Gate Taylor

From: Miles Kara [mkara@9-11 commission.gov]

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:02 PM
To: team8@9-11commission.gov
Subject: FW: FW: Reference souces and article

John, Kevin, we are aware of this issue.

FYI, as you all know, the Secretary of the Array is the Executive Agent for military
support to civilian agencies in cases like this, or disasters like, potentially. Hurricane
Isabel. He exercises that support thru DOMS.
Miles

Original Message
From: ckojmog-llcotranission.gov [mailto:ckojm@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:21 PM
To: team8@9-llcommission.gov
Cc: frontoffice@9-llcommission.gov; ewalker@9-llcommission.gov,- ehartz@9-llcommission.gov
Subject: Fwd: FW: Reference souces and article

Team 8 -- A matter forwarded from the families, for your attention and review.
Forwarded message from Lorie
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:14:05 -0400

Subject: FW:. Reference souces and article

To: "" <jgorelick@9-llcommission.gov>, "" <troemer®9- llcommission.gov>, ""
<lhamilton®9-llcommission.gov>, "" <tkean®9- llcommission.gov>, "" <ckojm®9-
llcommission.gov>, "" <rbenveniste®9- llcommission.gov>, "" <pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov>,
"" <jlehman@9- llcommission.gov>, "" <ffielding@9-llcommission.gov>, "" <mcleland@9-
llcommission.gov>, "" <jthompson®9-llcommission.gov>, "" <sgorton@9- llcommission.gov>

Dear Commissioners,

We received this note from a concerned citizen.

Please look into the following information as it seems to us like this is a very odd
coincidence.
Sincerely,
Kristen, Patty, Mindy and Lorie
Copyright 2000-2002 South Africa Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the
author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net
and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors
and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF IMC.

Download the actual Joint Chiefs of Staff document this

article is based on (Adobe PDF):
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the
building where he was located during the September llth attacks -- until an aircraft
crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A
bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).
Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New
1
t -k Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of
: first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed
had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half
:er, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a
plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York
City.

It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their
security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of
Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern
himself with hijacked aircraft?

There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings.

In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1,
2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of
Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"
(www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf)

"AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS"

These are the standing orders to the military as to how to respond to hijackings over
United States territory. The June 1 '01 document deliberately changed the existing
policies. Previous directives were issued in 1997, 1986 and before.

what is shocking about this entire sordid episode is the

total disconnect between what Donald Rumsfeld's story
alleges (ignorance of inbound hijacked aircraft), and what these Chief of Staff
Instructions require of the Secretary of Defense:

"b. Support.
When notified that military assistance is needed in
conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency,
the DDO, NMCC, will:
(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or
commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or
NORAD to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the
Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7
(reference d)."

"APPROVAL"

The usage of the word "approval" is the major change here

to the existing hijacking response procedures. While the
text of the document tries to link this "approval" to the previous orders "DODD 3025.15,"
the approval is now required BEFORE providing any assistance at all. Previously, approval
would be required to respond to a situation with lethal force.

This June 1st update to the orders stopped all military assistance in its tracks UNTIL
approval from Donald Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of Defense") could be granted -- which, by
his own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed total ignorance of the inbound aircraft
that attacked the Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building complex, where a
construction project had been underway).*
In this manner, fighter planes were held up from
immediately responding to the hijacked commercial jets on September the llth.
The flight base commanders were ordered by the June 1st
"Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction" to wait for "approval"
from the Secretary of Defense before they could respond to hijackings, where they would
have routinely responded in the past.
It's inconceivable that New York City could be struck by
two wayward jumbo jets, and still over 30 minutes later
there remained no defenses over the skies of Washington
D.C., easily one of the most heavily defended places in the world.
2
This reality led Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief
of the Russian Air Force to say: "Generally it is
impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario
which was used in the USA yesterday. (...) As soon as
something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we
are all up."

The Plot Thickens

Enter the patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn't be a mastermind if he

hadn't thought of a fall guy to take the blame, if needed.
This brings us to Tom White, the former Enron executive, appointed to be Secretary of the
Army, and more importantly the "executive agent for the Department of Defense" on May 31,
2001 -- ONE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HIJACKING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED!

The first public statement of Donald Rumsfeld on September llth, 2001 makes an issue of
Tom White's "responsibility" for the situation:

"Secretary of the Army Tom White, who has a responsibility

for incidents like this as executive agent for the
Department of Defense, is also joining me." (The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia, September
11, 2001 6:42 P.M. EOT,
http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0911/DoD. html)

It should be noted that Rumsfeld eventually fired White, allegedly for disagreeing about a
weapons system. But, what about the introduction cited above? This is clearly an attempt
to divert blame and responsibility away from the Secretary of Defense, and over to the
"executive agent" a position that the general public would have no knowledge. That way, if
inquisitive reporters started asking questions about the procedures and failures, Rumsfeld
would have an easy scapegoat as to who the *real* person in charge of the situation should
have been. Amazingly, no mainstream reporters bothered to investigate these matters at
this level, and so the patsy wound up being unnecessary.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction is explicit, however,

and it mentions Rumsfeld's position and it requires his "approval."
Just where was this "approval" on September llth 2001?

There is no mention of the Secretary of Defense approving anything related to the

hijackings. The Vice-President
(Cheney) is on record as approving the shooting down of the fourth plane over
Pennsylvania. Whether or not the shoot-down occurred is not yet clear. But there is no
connection whatsoever to the Secretary of Defense, whose "approval" is explicitly required
before the military can respond to a hijacking incident over the USA, according to its own
instructions.

CHANGING THE RULES

The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the military

to respond to an emergency such as a hijacking:

"4.7.1. Immediate Response.

Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of
immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military
commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or
mitigate great property damage under imminently serious
conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The
DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an
exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."
Rumsfeld went ahead and clouded the waters. The priority
in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power -- in the specific case
of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of Defense. This is repeated in multiple
paragraphs:
"c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed
in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking)
emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate
unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward
the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15,
paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
This creates the necessity for: 1) making a request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2)
receiving approval before military aircraft may respond.

The statement ?to determine if suitable aircraft are

available? is also suspicious. Can anyone imagine a
situation where the United States of America does not have
a "suitable aircraft" available to respond to a hijacked airliner?

NORAD tried to spin such a story in the aftermath of

September llth. Supposedly, we just didn't have any
fighter planes on the morning of September llth. What were
they all doing?

Obviously we had planes available in Washington D.C.,

because press reports tell us about the "air cover" or "air cap" that went into effect
just after the Pentagon was struck. Planes from Andrews Air Force base were in the sky
"just minutes" after the Pentagon was struck. Why was no air cover available BEFORE the
Pentagon was struck, Mr. Rumsfeld? After all, the "Secretary of Defense" is supposed to
approve the launching of ?Military Escort Aircraft.? Did you?

If not, why not?

Also, if you take no interest in actually ?defending? the people of America during an
attack, why do you remain in your position as the Secretary of Defense?

End forwarded message