Page 1 of2

Dana Hyde

From: Dana Hyde [dhyde® 9-11commission.gov]

Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:48 AM
To: pat.downs@osd.mil; janet.edghill@osd.mil
Cc: John Farmer; John Azzarello; Miles Kara; Dan Marcus; Steve Dunne
Subject: FW: DoD Follow Up & Outstanding Documents

Pat/Janet:

I am forwarding the email I sent on September 8, 2003, which highlights the documents as of that date that were
outstanding or required follow-up. I spoke to Janet this morning about Item #2 - the continuation of the NEADS
transcript. As you know, we are scheduled to visit NEADS next week. Our experience with the FAA has
underscored the importance of having all relevant documents before flying out to various locations to interview
relevant personnel. Because of the Commission's deadline, we do not have time to revisit these facilities once
additional information is discovered. I understand you have some technical difficulties with respect to this
transcript, but please understand that we asked for it (for the second time) 5 weeks ago; I would hate to have to
delay our NEADS trip once again because it is not available. As I informed Janet, transcribing the tapes for an
additional hour should be sufficient to go forward with our interviews, although, consistent with our requests to
other agencies, we would like the final transcript to be continued until 1200.

Also, at your earliest convenience, please provide us with an update on where we stand on the other items.
Thank you. Dana.

Original Message
From: Miles Kara [mailto:mkara@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:34 AM
To: dhyde@9-llcommission.gov
Subject: FW: DoD Follow Up & Outstanding Documents

Per request

—Original Message
From: Dana Hyde [mailto:dhyde@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:00 PM
To: pat.downs@osd.mil
Cc: frontoffice@9-llcommission.gov; 'Miles Kara'; jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov; jazzarello@9-
llcommission.gov
Subject: DoD Follow Up & Outstanding Documents

Pat-

Per our conversation Friday, outlined below are items that are either outstanding or a follow-up
from documents we have received thus far. Thank you for your assistance if following up on
these matters. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana

(1) NORAD After-Action Report(s) (Request No. 1-10): In response to this request
(according to the DoD index), DoD has submitted Documents #NCT0016262-16359 and
Document #11166-11171 (although this document may be mislabeled). We are seeking
from NORAD ALL documents that could be fairly characterized as an after-action report.
This would include all documents that summarize, analyze, evaluate or discuss NORAD's
response to the events of 9/11. It would also include all interviews with NORAD personnel
that were involved in NORAD's air defense operation on 9/11. If there are no further

2/17/2004
 Page 2 of 2

documents from NORAD that fit this description, please confirm it to us in writing.

(2) NEADS Transcript (Document #NCT0000049-0000130): This document is a transcript

from multiple voice recorders at NEADS on 9/11. For whatever reason, the transcript cuts
off around 10:15 am. Our question is whether the tapes and/or transcript continued
recording after 10:15 am, and if not, why not. If there are recordings beyond this point, we
would like to receive a tape and/or transcript of them.

(3) Col. Scott Materials (Request No. 1-10): We spoke to Janet about this issue Friday
afternoon and this morning. I understand that Col. Scott faxed her some materials over the
weekend which we will be receiving soon. We'll await the delivery of those documents to
assess whether this request has been completed.

(4) Atlantic City Fighters: In the documents we have received thus far we have seen various
cryptic references to fighters that NORAD may have scrambled (or attempted to) out of
Atlantic City. Before requesting all of the documents from Atlantic City, we are looking to
answer the basic question, "Did NORAD call upon fighters and/or other assets from Atlantic
City on the morning of 9/11 ?" If so, then I will formulate a request for the Atlantic City
documents we need. If not, then we will simply seek clarification of this issue in our
interviews.

(5) Rules of Engagement (Request No. 1-5): This request asked for the NORAD ROE
concerning hijackings in effect on 9/11/0. We neglected to ask for (and need) the ROEs in
effect post-9/11. Specifically, the New York Times and other papers reported on
September 27, 2001 ("A Nation Challenged: The Military; Generals Given Power to Order
Downing of Jets") that "President Bush had authorized two midlevel Air Force generals to
order commercial airliners that threaten American cities shot down..." We are seeking all
documents related to this change in the Rules of Engagement, as well any subsequent
changes that may have occurred since that time. Please let me know if you have any
questions regarding this request.

(6) Call Lists for Various Conferences (Request Nos. 1-3,1-1): At the NMCC briefing we
learned about the various conferences that took place on 9/11 (i.e. Significant Event
Conference and Air Threat Conference), as well as the new conferences that have been
developed since then (Domestic Event and Domestic Threat). We are seeking the JCS list
of standing participants for these calls, both now and in effect on 9/11. That is, we need
the list of agencies (and numbers) that would have been called on 9/11 to participate in the
Significant Event and Air Threat Conferences, as well as the call list today for the Domestic
Event and Threat Conferences.

(7) NORAD Exercises (Request Nos. 11 &12): In these requests we asked for the
"intelligence scenarios" and "briefing papers" for various DoD and NORAD exercises. We
are in the process of reviewing these materials but it appears that we are lacking some of
the "intelligence scenarios" for specific exercises; if that turns out to be the case I will follow
up with you on specifics. However, we also need (and neglected to specifically request)
the "lessons learned" from these exercises.

Thank you again. Dana

2/17/2004
 Page 1 of 1

Dana Hyde

From: Aly, Stewart, Mr, DoD OGC [alys@dodgc.osd.mil]

Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:22 PM
To: Dana Hyde; Aly, Stewart, Mr, DoD OGC; Downs, Pat, Ms, OSD-USDI
Cc: Kevin Shaeffer; John Farmer; Miles Kara; John Farmer; Steve Dunne
Subject: RE: DoD Request No. 4, Item 11

Thanks for sending this in writing. I will forward it on and either identify documents that respond or someone who
can speak with authority. According to the tasking documents NORDA sent me, this question was sent out from
NORAD to its subordinate units, but I will confirm this.

Original Message
From: Dana Hyde [mailto:dhyde@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:26
To: alys@osdgc.osd.mil; 'Downs, Pat, Ms, OSD-USDI1
Cc: kshaeffer@9-llcommission.gov; jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov; mkara@9-llcommission.gov;
jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov; 'Steven Dunne'
Subject: DoD Request No. 4, Item 11

Stu/Pat:

As I mentioned to Stu this morning, in our conversation with Mr. Merchant Friday afternoon we inquired
about NORAD's record keeping of exercise related documents prior to 1998. The context for this
discussion was the Commission's Request No. 4, Item #11 ("11. Intelligence scenarios and briefing
papers for all national military exercises, since January 1993, in which a plane was hijacked
and/or used as a weapon and which involved any of the following DoD entities: NORAD, JCS,
and Special Operations Command (SOCOM).") and DoD's Response at Bates #239952-53 ("We
only keep archives going back to 1998.").
Mr. Merchant stated that his office only keeps computer\hard drive information related to NORAD
exercises dating back to roughly 1998, however other NORAD components (i.e., Regions or Sectors)
may keep exercise information dating back further than 1998. He was familiar with our request (above)
and mentioned that NORAD may have only checked at HO for such documents, and not gone out to the
RegionsXSectors.

Our question are (1) did NORAD search all the Regions\Sectors for documents responsive to this
request, and (2) if so, are they any other documents responsive to this request that have yet to be
produced to the Commission? In other words, does the Commission have all documents responsive to
Request #11? I note that the Item is marked "green" on the DoD Index, and thus up until now we
assumed it was complete.

Thank you for your assistance in tracking this down. Dana

2/17/2004
 Page 1 of2

Dana Hyde

From: Kevin Shaeffer

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:15 PM
To: Dana Hyde
Subject: FW: NORAD: The "after action" game

Regards,
Kevin
"Never Forget"

—Original Message
From: Dana Hyde [mailto:dhyde@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:14 AM
To: John Farmer; John Azzarello; Miles Kara; Kevin Shaeffer
Subject: NORAD: The "after action" game

All-

Miles and I participated in a phone conference with Stu Aly (DoD GC Office) and
Punch Moulton (NORAD GC Office) Friday afternoon. The call was arranged at
Stu's recommendation and mostly involved Punch reciting his and NORAD's
commitment to get us everything we need. They provided us with an update on
the NEADS taping - one tape with very little data on it is reportedly in dire
condition and being shipped to the manufacturer for duplication - while the bulk
of the tapes should be in by today or tomorrow. As Miles reported, NEADS will
be creating transcripts of the tapes, but this process will take some time (the
tapes will be produced by the subpoena deadline, with the possible exception of
the aforementioned tape reel that I was told is 95% blank air). The one area of
the conversation that concerned me related to our request for after action
reports.

As you know, we have been round and round with NORAD on this issue. Prior
to Stu being involved in our process, I spoke to Janet and Pat numerous times
about what we meant by "after action" review (See Request No. 1, Item 10).
Indeed, because I felt uncomfortable that DoD (and particularly NORAD) was
narrowly defining the term, I wrote to Pat Downs on September 8 and offered this
further clarification:

(1) NORAD After-Action Report(s) (Request No. 1-10):... We are seeking

from NORAD ALL documents that could be fairly characterized as an after-
action report. This would include all documents that summarize, analyze,
evaluate or discuss NORAD's response to the events of 9/11. It would also

2/17/2004
 Page 2 of2

include all interviews with NORAD personnel that were involved in

NORAD's air defense operation on 9/11... ."

In our conversation Friday I reiterated this notion (although I did not have the
exact words in front of me). I said two things: first, it was my understanding that
DoD guidance (and probably more than one) specifically defines what is meant
by an after action review, so that should be the first touchstone for interpretation;
second, what we are essentially looking for is anything that evaluates or
assesses the performance of the air defense operation on 9/11. As I listened
carefully I once again heard that there is no "formal" after action review and that
each service is different so NORAD's AAR may not look like the Navy's AAR or
the Air Force's etc. Bottom line - I got the distinct sense that we were involved in
a word game, and that NORAD is trying to find a way to construe our request
such that some universe of materials does not fit the bill.

What to do? I think we need to clarify the issue in writing to the DoD OGC,
particularly in light of the subpoena. I don't know if the language above is
appropriate, or if we should refer to DoD guidance (or perhaps do both) but I
think we should have something formal on the record. How broadly we want to
go and the specific language we use is important. There have to be documents
in NORAD that assess the performance that day, but maybe they are not in the
form of an AAR. For example, the forms that personnel at NEADs filled out and
placed in folders. If there was some synthesis of that information (which you
would think there was) in my mind that would clearly qualify as an AAR. Whether
the underlying forms constitute an AAR is more open to interpretation, and a
good example of the situation that our clarifying language should address.

In short, I'm looking for concrete suggestions on what our clarifying language
should be, and how to approach the issue. Thanks - Dana

2/17/2004