portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

9.11 investigation | police / legal

The lie behind the terrorism drill justification

When you repeatedly hear city, county, state and federal officials blather on about how important Portland's participation in this multi-million dollar war game is for learning how to respond to emergency situations in a coherent, collaborative manner...realize that it is BS, because the federal government doesn't even release important information from such terror drills in a timely manner.

Realize that your elected officials are just taking in millions of dollars from the Dept. of Homeland Security and offering Portland as a laboratory for this overly politicized, corrupt agency of the treasonous Bush Regime to run an experiment of TERROR, likely involving use of the National Guard and even contractors like Blackwater.

I contacted our City Council members and the Mayor about this just before the City Council Meeting this morning. Please follow up and keep up the pressure. The drill is scheduled to begin on 10/15, not next week, as is being repeated in news coverage.

We need that list of the phone numbers, and the email addresses are below.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The lie behind drill justification??
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:32:03 -0700
From: Styve
To: Sam Adams ,
Erik Sten ,
Dan Saltzman ,
Randy Leonard ,
Mayor Potter

Thought you guys should see this before you spend the next two weeks defending the terrorism drills as valuable for the protection of Portland!!


AP Exclusive:America's largest terror exercise is set to begin before results of last one are released
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON: America is preparing for its biggest terrorism exercise ever next week when three fictional "dirty bombs" go off and cripple transportation arteries in two major U.S. cities and Guam, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press.

Yet even as this drill begins, details from the previous national exercise held in 2005 have yet to be publicly released ? information that is supposed to help officials prepare for the next real attack.

Wednesday House lawmakers were expected to demand answers, including why the "after-action" report from 2005 hasn't been made public. Congress has required the exercise since 2000, but has done little in the way of oversight beyond attending the actual events.

Next week will be the fourth Top Officials exercise ? dubbed TOPOFF. The program costs about $25 million (?17.65 million) a year and involves the federal government's highest officials, such as top people from the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

"The challenge with TOPOFF is not the exercise itself. It's to move as quickly as possible to remedy what perceives to be the problems that are uncovered," former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in an interview with AP this week.

Ridge, who launched his own security consulting company on Monday, said he's a big fan of the TOPOFF exercises. But he said "it's not acceptable" that the review from the 2005 exercise is still not released publicly.

The House Homeland Security emergency communications, preparedness and response subcommittee was holding a hearing Wednesday on the terrorism exercise program.

This year's TOPOFF will build on lessons learned from previous exercises, according to the Homeland Security Department, which runs the program. The agency said the Oct. 15-19 exercise would be "the largest and most comprehensive" to date.

According to an internal department briefing AP obtained of next week's exercise, a dirty bomb will go off at a Cabras power plant in Guam; another dirty bomb will explode on the Steel Bridge in Portland, Oregon, impacting major transportation systems, and a third dirty bomb will explode at the intersection of busy routes 101 and 202 near Phoenix.

Local hospitals and law enforcement agencies will be involved in the "attacks" by the dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives that include some radioactive material that would cause contamination over a limited area but not create actual nuclear explosions.

"Lessons learned from the exercise will provide valuable insights to guide future planning for securing the nation against terrorist attacks, disasters and other emergencies," according to the department's Web site.

The after action report from TOPOFF 3, which deals with issues that came up in the 2005 exercise, is supposed to identify areas for improvement. That report is still going through internal reviews.

According to a brief summary of the 2005 exercise ? marked For Official Use Only, but obtained by AP ? problems arose when officials realized the federal government's law for providing assistance does not cover biological incidents.

The exercise involved a mustard gas attack from an improvised explosive device in Connecticut and the release of the pneumonic plague in New Jersey. This caused certain federal disaster programs to be unavailable to some residents suffering from the attack, according to the summary.

A 2005 Homeland Security inspector general report suggested the department start tracking the lessons learned from these exercises.

And a 2006 White House report on Hurricane Katrina criticized the department for not having a system to address and fix the problems discovered in the TOPOFF exercises.

"The most recent Top Officials (TOPOFF) exercise in April 2005 revealed the federal government's lack of progress in addressing a number of preparedness deficiencies, many of which had been identified in previous exercises," according to the White House.

Previously, a more detailed version of lessons-learned from TOPOFF 2, held in 2003 was not released to states for security reasons.

City Council Email addresses 03.Oct.2007 19:17


what to expect? 03.Oct.2007 19:43


I have to get to downtown Ptld. from Vancouver Oct. 16 for my court case. What can I expect? Will traffic go through? MAX? Quite concerned here.

Pork Barrel Terrorism 03.Oct.2007 19:47


TOPOFF 4 involves a simulated (we hope) dirty bomb detonation on Steel Bridge (pray for Trimet). A thinking terrorist, unlike Darth Cheney, would not use a "dirty bomb" to disperse radioactive material. They don't work!
Danger of 'dirty bombs' exaggerated, expert on security says

Melissa Mitchell, News Editor
(217) 333-5491;  melissa@uiuc.edu

Photo by Bill Wiegand
Julian Palmore, a mathematician who specializes in arms control and international security issues, says reports of the dangers of "dirty bombs" sensationalized the facts.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. A University of Illinois professor who specializes in arms control and international security issues says reports about the danger of so-called "dirty bombs" sensationalized the facts about such weapons, planting new and largely unwarranted fears in the minds of Americans.

"This is just silly," said mathematics professor Julian Palmore, who also has a faculty appointment in Illinois' Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and teaches courses on terrorism and national security. "The administration is making announcements and the media are picking up on them and sensationalizing the whole process."

"The upshot of it all," he said, "is that detonating a dirty bomb just doesn't make sense" because such bombs are, in effect, inefficient delivery systems for dispersing radioactive material.

Even if terrorists got access to radioactive isotopes and wrapped them around a conventional explosive
device - an unlikely scenario, according to Palmore - the real danger would come from the explosion, not the spread of radioactive material. "If you're thinking in terms of pellets of radioactive material that might be spread through an explosion," he said, the danger is minimal because "it doesn't disperse in the air; you would just go through the area with a Geiger counter and clean it up."

A real threat does exist, Palmore said, if alpha and beta emitters from radioactive materials are inhaled. But it's unlikely, he said, that terrorists would have the knowledge or expertise to transform radioactive materials into a form that could easily be dispersed in the air. And if they did, radiation detectors could be used to warn people to stay away from contaminated areas.

A bomb enveloped in more powerful gamma emitters could pose a serious threat to a targeted population, Palmore conceded, but it's even more unlikely that terrorists would be able to pull off such an operation. That's because they would have to wrap the device in so much shielding material - to protect themselves from dying while building and delivering it - that it would be too heavy to transport in a car or airplane.

Besides incomplete reporting, the liberal use of "the R word" in recent news reports has fanned public fears as well, Palmore said. " 'Radioactive' is a word that triggers a fear response, like cancer, or anything we don't want to think about. It causes anxiety."

"This is all just another example of how we're blowing something out of proportion because it looks high-tech, rather than focusing on the fact that it doesn't work," said Palmore, who insists that terrorists are more likely to employ low-tech strategies. "Why don't we focus our attention on something that does work? If we really want to start thinking about what terrorists can do, we've got to think about their state of mind and the culture they come from. They may use cell phones, but that's because they just happen to have them; they don't have the technology or capability to actually produce them. To conjure up high-tech threats when none exist just sells newspapers and titillates people."

Dear TOPOFF 4 (T4) Participants: 04.Oct.2007 07:33


Many people are convinced that Scenario #11 "Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD)" below will likely go from simulation to reality in Portland sometime between Oct 15 and 19. Certain First Responders will already be suited up, and all the T4 Controllers have to do is say "STOP PLAY!" and tell you it's now a real emergency - very convenient, no? Also, with spotty and conflicting Media coverage guaranteed, the local citizenry won't have a clue what's fake and what's real - all BY DESIGN. Panic will likely ensue, justifying Martial Law - also BY DESIGN. Furthermore, with the software provided by Portland's Swan Island Networks, the highest level T4 Controllers will be able to "inject" fake events at specific participants' consoles, and delete it before others can see it - in theory, a single madman at the top can control "reality" as all those below perceive it.

Here's a list of stuff that might go from fake to real with the click of a mouse:

1. Improvised Nuclear Device
2. Aerosolized Anthrax
3. Pandemic Influenza
4. Plague
5. Blister Agent
6. Toxic Industrial Chemical
7. Nerve Agent
8. Chlorine Tank Explosion
9. Major Earthquake
10. Major Hurricane
11. Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD)
12. Improvised Explosive Device (IED)
13. Food Contamination
14. Foreign Animal Disease (FAD)
15. Cyber

First Responders - having trouble keeping all those acronyms straight while multiple "disasters" unfold before your eyes? Don't know what's fake and what's real? THAT'S THE IDEA - but here's a list to help you:

CERT Community Emergency Response Team
Comms Communications
CPX Command Post Exercise
EOC Emergency Operations Center
FE Functional Exercise
FSE Full-Scale Exercise
HazMat Hazardous Materials
HICS Hospital Incident Command System
ICS Incident Command System
JIC Joint Information Center
NIMS National Incident Management System
PIO Public Information Officer
SNS Strategic National Stockpile
TTX Tabletop Exercise
VBIED vehicle-borne improvised explosive device
WMD weapons of mass destruction

Please pay particular attention to the term "INJECTS". which I highlighted (**)below. The TOPOFF 4 Controllers are very big on the use of "INJECTS", which is simulated crap inserted into a scenario, and can be deleted as quickly as it appears, after it has served its purpose.

Everyone who has taken a fair look at the evidence has concluded that -- at the least -- the U.S. military was intentionally stood down on 9/11. There are numerous lines of evidence that certain high-level people within the U.S. military participated in the intentional stand down.

But what of the many rank and file employees of the various defense departments who were good men and women devoted to protecting their country? Why didn't they stop the 9/11 attacks?

Part of the answer is that they were cut out of the loop by the conspirators, and didn't have the information or access to be able to take preventative action. But another part of the answer is that they were bombarded with distractions, so that they could not focus on their job.

As one example, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated:

"Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. **Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject,' is purged from the screens".**

In other words, someone had inserted false radar blips onto air traffic controllers' screens as part of the 5 or more war game exercises occurring at the time of the attacks (Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks; see this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this previously-cited essay).

And air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals

As a second example, fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), neutralizing their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners. To this day, no one has admitted being the person who sent the aircrafts on a fools' errand.

A former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview). Therefore, it is very odd that aircraft were sent off to chase phantoms over the Atlantic.

As a third second example, NORAD and other employees trying to defend the nations' skies on 9/11 were inundated with massive, simultaneous phone calls. While it is still unclear, it is possible that the barrage of phone calls was part of a coordinated terror drill and a pre-planned distraction. Further research needs to be done to verify whether or not this was the case.

As the above examples show, the honorable rank and file military people trying to protect the U.S. on 9/11 never had a chance.

Enjoy TOPOFF 4, Everyone.

there's a reason 04.Oct.2007 07:42

theresa mitchell

"Lessons learned" cannot be shared with local authorities, because under NSPD 51, they involve the complete top-down removal of local authority under martial law.

and furthermore 04.Oct.2007 10:39

theresa mitchell

.........stopping traffic on the Steel Bridge means stopping MAX light rail passage (and presumably freight and passenger movement on the lower span). Talk about a snafu snarlup...and as the previous poster said, why exactly is this not a public topic now?