“Is this real-world or exercise?”: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11 Part II: TADMUS and Situation Awareness Since the incident involving the USS Vincennes, the US military has invested a significant degree of money in TADMUS research. TADMUS stands for tactical decision-making under stress. Google “TADMUS” and browse the entries. Here are a few examples: Implications for Individual and Team Training (1998); Decision-Making Schemas in Rapidly Changing Situations (1995-1998); A Comprehensive Bibliography. “In the wake of the tragic shoot-down, the Navy began a multiyear, multimillion dollar research program to formally study teamwork and team training interventions. The program, known as Tactical Decision Making Under Stress (TADMUS), began in 1990 and led the Navy to breakthrough advances in team training. As noted by William Howell, then head of the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association, "By almost anyone's standard, TADMUS has turned out to be an unqualified success." Interestingly, research which pre-dated the 1990-1998 TADMUS work was done for air traffic controllers; see Seamster, T.L., Cannon, R.R., Purcell, J.A., Pierce, R.M., Fisher, S.G., & Redding, R.E. 1991. Analysis of controller communication in en route air traffic control. Published in ERIC reports. By 1999, the TADMUS research was well enough regarded that it was adopted, via the Federal technology transfer program, to the law enforcement/prison industry. See http://www.oletc.org/oletctoday/0309_tdt.pdf.) Similarly, a great deal of research has been done in the field of situation awareness, most notably by Mica Endlsey et al at SA Technologies, and focused heavily on the aeronautical applications. Google any or all of those three for an in-depth look at the research and publications since the late 1980’s. See the SA Technology publications focused on air traffic control here: http://www.satechnologies.com/publications/list.php?topic=2. One example is the 1998 article entitled Shared situation awareness in the flight deck-ATC system. “Numerous studies have been performed to assess the validity of SAGAT [situation awareness global assessment technique] (e.g., Endsley, 1995). SAGAT has been shown to have a high degree of reliability (e.g., Endsley & Boldstad (1994), to possess sensitivity to condition manipulations (Endsley, 2000), and to be effective across a variety of domains, including Endsley defined situation awareness as "1) the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space [or a specific context]; 2) the comprehension of their meaning; and 3) the projection of their status in the near future". Two years later, she defined it as "knowing what is going on around you". The term “situation awareness” was used in this 1996 article The Digital General: Reflections on Leadership in the Post-Information Age, by Paul T. Harig, Parameters, Autumn 1996, pp. 133-140, and attributed to Thomas J. Czerwinski, "Command and Control at the Crossroads," Marine Corps Gazette, October 1995, pp. 13-15. There was a clear understanding of the term situation awareness in military circles well in advance of 9/11. Indeed: “The [9/11] Commission then states that the Secretary of Defense did not join the NMCC’s [air threat] conference call until just before 10:30AM. The Secretary of Defense himself told the Commission he was just gaining situation awareness when he spoke with the Vice-President at 10:39AM. That transcript is on page 23, page 43.”Yet the FBI arrived at the FAA’s Boston Center, in Nashua, New Hampshire, “minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center,” (circa 8:50 AM) and seizes tape recordings of radio transmissions from the hijacked plane. (See the Cooperative Research timelines for 9/11.) “At 8:43 a.m., [Master Sergeant Maureen] Dooley's technicians [at NEADS], their headsets linked to Boston Center, heard of a second plane, United Flight 175, that also was not responding. It, too, was moving to New York.” [See Hart Seely, “Amid Crisis Simulation, 'We Were Suddenly No-Kidding Under Attack,’” Newhouse News Service, January 25, 2002. ] According to this story, NEADS knew by 8:43 that UA 175 was problematic.” According to Laura Brown, the Deputy in Public Affairs at FAA headquarters: “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service. . . . The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD. . . . The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest. . . .”‘When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, however, it contained no mention of [Brown’s] memo or its account. The Commission implicitly claimed, in fact, that the memo’s account could not be true by claiming that the FAA-initiated conference -- which according to Brown’s memo had begun about 8:50 -- did not begin until 9:20. As usual, inconvenient facts were simply eliminated.” (See “9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?” by David Ray Griffin .) David Ray Griffin speaks of “the now established fact that the military has lied about 9/11… And if the previous story, which only partly absolved the military from suspicion, was a lie, should we not suspect that the new story, which fully absolves it, is also a lie?’ “Relevant here is the fairly new technology of “voice morphing” (which is one of the forms of “digital morphing,” with others being video and photo morphing). This technology has been available for several years, as shown in a 1999 Washington Post article by William Arkin. [William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...45085-2000Feb28 ).] As an example of what was already possible at that time, Arkin described a demonstration in which General Carl Steiner, former Commander-in-Chief of the US Special Operations Command, was heard making a statement that began: “Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.”In another demonstration, the voice of Colin Powell was heard to say: “I am being treated well by my captors.”Neither Steiner nor Powell had ever uttered those statements. They were complete fabrications. What is required to produce such fabrications? “By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of [anyone’s] voice,” Arkin reported, voice morphing experts can “clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile,” causing people to appear to have said things that they “would never otherwise have said.” Although earlier voice morphing techniques required cutting and pasting, often producing robotic intonations, the new software “can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks.” This new technology, developed in the Los Alamos National Laboratory, can be used equally by Hollywood and by military and intelligence agencies. “For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.” One agency interested in this weapon, Arkin reports, is “the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.” Referring to what the military calls PSYOPS, meaning psychological operations, Arkin explains that these operations “seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations.” But voice morphing, I would add, could equally well be used as a weapon to exploit human vulnerabilities in a government’s own population. The “human vulnerabilities” in the US population could include the public’s ignorance of such technologies plus its tendency to trust its political and military leaders and to reject “conspiracy theories.” Arkin, pointing out that video and photo manipulation had already “raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world,” teaching it that “seeing isn’t necessarily believing,” points out that the addition of voice morphing means that “hearing isn’t either.” Or at least it shouldn’t be. Surely, given the existence of this technology plus the manifold problems in the 9/11 Commission’s story based on the NORAD tapes, our media should be questioning the authenticity of these tapes.” To search the Cooperative Research timelines for “Secret Service”, click here. To search the Cooperative Research timelines for “FAA”, click here. According to all official accounts, the exercises were called off by 9:16 – well before 9:25 when "Phantom Flight 11" comes on the scene. [See Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, p. 444 (quoting from Air War Over America, p. 59).] Why was a phantom blip showing up then? Did it, or are we just being told that it did? If all warfare is based on deception, who was (or is) deceiving whom?
|
Last entries
"unusually uncertain"
Black Pajamas the bed-ridden, the imprisoned, and the terminally incurious Silent Seeds Bursting Into Bloom Broke, Broker, Broken “I will work hard. And I will do my best…” * The Alchemy of Empire Fragments of Burning Zirconium “What are our priorities, exactly?” Prisoners, demons, guard, devices Invitation
My Blog Links
My Gallery Albums
|
Apr 14 2007, 04:21 AM
Powered By IP.Blog
1.3.2 © 2010 IPS, Inc.
Licensed to: CommonGroundCommonSense.org
Licensed to: CommonGroundCommonSense.org