
required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No
exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from
foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told
USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario,
but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than
100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since Sept. 11. Both
originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.

4/19/2004