What About Those Radar Injects From the War Games on 9/11?

Military
personnel responsible for defending U.S. airspace had false tracks
displayed on their radar screens throughout the entire duration of the
9/11 attacks, as part of the simulation for a training exercise being
conducted that day. Technicians at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector
(NEADS) were still receiving the simulated radar information around the
time the third attack, on the Pentagon, took place. Those at NORAD's
operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, were still receiving
it several minutes after United Airlines Flight 93 apparently crashed in
rural Pennsylvania.

No one has investigated why false tracks continued being injected
onto NORAD radar screens long after the U.S. military was alerted to the
real-world crisis taking place that morning. And yet we surely need to
know more about these simulated "inputs" and what effect they had on the
military's ability to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

NEADS TECHNICIANS TOLD TO TURN OFF 'SIM SWITCHES'
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place in airspace that
was the responsibility of NEADS, based in Rome, New York. NEADS was
therefore responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response
to the hijackings. And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that
morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about
simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He
said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim
switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." [1] Four minutes later,
Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS
surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim
switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either
display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.) [2]

This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still
displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes
after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there
and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft
headed towards New York." Forty-eight minutes had passed since the first
attack on the World Trade Center occurred, and 31 minutes since the
second tower was hit and it became obvious that the U.S. was under
attack. It was only three minutes after Richmond gave his instruction,
at 9:37 a.m., that the Pentagon was struck in the third successful
attack that morning. [3]

Why were NEADS radar scopes displaying simulated information for so
long during the real-world crisis, when it appears the technicians could
have removed that information at the flick of a switch? Surely any
false tracks could have hindered the ability of NEADS personnel to
effectively respond to the attacks, so should have been terminated at
the first sign of an actual emergency.

And yet this inexplicable behavior was not an exception. A similar
thing happened at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in
Colorado, where it appears that false radar tracks were being displayed
for even longer than at NEADS.

NORAD OPERATIONS CENTER ASKS FOR 'EXERCISE INPUTS' TO BE STOPPED
At 10:12 a.m., an officer at the NORAD operations center, "Captain
Taylor," called NEADS and spoke to Captain Brian Nagel, the chief of
live exercises there. After introducing himself, Taylor said, "What we
need you to do right now is to terminate all exercise inputs coming into
Cheyenne Mountain." Nagel gave Taylor an extension number and asked him
to call it to get the exercise inputs stopped. Taylor replied, "I'll do
that." [4] "Inputs," according to an article in Vanity Fair, are simulated scenarios that are put into play by a simulations team during training exercises. [5]

Taylor was presumably referring specifically to false tracks that had
been transmitted onto radar screens at the CMOC, where more than 50
members of the battle staff had been participating in the exercise
conducted that morning. [6] Indeed, the Toronto Star reported,
"Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject'" was "purged
from the screens" at the CMOC in response to the news of the real-world
attacks. (However, the report indicated, apparently incorrectly, that
the false tracks appearing on CMOC screens were terminated earlier on,
at some time shortly before 9:03 a.m., when the second WTC tower was
hit.) [7]

If simulated material was still being displayed on CMOC radar screens
at 10:12 a.m., this would be astonishing. By that time, 95 minutes had
passed since--according to the 9/11 Commission--the military was first
alerted to the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11, and more than
an hour had passed since the second plane hit the WTC. Flight 93 had
apparently crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania minutes earlier, and
so the 9/11 attacks were already over. [8]

Why did it take so long for someone at the CMOC to call NEADS and ask
it to "terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain?"
Surely any simulated information should have been stopped as soon as
NORAD learned of the real-world crisis taking place that morning.

The operations center was certainly in a valuable position to assist
in the response to the terrorist attacks, so the intrusion of false
tracks on its radar screens would presumably have considerably impaired
the emergency response capabilities of the military. Airman
magazine described the CMOC as the "nerve center of NORAD," and its
troops as "the eyes and ears of North America ... nothing escapes their
unsleeping watch." [9] According to the Toronto Star, "Whether
it's a simulation or a real-world event, the role of the center is to
fuse every critical piece of information NORAD has into a concise and
crystalline snapshot." [10] NORAD has stated that the center collected
data "from a worldwide system of satellites, radars, and other sensors,
and processes that information on sophisticated computer systems to
support critical NORAD and U.S. Space Command missions."

The CMOC provided "warning of ballistic missile or air attacks
against North America, assists the air sovereignty mission for the
United States and Canada, and, if necessary, is the focal point for air
defense operations to counter enemy bombers or cruise missiles." The
Battle Management Center there provided "command and control for the air
surveillance and air defense network for North America." In 1994, for
example, it monitored over 700 "unknown" radar tracks that entered North
American airspace. [11]

NORAD INJECTS SIMULATED RADAR INFORMATION DURING EXERCISES
Simulated information was being transmitted onto radar screens the
morning of September 11 as part of an annual command post exercise
called Vigilant Guardian. All of NORAD, including NEADS, was
participating in this exercise, which has been described as a "simulated
air war" and as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the
United States." [12]

An information page on Vigilant Guardian stated: "All of NEADS,
operations personnel are to have their sim switches turned 'on' starting
at 1400Z 6 Sept. 01 till endex [the end date of the exercise, which was
originally going to be September 13]." The information page added, "A
sim test track will be in place and forward told [i.e. transferred to a
higher level of command] to both NORAD and CONR," NORAD's Continental
United States Region. Presumably this was why the NORAD operations
center needed to contact NEADS in order to get the "exercise inputs"
terminated. [13]

A memo outlining special instructions for Vigilant Guardian
participants described how their equipment needed to be set up to deal
with the simulated material. It stated: "The exercise will be conducted
sim over live on the air sovereignty string. The Q-93 must be placed in
the mixed mode to allow the telling [i.e. the communicating of
information between facilities] of sim tracks." [14]

The Q-93 was an important piece of equipment used by NORAD, described
as "a suite of computers and peripheral equipment configured to receive
plot data from ground radar systems." [15] It had "connectivity to
numerous domestic radar sites, receives flight plans from the FAA, and
has bi-directional communications with NORAD headquarters and a
real-time link to AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System planes]."
It performed "real-time surveillance, identification, and weapons
control missions." [16]

According to Master Sergeant Joseph McCain, the NEADS mission crew
commander technician, "Q-93 radar screens have the ability to run a
multiple input wartime scenario." [17] Indeed, in 1999, then-Deputy
Secretary of Defense John Hamre revealed that NORAD could inject "mass
attacks" onto its radar screens. [18] In December 1998, for example, it
conducted an exercise called Vigilant Virgo, which reportedly "analyzed
the Y2K preparedness of the entire ground radar array network. These
systems were put through a series of scenarios involving tactical
warning." [19] During this exercise, NORAD "injected 30 plus, well over
30 missile events into [its] sensors." This was "data that was injected
as though it was being sensed for the first time by a radar site,"
according to Hamre. Of the more than 30 different simulated scenarios,
some were "mass attacks" while others involved just "single missiles."
[20]

WHEN WAS VIGILANT GUARDIAN TERMINATED?
Since NEADS and the NORAD operations center were still receiving
simulated radar information long after the 9/11 attacks began, this
raises the question of when exactly Vigilant Guardian was brought to an
end. According to some accounts, it was called off "shortly after" 9:03
a.m., when the second WTC tower was hit. [21] However, when at 9:15 a.m.
a caller asked, "Did they suspend the exercise?" NEADS tracking
technician Mark Jennings replied, "Not at this time, no." Jennings
continued, "I think they're going to," but added, "I don't know." [22]

In fact, one military newspaper has indicated that Vigilant Guardian
may have been terminated more than half an hour after the attacks ended.
According to the military information website, GlobalSecurity.org,
Vigilant Guardian was held each year in conjunction with a U.S.
Strategic Command (Stratcom) exercise called Global Guardian, and a 1997
Department of Defense report similarly listed Vigilant Guardian as one
of several exercises that Global Guardian "links with." [23]

An article in The Bombardier, the newspaper for Barksdale Air
Force Base, Louisiana, stated that Stratcom ordered a pause in Global
Guardian at 9:11 a.m. on September 11, but only "formally terminated"
this exercise at 10:44 a.m. [24] Considering that false tracks were
still being displayed on NORAD radar screens at 10:12 a.m., and that
NORAD's exercise that day was held in conjunction with Global Guardian,
did Vigilant Guardian similarly continue until around 10:44 a.m. before
being "formally terminated"?

CRITICAL QUESTIONS
The fact that key NEADS and NORAD operations center personnel had false
information appearing on their radar screens throughout the 9/11 attacks
raises critical questions that have yet to be investigated. We need to
know who was responsible for transmitting the simulated "exercise
inputs" to radar scopes. It has been reported that there was a
"simulations team" working at NEADS the morning of September 11. [25]
Was this team putting out the false tracks? If so, who were its members?
Why did they continue with the simulation when it should have been
obvious that a real-world crisis was taking place? And why didn't their
higher-ups order them to stop transmitting the false tracks?

We also need to find out how many radar scopes at NEADS, the CMOC,
and other NORAD facilities across the U.S. were receiving the simulated
information. And what scenarios were transmitted onto the screens?
Considering that Vigilant Guardian has been described as a "simulated
air war," one would assume that many false tracks were being displayed.

Furthermore, we need to find out if personnel were able to
distinguish genuine radar tracks from the simulated ones. It is worth
noting that, since the mid-1990s, a tool called the PAC-3 Mobile Flight
Mission Simulator (MFMS) has been available, which is capable of
simulating a variety of enemy air vehicles. The MFMS was used by the
U.S. Army in training exercises prior to 9/11. Crucially, it has been
reported that "the graphic representations of MFMS tracks" on radar
screens were "no different than those of actual tracks." To distinguish
between real and simulated tracks, an operator had to observe the
"Identify Friend or Foe" response of a track. "Simply, a real aircraft
will generate an interrogation response whereas the simulated aircraft
will return no response." [26]

If NORAD used equipment that simulated enemy aircraft in a similar
way to the MFMS, this would presumably mean the task of distinguishing
between real and false radar tracks on September 11 was less than
straightforward, especially considering that three of the four aircraft
targeted that day had their transponders turned off. [27] These aircraft
would therefore not have been transmitting anything like an "Identify
Friend or Foe" signal.

In sum, we need to determine the extent to which the U.S. military
was hindered in its ability to respond on 9/11 as a result of its radar
scopes receiving simulated information throughout the terrorist attacks.

It seems possible that the injection of false radar information could
have been one way that normal emergency responses were sabotaged, so as
to ensure the success of the attacks on New York and Washington, DC. If
that is the case, those responsible must be investigated and brought to
justice.

NOTES
[1] NEADS Audio File, Mission Crew Commander Position, Channel 2. North American Aerospace Defense Command, September 11, 2001; Transcripts
From Voice Recorder, Northeast Air Defense Sector, Rome, NY. North
American Aerospace Defense Command, September 11, 2001.
[2] NEADS Audio File, Air Surveillance Technician Position, Channel 15.
North American Aerospace Defense Command, September 11, 2001; NEADS Communications 9:20 a.m.-9:54 a.m. September 11, 2001. 9/11 Commission, n.d.
[3] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 20, 22, 27.
[4] NEADS Audio File, Senior Director Position, Channel 20. North American Aerospace Defense Command, September 11, 2001.
[5] Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Vanity Fair, August 2006.
[6] Jason Tudor, "Inner Space." Airman, March 2002; "Memorandum
for the Record: Interview With NORAD Deputy Commander, Lieutenant
General Rick Findley, Canadian Forces (CF)." 9/11 Commission, March 1,
2004.
[7] Scott Simmie, "The Scene at NORAD on Sept. 11: Playing Russian War Games ... And Then Someone Shouted to Look at the Monitor." Toronto Star, December 9, 2001.
[8] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 20, 22, 30.
[9] Pat McKenna, "The Border Guards." Airman, January 1996.
[10] Scott Simmie, "The Scene at NORAD on Sept. 11."
[11] "Cheyenne Mountain." North American Aerospace Defense Command, November 27, 1999.
[12] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, pp. 55, 122; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545; "Vigilant Guardian." GlobalSecurity.org, April 27, 2005.
[13] "Vigilant Guardian 01-2." Northeast Air Defense Sector, August 23, 2001.
[14] Neil A. Cleveland, "Special Instructions (Spins) Vigilant Guardian 01-2." Northeast Air Defense Sector, August 23, 2001.
[15] John B. Stephenson, Sally M. Obenski, and Paula Bridickas, Mission-Critical Systems: Defense Attempting to Address Major Software Challenges. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, December 1992, p. 17; "AN/FYQ-93 Communications System." Federation of American Scientists, April 23, 2000.
[16] Charles
P. Satterthwaite, David E. Corman, and Thomas S. Herm, "Real-Time
Information Extraction for Homeland Defense." Air Force Research
Laboratory, June 2002.
[17] "Memorandum for the Record: North Eastern Air Defense Sector (NEADS) Field Site Visit." 9/11 Commission, October 28, 2003.
[18] John J. Hamre, "Dr. Hamre's Briefing on Year 2000 Issues." U.S. Department of Defense, January 15, 1999.
[19] Michael Kraig, "Safe or Sorry: The 'Y2K Problem' and Nuclear Weapons." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 1999; William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 546.
[20] John J. Hamre, "Dr. Hamre's Briefing on Year 2000 Issues."
[21] Jason Tudor, "Inner Space"; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 59.
[22] NEADS Audio File, Identification Technician Position, Channel 7. North American Aerospace Defense Command, September 11, 2001.
[23] Nuclear Weapon Systems Sustainment Programs. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, May 1997; "Vigilant Guardian."
[24] "Unlikely Chain of Events." The Bombardier, September 8, 2006. Note that the times given in this article are in Central time, which I have converted to Eastern time.
[25] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 25.
[26] Andrew Yuliano, "Simulations: Changing the Paradigm for Air Defense Operational Testing." Air Defense Artillery, April 2001.
[27] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 16.