« Data Mining GAO Report: Treasury Bailout | testing's Blog | DOJ Responses Re Siegelman Mirror Wecht »
Indian Attack ELINT Highlights Problems With WTC 1, 2, 7 Explosion Timelines
It's useful to take a step back from the details of the Indian attacks, and compare what we've been told about the WTC 1, 2, 7 explosions. The President's disclosures through the NSA in both incidents do not reconcile, raising additional questions.
We judge the common element in both the Indian attacks and the WTC explosions is the home grown element which supports the government. In India, this is known as Hindu terrorism, unrelated to Islamic terrorism; nor directly related to Pakistan, but a domestic factor.
This note springs from admittedly impartial information about the Indian attacks, but hopes to develop a baseline of ELINT intercept scenarios. These should have been available for the 9-11 Commission and Public, were not.
A comparison between the Electronic Interception (ELINT) disclosures about the Indian attacks shows the United States has fabricated information, timelines, and evidence to justify activity unrelated to bonafide national security.
The NSA disclosures about the Mumbai attacks are a baseline to compare disclosures on the WTC explosions. This approach is similar to analyzing the North Korean photographs using a known baseline.
The core problem, which the discussion below highlights, is that the NSA performance in the WTC and Indian attacks do not reconcile with (a) real, complete information; nor (b) supportable national security policy.
There are two core problems raising major problems for the Administration re 9-11:
Breakdown of Key Information: What gave it away was the invalid statement the "cooperative" Indian gave after the attacks in India. The family name he is supposedly associated with in Pakistan does not link to him. The reliability of all information NSA has supposedly "linking" Pakistan to these attacks must be questioned; and we must examine what information the Administration is ignoring linking homegrown Indian or Americans to the attacks or explosive placement.
Information Quality Degradation: The other problem was the claim the NSA-Bush Administration that they provided information to the Indians, but -- now, after the attack -- they're still not sure. That defies reason. One cannot provide specific information before an event; but after the event the quality and specificity of that information degrades. This horizontal-information problem demands we question the means the NSA used to inconsistently confirm activity in the Indian attacks, but not in WTC explosive placement.
It's interesting to note the speed of Secretary Rice's admonishment to Pakistan, closely mirroring the accusations against Saddam Hussein. Both are based on invalid information. It appears, contrary to the Indian-Bush Administration public accusations in both 9-11 and the Indian attacks, the real attackers in both scenarios were home grown supporters of the government.
The Bush Administration appears to have selectively disclosed classified information about the NSA's ELINT capabilites, but would have the public ignore the implications for the 9-11 events: The same information about the Indian attacks should be available for the 9-11 attack scenario where explosives were placed:
Both scenarios also highlight the problems with gaps. "Gaps" narrowly used only on this TPM blog relates to an area where the NSA does not disclose or capture information; but there are inferences made about the activity before and after the event. These gaps may be related to analysis oversight, gaps in the ELINT, destruction of evidence, or fabricated timelines.
Although a gap may exist, the information before and after the gap will lead to something specific. It should. That "should" is where things fall apart when examining what's happening with the NSA's ELINT re India, and applying those lessons to intercepts that should exist related to WTC explosive placement.
Regardless whether you believe the Indian-US attacks were or were not homegrown, there are distinct attack scenarios that are common to both events. These baseline scenarios can be used to highlight the similar problems the NSA-President has for the ELINT re 9-11.
Regardless whether you agree or disagree with the attack scenarios, possible deception in each, or the gaps, the questions raise issues which make it impossible for the President to reconcile the NSA performance re India and WTC.
The purpose of this discussion is to highlight the available (right or wrong) attack scenarios in India; showcase how the NSA disclosures related to the attack scenarios are inconsistent; then compare our results to 9-11; then form a line of questions common to both the Indian attacks and the 9-11 attack.
The scenarios above, when analyzed in light of the NSA's intercepts of the 9-11 planning, reveal fundamental breakdowns in the explanations the United States and Indians are giving. This should be impossible. One explanation is that it appears the NSA's ELINT has been corrupted for partisan, domestic objectives unrelated to national security.
Let's go through the scenarios, highlighting what the NSA has disclosed; and show the problems as they related to 9-11. Each of the scenarios is not intended to be definitive; but to highlight the questions which should have been raised about the explosives placement in the WTC towers.
First, we'll go through the scenarios; then later we'll add the ELINT information to that scenario.
Scenario 1: Homegrown attack, with illusory connection to Pakistan
There are two aspects: One is the real activity to implement (and avoid detection) this real domestic attack; and the second is the illusory information created, with the intent is it captured, to create an illusory connection with Pakistan.
Under interrogation, the surviving attacker's story does not reconcile; nor does the NSA's speedy confirmation of the wrong information.
We've heard repeated assertions (not evidence) that the "evidence" points to training in Pakistan; and a specific terror group. We judge no information exists, and the President and Rice know or should know this.
Arguably, to hide the connection to the home-grown attackers -- who support the government -- it appears the ruse has been to blame Pakistan, create a fictional connection with the Pakistan city, and feign a family connection. This scenario matches a similar 9-11 scenario where explosives were placed, but this evidence was ignored.
A home-based attack in the US and India would mean the NSA would intercept the real information: Where they were located, how they traveled.
Scenario 2: Overland attack from within India
This is the most likely scenario in India and with the 9-11 explosives placement.
Scenario 3: Training in Pakistan, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
This is the most complicated scenario, highlighting the similar problems for the NSA in both India and 9-11.
A 'sea attack" is not a novel enough failure-attack mode. There had been previous concerns that there could be attacks from the sea on the ports and coastal shipping. What makes this attack mode novel -- and should have raised concerns -- was the broadening of the supposed warning from the sea-coast, to include a specific target.
We judge the precision of the claimed NSA warning is dubious. Arguably, anyone watching the calendar could note that on any given week in Pakistan or india there is a 25% chance of a bombing. Over a thirty-day time horizong, the "forecast of an explosion or attack" would arguably be 95%, or fairly certain. That is not a forecast, but merely saying a foreseeable event is linked with "our warning" This says less about the credibity of the warning, than with a retroactive desire of the US to claim it had information. This is dubious. If the information were valid, specific, believeable, then the security should have increased around the hotel. It did not.
The US information supposedly said there was a possible attack on a hotel, involving shipping; The problem is that this forecast is meaningless: There were multiple bombings in October with associated warnings on civilians. This forecast/warning is as useless as the Homeland Security stop-light, and the vague recent warning that WMD might be used before 2013 -- the illusion of precision unrelated to any things specific.
Scenario 4: Training in India, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
The sea-based attack information the NSA provided was sufficiently vague that the Indians after a week no longer maintained increased security at the Hotel.
Incorporating Known ELINT Claims Into Scenarios To Highlight Problems
Each of the scenarios has a discrete set of ELINT parameters: Something should have happened; or it did not. Each of these scenarios create problems for the President and NSA re 9-11 because the disclosed ELINT does not reconcile with the available attack evidence.
In both India and 9-11, there are glaring problems which many people have glossed over: The supposed intercepted intelligence does not reconcile with the physical actions required to implement the supposed attack-scenario. Each scenario raises questions which have not been adequately answered by the US government re 9-11.
The available information from the US shows that the US government working in concert with its allies does engage in domestic surveillance of US targets. There is no excuse for the President and NSA to not have piggy-backed off foreign power intercepts to determine who placed the explosives within the WTC towers. Recall, the world was "with" the US after 9-11; and the foreign powers should have been willing to share this information to "find out" who really did this. This information was trashed.
The real ELINT should be backtraceable from what is known to a captured ELINT. They must reconcile. It is possible the NSA intercepted partial information from sea intended to be captured as a distraction from the ground-based activity.
Scenario 1 ELINT: Homegrown attack, with illusory connection to Pakistan
Illusory ELINT connections to Pakistan would move from the coast, forward to the sea; then backwards. The problem is the name in Pakistan.
People suddenly appeared on the ELINT radar despite absence, supposedly in Pakistan. One does not coordinate with "handlers" who have less control, unless those handlers have an ability in India to do something. We judge the calls to handlers were meaningless, and were a smokescreen with real coordination within India.
Scenario 2 ELINT: Overland attack from within India
Real ELINT should have, as with WTC, a domestic interception. Something had to have happened inside India.
Scenario 3 ELINT: Training in Pakistan, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
The question is whether the ELINT captured at sea is credibly linked with the attack. If it is, the US government must explain why it cannot do the same with the WTC.
Scenario 4 ELINT: Training in India, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
This scenario would involve deception, including records of movement from within India, out to sea, then back to port; then across the Indian coastline.
If the US wants to say that it's warning to the hotel was precise, it must explain how the above connections were or were not traced; and why these connections were not similarly connected re WTC explosive placement.
ELINT for this scenario should show the cell phones. The problem we have with the surviving attacker is that they've lied.
We also do not have a definitive answer as to how the NSA can explain how they knew to intercept the ships; but when those ships arrived at port, the monitoring stopped. Supposedly the NSA had information to justify monitoring that ship and forwarding that information to India. Suddenly, the NSA can't explain why the "target of interest" fell off the map, and they can't track them from the port to the "next location".
We also do not know for sure how the NSA "knows for sure" that the cell phones were traced to a specific person, ship, or country. Putting aside this ambiguity, the US should be able to reconcile this with both the Indian attacks and 9-11:
What answers -- not claims -- are they providing about the Indian attack ELINT that should be available for the 9-11?
What the NSA Should Be Able To Provide
The NSA should be able to provide in both the 9-11 and Indian attack scenarios a single, coherent timeline as we saw with KAL007. This has not been provided, as it should.
The timeline should show:
The key are the gaps in the forward warnings before the attacks. There are gaps between the sea-based ELINT and the overland operations which should be knowable. The NSA and Administration are doing the opposite: Claiming confusion and uncertainty. That defies reason.
The problem the NSA has is that it's fatally asserted -- disclosed -- that it (supposedly) gave some information before the attack to the Indians; but now, after the attack, they're "not sure". This is an important problem which must be challenged. Information quality -- as events unfold, and we gather more information -- should improve. The NSA would have us believe the opposite: That they first had enough information to give the Indians -- and "take credit" for the warning -- but the NSA can't provide details of what should be connected with that "specific" information. That defies reason.
Let's combine the above general (admittedly, disjointed) points into each of the scenarios, and you'll see a major problem leap off the page: The United States government has fatally disclosed information that does not reconcile with what must be attached to the implications of that supposed information. Someone inside the White House and NSA contracting community knows this. Right now.
With the homegrown scenario, there would be an illusory ship, and no sea travel. The questions relate to How does the NSA know with precision:
If they know this -- as the NSA asserts publicly -- then the same should be available for the 9-11 planning steps before the explosives were detonated.
If they know this information, the NSA cannot explain why it has not traced this data to go into the gaps: Namely, going forwad and backward in time from this supposed discrete infromation to determine the origin of the information and attacker; then provide an explanation why the supposed "Pakistani link" does not reconcile with what the captured attacker is supposedly (falsely) saying.
In our homegrown scenario we have the following:
NSA is saying they're "not sure": This contradicts what should be linked with the sea-based information: Either the people did or did not come from a specific port in either India or Pakistan; or they did not.
Forward, Backtracing From Supposed Sea-Source ELINT
The supporting travel communications before and after the port-interaction is discrete information. NSA should be able to go forward in time from the supposed sea-sourced ELINT and know what happened after they landed at the port; and then go backward to know what happened before the attack. NSA wants the opposite: An appeal to confusion despite the supposed precision of the forecast related to the sea-based attack on the hotel. Again, that defies reason and applies to the 9-11 WTC explosives placement ELINT. It isn't adding up.
Let's consider the overland route from Pakistan, then through the sea, then arrival at the Indian port. Here there are gaps:
What the gaps are telling us is that the NSA and Administration appear to have a separate agenda of attempting to trace using the wrong information.
It is possible, based on the surving attacker's deception, that the "travel in Pakistan" was fabricated, and they really traveled elsewhere. This should be known. NSA says they're confused. That's an irreconcilable position.
A "cooperative" surviving attacker should not be giving a non-sense family name from Pakistan. The question, as with 9-11, is how much information is the surviving attacker giving that is false; and consistent with a different objective?
Let's consider the disclosed sea-connected ELINT capabilities in the Arabian Gulf connected to all powers. There are naval patrols, air crews, satellites, and the ability of powers to piggy back off other powers' ELINT (with or without detection).
These assets will give us a specific answer: Have they independently confirmed:
Each of the above factors should be (a) possible; or 9b) not be possible; but the results of the explanation should reconcile with what ELINT supposedly occurred before 9-11. They do not.
Could a home grown group take credit for an attack made that never happened? Sure. The opposite is true: They could conduct an attack, induce the government to publicly blame a scapegoat, and bolster sympathy for an ineffectual government. Yes, we're talking about both the India attacks a political agenda going into 9-11.
Here is what must happen on the Indian attacks; and how this analysis must be applied to the 9-11 WTC explosives placement:
How do we know the captured person was at sea; and that he traveled? Has this been independently confirmed?
Let's talk about forward and back-tracing. A specific ELINT will have prior- and post-connected activity. A discrete disclosure about ELINT must have a pre-cursor event; and a discrete event which follows. Once we look at the ELINT disclosures, we'll see that the logic breaks down, raising questions about the crediblity of the original ELINT disclosure.
A supposed warning or discrete event captured within ELINT should have a precursor event. The problem in both the 9-11 and Indian attack senarios as that these precursor events are missing, as they should not be; and the post-ELINT events is not connected with meaningful, useful information, as should be expected.
Once sea-based communications were intercepted, we can look at the quality fo the subsequent forecast and communications. Suppose the NSA's claims are true -- that they did capture and analyze while the events were unfolding -- sea-based communications; and that these sea-based actions were linked with a "credible" warning about a specific hotel.
The NSA should have -- which it did not -- increase the monitoring of that target; and provide more information showing the interception was an imminent threat. yet, the disclosed ELINT shows the Indians did not respond with a sustained-then-increased security buffer around the hotel.
This tells us that the supposed warnings were vague; and that the pre-cursor events to that ELINT from sea was not timely analyzed. There is still a measurable, discrete lag, supposedly a problem "fixed" after the 9-11. Ooops.
Let's go forward from the sea-ELINT. Where's the land-connected communication that should have been intercepted? NSA says they're still "not sure" about things. As with the 9-11 WTC explosives placement, the President and NSA would like us to believe that they narrowly monitor one set of transmissions; but have nothing in a different scenario.
Let's review the forward and backtracing from a discrete event. Supposedly, there were warnings based on sea-based ELINT. Going forward to the warning to India, the US cannot explain why it did not increase its coverage; nor monitor the landing location. These details would help pinpoint their origin. NSA hasn't publicly done this, but the opposite: Said they're confused.
Going backward from the warning which included a hotel, that information should be linked to a specific boat; yet going forward, India withdraws its security forces. The question is what doesn't the NSA know or not admitting?
You are encouraged to map the sea-based scenario. Assume it is from Pakistan, and include a region at sea where the ELINT occurred. The problem is the backtracing from the port into the Pakistan city where the surviving attacker supposedly was from: It will not trave to real information.
This chart should also include an explanation how the NSA linked the ELINT at sea through the ocean to the port; then overland. Once the warning was given to India, NSA needs to explain why it is not able to trace forward the ELINT, gather more information, then go backwards into Pakistan. Either this tracing capabiltiy exists or it does not.
If it does exist, then we should have better information after the attack, not less; and the President should be able to answer the analysis done on the WTC 1, 2, 7 explosions. Howeer, if this capability does not exist, then we have to answer what the NSA has been really doing since Pearl Harbor. The capability is there. The question ishow the data has been suppressed or conviently ignored.
There are several questions realted to this problem. NSA has publicly asserted a warning that does not appear to be supported by adequate forward and backtracing.
The answers to the above questions are less important than understanding that the answers are possible; but these types of questions have not been adequately asked or answered related to the WTC explosives placement.
This is what appears to have happened between both the WTC and Indian attacks:
Each attack scenario in WTC and India has the following problem: The NSA claims it is not sure despite a "specific" warning; they're unable to link data forward and backwards; and they cannot conduct a one step-connection.
Forward and backtracing should be possible, required, and part of the analysis. The issue is that they're back stepping from known informatin, and either cannot do it, have no information, or there is something else going on.
If the NSA really is "not sure" then it is possible:
How much (invalid) information from the captured, surviving attack is the NSA using to connect the dots and fill the gaps?
The answer will highlight what the NSA is doing when it works with JTTF and local law enforcement during pretextual stops.
Congress has the responsibility to understand how the President can abuse ELINT to mobilize the nation based on artificial timelines. This requires an independent tool of Congress to independently verify and audit the data. No President with exclusive access to NSA data can be trusted to reliably information the nation of threats; nor show he has responsibly traced information linked with domestic explosions.
The President's responses to the Indian attacks do not reconcile with what he would ask us believe about the 9-11 explosions. Despite this electronic information, the President and others would ask that he isn't sure. Someone wants the world communities to focus on the wrong location and people.
National powers, learning of this deception, did share this information. Despite their interest in keeping secret their monitoring capability, they disclosed information to cooperate to challenge unsustainable US foreign and domestic policy.
Despite these disclosures, the American President and others worked to suppress this external information.
We judge the common element in both the Indian attacks and the WTC explosions is the home grown element which supports the government. In India, this is known as Hindu terrorism, unrelated to Islamic terrorism; nor directly related to Pakistan, but a domestic factor.
This note springs from admittedly impartial information about the Indian attacks, but hopes to develop a baseline of ELINT intercept scenarios. These should have been available for the 9-11 Commission and Public, were not.
A comparison between the Electronic Interception (ELINT) disclosures about the Indian attacks shows the United States has fabricated information, timelines, and evidence to justify activity unrelated to bonafide national security.
The NSA disclosures about the Mumbai attacks are a baseline to compare disclosures on the WTC explosions. This approach is similar to analyzing the North Korean photographs using a known baseline.
The core problem, which the discussion below highlights, is that the NSA performance in the WTC and Indian attacks do not reconcile with (a) real, complete information; nor (b) supportable national security policy.
There are two core problems raising major problems for the Administration re 9-11:
Breakdown of Key Information: What gave it away was the invalid statement the "cooperative" Indian gave after the attacks in India. The family name he is supposedly associated with in Pakistan does not link to him. The reliability of all information NSA has supposedly "linking" Pakistan to these attacks must be questioned; and we must examine what information the Administration is ignoring linking homegrown Indian or Americans to the attacks or explosive placement.
Information Quality Degradation: The other problem was the claim the NSA-Bush Administration that they provided information to the Indians, but -- now, after the attack -- they're still not sure. That defies reason. One cannot provide specific information before an event; but after the event the quality and specificity of that information degrades. This horizontal-information problem demands we question the means the NSA used to inconsistently confirm activity in the Indian attacks, but not in WTC explosive placement.
It's interesting to note the speed of Secretary Rice's admonishment to Pakistan, closely mirroring the accusations against Saddam Hussein. Both are based on invalid information. It appears, contrary to the Indian-Bush Administration public accusations in both 9-11 and the Indian attacks, the real attackers in both scenarios were home grown supporters of the government.
The Bush Administration appears to have selectively disclosed classified information about the NSA's ELINT capabilites, but would have the public ignore the implications for the 9-11 events: The same information about the Indian attacks should be available for the 9-11 attack scenario where explosives were placed:
A. The prepatory stepsGaps
B. Transition support, as the personnel moved
C. The transfer poinrs as personnel/equipment were moved from one vehicle to another
Both scenarios also highlight the problems with gaps. "Gaps" narrowly used only on this TPM blog relates to an area where the NSA does not disclose or capture information; but there are inferences made about the activity before and after the event. These gaps may be related to analysis oversight, gaps in the ELINT, destruction of evidence, or fabricated timelines.
Although a gap may exist, the information before and after the gap will lead to something specific. It should. That "should" is where things fall apart when examining what's happening with the NSA's ELINT re India, and applying those lessons to intercepts that should exist related to WTC explosive placement.
Regardless whether you believe the Indian-US attacks were or were not homegrown, there are distinct attack scenarios that are common to both events. These baseline scenarios can be used to highlight the similar problems the NSA-President has for the ELINT re 9-11.
Regardless whether you agree or disagree with the attack scenarios, possible deception in each, or the gaps, the questions raise issues which make it impossible for the President to reconcile the NSA performance re India and WTC.
The purpose of this discussion is to highlight the available (right or wrong) attack scenarios in India; showcase how the NSA disclosures related to the attack scenarios are inconsistent; then compare our results to 9-11; then form a line of questions common to both the Indian attacks and the 9-11 attack.
Scenario 1: Homegrown attack, with illusory connection to Pakistan
Scenario 2: Overland attack from within India
Scenario 3: Training in Pakistan, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
Scenario 4: Training in India, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
The scenarios above, when analyzed in light of the NSA's intercepts of the 9-11 planning, reveal fundamental breakdowns in the explanations the United States and Indians are giving. This should be impossible. One explanation is that it appears the NSA's ELINT has been corrupted for partisan, domestic objectives unrelated to national security.
Let's go through the scenarios, highlighting what the NSA has disclosed; and show the problems as they related to 9-11. Each of the scenarios is not intended to be definitive; but to highlight the questions which should have been raised about the explosives placement in the WTC towers.
First, we'll go through the scenarios; then later we'll add the ELINT information to that scenario.
Scenario 1: Homegrown attack, with illusory connection to Pakistan
There are two aspects: One is the real activity to implement (and avoid detection) this real domestic attack; and the second is the illusory information created, with the intent is it captured, to create an illusory connection with Pakistan.
Real:
Coordination with security services to not act on domestic plans
Evidence that the ongoing training in Indian was not confronted, despite possible detection.
- Where are the destruction orders for these lines of evidence?
- What evidence is there of domestic security reports not getting action?
Fabricated preparations:
Artificial timelines, contacts which fall apart under scrutiny.
Under interrogation, the surviving attacker's story does not reconcile; nor does the NSA's speedy confirmation of the wrong information.
We've heard repeated assertions (not evidence) that the "evidence" points to training in Pakistan; and a specific terror group. We judge no information exists, and the President and Rice know or should know this.
Arguably, to hide the connection to the home-grown attackers -- who support the government -- it appears the ruse has been to blame Pakistan, create a fictional connection with the Pakistan city, and feign a family connection. This scenario matches a similar 9-11 scenario where explosives were placed, but this evidence was ignored.
A home-based attack in the US and India would mean the NSA would intercept the real information: Where they were located, how they traveled.
Scenario 2: Overland attack from within India
This is the most likely scenario in India and with the 9-11 explosives placement.
Scenario 3: Training in Pakistan, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
This is the most complicated scenario, highlighting the similar problems for the NSA in both India and 9-11.
A 'sea attack" is not a novel enough failure-attack mode. There had been previous concerns that there could be attacks from the sea on the ports and coastal shipping. What makes this attack mode novel -- and should have raised concerns -- was the broadening of the supposed warning from the sea-coast, to include a specific target.
We judge the precision of the claimed NSA warning is dubious. Arguably, anyone watching the calendar could note that on any given week in Pakistan or india there is a 25% chance of a bombing. Over a thirty-day time horizong, the "forecast of an explosion or attack" would arguably be 95%, or fairly certain. That is not a forecast, but merely saying a foreseeable event is linked with "our warning" This says less about the credibity of the warning, than with a retroactive desire of the US to claim it had information. This is dubious. If the information were valid, specific, believeable, then the security should have increased around the hotel. It did not.
The US information supposedly said there was a possible attack on a hotel, involving shipping; The problem is that this forecast is meaningless: There were multiple bombings in October with associated warnings on civilians. This forecast/warning is as useless as the Homeland Security stop-light, and the vague recent warning that WMD might be used before 2013 -- the illusion of precision unrelated to any things specific.
Scenario 4: Training in India, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
The sea-based attack information the NSA provided was sufficiently vague that the Indians after a week no longer maintained increased security at the Hotel.
Incorporating Known ELINT Claims Into Scenarios To Highlight Problems
Each of the scenarios has a discrete set of ELINT parameters: Something should have happened; or it did not. Each of these scenarios create problems for the President and NSA re 9-11 because the disclosed ELINT does not reconcile with the available attack evidence.
In both India and 9-11, there are glaring problems which many people have glossed over: The supposed intercepted intelligence does not reconcile with the physical actions required to implement the supposed attack-scenario. Each scenario raises questions which have not been adequately answered by the US government re 9-11.
The available information from the US shows that the US government working in concert with its allies does engage in domestic surveillance of US targets. There is no excuse for the President and NSA to not have piggy-backed off foreign power intercepts to determine who placed the explosives within the WTC towers. Recall, the world was "with" the US after 9-11; and the foreign powers should have been willing to share this information to "find out" who really did this. This information was trashed.
The real ELINT should be backtraceable from what is known to a captured ELINT. They must reconcile. It is possible the NSA intercepted partial information from sea intended to be captured as a distraction from the ground-based activity.
Scenario 1 ELINT: Homegrown attack, with illusory connection to Pakistan
Illusory ELINT connections to Pakistan would move from the coast, forward to the sea; then backwards. The problem is the name in Pakistan.
People suddenly appeared on the ELINT radar despite absence, supposedly in Pakistan. One does not coordinate with "handlers" who have less control, unless those handlers have an ability in India to do something. We judge the calls to handlers were meaningless, and were a smokescreen with real coordination within India.
Scenario 2 ELINT: Overland attack from within India
Real ELINT should have, as with WTC, a domestic interception. Something had to have happened inside India.
Scenario 3 ELINT: Training in Pakistan, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
The question is whether the ELINT captured at sea is credibly linked with the attack. If it is, the US government must explain why it cannot do the same with the WTC.
Scenario 4 ELINT: Training in India, sea-based travel, land movement, attack
This scenario would involve deception, including records of movement from within India, out to sea, then back to port; then across the Indian coastline.
If the US wants to say that it's warning to the hotel was precise, it must explain how the above connections were or were not traced; and why these connections were not similarly connected re WTC explosive placement.
ELINT for this scenario should show the cell phones. The problem we have with the surviving attacker is that they've lied.
We also do not have a definitive answer as to how the NSA can explain how they knew to intercept the ships; but when those ships arrived at port, the monitoring stopped. Supposedly the NSA had information to justify monitoring that ship and forwarding that information to India. Suddenly, the NSA can't explain why the "target of interest" fell off the map, and they can't track them from the port to the "next location".
We also do not know for sure how the NSA "knows for sure" that the cell phones were traced to a specific person, ship, or country. Putting aside this ambiguity, the US should be able to reconcile this with both the Indian attacks and 9-11:
What answers -- not claims -- are they providing about the Indian attack ELINT that should be available for the 9-11?
What the NSA Should Be Able To Provide
The NSA should be able to provide in both the 9-11 and Indian attack scenarios a single, coherent timeline as we saw with KAL007. This has not been provided, as it should.
The timeline should show:
1. What they interceptedThe problem the NSA has is that we're too far into the post attack without solid information. Back traces are not getting done, as they should; or it is impossible because there are gaps; or because there is something else going on, which the NSA isn't discussing. Most likely, there is inconsistent information which would support the real connection with the domestic attacks which the NSA has not been allowed to publicly comment re 9-11 and India. These strands are knowable right now, and it is irrelevant that the NSA is silent.
2. Studies done to retroactively find the departure point
3. Formal monitoring at sea before and around the departure port
4. Post-docking communication at the arrival port with overland travel information
5. Prepatory acts for the attack within India
6. The event
7. Post-attack communications
The key are the gaps in the forward warnings before the attacks. There are gaps between the sea-based ELINT and the overland operations which should be knowable. The NSA and Administration are doing the opposite: Claiming confusion and uncertainty. That defies reason.
The problem the NSA has is that it's fatally asserted -- disclosed -- that it (supposedly) gave some information before the attack to the Indians; but now, after the attack, they're "not sure". This is an important problem which must be challenged. Information quality -- as events unfold, and we gather more information -- should improve. The NSA would have us believe the opposite: That they first had enough information to give the Indians -- and "take credit" for the warning -- but the NSA can't provide details of what should be connected with that "specific" information. That defies reason.
Let's combine the above general (admittedly, disjointed) points into each of the scenarios, and you'll see a major problem leap off the page: The United States government has fatally disclosed information that does not reconcile with what must be attached to the implications of that supposed information. Someone inside the White House and NSA contracting community knows this. Right now.
With the homegrown scenario, there would be an illusory ship, and no sea travel. The questions relate to How does the NSA know with precision:
A. The group at seaThe issue isn't the discrete information (which may or may not be true); but how did the NSA confirm one set of data at sea was related to land based communications re (1) India; but this connection was not done with the (2) WTC explosive placement? They can't have it both ways.
B. The information linking the captured attacker with that ship
C. The used phones at sea
D. That the intercepted calls at sea were them
If they know this -- as the NSA asserts publicly -- then the same should be available for the 9-11 planning steps before the explosives were detonated.
If they know this information, the NSA cannot explain why it has not traced this data to go into the gaps: Namely, going forwad and backward in time from this supposed discrete infromation to determine the origin of the information and attacker; then provide an explanation why the supposed "Pakistani link" does not reconcile with what the captured attacker is supposedly (falsely) saying.
In our homegrown scenario we have the following:
A. travel to training either inside or outside India
B. Sea-related communications
C. Overland travel, operations.
NSA is saying they're "not sure": This contradicts what should be linked with the sea-based information: Either the people did or did not come from a specific port in either India or Pakistan; or they did not.
Forward, Backtracing From Supposed Sea-Source ELINT
The supporting travel communications before and after the port-interaction is discrete information. NSA should be able to go forward in time from the supposed sea-sourced ELINT and know what happened after they landed at the port; and then go backward to know what happened before the attack. NSA wants the opposite: An appeal to confusion despite the supposed precision of the forecast related to the sea-based attack on the hotel. Again, that defies reason and applies to the 9-11 WTC explosives placement ELINT. It isn't adding up.
Let's consider the overland route from Pakistan, then through the sea, then arrival at the Indian port. Here there are gaps:
A. The training sitesAt this juncture, like 9-11, the NSA and Administration would have us believe that the attackers magically appeared on the ground; but they have nothing about the ground support within these known gaps. That again defies reason.
B. Pakistani port activity
C. Before and after sea-ELINT
D. The Indian port activity
E. Overland operations in India
What the gaps are telling us is that the NSA and Administration appear to have a separate agenda of attempting to trace using the wrong information.
It is possible, based on the surving attacker's deception, that the "travel in Pakistan" was fabricated, and they really traveled elsewhere. This should be known. NSA says they're confused. That's an irreconcilable position.
A "cooperative" surviving attacker should not be giving a non-sense family name from Pakistan. The question, as with 9-11, is how much information is the surviving attacker giving that is false; and consistent with a different objective?
Let's consider the disclosed sea-connected ELINT capabilities in the Arabian Gulf connected to all powers. There are naval patrols, air crews, satellites, and the ability of powers to piggy back off other powers' ELINT (with or without detection).
These assets will give us a specific answer: Have they independently confirmed:
The answer is "No," because they have a disconnect on the information quailtiy: Before the attack it was "specific"; now, after the attack, there is confusion.
- They people were at sea
- They were on a boat
- They intercepted the communication
- They trained with a specific group
- They were located in Pakistan
Each of the above factors should be (a) possible; or 9b) not be possible; but the results of the explanation should reconcile with what ELINT supposedly occurred before 9-11. They do not.
Could a home grown group take credit for an attack made that never happened? Sure. The opposite is true: They could conduct an attack, induce the government to publicly blame a scapegoat, and bolster sympathy for an ineffectual government. Yes, we're talking about both the India attacks a political agenda going into 9-11.
Here is what must happen on the Indian attacks; and how this analysis must be applied to the 9-11 WTC explosives placement:
How do we know the captured person was at sea; and that he traveled? Has this been independently confirmed?
Let's talk about forward and back-tracing. A specific ELINT will have prior- and post-connected activity. A discrete disclosure about ELINT must have a pre-cursor event; and a discrete event which follows. Once we look at the ELINT disclosures, we'll see that the logic breaks down, raising questions about the crediblity of the original ELINT disclosure.
A supposed warning or discrete event captured within ELINT should have a precursor event. The problem in both the 9-11 and Indian attack senarios as that these precursor events are missing, as they should not be; and the post-ELINT events is not connected with meaningful, useful information, as should be expected.
Once sea-based communications were intercepted, we can look at the quality fo the subsequent forecast and communications. Suppose the NSA's claims are true -- that they did capture and analyze while the events were unfolding -- sea-based communications; and that these sea-based actions were linked with a "credible" warning about a specific hotel.
The NSA should have -- which it did not -- increase the monitoring of that target; and provide more information showing the interception was an imminent threat. yet, the disclosed ELINT shows the Indians did not respond with a sustained-then-increased security buffer around the hotel.
This tells us that the supposed warnings were vague; and that the pre-cursor events to that ELINT from sea was not timely analyzed. There is still a measurable, discrete lag, supposedly a problem "fixed" after the 9-11. Ooops.
Let's go forward from the sea-ELINT. Where's the land-connected communication that should have been intercepted? NSA says they're still "not sure" about things. As with the 9-11 WTC explosives placement, the President and NSA would like us to believe that they narrowly monitor one set of transmissions; but have nothing in a different scenario.
Let's review the forward and backtracing from a discrete event. Supposedly, there were warnings based on sea-based ELINT. Going forward to the warning to India, the US cannot explain why it did not increase its coverage; nor monitor the landing location. These details would help pinpoint their origin. NSA hasn't publicly done this, but the opposite: Said they're confused.
Going backward from the warning which included a hotel, that information should be linked to a specific boat; yet going forward, India withdraws its security forces. The question is what doesn't the NSA know or not admitting?
You are encouraged to map the sea-based scenario. Assume it is from Pakistan, and include a region at sea where the ELINT occurred. The problem is the backtracing from the port into the Pakistan city where the surviving attacker supposedly was from: It will not trave to real information.
This chart should also include an explanation how the NSA linked the ELINT at sea through the ocean to the port; then overland. Once the warning was given to India, NSA needs to explain why it is not able to trace forward the ELINT, gather more information, then go backwards into Pakistan. Either this tracing capabiltiy exists or it does not.
If it does exist, then we should have better information after the attack, not less; and the President should be able to answer the analysis done on the WTC 1, 2, 7 explosions. Howeer, if this capability does not exist, then we have to answer what the NSA has been really doing since Pearl Harbor. The capability is there. The question ishow the data has been suppressed or conviently ignored.
There are several questions realted to this problem. NSA has publicly asserted a warning that does not appear to be supported by adequate forward and backtracing.
1. Did they retroactively dig up (false) information based on the wrong search; then package this information as if it was a forward warning?
2. What did the NSA know; how was this information differentthan the vague forward warnings related to hotels from allied intelligence?
3. Is NSA claimiing the same cell phones were used in the hotel; and that they were linked with the boat? Then why wasn't this "ability to confirm a connection" done with those who placed the explosives inside WTC 1, 2, 7?
4. Which "NSA" are we really talking about: The American or Indian?
5. How many other warnings were given? Apparently not specific enough to convince the Indians to stay.
5. Once the communication was intercepted at sea, what connection was established with the port departure location-information?
6. What did themilitary forces suspect would happen if the boath was interecetped at sea before getting to port; what allied Naval HUMINT was done along the Pakistani and Indian coastlines after the warning was given related to this supposed ELINT?
7. Is it possible the real group providing the larger support to the attackers in India were not located at sea or in Pakistan, but in India?
8. When we hear "Pakistani handlers" are we really talking about Indians; how was it established that the phone calls made were not from the hotel guests using their own phone?
9. Where did the term "Pakistani handlers" really come from; and how was this differentiated between the hotel guest phones in India, subsequently seized by the attackers and used (supposedly) to make calls?
10. How was it known the hotel guest phone calls were only to Pakistani hanlders?
The answers to the above questions are less important than understanding that the answers are possible; but these types of questions have not been adequately asked or answered related to the WTC explosives placement.
This is what appears to have happened between both the WTC and Indian attacks:
1. Incorrect data was forced into a fabricated timeline;
2. There was domestic surveillance without warrants, but this information was not used to thwart domestic enemies
3. There were government assertions and policies at odds with or not supported by the available data
4. There's been a failure to account for gaps in the incoming coverage
5. There's been a failure to disclose contradictory information
6. Suppression of inconsistent information to thwart investigations
Each attack scenario in WTC and India has the following problem: The NSA claims it is not sure despite a "specific" warning; they're unable to link data forward and backwards; and they cannot conduct a one step-connection.
Forward and backtracing should be possible, required, and part of the analysis. The issue is that they're back stepping from known informatin, and either cannot do it, have no information, or there is something else going on.
If the NSA really is "not sure" then it is possible:
A. The communications traces are disconnected, and not related to eachother
B. Narrowly-held information has not been connected
C. The stated conclusions never happened, and they still cannot trace the data despite the option to do error checking
D. They've traced the information forward and backwards the wrong way.
How much (invalid) information from the captured, surviving attack is the NSA using to connect the dots and fill the gaps?
The answer will highlight what the NSA is doing when it works with JTTF and local law enforcement during pretextual stops.
Congress has the responsibility to understand how the President can abuse ELINT to mobilize the nation based on artificial timelines. This requires an independent tool of Congress to independently verify and audit the data. No President with exclusive access to NSA data can be trusted to reliably information the nation of threats; nor show he has responsibly traced information linked with domestic explosions.
The President's responses to the Indian attacks do not reconcile with what he would ask us believe about the 9-11 explosions. Despite this electronic information, the President and others would ask that he isn't sure. Someone wants the world communities to focus on the wrong location and people.
National powers, learning of this deception, did share this information. Despite their interest in keeping secret their monitoring capability, they disclosed information to cooperate to challenge unsustainable US foreign and domestic policy.
Despite these disclosures, the American President and others worked to suppress this external information.
Advertisement
This user has disabled comments on this entry.
