Talk:United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001

April 2005
On 27 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/September 11, 2001 War Games for a record of the discussion. That discussion did raise several arguments in favor of either merging this article with Global Guardian or merely redirecting to it. The decision to merge and redirect or to redirect, however, is not the responsibility of the VfD decision process. It should be discussed and decided here. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Global Guardian merge proposal
On December 9th, 2006, User:Lovelight suggested that the Global Guardian article be merged into this page. No reason was given. I oppose the merger, as I think this would provide a disproportionate amount of information on this exercise on this page. Crosbiesmith 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article says the 9/11 commission did not investigate the efffect of the exercises but the Global Guardian article says it did. --agr 3 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)

Vigilant Guardian
I have evidence suggesting that Vigilant Guardian was DELIBERATELY mislabeled in the 9/11 Commission's footnotes. It was NOT in fact a drill positing "Russian Bombers" over the arctic, but in fact a drill involving multiple hijacked commercial airlines within the US. Vigilant Guardian was the Command Post portion of the drill, where NORAD would moniter and track the simulated planes. Though this is a declassified exercise (which, like Global Guardian, normally takes place in October, but for some reason was in September) the fact that it would have been mislabeled as targeting the Russians suggests that there is something here this is not supposed to be known. Perhaps it is because of Vigilant Warrior, or perhaps Richard Clarke's book (which was reviewed and censored for months by the White House before it was released to prevent the leaking of classified information--when it doesn't suit the interests of its occupants--) is mistaken, deliberately or unintentially.

9/11 War Games Link Removed from 9/11 Wiki Page
Just an FYI that the link to this article was recently removed from the 9/11 Wikipedia page. The page is currently locked for anonymous editing and I don't yet have an account, but I wanted to bring this to someone's attention. IMHO this article IS relevant to the 9/11 main page and should be included. Perhaps someone here could add it back? 86.49.76.137 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion from the main page
Someone wrote the following notes in the text:


 * ''a National Reconnaissance Office exercise on September 11, in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure The NRO, whose name was classified until 1992, is the branch of the Department of Defense in charge of spy satellites.


 * '' Note: This is incorrect. The NRO exercise was an accident drill, not a war game.


 * ''Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD live-fly (confirmed by its second name 'warrior') exercise mentioned in Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies page 4-5 (possibly the same as Vigilant Guardian, or possibly the complementary "offense" or "red team" portion of the drill involving real planes acting as simulated hijacked plane)


 *  Note: Operation Vigilant Warrior was not in effect on 9/11. The story that it was, is based on Richard Clarke's single misstatement in using the word "Warrior." There is no evidence that Norad ran live-fly exercises and/or hijacking exercises on 9/11. http://911myths.com/html/on_the_record___.html 


 * '' There were additional factors contributing to the disruption of air defenses on 9/11. As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.


 * '' Note: this is incorrect. The actual wording of the relevant part of instruction CJCSI 3610.01A, is this:
 * '' "With the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, the NMCC will forward all requests for such assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. Enclosure D provides additional guidance." http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/unlimit/3610_01.pdf
 * '' The situation on September 11, 2001 required immediate response. In order to intercept the hijacked aircraft, no permission from Donald Rumsfeld was needed or sought.

--Pokipsy76 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FEMA in NYC on September 10?
I've read in numerous places and seen footage of a FEMA rescue worker saying that they were in NYC on September 10. Can anyone corroborate this? A copy of the footage of the FEMA worker is located here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRQNCkdJxA

24.18.35.120 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Main page appears in V for Vendetta (film)
In the movie V for Vendetta (film), the wikipedia page War games in progress on September 11, 2001 can be seen on screen. DavidFarmbrough 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tripod II
Tripod II is an emergency management exercise, not a war game. It doesn't really belong here. JDoorj a m    Talk 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

fission
You' boys really sliced this one up, ask one thing, get another, seek further… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelight (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Significance?
Is there some significance to this? Do people claim there were wargames going on because they knew the attacks were going to happen, or something? It seems like this article is missing something. --AW (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The significance is, The terrorists picked a date that just happened to be the day NORAD would be confused and could not scramble the jets needed or had no idea what was going on. a coincidence is a conspiracy to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus2010 (talk • contribs)


 * That would be one possibility. Sheer coincidence would be another possibility. Knowledge by insiders has been proposed as another explanation. There might actually be some information on these views and speculations in reliable sources. Finding such sources and adding relevant information to the article could improve the text. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Title
Does anyone else think the title "United States military and Department of Defense ongoing and scheduled operations and exercises for September 11, 2001" is a bit of a doozy?  Spencer T♦C 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. How about "United States Department of Defense operations and exercises on September 11, 2001"? --agr (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This one ok? --Sloane (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbing link to 9/11 alternative theories
Please stop censoring links from this article to 9/11 alternative theories, and vice-versa. The continual removal of all connections between these two articles starts to look like an obsession. The information in this article is among the most prominent and integral foundations of the government-disapproved theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.10.28 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling it 9/11 alternative theories is WP:BIASed; please use 9/11 conspiracy theories if it's appropriate.
 * It isn't appropriate, except in a possible fork, with a title something like "conspiracy theories about United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001".
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha-ha! No, sorry, I won't be using the term "conspiracy theory" and pretending that it's not biased, dismissive, pejorative and offensive. I prefer to save an attack term like that for an argument or a passionate debate, not a collaborative project like WP. There's nothing, however, biased about the word "alternative" or the term "alternative theories." That's about as dry and neutral as it gets.
 * You correctly included the link to 9/11 advance-knowledge debate ... so why continue to prevent the related link to 9/11 alternative theories (or whatever you want to call it)? What makes 9/11 advance-knowledge debate relevant to this article (and vice-versa) is very similar to the relevance of 9/11 alternative theories. This article is probably even more relevant to 9/11 alternative theories, because any actions taken by the government -- like war games, operations and exercises -- by definition transcend "foreknowledge" and cross over into the realm of action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No links to 9/11 alternative theories should be in Wikipedia; the redirect is only there because of a move-war by a now-banned editor. Please see the Arbcom ruling for more details.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
we need to setup a paragraph labeling out a time line. so the readers can know at what time the "injects" were removed and what time the terrorist attacks were finished

DoE exercise too ?
There was also a DoE exercice overseas on 11/9, called "Jackal Cave". See http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb270/index.htm. Is it relevant to add ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.56.189 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... What the f*&k is wrong with you people?!?
bunch of lunatics running this asylum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.69.2 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't even explain its own existence. Why is this even on Wikipedia? (why no article on military exercises on Sept. 3, 2001? or August 7, 1994?  or Feb. 24, 2006 or any other date?)  If you are going to have this article, shouldn't it at least explain that it is related to your crazy alternate-reality 9/11 theory or something??

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050210080218/http://www.newhousenews.com:80/archive/story1a012802.html to http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a012802.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050218012511/http://www.newhousenews.com:80/index.html to http://www.newhousenews.com/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041027123040/https://afweather.afwa.af.mil/observer/JUL_AUG_2002/rsrvart.html to https://afweather.afwa.af.mil/observer/JUL_AUG_2002/rsrvart.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201135508/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9%2F11=militaryExercises to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9%2F11=militaryExercises

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)