Mideastweb: Middle East

The 9-11 Commission Report
Notes to Chapters 8 and 9

Released July 26,  2004

Middle East news peacewatch Encyclopedia; books history culture dialog links more links donations

8 “The System Was Blinking Red”

1. Beginning in December 1999, these briefings were conducted based on slides created by the CIA’s Bin Ladin unit. See Richard interview (Dec. 11, 2003). We were able to review the slides to identify the subjects of the respective briefings.

2. The exact number of persons who receive the PDB varies by administration. In the Clinton administration, up to 25 people received the PDB. In the Bush administration, distribution in the pre-9/11 time period was limited to six people. The Commission received access to about four years of articles from the PDB related to Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and key countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, including all the Commission requested. The White House declined to permit all commissioners to review these sensitive documents. The Commission selected four representatives--the Chair, theVice Chair, Commissioner Gorelick, and the Executive Director--as its review team. All four reviewed all of the more than 300 relevant articles. Commissioner Gorelick and the Executive Director prepared a detailed summary, reviewed by the White House for constitutional and especially sensitive classification concerns, that was then made available to all Commissioners and designated staff. Except for the August 6, 2001, PDB article, the summary could not include verbatim quotations, for example the titles of the articles, but could paraphrase the substance. Two of the articles--the December 4, 1998, hijacking article (in chapter 4) and the August 6, 2001, article discussing Bin Ladin’s plans to attack in the United States (in this chapter)--were eventually declassified.

3. The CIA produced to the Commission all SEIB articles relating to al Qaeda, Bin Ladin, and other subjects identified by the Commission as being relevant to its mission from January 1998 through September 20, 2001.

4. See CIA, SEIB, “Sunni Terrorist Threat Growing, ” Feb. 6, 2001; CIA cable, “Intelligence Community Terrorist Threat Advisory, ” Mar. 30, 2001.

5. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue, Mar. 23, 2001.

6. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Terrorism Update, Mar. 30, 2001; NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Terrorist Threat Warning, Apr. 10, 2001.

7. See FBI electronic communication, heightened threat advisory, Apr. 13, 2001.

8. See NSC email, Cressey to Rice and Hadley, Threat Update, Apr. 19, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations, ”Apr. 20, 2001;NSC memo, Clarke for Hadley, “Briefing Notes for al Qida Meeting, ”undated (appears to be from April 2001).

9. For threats, see CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack, ” May 3, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Network’s Plans Advancing, ” May 26, 2001; FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, May 7, 2001 (the walk-in’s claim was later discredited). For Attorney General briefing, see CIA briefing materials, “Briefing for the Attorney General, 15 May 2001, Al-Qa’ida, ” undated. For more threats and CSG discussion, see Intelligence report, Threat Report, May 16, 2001; NSC memo, CSG agenda, May 17, 2001.

10. See CIA, SEIB, “Terrorist Groups Said Cooperating on US Hostage Plot, ” May 23, 2001; FAA information circular, “Possible Terrorist Threat Against American Citizens, ” IC-2001-08, June 22, 2001 (this IC expired on August 22, 2001);CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Network’s Plans Advancing, ”May 26, 2001; NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, “A day in the life of Terrorism intelligence, ” May 24, 2001.

11. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Stopping Abu Zubaydah’s attacks, May 29, 2001. For threat level, see White House document, “Selected Summer 2001 Threat Response Activities, ” undated, pp. 1--2 (provided to the Commission by President Bush on Apr. 29, 2004).

12. The information regarding KSM was not captioned as a threat. It was part of a longer cable whose subject line was “Terrorism: Biographical Information on Bin Ladin Associates in Afghanistan. ”The cable reported further that KSM himself was regularly traveling to the United States. See Intelligence report, June 12, 2001. This was doubted by the CIA’s Renditions Branch, which had been looking for KSM since 1997. It noted, however, that if the source was talking about the “real” KSM, the CIA had both “a significant threat and opportunity to pick him up. ” See CIA cable, request additional information on KSM, June 26, 2001. A month later, a report from the source indicated that the information regarding KSM’s travel to the United States was current as of the summer of 1998. It noted further, however, that KSM continued his old activities but not specifically the travel to the United States. Significantly, it confirmed that the source was talking about the “real” KSM. See CIA cable, follow-up source on


534 NOTES TO CHAPTER 8


KSM, July 11, 2001. As noted in chapter 7, KSM has said that it was generally well known by the summer of 2001 that he was planning an operation in the United States. Roger Cressey told us he did not recall seeing this reporting, although he would have had access to it. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004). For the summer threat reporting and actions taken in response, see NSC memo, Clarke/Cressey agenda for June 22 CSG meeting, June 20, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats, ” June 25, 2001;CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks, ”June 30, 2001;CIA cable, “Threat UBL Attack Against US Interests Next 24--48 Hours, ” June 22, 2001; FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, June 22, 2001.

13. DOS cable, Riyadh 02326, “U. S. Visa Express Program Transforms NIV Scene in Saudi Arabia, ” Aug. 19, 2001; NSC memo, Current US Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001.

14. See CIA cable, “Possible Threat of Imminent Attack from Sunni Extremists, ” June 23, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Attacks May be Imminent, ” June 23, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats, ” June 25, 2001.

15. See NSC memo, Clarke to CSG regarding that day’s CSG meeting, June 22, 2001; NSC memo, Current U. S. Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001. For the readiness of FESTs, see NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Terrorism Threat Update, June 25, 2001.

16. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Possibility of an al Qaeda Attack, June 25, 2001; CIA report, Foreign Broadcast Information Service, “MBC TV Carries Video Report on Bin Ladin, Followers in Training, ” June 24, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Threats Are Real, ” June 30, 2001; John McLaughlin interview (Jan. 21, 2004); CIA cable, “Continued Threat/Potential Attack by UBL, ” June 29, 2001.

17. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Possibility of an al Qaeda Attack, June 28, 2001; NSC email, Clarke for Rice and others, Terrorist Alert, June 30, 2001.

18. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and others, Terrorist Alert, June 30, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks, ” June 30, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays, ” July 2, 2001.

19. FBI report, National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) message, “National Threat Warning System--Potential Anti-U. S. Terrorist Attacks, ” July 2, 2001.

20. By July 3, DCI Tenet had asked about 20 of his counterparts in friendly foreign intelligence services to detain specific al Qaeda members and to generally harass al Qaeda--affiliated cells. NSC memo, Current U. S. Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001. For specific disruption activities and maintaining alert, see NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Threat Updates, July 6, 2001; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004).

21. For the Cheney call see President Bush andVice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the Hadley call see NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Edelman, Terrorism Alert, July 2, 2001. For the G-8 summit see Associated Press Online, “Bush Faced Threat at G-8 Summit, ” Sept. 26, 2001.

22. Veronica C. interview (May 25, 2004); INS memo, Veronica C. to Cadman, “Briefing at the NSC, ” July 9, 2001; Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004). The Customs representative, Ricardo C. , did send out a general advisory that was based solely on historical facts, such as the Ressam case, to suggest there was a threat. Ricardo C. interview (June 12, 2004).

23. See CIA memo, “CTC Briefing for the Attorney General on the Usama Bin Ladin Terrorist Threat, ” July 5, 2001, and the accompanying CIA briefing materials, “DCI Update Terrorist Threat Review, ” July 3, 2001.

24. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Threat Updates, July 6, 2001.

25. Ibid. ; see also FBI memo, Kevin G. to Watson, “Protective Services Working Group (PSWG) Meeting Held at FBIHQ 7/9/01, ” July 16, 2001, and accompanying attendance sheets.

26. FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, July 20, 2001.

27. Thomas Pickard interview (Apr. 8, 2004).

28. See CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Plans Delayed but Not Abandoned, ” July 13, 2001; CIA, SEIB, “One Bin Ladin Operation Delayed, Others Ongoing, ” July 25, 2001; NSC memo, Cressey to CSG, Threat SVTS, July 23, 2001.

29. FAA information circular, “Continued Middle Eastern Threats to Civil Aviation, ” IC-2001-04A, July 31, 2001.

30. George Tenet interview (Jan. 28, 2004).

31. See CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Threats Are Real, ” June 30, 2001. For Tenet’s response to DOD’s concerns about possible deception, see CIA memo, weekly meeting between Rice andTenet, July 17, 2001;John McLaughlin interview (Jan. 21, 2004); Richard interview (Dec. 11, 2003).

32. NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Threats Update, July 27, 2001.

33. FBI report, NLETS message, “Third Anniversary of the 1998 U. S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa Approaches;Threats to U. S. Interests Continue, ”Aug. 1, 2001.

34. CIA cable, “Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely, ”Aug. 3, 2001.

35. CIA letter, Tenet to the Commission, Mar. 26, 2004; Barbara S. interview (July 13, 2004); Dwayne D. interview (July 13, 2004).


NOTES TO CHAPTER 8 535


36. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For Rice’s reaction to the August 6 PDB article, see Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004.

37. The CTC analyst who drafted the briefing drew on reports over the previous four years. She also spoke with an FBI analyst to obtain additional information. The FBI material was written up by the CIA analyst and included in the PDB. A draft of the report was sent to the FBI analyst to review. The FBI analyst did not, however, see the final version, which added the reference to the 70 investigations. Barbara S. interviews (Apr. 12, 2004); Joint Inquiry interview of Jen M. , Nov. 20, 2002. Because of the attention that has been given to the PDB, we have investigated each of the assertions mentioned in it. The only information that actually referred to a hijacking in this period was a walk-in at an FBI office in the United States who mentioned hijackings among other possible attacks. The source was judged to be a fabricator. FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, Aug. 1, 2001. The FBI conducted an extensive investigation of the two individuals who were stopped after being observed taking photographs of two adjacent buildings that contained FBI offices. The person taking the photographs told the FBI that he was taking them for a co-worker in Indiana who had never been to New York and wanted to see what it looked like. The picture taker was in New York to obtain further information regarding his pending citizenship application. He had an appointment at 26 Federal Plaza, where the relevant INS offices were located. This same building houses portions of the FBI’s New York Field Office. Before going into the building the individual pulled out the camera and took four photographs. When the FBI attempted to contact the co-worker (and roommate) who had requested some photographs, it was determined that he had fled without receiving his last paycheck after learning that the FBI had asked his employer some questions about him. Further investigation determined that he was an illegal alien using forged identity documents. Despite two years of investigation, the FBI was unable to find the co-worker or determine his true identity. The FBI closed the investigation on June 9, 2003, when it concluded that it was unable to connect the men’s activities to terrorism. MAT THEw interview (June 18, 2004); FBI case file, no. 266A-NY-279198. The 70 full-field investigations number was a generous calculation that included fund-raising investigations. It also counted each individual connected to an investigation as a separate full-field investigation. Many of these investigations should not have been included, such as the one that related to a dead person, four that concerned people who had been in long-term custody, and eight that had been closed well before August 6, 2001. Joint Inquiry interview of Elizabeth and Laura, Nov. 20, 2002; FBI report, “70 UBL Cases, ” undated (produced to the Joint Inquiry on Aug. 12, 2002). The call to the UAE was originally reported by the CIA on May 16. It came from an anonymous caller. Neither the CIA nor the FBI was able to corroborate the information in the call. FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, May 16, 2001.

38. See CIA, SEIB, “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US, ”Aug. 7, 2001; see also Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004). The Deputy Director of Central Intelligence testified that the FBI information in the PDB was omitted from the SEIB because of concerns about protecting ongoing investigations, because the information had been received from the FBI only orally, and because there were no clear, established ground rules regarding SEIB contents. John McLaughlin testimony, Apr. 14, 2004.

39. Intelligence report, Consideration by Abu Zubaydah to Attack Targets in the United States, Aug. 24, 2001.

40. George Tenet interview (July 2, 2004).

41. Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004; Condoleezza Rice meeting (Feb. 7, 2004).

42. Stephen Hadley meeting (Jan. 31, 2004).

43. It is also notable that virtually all the information regarding possible domestic threats came from human sources. The information on overseas threats came mainly from signals intelligence. Officials believed that signals intelligence was more reliable than human intelligence. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).

44. NSC memo, Clarke to Rice, al Qaeda review, Jan. 25, 2001 (attaching NSC memo, “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadists Networks of al Qida:Status and Prospects, ”Dec. 2000). Clarke had also mentioned domestic terrorist cells in connection with the possibility of reopening Pennsylvania Avenue. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue, Mar. 23, 2001.

45. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).

46. This approach was consistent with how this same issue was addressed almost exactly a year earlier, despite the fact that by 2001 the threat level was higher than it had ever been previously. On June 30, 2000, NSC counterterrorism staffers met with INS, Customs, and FBI officials to review border and port security measures. The NSC staff ’s Paul Kurtz wrote to then national security adviser Samuel Berger, “We noted while there was no information regarding potential attacks in the U. S. they should inform their officers to remain vigilant. ” NSC email, Kurtz to Berger, Steinberg, and Rudman, warning re: UBL threat reporting, June 30, 2000.

47. FAA briefing materials, Office of Civil Aviation Security, “The Transnational Threat to Civil Aviation, ” undated (slide 24). The presentation did indicate, however, that if a hijacker was intending to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, the terrorist would be likely to prefer a domestic hijacking. Between July 27 and September 11, 2001, the FAA did issue five new Security Directives to air carriers requiring them to take some specific secu

536 NOTES TO CHAPTER 8


rity measures. Two continued certain measures that had been in place for at least a year. Others related only to carrying specific passengers. See FAA security directives, SD 108-98, July 27, 2001; SD 108-00, July 27, 2001; SD 108-

00, July 27, 2001; SD 108-01, Aug. 21, 2001; SD 108-01, Aug. 31, 2001. In order to issue more general warnings without directing carriers to take specific action, the FAA issued Information Circulars. Of the eight such circulars issued between July 2 and September 11, 2001, five highlighted possible threats overseas. See FAA information circulars, “Possible Terrorist Threat--Arabian Peninsula, ” IC-2001-11, July 18, 2001;“Recent Terrorist Activity in the Middle East, ” IC-2001-03B, July 26, 2001; “Continued Middle Eastern Threats to Civil Aviation, ” IC-2001-04A, July 31, 2001;“Violence Increases in Israel, ” IC-2001-07A, Aug. 28, 2001;“ETA Bombs Airports in Spain, ” IC-2001-13, Aug. 29, 2001. One, issued on August 16, warned about the potential use of disguised weapons. FAA information circular, “Disguised Weapons, ” IC-2001-12, Aug. 16, 2001.

48. FAA report, “Record of Air Carrier Briefings--4/18/01 to 9/10/01, ” undated.

49. See Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004; NSC memo, U. S. Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001; FBI electronic communication, HeightenedThreat Advisory, Apr. 13, 2001. For the lack of NSC direction, see Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).

50. Thomas Pickard interview (Apr. 8, 2004). For example, an international terrorism squad supervisor in the Washington Field Office told us he was not aware of an increased threat in the summer of 2001, and his squad did not take any special actions to respond to it. The special agent in charge of the Miami Field Office told us he did not learn of the high level of threat until after September 11. See Washington Field Office agent interview (Apr. 1, 2004); Hector Pesquera interview (Oct. 3, 2003).

51. Dale Watson interview (Jan. 6, 2004).

52. See Thomas Pickard interviews (Jan. 21, 2004; Apr. 8, 2004); Thomas Pickard testimony, Apr. 13, 2004; Thomas Pickard letter to the Commission, June 24, 2004; John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004. We cannot resolve this dispute. Pickard recalls the alleged statement being made at a briefing on July 12. The Department of Justice has informed us that the only people present at that briefing were Pickard, Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, and Ashcroft’s chief of staff, David Ayres. There are no records of the discussions at these briefings. Thompson and Ayres deny Ashcroft made any such statement. Dale Watson, who did not attend any of the briefings, told us that Pickard complained after one of the briefings that Ashcroft did not want to be briefed on the threats because “nothing ever happened. ” Ruben Garcia, head of the FBI’s Criminal Division, who attended some of Pickard’s briefings of the Attorney General but not the one at which Pickard alleges Ashcroft made the statement, recalls that Ashcroft was “not enthusiastic” about the classified portions of the briefings that related to counterterrorism. We have been told that Pickard and Ashcroft did not have a good relationship. This may have influenced their views on the facts surrounding their meetings. Larry Thompson interview (Jan. 29, 2004);Dale Watson interview (June 3, 2004); Ruben Garcia interview (Apr. 29, 2004);Thompson and Ayres letter to the Commission, July 12, 2004.

53. See Thomas Pickard interviews (Jan. 21, 2004;Apr. 8, 2004); John Ashcroft meeting (Dec. 17, 2003); John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004.

54. Indeed, the number of FISA warrants in effect in the summer of 2001 may well have been less than it was at the beginning of the year. Because of problems with inaccuracies in the applications, FISAs were allowed to lapse rather than be renewed with continuing inaccuracies. Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); Marion Bowman interview (Mar. 6, 2004).

55. See CIA cable, Base/FBI comments on draft cable, Nov. 27, 2000; FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Nov. 21, 2000; FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Jan. 10, 2001 (draft).

56. For the recollection of the FBI agent, see Al S. interviews (Aug. 26, 2003; Sept. 15, 2003). See also FBI report of investigation, interview of source, July 18, 2000; attachment to FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Jan. 10, 2001 (draft); FBI electronic communication, UBL investigation, Jan. 16, 2001.

57. For speculation regarding identities, see CIA cable, “Photo of UBL Associate, ” Dec. 27, 2000. Retrospective analysis of available information would have answered that question, but that analysis was not done until after 9/11. For analysis, see Intelligence report, Retrospective review of 11 September 2001 hijackers’ activities, Sept. 23, 2002.

58. CIA cable, “Request for January 2000 Malaysian Surveillance Photos, ” Dec. 12, 2000; CIA cable, “Photo of UBL Associate, ” Dec. 27, 2000; CIA cable, “Review of Malaysia ‘Khaled’ Photos, ” Jan. 5, 2001.

59. The CIA knew that Mihdhar and Khallad had both been to Bangkok in January 2000. They had not yet discovered that Khallad, traveling under an alias, had actually flown to Bangkok with Mihdhar. Still, as Director Tenet conceded in his testimony before the Joint Inquiry, the Kuala Lumpur meeting took on additional significance once Khallad was identified as having attended the meeting. See Joint Inquiry report, p. 149.

60. For Tenet and Black testimony, see Joint Inquiry testimony of George Tenet, Oct. 17, 2002; Joint Inquiry testimony of Cofer Black, Sept. 26, 2002. For documents not available to CIA personnel who drafted the testimony, see, e. g. , FBI electronic communication, UBL investigation, Jan. 16, 2001; FBI emails between Al S. and Michael D. , re: source, Jan. 9-11, 2001; FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Jan. 4, 2001; DOJ Inspector General interview of Jennifer M. , Dec. 9, 2002. For the views of the FBI investigators, see DOJ Inspec


NOTES TO CHAPTER 8 537


tor General interviews of Steve B. , Sept. 16, 2002; Nov. 14, 2002;Al S. interviews (Aug. 26, 2003; Sept. 15, 2003). The DOJ Inspector General came to the same conclusion. See DOJ Inspector General report, “A Review of the FBI’s Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the September 11 Attacks” (hereinafter “DOJ IG 9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, pp. 308--310.

61. DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael D. , Nov. 6, 2002; Michael D. interview (May 4, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Chris, Nov. 27, 2002.

62. For the internal CIA reports to which the FBI did not have access, see CIA cable, “UBL Operative Khallad, ” Jan. 3, 2001; CIA cable, source debriefing, Jan. 5, 2001. The FBI agent informed us that he was unaware how such internal CIA communications worked, or that the operational cables even existed, and so did not know to ask for them. Such messages are routinely not shared in order to protect intelligence sources and methods. In this case, application of the routine procedure did not serve that purpose because the FBI agent was aware of the source’s identity as well as the methods used to obtain the information. Moreover, the FBI agent also may have been absent from the room when the identification was made. The source had brought a sheaf of documents with him that the FBI agent left the room to copy while the interview of the witness continued. Because of the circumstances of the interview site, the agent would have been absent for a significant period of time. In addition, the case officer was frequently given photographs from a broad range of CIA stations to show to this particular witness. He did not focus on the purpose of showing the photographs; he was only concerned with whether the source recognized the individuals. DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael D. , Nov. 6, 2002; Michael D. interview (May 4, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Chris, Nov. 27, 2002.

63. John interview (Apr. 2, 2004). See also CIA email, Dave to John, “Re: Liaison Response, ”May 18, 2001. The old reporting from early 2000 that was reexamined included CIA cable, “Transit of UBL Associate Khalid Through Dubai, ” Jan. 4, 2000; CIA cable, “Recent Influx of Suspected UBL Associates to Malaysia, ” Jan. 5, 2000; CIA cable, “UBL Associates: Flight Manifest for MH072, ” Jan. 9, 2000; CIA cable, “UBL Associates: Identification of Possible UBL Associates, ” Mar. 5, 2000. For cable information, see CIA records, audit of cable databases.

64. For a record of the exchange between John and Dave, see CIA emails, Dave to John, May 17, 18, 24, 2001; CIA email, Richard to Alan, identification of Khallad, July 13, 2001. For the account of John’s FBI counterpart, see Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004). For John’s focus on Malaysia, see DOJ Inspector General interview of John, Nov. 1, 2002.

65. DOJ Inspector General interview of John, Nov. 1, 2002.

66. For the account of the desk officer, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael D. , Oct. 31, 2002. For cable information, see CIA records, audit of cable databases.

67. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; July 16, 2003.

68. DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Dave, Oct. 31, 2002.

69. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; July 16, 2003.

70. DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Dave, Oct.

31, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Russ F. , Sept. 17, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Steve B. , Sept. 16, 2002.

71. “Jane” did not seek OIPR’s permission to share this information at the meeting. “Jane” also apparently did not realize that one of the agents in attendance was a designated intelligence agent, so she could have shared all of the information with that agent regardless of the caveats. No one who was at the meeting suggested that option, however. DOJ Inspector General interview of Steve B. , Sept. 16, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, July 16, 2003. These caveats were different from the legal limits we discussed in section 3. 2. The Attorney General’s July 1995 procedures concerned FISA information developed in an FBI intelligence investigation. This, however, was NSA information. These particular caveats were the result of the Justice Department’s and NSA’s overabundance of caution in December 1999. During the millennium crisis, Attorney General Reno authorized electronic surveillance of three U. S. persons overseas. Because the searches were not within the United States, no FISA warrant was needed. Reno approved the surveillances pursuant to section 2. 5 of Executive Order 12333 with the proviso that the results of these particular surveillances not be shared with criminal investigators or prosecutors without the approval of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. Because of the complexity of determining whether particular reporting was the fruit of particular surveillances, NSA decided to place these caveats on all its Bin Ladin--related reporting, not just reporting on the surveillances authorized by Reno. As a result, these caveats were placed on the reports relating to Mihdhar even though they were not covered by Reno’s December 1999 order. See DOJ memo, Reno to Freeh, FISA surveillance of a suspected al Qaeda operative, Dec. 24, 1999; NSA email, William L. to Karen C. , “distribution restrictions, ”Dec. 10, 1999; NSA email, William L. to Anthony L. , “doj restrictions, ” Dec. 20, 1999; NSA email, William L. to Brian C. , “dissemination of terrorism reporting, ” Dec. 29, 1999. See also NSA memo, Ann D. to others, “Reporting Guidance, ” Dec. 30, 1999. In May 2000, it was brought to the Attorney General’s attention that these caveats prevented certain attorneys in the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS) from reading the reporting. After discussions with NSA, the caveats were changed to specifically permit dissemination of these reports to designated attorneys in the TVCS and


538 NOTES TO CHAPTER 8


two attorneys in the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. See NSA memo, Joan R. to Townsend and Reynolds, “Resumed Delivery of Classified Intelligence to TVCS, ” June 9, 2000;NSA memo, Hayden to Asst. Attorney General, “Proposal to Provide UBL-related Product to U. S. Attorney’s Office/Southern District of New York, ”Aug. 30, 2000.

72. For the facts known by Dave at this time, see CIA records, audit of cable databases; see also CIA email, Dave to John, timeline entries, May 15, 2001. For CIA analyst’s role, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Dave, Oct. 31, 2002. For Jane’s account, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, July 16, 2003.

73. DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002.

74. For Mary’s account, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002. For the reporting regarding Mihdhar and Hazmi, see CIA cable, Khalid’s passport, Jan. 4, 2000; CIA cable, Mihdhar’s visa application, Jan.

5, 2000; CIA cable, Hazmi entered U. S. , Mar. 6, 2000. For Mary’s cable access information, see CIA records, audit of cable databases.

75. DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002.

76. DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002; Intelligence report, Watchlisting of Bin Ladin--related individuals, Aug. 23, 2001; Joint Inquiry testimony of Christopher Kojm, Sept. 19, 2002. The watchlist request included Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf (they did not yet realize this was an alias for Tawfiq bin Attash, a. k. a. Khallad), and Ahmad Hikmat Shakir (who assisted Mihdhar in Kuala Lumpur).

77. Jane told investigators that she viewed this matter as just another lead and so assigned no particular urgency to the matter. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, July 16, 2003; Nov. 4, 2002. For the draft lead, see attachment to FBI email, Jane to Craig D. , “Re: FFI Request, ”Aug. 28, 2001. For the final version, see FBI electronic communication, “Request to Open a Full Field Investigation, ”Aug. 28, 2001.

78. FBI email, Craig D. to John L. , “Fwd: Re: FFI Request, ”Aug. 28, 2001; FBI email, John L. to Steve and others, “Fwd: Re: FFI Request, ”Aug. 28, 2001. For an introduction to these legal limits and “the wall, ” see section 3. 2. In December 2000, pursuant to concerns of the FISA Court, the New York Field Office began designating certain agents as either intelligence or criminal agents. Intelligence agents could see FISA materials and any other information that bore cautions about sharing without obtaining the FISA Court’s permission or permission from the Justice Department’s OIPR. FBI electronic communication, “Instructions re FBI FISA Policy, ”Dec. 7, 2000.

79. While one witness recalls a discussion with a senior FBI official, that official denies that such a discussion took place. The other alleged participant does not recall such a meeting. John interview (Apr. 2, 2004); Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); Jane interview (July 13, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Rodney M. , Nov. 5, 2002. For investigation’s goal, see FBI electronic communication, “Request to Open a Full Field Investigation, ” Aug. 28, 2001.

80. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, July 16, 2003; Nov. 4, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interviews of Steve B. , Sept. 16, 2002; Nov. 14, 2002; Jane interview ( July 13, 2004). FBI email, Jane to John L. , “Fwd: Re: FFI Request, ”Aug. 29, 2001. The analyst’s email, however, reflects that she was confusing a broad array of caveats and legal barriers to information sharing and rules governing criminal agents’ use of information gathered through intelligence channels. There was no broad prohibition against sharing information gathered through intelligence channels with criminal agents. This type of sharing occurred on a regular basis in the field. The court’s procedures did not apply to all intelligence gathered regardless of collection method or source. Moreover, once information was properly shared, the criminal agent could use it for further investigation.

81. FBI email, Jane to Steve, NSLU Response, Aug. 29, 2001. “Jane” says she only asked whether there was sufficient probable cause to open the matter as a criminal case and whether the criminal agent could attend any interview if Mihdhar was found. She said the answer she received to both questions was no. She did not ask whether the underlying information could have been shared. Jane interview ( July 13, 2004). The NSLU attorney denies advising that the agent could not participate in an interview and notes that she would not have given such inaccurate advice. The attorney told investigators that the NSA caveats would not have precluded criminal agents from joining in any search for Mihdhar or from participating in any interview. Moreover, she said that she could have gone to the NSA and obtained a waiver of any such caveat because there was no FISA information involved in this case. There are no records of the conversation between “Jane” and the attorney. “Jane” did not copy the attorney on her email to the agent, so the attorney did not have an opportunity to confirm or reject the advice “Jane” was giving to the agent. DOJ Inspector General interview of Sherry S. , Nov. 7, 2002. “Jane” asked the New York agent assigned to the Mihdhar search to sign a FISA acknowledgment form indicating the agent understood how he had to treat FISA information. Because no FISA information was involved, she should not have required him to sign such a form. To the extent she believed, incorrectly, that the Attorney General’s 1995 procedures applied to this situation, there was in fact an exception in place for New York. DOJ Inspector General interview of Sherry S. , Nov. 7, 2002. More fundamentally, “Jane” apparently understood the welter of restrictions to mean, in workday shorthand, that any information gathered by intelligence agencies should


NOTES TO CHAPTER 8 539


not be shared with criminal agents. This was incorrect. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, July 16, 2003; Nov. 4, 2002.

82. FBI emails between Steve B. and Jane, re: NSLU Response, Aug. 29, 2001. While the agent expressed his frustration with the situation to “Jane, ” he made no effort to press the matter further by discussing his concerns with either his supervisor or the chief division counsel in New York.

83. Attorney General Ashcroft testified to us that this and similar information-sharing issues arose from Attorney General Reno’s 1995 guidelines, discussed in chapter 3, and specifically from a March 1995 memorandum of then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004; DOJ memo, Gorelick to White, “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations, ” Mar. 4, 1995. We believe the Attorney General’s testimony does not fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions. Whatever the merits of the March 1995 Gorelick memorandum and the subsequent July 1995 Attorney General procedures on information sharing, they did not apply to the information the analyst decided she could not share with the criminal agent. As discussed earlier, the reason “Jane” decided she could not share information was because the initial information on Mihdhar had been analyzed by the NSA. This reason was unrelated to either of the 1995 documents. The Gorelick memorandum applied to two particular criminal cases, neither of which was involved in the summer 2001 information-sharing discussions. As the FBI agent observed in his email, Part A of the 1995 procedures applied only to information obtained pursuant to a FISA warrant. None of the Mihdhar material was FISA information. There was an exemption for the Southern District of New York from Part B of the 1995 procedures, so they did not apply. Also, the 1995 procedures did not govern whether information could be shared between intelligence and criminal agents within the FBI, a separation that the Bureau did not begin making formally until long after the procedures were in place. The 1995 procedures governed only the sharing of information with criminal prosecutors. Even in that situation, the restriction obliged running the information through the OIPR screen. What had happened, as we discussed in chapter 3, was a growing battle within the Justice Department during the 1990s, and between parts of Justice and the FISA Court, over the scope of OIPR’s screening function and the propriety of using FISA-derived information in criminal matters. The FISA Court’s concern with FBI sloppiness in its FISA applications also began to take a toll: the court began designating itself as the gatekeeper for the sharing of intelligence information; the FBI was required to separately designate criminal and intelligence agents; and the court banned one supervisory FBI agent from appearing before it. By late 2000, these factors had culminated in a set of complex rules and a widening set of beliefs--a bureaucratic culture--that discouraged FBI agents from even seeking to share intelligence information. Neither Attorney General acted to resolve the conflicting views within the Justice Department. Nor did they challenge the strict interpretation of the FISA statute set forth by the FISA Court and OIPR. Indeed, this strict interpretation remained in effect until the USA PATRIOT Act was passed after 9/11. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information the analyst possessed could not have been shared with the criminal agent. On August 27, “Jane” requested the NSA’s permission to share the information with the criminal agents, but she intended for the information only to help the criminal agents in their ongoing Cole investigation. She still did not believe they could be involved in the intelligence investigation even if the NSA permitted the information to be shared. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 339. The next day the NSA notified its representative at FBI headquarters that it had approved the passage of the information to the criminal agents. NSC email, Carlene C. to Richard K. , “Response to FBI Sanitization Request, ”Aug. 28, 2001. Thus, “Jane” had permission to share the information with the criminal agent prior to their August 29 emails.

84. DOJ Inspector General interview of Robert F. , Dec. 18, 2002; FBI electronic communication, Los Angeles lead, Sept. 10, 2001.

85. Hazmi and Mihdhar used their true names to obtain California driver’s licenses and open New Jersey bank accounts. Hazmi also had a car registered and had been listed in the San Diego telephone book. Searches of readily available databases could have unearthed the driver’s licenses, the car registration, and the telephone listing. A search on the car registration would have unearthed a license check by the South Hackensack Police Department that would have led to information placing Hazmi in the area and placing Mihdhar at a local hotel for a week in early July 2001. The hijackers actively used the New Jersey bank accounts, through ATM, debit card, and cash transactions, until September 10. Among other things, they used their debit cards to pay for hotel rooms; and Hazmi used his card on August 27 to purchase tickets on Flight 77 for himself and his brother (and fellow hijacker), Salem al Hazmi. These transactions could have helped locate them if the FBI had obtained the bank records in time. There would have been no easy means, however, to determine the existence of these accounts, and obtaining bank cooperation pre-9/11 might have been problematic. The most likely means of successfully finding the men in the short time available was one not often used pre-9/11 for suspected terrorists: an FBI BOLO (be on the lookout) combined with a media campaign. This alone might have delayed or disrupted the plot, even if the men had not been physically located before September 11. But this would have been considered only if the FBI believed that they were about to carry out an imminent attack. No one at the FBI--or any other agency--believed that at the time.


540 NOTES TO CHAPTER 8


See FBI report, financial spreadsheet re: 9/11 hijackers, undated;South Hackensack, N. J. , Police Department report, Detective Bureau Report, Oct. 17, 2001 (case no. 20018437). According to Ramzi Binalshibh, had KSM known that Moussaoui had been arrested, he would have canceled the 9/11 attacks. Intelligence report, interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh, Feb. 14, 2003. The publicity regarding Mihdhar and Hazmi might have had a similar effect because they could have been identified by the airlines and might have jeopardized the operation.

86. Joint Inquiry report, pp. xiii, 325--335; DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 59--106.

87. FBI electronic communication, Phoenix memo, July 10, 2001.

88. Ibid. ; Joint Inquiry report, pp. 325--335; DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 59--106.

89. DOJ Inspector General interview of Kenneth Williams, July 22, 2003.

90. Unlike Moussaoui, the typical student at Pan Am Flight Academy holds an FAA Airline Transport Pilot rating or the foreign equivalent, is employed by an airline, and has several thousand flight hours. Moussaoui also stood out for several other reasons. He had paid nearly $9, 000 in cash for the training, yet had no explanation for the source of these funds; he had asked to fly a simulated flight from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport; and he was also particularly interested in the operation of the aircraft doors. FBI electronic communication, Request OIPR permission to contact U. S. Attorney’s Office regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug.

18, 2001. For a detailed, step-by-step chronology of activities taken regarding Moussaoui prior to September 11, see DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 109--197.

91. FBI electronic communication, Request OIPR permission to contact U. S. Attorney’s Office regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 18, 2001.

92. DOJ Inspector General interview of Harry S. , June 6, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J. , July 9, 2002; FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 19, 2001.

93. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 128.

94. Criminal search warrants must be approved by Department of Justice attorneys before submission to the court. Therefore, approval from the Minneapolis U. S. Attorney’s Office was required before a criminal search warrant could be obtained. DOJ Inspector General interview of Coleen Rowley, July 16, 2002. Another agent, however, said that he spoke to an Assistant U. S. Attorney in the Minneapolis office and received advice that the facts were almost sufficient to obtain a criminal warrant. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J. , July 9, 2002. The Assistant United States Attorney said that if the FBI had asked for a criminal warrant that first night, he would have sought it. He believed that there was sufficient probable cause for a criminal warrant at that time. DOJ Inspector General interview of William K. , May 29, 2003. Mary Jo White, the former U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, told us that based on her review of the evidence known pre-9/11, she would have approved a criminal search warrant. Mary Jo White interview (May 17, 2004). Because the agents never presented the information to the Minneapolis U. S. Attorney’s Office before 9/11, we cannot know for sure what its judgment would have been or whether a judge would have signed the warrant. In any event, the Minneapolis agents were concerned that if they tried to first obtain a criminal warrant but the U. S. Attorney’s Office or the judge refused, the FISA Court might reject an application for a FISA warrant on the grounds that the agents were attempting to make an end run around the criminal process. Therefore, it was judged too risky to seek a criminal warrant unless it was certain that it would be approved. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J. , July 9, 2002. In addition, FBI headquarters specifically instructed Minneapolis that it could not open a criminal investigation. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 138. Finally, the Minneapolis Field Office mistakenly believed that the 1995 Attorney General procedures required OIPR’s approval before it could contact the U. S. Attorney’s Office about obtaining a criminal warrant.

95. The FISA definition of “foreign power” includes “a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor. ”

96. FBI electronic communication, Request to contact U. S. Attorney’s Office regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 18, 2001. For CTC contact, see FBI email, Harry S. to Chuck F. , “Please Pass To [desk officer], ”Aug. 24, 2001; FBI email, Harry S. to Chuck F. , “Re: Fwd: 199M-MP-60130 (Zacarias Moussaoui), ”Aug. 24, 2001.

97. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J. , July 9, 2002; FBI electronic communication, Moussaoui investigation, Aug. 22, 2002; FBI electronic communication, Moussaoui investigation, Aug. 30, 2002.

98. FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 21, 2001; CIA cable, subjects involved in suspicious 747 flight training, Aug. 24, 2001; CIA cable, “Zacarias Moussaoui and Husayn ‘Ali Hasan Ali-Attas, ”Aug. 28, 2001; Joseph H. , interview (May 4, 2004); FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Sept. 5, 2001.

99. FBI teletype, “Zacarias Moussaoui--International Terrorism, ” Sept. 4, 2001.

100. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J. , July 9, 2002.

101. Minneapolis may have been more concerned about Moussaoui’s intentions because the case agent and the supervisory agent were both pilots. They were, therefore, more highly sensitized to the odd nature of Moussaoui’s actions and comments regarding flying. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J. , July 9, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Harry S. , June 20, 2002.

102. DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael Rolince, May 5, 2004; Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 168--170, 188.


NOTES TO CHAPTER 8 541


103. CIA briefing materials, DCI Update, “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly, ”Aug. 23, 2001. Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin testified that he was told about Moussaoui several days before Tenet was briefed, although he did not recall the specific date of the briefing. John McLaughlin testimony, Apr. 14, 2004.

104. George Tenet interviews (Jan. 28, 2004; July 2, 2004).

105. For the renewed request, see FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Sept. 11, 2001. For the initial British response, see British Security Service memo, re: Zacarias Moussaoui, Sept. 12, 2001; information provided to the Commission by the British government;British liaison telex, “Zacarias Moussaoui--Background Information, ” Sept. 13, 2001. See also Joseph H. interview (May 4, 2004).

106. Joint Inquiry report (classified version), pp. 340--341. Notably, the FBI analyst “Mary” who was looking at the Mihdhar information suggested that the U. S. government talk to Ressam to see if he knew anything about Mihdhar. See CIA email, Mary to John, seeking identification by Ressam, Aug. 21, 2001. There is no evidence that Ressam was asked about Moussaoui or Mihdhar prior to 9/11.

107. According to Ramzi Binalshibh, had KSM known that Moussaoui had been arrested, he would have cancelled the 9/11 attacks. Intelligence report, interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh, Feb. 14, 2003.

108. Joint Inquiry report (classified version), pp. 329--331; Joint Inquiry interview of Mike, Alice, Larry, John, Terry, Aug. 12, 2002.

109. CIA cable, Key UBL personalities, Sept. 25, 2000.

110. CIA cable, Mukhtar information, May 23, 2002.

111. CIA cable, Biographical Information on Key UBL Associates in Afghanistan, June 11, 2001; Intelligence report, biographical information on Bin Ladin associates in Afghanistan, June 12, 2001. For the subsequent identification, see CIA cable, follow-up source on KSM, July 11, 2001.

112. For the reporting identifying Mukhtar as KSM, see CIA cable, source information re:KSM, Aug. 28, 2001.

113. John interview (Apr. 2, 2004). 9 Heroism and Horror 1. For the WTC’s layout, see Port Authority diagrams, “World Trade Center Concourse Level, ” “Concourse Level, ” and “Plaza Level, ” undated. For the number of square feet of office space, see Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report, “World Trade Center Building Performance Study, ” undated. For the number of workers and passersby, see Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004). For the dimensions, see FEMA report, “World Trade Center Building Performance Study, ” undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

2. See Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

3. Ibid. These deviations were necessary because of the placement of heavy elevators and machine rooms, and were located between the 42nd and 48th floors and the 76th and 82nd floors in both towers. For the doors being closed but unlocked, see Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004).

4. For rooftop access and evacuations, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. For the helipad not conforming, see PANYNJ interview 14 (July 8, 2004). In the interests of promoting candor and protecting privacy, we agreed not to identify most individuals we interviewed. Individuals are identified by a code, and individuals’ ranks or units are disclosed only in a broad manner.

5. For the 1993 attack’s effect, see Alan Reiss testimony, May 18, 2004. For the attack’s testing the city’s response capability, see FDNY report, “Report from the Chief of Department, Anthony L. Fusco, ” in William Manning, ed. , The World Trade Center Bombing: Report and Analysis (FEMA, undated), p. 11.

6. For the towers’ loss of power and the other effects, see New York City report, “Report of the World Trade Center Review Committee, ” 1995, p. 4. For generators’ shutting down, see Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004). For the rescue efforts, see FDNY report, “Report from the Chief of Department, Anthony L. Fusco, ” in Manning, ed. , The World Trade Center Bombing, p. 11. For the evacuation time, see PANYNJ interview 5 (May 15, 2004).

7. For information on rooftop evacuations, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004; NYPD interview 25, Aviation (June 21, 2004). For the rappel rescue, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. For figure of 15 hours, see “World Trade Center Bombing, ” NY Cop Online Magazine, Dec. 12, 2000 (online at www. nycop. com). For the general false impression, see Civilian interview 3 (May 4, 2004); Commission analysis of letters written to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) concerning the September 11 attacks. For the WTC fire safety plan, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

8. For the upgrades, see Port Authority memorandum to the Commission for Nov. 3, 2003, meeting; Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004).

9. For the upgrades, see Port Authority memorandum to the Commission for Nov. 3, 2003, meeting; Port


542 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. For the fire alarm, see PANYNJ interview 10 (June 16, 2004); PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004).

10. Port Authority memorandum to Commission for Nov. 3, 2003 meeting;WTC interview 6 (May 25, 2004).

11. For fire safety teams, see PANYNJ Interview 7 (Jun. 2, 2004). For fire drill procedures, see Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004). For aids to the September 11 evacuation, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004); Civilian interview 20 (May 4, 2004); Civilian interview 21 (May 4, 2004); Civilian Interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004).

12. For instructions to civilians, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 20 (May 4, 2004); Civilian interview 21 (May 4, 2004); Civilian interview 12 (May 4, 2004); Stanley Praimnath testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped). For civilians’ participation, see Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004); Civilian interview 15 (Apr. 21, 2004); Commission analysis of letters written to OSHA concerning the September 11 attacks. For civilians not being instructed not to evacuate up, see Port Authority briefing (May 13, 2004). For the standard fire drill announcement, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. For civilians’ recollection, see Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004). For Port Authority acknowledgment of lack of a protocol, see PANYNJ interview 2 (Apr. 14, 2004).

13. For SPI transition, see PANYNJ Interview 11 (Jun. 23, 2004);Alan Reiss prepared statement, May 18, 2004, p. 8. For fire safety plan, see PANYNJ Interview 8 (June 6, 2004).

14. See Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) report, “Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, ” undated (online at www. panynj. gov).

15. PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004).

16. For 40, 000 officers, see NYPD information provided to the Commission, July 9, 2004. For standard operating procedures, see NYPD regulations, “Patrol Guide: Rapid Mobilization, ” and “Patrol Guide: Mobilization Readiness Levels, ” Jan. 1, 2000.

17. For the 35 radio zones, see NYPD report, “Radio Zones, ” undated. For other citywide radio channels, see, e. g. , NYPD report, “Transit Patrol VHF, ” undated; NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

18. For the NYPD supervising the emergency call system and employing more than 1, 200 people, see NYPD report, “Communications Section, ” undated (online at www. nyc. gov/html/nypd/html/otsd/ commsec. html). For fire emergencies being transferred to the FDNY dispatch, see FDNY interview 28, Dispatch (Jan. 29, 2004).

19. See FDNY email to the Commission, July 9, 2004;Thomas Von Essen interview (Apr. 7, 2004). For operations being headed by the sole five-star chief, see FDNY regulations, “Regulations” chapter of “Operational Procedures and Policies, ” July 1999.

20. For department organization, see FDNY report, “Unit Location Chart, ” Sept. 11, 2001;FDNY regulations, “Firefighting Procedures, ”“Engine Company, ” and “Ladder Company Operations” chapters of “Operational Procedures and Policies, ” July 1999.

21. FDNY interview 48, SOC (Mar. 11, 2004).

22. FDNY interview 28, Dispatch (Jan. 29, 2004). Each center was staffed at all times with a supervisor and seven dispatchers who worked in 12-hour tours. Positions included a decision dispatcher, responsible for directing the appropriate fire apparatus to the scene; a voice alarm or notification dispatcher, responsible for intra- and interagency communications; a radio in and radio out dispatcher who tracked the movement of fire apparatuses; and three alarm dispatchers, responsible for sending the appropriate number of units to a fire scene to correspond with the designated alarm level. Ibid.

23. FDNY regulations, “Communications” chapter of “Operational Procedures and Policies, ”July 1999;FDNY interview 60, HQ (May 11, 2004); FDNY interview 64, HQ (June 30, 2004).

24. FDNY report, “Report from the Chief of Department, Anthony L. Fusco, ” in Manning, ed. , The World Trade Center Bombing, p. 11.

25. PANYNJ interview 1 (Nov. 6, 2003); PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004). In early 2001, NewYork provided its firefighters with new digital radios. The procurement process for these radios remains controversial, and they proved unpopular with the rank and file, who believed that adequate training in their use had not been provided. The new radios were withdrawn shortly after they had been introduced into the field. While the new radios briefly were in service, the WTC repeater channel could be left on at all times, because the new radios operated on entirely different frequencies and thus were not vulnerable to interference from the repeater system. Thomas Von Essen interview (Apr. 7, 2004). For the new radios permitting the repeater to stay on, see PANYNJ interview 1 (Nov. 6, 2003); PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004).

26. For civilian fatalities, see New York City press release, Office of the Mayor Press Release No. 042-01, Feb. 8, 2001. For firefighter fatalities, see Terry Golway, So Others Might Live (Basic Books, 2002), p. 304.

27. For the creation of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), see Rudolph Giuliani interview (Apr. 20, 2004). For OEM’s purposes, see Richard Sheirer interview (Apr. 7, 2004). For OEM’s sending field responder, see ibid. ; OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004). Other data monitored by OEM’s Watch Command included Emergency Medical Service data regarding patterns of illness (to spot a potential epidemic in its early stages), live video feeds from NewYork Harbor and city streets, and television news channels. Richard Sheirer interview (Apr. 7, 2004);


NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 543


OEM interview 3 (Mar. 16, 2004). The Watch Command’s monitoring of EMS data proved instrumental in an extremely early identification and then highly effective containment of the 1999 West Nile outbreak, which likely would have resulted in many more fatalities but for OEM. Richard Sheirer interview (Apr. 7, 2004).

28. Richard Sheirer testimony (May 18, 2004); OEM interview 3 (Mar. 16, 2004).

29. NewYork City memo, “Direction and Control of Emergencies in the City of NewYork, ” July 2001 (signed by Mayor Giuliani).

30. For the exact time of impact, see FAA analysis of American 11 radar returns and Commission analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic. For the zone of impact, see National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, “Interim Report on the Federal Building Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center, ” June 28, 2004. On people alive on the 92nd floor and above after the impact, see Commission analysis of conditions on tower floors and advice received by civilians in the towers based on (1) calls to NYPD 911 from or concerning people in the towers on September 11, 2001, and (2) transcripts of recorded calls to the Port Authority police desk from people in the towers on September 11, 2001 (hereafter “Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls”). Everyone alive on the 91st floor was able to evacuate. Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004). For civilians being alive but trapped, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls; Civilian interview 17 (May 11, 2004); Civilian interview 2 (Mar. 19, 2004).

31. For fire in the 77th floor elevator and damage to the 22nd floor, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls; Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel 8, p. 4 (22nd floor). For a fireball in the lobby, see PAPD interview 1, WTC Command (Oct. 14, 2003); Civilian interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004). Burning jet fuel descended at least one elevator bank. FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004). For the roofs being engulfed and the winds, see, e. g. , NYPD interview 16, Aviation (Apr. 1, 2004).

32. Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

33. Ibid.

34. For the on-duty fire safety director’s perspective, seeWTC interview 6 (May 25, 2004). For the chiefs being told by the Port Authority fire safety director that the evacuation order was given earlier, see PANYNJ interview 13 (Nov. 20, 2003). For him no longer being the designated fire safety director, see PANYNJ interview 11 (June 23, 2004).

35. For public announcements not being heard, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 9 (Mar. 23, 2004); Civilian interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. The evacuation tone was heard in some locations below the impact. Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For some emergency intercoms being unusable, see WTC interview 9 (June 8, 2004); Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001. For evidence that some were usable, see WTC interview 6 (May 25, 2004).

36. For callers being disconnected, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For the standard operating procedure and only a few people being available, causing calls to be transferred, see FDNY interview 28, Dispatch (Jan. 29, 2004). For delays and terminations, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

37. For operators’ and dispatchers’ situational awareness and instructions to callers, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For standard operating procedures for a high-rise fire, see FDNY interview 28, Dispatch (Jan. 29, 2004). For the fire chiefs’ view, see FDNY interview 61, Chief (May 12, 2004); FDNY interview 62, Chief (May 12, 2004). For many injuries occurring during the evacuation, see Zachary Goldfarb and Steven Kuhr, “EMS Response to the Explosion, ” in Manning, ed. , The World Trade Center Bombing, p. 94.

38. FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004): FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004).

39. For operators’ and dispatchers’ lack of knowledge, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For operators departing from protocol, see ibid.

40. Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls; Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel 9, pp. 1--2, 23--24; channel 10, pp. 2, 6, 23.

41. See Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004); Civilian interview 9 (Mar. 23, 2004). For Port Authority employees remaining, see Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004), Port Authority report, September 11 Special Awards Ceremony, vol. 1, undated (recognitions 2, 3, 4, and 5).

42. For trouble reaching exits, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 9 (Mar. 23, 2004). For “locked” doors, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian Interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004);WTC interview 9 (June 8, 2004); Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004).

43. For smoke rising and its effect, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For people jumping, see Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls; Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, vol. II, WTC channel 26 (channel W), Sept. 11, 2001, pp. 4--6.

44. There is no evidence of a dispute between Morgan Stanley and the Port Authority over the Port Authority’s “defend in place”evacuation policy before September 11. For occupants who were unaware of what happened, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004). For civilians concluding that the incident had occurred in the other building, see Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004). For others being aware that


544 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


a major incident had occurred, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004);Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004). Some of them could actually feel the heat from the explosion in the North Tower. See, e. g. , Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004); Civilian interview 15 (Apr. 21, 2004). For people deciding to leave or being advised to do so by fire wardens, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004); Civilian statement 1, undated. For Morgan Stanley occupying 20 floors and ordering its employees to leave, see Civilian interview 19 (June 6, 2004).

45. Port Authority, transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel 17, p. 1; PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004). Fire command stations were equipped with manuals containing prescripted announcements corresponding to a number of specified emergencies. Once the FDNY arrived on the scene, however, all decisions relating to evacuation or other emergency procedures were left to its discretion.

46. When a notable event occurred, it was standard procedure for the on-duty deputy fire safety director to make an “advisory” announcement to tenants who were affected by or might be aware of the incident, in order to acknowledge the incident and to direct tenants to stand by for further instructions. The purpose of advisory announcements, as opposed to “emergency” announcements (such as to evacuate), was to reduce panic. PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004); Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. For the content of the announcement, see, e. g. , Brian Clark testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped);Civilian interview 3 (May 4, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian statement 1, undated. For the protocol and prescripted announcements and the death of the director of fire safety and the deputy fire safety director, see PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004);PANYNJ interview 12 (July 7, 2004). For people not thinking a second plane would hit, see, e. g. , PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004). For the quotation, see FDNY interview 63, Chief (May 16, 2004). For civilians remaining, see Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004);Civilian interview 16 (Apr. 27, 2004);Commission analysis of letters written to OSHA concerning the September 11 attacks. For civilians returning after evacuating, see Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 11 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Commission analysis of letters written to OSHA concerning the September 11 attacks.

47. For advice on the ground floor, see Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004). Nineteen of them returned upstairs, where 18 died; the 20th was told by her supervisor, who was in the group, to leave rather than return upstairs. The supervisor also survived. Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004). For advice in the sky lobbies, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 15 (Apr. 21, 2004). For security officials not being part of the fire safety staff, see PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004).

48. For people told to stand by, see Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel 8, pp. 7--8. For people advised to leave, see ibid. , vol. II, channel 9, pp. 2, 4, 9.

49. It is also not known if the deputy fire safety director received the order by the PAPD to evacuate the complex; however, the Port Authority has told us that deputy fire safety directors did not generally take direct orders from the PAPD under the regular chain of command. PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004). For the announcement, see Civilian interview 16 (Apr. 27, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004). For the announcement’s deviating from protocol, see PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004).

50. For senior leaders’ response by 9:00 A. M. , see FDNY interview 18, Chief (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 54, Chief (Apr. 15, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003); FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004); FDNY interview 27, HQ (Jan. 28, 2004). For the Chief of Department’s and Chief of Operation’s actions, see FDNY interview 18, Chief (Jan. 22, 2004). For senior leaders’ response by 9:59, see FDNY report, McKinsey & Company, “FDNY Report, ”Aug. 19, 2002, p. 32.

51. FDNY interview 60, HQ (May 11, 2004); see FDNY record, computer-aided dispatch report, Sept. 11, 2001, 08:47:20--9:00:00.

52. For the chief ’s and companies’ arrival, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004). For burned civilians, see FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004). For the building’s physical conditions, see FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004). For conditions in the lobby, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001.

53. For the initial incident commander and command post location, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004). For the transfer of incident command, see FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004). For ascertaining building systems’ status from building personnel, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); PANYNJ interview 13 (Nov. 20, 2003); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004). For speaking with OEM and PAPD officials, see FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001.

54. For the ladder and engine companies’ climb, see FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2 (Apr. 22, 2004); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001. For tactical 1, see FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2 (Apr. 22, 2004). For other units lining up in the lobby, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001.

55. For FDNY instructing building personnel and PAPD to evacuate the South Tower, see FDNY interview


NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 545


4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); PANYNJ interview 13 (Nov. 20, 2003). For lack of concern about a second plane, see FDNY interview 63, Chief (May 16, 2004).

56. FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004).

57. For their situational awareness, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004) (quotation).

58. Peter Hayden testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped).

59. On the lack of information, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004).

60. On the staging areas, see FDNY interview 47, Chief (Mar. 11, 2004); FDNY interview 44, Chief (Mar. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 33, EMS (Feb. 9, 2004). For EMS’s response, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001. For private ambulances responding, see FDNY interview 35, EMS (Feb. 10, 2004).

61. NYPD recordings, CityWide 1, Special Operations Division, and Divisions 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001.

62. For the Chief of Department’s actions, see NYPD interview 8, HQ (Feb. 24, 2004). For the number of officers, see NYPD regulations, “Patrol Guide: Rapid Mobilization, ” Jan. 1, 2000; NYPD recordings, City Wide 1 and Divisions 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001.

63. For shifting the mobilization point, see NYPD interview 17, 1st Precinct (Apr. 1, 2004). For stationing officers around the perimeter, see NYPD recordings, City Wide 1, Special Operations Division, and Divisions 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001. For officers being diverted, see, e. g. , NYPD interview 21, 6th Precinct (May 4, 2004).

64. For the helicopters’ dispatch, see NYPD records, “Aviation Unit Flight Data Sheets, ” Sept. 11, 2001. For communications with air traffic controllers and their situational awareness, see NYPD interview 12, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 14, Aviation (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 13, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 16, Aviation (Apr. 1, 2004).

65. NYPD recording, Special Operations Division radio channel, Sept. 11, 2001.

66. For the third helicopter, see NYPD records, “Aviation Unit Flight Data Sheets, ” Sept. 11, 2001. For the helicopters’ subsequent actions and protocol, see NYPD interview 12, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 14, Aviation (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 13, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 16, Aviation (Apr. 1, 2004); NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004).

67. Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls;NYPD recordings, City Wide 1, Special Operations, and Division 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001.

68. NYPD memo, requests for departmental recognition 4 and 6, Jun. 26, 2002. For those on the 22nd floor apparently not being located, see PANYNJ recognition 1, undated.

69. NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

70. For other officers’ positioning, see NYPD interview 20, Manhattan SouthTask Force (May 4, 2004);NYPD interview 21, 6th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 19, 13th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 4, Housing (Feb. 17, 2004); PAPD interview 4, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command (Nov. 20, 2003). For officers assisting in the North Tower evacuation, see NYPD memo, request for departmental recognition 1 and 2, June 26, 2002.

71. NYPD recording, Transit Division 1 radio channel, Sept. 11, 2001.

72. NYPD recordings, CityWide 1, Special Operations Division, and Divisions 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001.

73. For the on-site commanding officer’s actions, see PAPD interview 1, WTC command (Oct. 14, 2003). For the on-duty sergeant’s initial instructions, see PAPD statement 3, WTC Command (Nov. 12, 2001). For his instructions to meet at the desk, see PAPD statement 3, WTC Command (Nov. 12, 2001); PAPD statement 12, WTC Command (Mar. 28, 2002). On the scarcity of radios, see PAPD statement 9, PATH Command (Jan. 28, 2002); PAPD statement 8, WTC Command (Jan. 12, 2002).

74. PAPD interview 7, WTC Command (Nov. 25, 2003).

75. For the response, see PAPD statement 2, WTC Command (Nov. 10, 2001). For the lack of such written standard operating procedures, see PAPD interview 3, LaGuardia Airport Command (Nov. 20, 2003); PAPD regulations, “ Manual of Police Division Instructions, ” undated (in existence before 9/11). Instead, the PAPD relied on tradition to dictate its response procedures. On the lack of interoperable frequencies, see PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004); PAPD statement 9, PATH Command (Jan. 28, 2002).

76. For the evacuation order, see PAPD statement 3, WTC Command (Nov. 12, 2001); PAPD interview 1, WTC Command (Oct. 14, 2003). For its transmission, see Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel W, p. 7.

77. PAPD statement 1, Administrative Command, Nov. 2, 2001; PAPD statement 4, Administrative Command, Nov. 24, 2001.

78. For the Emergency Operations Center’s activation, see OEM interview 3 (Mar. 16, 2004); OEM interview 2 (Mar. 4, 2004). For the request for search teams, see OEM interview 5 (Mar. 19, 2004). For the senior OEM offi

546 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


cial’s arrival, see OEM interview 4 (Mar. 18, 2004). For other OEM officials’ arrival, see Richard Sheirer interview (Apr. 7, 2004); OEM interview 6 (Mar. 24, 2004).

79. For the time of impact, see FAA analysis of United Airlines Flight 175 radar returns and Commission analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic. For the impact zone, see NIST report, “Interim Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center, ” June 18, 2004, appendix H-41. For portions undamaged, see Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004). For stairwell A remaining passable, see Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004); Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004).

80. For the sky lobby, see Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004). For the condition of people on the impact floors, see Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004); Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For events in the sky lobby after impact, see Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004).

81. For conditions in the impact zone above the 78th floor, see Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Civilian interview 3 (May 4, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For conditions on the 81st floor, see Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Civilian interview 3 (May 4, 2004).

82. For the four people, see Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004). For the first person to descend stairwell A, see Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004).

83. For civilians ascending the stairs, see Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004); Civilian interview 16 (Apr. 27, 2004); Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Commission analysis of letters written to OSHA concerning the September 11 attacks. For the intention of the group ascending the stairwell and the conditions, see Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004).

84. On civilians finding locked doors, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 16 (Apr. 27, 2004); Commission analysis of letters written to OSHA concerning the September 11 attacks. On the lock release order, see Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel X, pp. 25--31;Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. The Security Command Center did not control access areas in the Observation Deck and other private tenant spaces. It is unknown whether there were any prior or subsequent orders or attempts to release the building’s locks.

85. For trouble descending, see Brian Clark testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped); Richard Fern testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped); Commission analysis of letters written to OSHA concerning the September 11 attacks. The conditions of stairwell C are unknown. For conditions in stairwells, see, e. g. , Civilian Interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian Interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004).

86. For some civilians remaining, see Civilian interview 10 (Mar. 24, 2004). For some civilians ascending, see, e. g. , Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 11 (Mar. 25, 2004).

87. For conditions in the 90s and 100s, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For the 105th floor and the condition of the less affected area, see Civilian interview 16 (Apr. 27, 2004). For the other areas of the 105th, 88th, and 89th floors, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

88. For the callers, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. There are many variables to consider in determining whether, and to what extent, stairwell A was actually a viable exit. Knowing that the stairway was initially passable from at least the 91st floor down, we can conclude that it was likely open from top to bottom, on floors farther removed from the impact. However, in areas near the impact zone some doors leading to the stairwell may have jammed. We know that access to stairway A was possible from at least the 81st and 84th floors, and from several other floors between the 84th and 91st floor. It is likely that access was possible from floors higher up as well. It is not known, however, whether 911 callers had a clear path to the stairwell entrance from their locations. Damage caused by the impact of the plane, and the resulting smoke and heat, may have prevented some from being able to reach the entrance to the staircase; but the stated locations of at least some callers indicate that they were near stairwell A on their floor. Based on conditions described by civilians who descended stairwell A from at or above the impact zone, we conclude that stairwell A may have become effectively impassable as the morning progressed.

89. Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

90. Brian Clark testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped); Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

91. Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

92. Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls.

93. OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004); PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004).

94. Civilian interview 8 (Mar. 23, 2004); Civilian interview 1 (Mar. 2, 2004); Civilian interview 4 (Mar. 16, 2004); Civilian interview 13 (Mar. 25, 2004); NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004).

95. Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004) (quotation); Civilian interview 9 (Mar. 3, 2004); Civilian interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004).

96. Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. It is not clear whether callers from below the impact were trapped


NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 547


in offices or otherwise obstructed from proceeding, or were simply calling to seek advice. In any case, the 911 operators and FDNY dispatchers who advised them did not appear to be basing their advice on these or other factual considerations.

97. Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001.

98. For the evacuation route for civilians, see Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004); Civilian interview 14 (Apr. 7, 2004); Civilian interview 9 (Mar. 23, 2004); PANYNJ interview 7 (Jun. 2, 2004).

99. FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004); FDNY interview 24, Battalion 6 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview 10, ESU (Mar. 1, 2004);FDNY interview, transcript 10, Battalion 2, Dec. 6, 2001.

100. Civilian interview 7 (Mar. 22, 2004);Civilian interview 6 (Mar. 22, 2004);PAPD interview 4, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command (Nov. 20, 2003); NYPD interview 10, ESU (Mar. 1, 2004). For people killed by debris, see, e. g. , WTC interview 9 (June 8, 2004).

101. FDNY records, computer-aided dispatch report, alarm box 8087, Sept. 11, 2001, 09:10:02; FDNY interview 45, HQ (Mar. 8, 2004).

102. For the 23 engines and 13 ladders dispatched, see FDNY records, computer-aided dispatch report, Sept. 11, 2001, 09:08:28--09:15:00. For units that self-dispatched, see FDNY interview 60, HQ (May 11, 2004); FDNY report, McKinsey & Company, “FDNY Report, ”Aug. 19, 2002, p. 35. For units riding heavy, see ibid. , p. 131;FDNY interview 25, Battalion 1 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 21, Battalion 1 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 7, Battalion 4 (Jan. 9, 2004); FDNY interview 9, Battalion 8 (Jan. 9, 2004); FDNY interview 50, Battalion 11 (Mar. 17, 2004); FDNY interview 31, Battalion 1 (Jan. 30, 2004); FDNY interview 34, Battalion 1 (Feb. 9, 2004). For extra personnel being a particular issue for SOC companies, see FDNY report, 9/11 fatalities list. For firefighters responding when told not to, see FDNY interview 46, Battalion 10 (Mar. 9, 2004). For firefighters responding from firehouses separately from the on-duty unit, see FDNY interview 46, Battalion 10 (Mar. 9, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 26, Battalion 2, Jan. 16, 2002; FDNY interview, transcript 14, Battalion 32, Dec. 12, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 19, Battalion 2, Jan. 8, 2002. For firefighters responding from home, see FDNY interview 14, Battalion 1 (Jan. 13, 2004); FDNY interview 17, Battalion 6 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 19, Battalion 4 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 6, Battalion 6 (Oct. 12, 2001); FDNY interview 11, Battalion 1 (Jan. 13, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 2, Battalion 2, Oct. 9, 2001. For numerous additional FDNY personnel reporting, see FDNY interview 3, Chief (Jan. 7, 2004); FDNY interview 8, Fire Marshall (Jan. 9, 2004).

103. FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001.

104. For FDNY personnel requesting the repeater’s activation, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004). For one button on the repeater channel being activated, see PANYNJ interview 1 (Nov. 6, 2003); PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004);Port Authority records, measurements of repeater activation tones on Sept. 11, 2001, undated. For it being unclear who triggered activation, see WTC interview 6 (May 25, 2004). For the mechanics of activating the repeater, see PANYNJ interview 1 (Nov. 6, 2003); PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004).

105. For the testing of the repeater system, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001. For the master handset not being able to transmit, see PANYNJ interview 1 (Nov. 6, 2003);PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004); Port Authority records, measurements of repeater activation tones on Sept. 11, 2001, undated. For the chief on the handset not being able to hear, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001. On why he could not hear, see PANYNJ interview 1 (Nov. 6, 2003); PANYNJ interview 4 (May 10, 2004). For the repeater channel being in use in the South Tower, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001.

106. FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003). For the quotation, see Joseph Pfeifer testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped).

107. Peter Hayden testimony, May 18, 2004 (videotaped).

108. FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003).

109. On units ascending to the impact zone, see, e. g. , FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004); FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004). On tasks below the impact zone, see FDNY interview 9, Battalion 8 (Jan. 9, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 16, Battalion 31, Dec. 20, 2001. For rescuing civilians on the 22nd floor, see PANYNJ recognition 1, undated.

110. See FDNY interview 58, Division 3 (Apr. 22, 2004). For units using tactical 1, see FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004).

111. See FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004);FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001. For equipment being carried, see ibid.

112. FDNY interview 38 , Battalion 4 (Feb. 11, 2004). For the working elevator, see FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004).

113. FDNY interview 38, Battalion 4 (Feb. 11, 2004); FDNY interview 25, Battalion 1 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY


548 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 24, Battalion 6 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 10, Battalion 1 (Jan. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 20, Battalion 6 (Jan. 22, 2004).

114. FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 30, Battalion 4 (Jan. 30, 2004); FDNY interview 13, Battalion 1 (Jan. 13, 2004); FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 26, Battalion 8 (Jan. 28, 2004).

115. FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 20, Battalion 6 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004); FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 13, Battalion 1 (Jan. 13, 2004); NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 25, Battalion 1 (Jan. 23, 2004).

116. For the instruction to return to the lobby, see FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet video footage, Sept. 11, 2001. For the rumor being debunked, the other chief continuing operations, and no evidence of units returning, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004). For the chief in lobby asked about helicopters, see FDNY interview, transcript 7, Chief, Oct. 23, 2001. For the rejection of helicopters, see Rudolph Giuliani interview (Apr. 20, 2004).

117. For the diminished communications, see FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 5, Battalion 6 (Oct. 12, 2001); FDNY interview 42, Field Comm (Feb. 13, 2004); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003). For lobby chiefs hearing nothing in response, see FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003).

118. For firefighters on the 54th floor, see NYPD interview 23, Intelligence (June 10, 2004). For firefighters on the 44th floor, see PAPD interview 7, WTC Command (Nov. 25, 2004). For firefighters between the 5th and 37th floors, see, e. g. , FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004).

119. For their commencing operations, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001. For OEM field responder joining, see OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004). For units not rerouting to South Tower, see OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004); Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 4, Battalion 4, Oct. 9, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 20, Battalion 10 (Jan. 10, 2001).

120. For the ladder company in stairwell B, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001. For the other ladder company, see OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004). For the senior chief ’s perspective, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001.

121. Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001.

122. For the chiefs’ situational awareness, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 43, Chief (Mar. 3, 2004). For the senior chief ’s perspective, see Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001.

123. Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001. It is unknown whether the lobby chief ceased to communicate on the repeater channel because of technical problems or because he simply switched channels in order to be able to communicate with chiefs outside the South Tower. The FDNY strongly maintains that there must have been a technical problem resulting from the impact of one of the planes, because they do not believe this chief would have switched channels without first so advising on the repeater channel. FDNY letter to the Commission, July, 2, 2004. However, the repeater channel subsequently worked very well for FDNY personnel on the 78th floor and in an elevator on the 40th floor. Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001.

124. FDNY interview 37, Battalion 35 (Feb. 10, 2004);FDNY interview 2, Battalion 48 (Dec. 15, 2003);FDNY interview, transcript 11, Battalion 32, Dec. 12, 2001.

125. On the need for more companies, see FDNY interview 6, HQ (Jan. 8, 2004). For only two units being dispatched, see OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004); Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 4, Battalion 4, Oct. 9, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 20, Battalion 10, Jan. 10, 2001. For the delayed dispatch, see FDNY records, computer-aided dispatch report, alarm box 8087, Sept. 11, 2001, 09:03:00--09:10:02. For units staged at the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel, see ibid. , alarm box 1377, Sept. 11, 2001, 08:52:59--09:47:05. On units who parked and walked, see FDNY interview 46, Battalion 10 (Mar. 9, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 24, Battalion 35, Jan. 25, 2002; FDNY interview, transcript 22, Battalion 7, Jan. 16, 2002. For confusion about the towers, see FDNY interview, transcript 8, Chief, Oct. 23, 2001; Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001. On the inability to find the staging area, see FDNY interview 2, Battalion 48 (Dec. 15, 2003); FDNY interview, transcript 17, Battalion 12, Dec. 20, 2001. On jumpers and debris, see FDNY interview 2, Battalion 48 (Dec. 15, 2003); FDNY interview 22, Battalion 28 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 39, Battalion 35 (Feb. 11, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 11, Battalion 32, Dec. 12, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 15, Battalion 48, Dec. 13, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 17, Battalion 12, Dec. 20, 2001.


NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 549


126. For the chief ’s perspective, see FDNY interview 43, Chief (Mar. 3, 2004). For the four companies, see FDNY interview, transcript 13, Battalion 11, Dec. 12, 2001.

127. FDNY interview 43, Chief (Mar. 3, 2004). For finding working elevator in NorthTower, see FDNY interview 53, Battalion 11 (Apr. 14, 2004).

128. For the second alarm, see FDNY interview 6, HQ (Jan. 8, 2004). For the other units, see FDNY records, computer-aided dispatch report, alarm box 1377, Sept. 11, 2001, 09:42:45--09:47:05. For some having gone through the tunnel and responded to the Marriott, see FDNY interview, transcript 15, Battalion 48, Dec. 13, 2001.

129. Port Authority recording, WTC channel 30 (repeater channel), Sept. 11, 2001.

130. FDNY interview 42, Field Comm (Feb. 13, 2004);FDNY interview 45, HQ (Mar. 8, 2004);FDNY interview 46, Battalion 10 (Mar. 9, 2004); FDNY interview 18, Chief (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 27, HQ (Jan. 28, 2004); FDNY interview 47, Chief (Mar. 11, 2004); OEM interview 6 (Mar. 24, 2004).

131. FDNY interview 42, Field Comm (Feb. 13, 2004).

132. Ibid.

133. FDNY interview 27, HQ (Jan. 28, 2004).

134. For no chief fearing a total collapse, see FDNY interview 45, HQ (Mar. 8, 2004);ThomasVon Essen interview (Apr. 7, 2004); FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004); FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004);FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003). For one chief ’s perspective, see FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004). For the opinion not being conveyed, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003).

135. FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003).

136. For the fifth alarm, see FDNY records, computer-aided dispatch report, alarm box 2033, Sept. 11, 2001, 09:54:29. On numbers dispatched, see ibid. , Sept. 11, 2001, 08:47:20--09:54:29. For the paramedic, see FDNY interview 32, Chief (Feb. 9, 2004).

137. NYPD interview 8, HQ (Feb. 24, 2004). Each Level 4 mobilization fields about 1, 000 officers.

138. NYPD interview 8, HQ (Feb. 24, 2004).

139. NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

140. For the ESU team’s arrival in the North Tower and attempt to talk with the FDNY chiefs without OEM intervention, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001; NYPD interview 5, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004). For the decision to have the ESU team ascend, see NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004). For the first ESU team in the South Tower checking in with the FDNY command post there, see OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004).

141. For the ESU teams’ preparations and one team entering the South Tower, see NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004). For the fifth team’s status at 9:59, see NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004); NYPD interview 7, ESU (Feb. 20, 2004). For the team at the North Tower, see NYPD interview 11, ESU (Mar. 9, 2004); NYPD interview 10, ESU (Mar. 1, 2004).

142. NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004).

143. NewYork City Police Museum interview of Kenneth Winkler, Apr. 17, 2003 (videotaped); NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004).

144. NYPD interview 22, Intelligence (June 10, 2004); NYPD interview 23, Intelligence (June 10, 2004); NYPD interview 24, Intelligence (June 15, 2004).

145. NYPD interview 20, Manhattan SouthTask Force (May 4, 2004);NYPD interview 21, 6th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 19, 13th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 4, Housing (Feb. 17, 2004); PAPD interview 4, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command (Nov. 20, 2003).

146. NYPD interview 19, 13th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 2, Transit (Jan. 2, 2004).

147. For the instructions to civilians, see NYPD interview 3, HQ (Jan. 15, 2004). For the officers at 5 WTC and the concourse, see NYPD memo, requests for departmental recognition 3 and 5, June 26, 2002;NYPD memo, request for departmental recognition 3, June 26, 2002. For officers in the South Tower, see NYPD memo, request for departmental recognition 6, June 26, 2002;NYPD memo, request for departmental recognition 4, June 26, 2002.

148. For the Chief of Department’s instructions, see NYPD interview 8, HQ (Feb. 24, 2004). For the helicopter’s perspective, see NYPD recordings, City Wide 1 and Special Operations Division radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001. For pilot’s belief and the helicopter not hovering, see NYPD interview 12, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004). For the other helicopter, see NYPD interview 16, Aviation (Apr. 1, 2004); NYPD interview 1, Aviation (Sept. 26, 2003).

149. For the warning, see NYPD recording, Special Operations Division radio channel, Sept. 11, 2001. For no pilot predicting a collapse, see, e. g. , NYPD interview 12, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 14, Aviation (Mar. 11, 2004).

150. For the 911 call, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For the inaccurate conveyance, see NYPD report, McKinsey & Company, “NYPD Call-routing and Message Dispatch:Draft Summary Report, ”July 23, 2002.

151. For the initial responders and the assignments, see PAPD statement 3, WTC Command, Nov. 12, 2001; PAPD statement 12, WTC Command, Mar. 28, 2002. For officers assigned to rescue, see Port Authority transcripts


550 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel W, p. 26. For others climbing toward the impact zone, see PAPD statement 4, Administration Command, Nov. 24, 2001.

152. For the PAPD Superintendent and inspector’s ascent, see PAPD statement 3, WTC Command, Nov. 12, 2001. For the PAPD Chief ’s and officers’ ascent, see PANYNJ statement 1, Feb. 1, 2002. For the calls to the PAPD desk, see Port Authority transcripts of recorded Port Authority calls and radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001, vol. II, channel 10, pp. 16--17.

153. For officers responding on their own initiative, see PAPD interview 8, JFK Command (Mar. 31, 2004); PAPD statement 11, WTC Command, Mar. 28, 2002. For the desk’s instructions, see PAPD statement 10, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command, Mar. 20, 2002; PAPD interview 3, LaGuardia Command (Nov. 20, 2003). For formulating an ad hoc plan, see PAPD interview 3, LaGuardia Command (Nov. 20, 2003); PAPD statement 6, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command, Jan. 4, 2002. For poor situational awareness, see PAPD statement 7, Administrative Command, Jan. 6, 2002; PAPD interview 8, JFK Command (Mar. 31, 2004). For the lack of equipment, see PAPD interview 9, LaGuardia Command (Apr. 1, 2004); PAPD statement 13, Port Newark Command, Mar. 5, 2002.

154. On the PAPD officer reaching the 44th floor, see PAPD interview 7, WTC Command (Nov. 25, 2003). For the PAPD teams, see PAPD, statement 4, Administrative Command, Nov. 24, 2001; PAPD interview 1, WTC Command (Oct. 14, 2003). For the officers climbing, see PAPD statement 3, WTC Command, Nov. 12, 2001. For officers on the ground floors, see PAPD interview 4, Port Authority BusTerminal Command (Nov. 20, 2003);PAPD interview 2, Holland Tunnel Command (Oct. 27, 2003); PAPD statement 2, WTC Command, Nov. 10, 2001.

155. On remaining in the bunker, see OEM interview 3 (Mar. 16, 2004). For the evacuation order, see OEM interview 4 (Mar. 18, 2004). On liaisons and OEM, see OEM interview 3 (Mar. 16, 2004). For field responders’ placement, see OEM interview 6 (Mar. 24, 2004); OEM interview 1 (Feb. 12, 2004); Richard Sheirer interview (Apr. 7, 2004); OEM interview 7 (Mar. 31, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 25, OEM, Oct. 17, 2001.

156. NIST report, “Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC, ” June 18, 2004, appendix H, p. 40.

157. For information about 911 calls, see Commission analysis of 911/PAPD calls. For people alive on the 92nd and 79th floors, see ibid. ; Civilian interview 5 (May 26, 2004). For civilians being assisted, see PAPD interview 4, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command (Nov. 6, 2004); NYPD interview 10, ESU (Mar. 1, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 10, Battalion 2, Dec. 6, 2001. For injured civilians being assisted, see FDNY interview, transcript 10, Battalion 2, Dec. 6, 2001; FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); PAPD interview 6, Lincoln Tunnel Command (Nov. 24, 2003).

158. For the overall command post, see FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004). For the North Tower lobby, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004). For South Tower staging, see FDNY interview 6, HQ (Jan. 8, 2004). For EMS staging areas, see FDNY interview 32, Chief (Feb. 9, 2004); FDNY interview 35, EMS (Feb. 10, 2004).

159. For situational awareness in North Tower lobby, see FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004). For overall command post, see FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004).

160. For the collapse’s effect on the firefighters, see FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 25, Battalion 1 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 24, Battalion 6 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004). For the reaction of firefighters not facing the south, see FDNY interview 7, Battalion 4 (Jan. 9, 2004);FDNY interview 10, Battalion 1 (Jan. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 12, Battalion 4 (Jan. 13, 2004); FDNY interview 26, Battalion 8 (Jan. 28, 2004); FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004).

161. It is possible that the repeater channel satellite on the roof of 5 WTC was damaged or destroyed when the South Tower collapsed. That the repeater channel stopped recording transmissions at 9:59 does not mean transmissions no longer could be made on it.

162. For the FDNY boat radioing of the collapse, see FDNY recording, FDNY Manhattan Dispatch Channel, Sept. 11, 2001. For the van being abandoned, see FDNY interview 42, Field Comm (Feb. 13, 2004). For the order one minute after the collapse, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001. For the subsequent order, see FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004).

163. For evacuation instructions, our analysis is based on more than 100 interviews we conducted and our review of 500 internal FDNY interview transcripts. For three firefighters hearing “imminent collapse, ” see FDNY interview, transcript 20, Battalion 10, Jan. 10, 2002;FDNY interview, transcript 23, Battalion 7, Jan. 21, 2002;FDNY interview, transcript 21, Battalion 8, Jan. 9, 2002.

164. For firefighters hearing orders over tactical 1, see, e. g. , FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004). For one chief giving the instruction, see FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004).

165. For the chief on the 35th floor and the first instruction, see FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004). For the chief on the 23rd floor, see FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004). For the chief on the 35th floor hearing of the South Tower collapse and taking subsequent


NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 551


action, see FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004). For firefighters beginning to evacuate because of these chiefs, see, e. g. , FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 9, Battalion 6, Dec. 5, 2001.

166. For radios not working in high-rise environments, see FDNY interview 9, Battalion 8 (Jan. 9, 2004);FDNY interview 13, Battalion 1 (Jan. 13, 2004). For tactical 1 being overburdened, see FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004). For the quotation, see FDNY interview, transcript 9, Battalion 6, Dec. 5, 2001.

167. For off-duty firefighters in the North Tower, see NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); FDNY interview 24, Battalion 6 (Jan. 23, 2004). For firefighters dispatched to the South Tower, see FDNY interview 53, Battalion 11 (Apr. 14, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 20, Battalion 10, Jan. 10, 2001.

168. For units stopping or delaying evacuation to help, see FDNY interview 40, Battalion 4 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2 (Apr. 22, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 3, Battalion 2, Oct. 9, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 5, Battalion 6, Oct. 12, 2001. For companies first trying to regroup, see FDNY interview, transcript 3, Battalion 2, Oct. 9, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 4, Battalion 4, Oct. 9, 2001. For the lack of urgency, see FDNY interview 57, SOC (Apr. 15, 2004); FDNY interview 25, Battalion 1 (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1(Jan. 20, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 9, Battalion 6, Dec. 5, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 4, Battalion 4, Oct. 9, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 3, Battalion 2, Oct. 9, 2001. For the belief that urgency would have increased on learning of the South Tower’s collapse, see FDNY interview, transcript 9, Battalion 6, Dec. 5, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 5, Battalion 6, Oct. 12, 2001. For firefighters sitting and not evacuating, see FDNY interview 16, Battalion 1 (Jan. 20, 2004); NY State Court interview 1 (June 22, 2004). For firefighters not leaving while others remained and convincing others to stay with them, see FDNY interview, transcript 4, Battalion 4, Oct. 9, 2001; FDNY interview 57, SOC (Apr. 15, 2004).

169. FDNY interview 57, SOC (Apr. 15, 2004);FDNY interview 55, Battalion 8 (Apr. 15, 2004);FDNY interview, transcript 9, Battalion 6, Dec. 5, 2001; FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2 (Apr. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 10, Battalion 1 (Jan. 12, 2004); FDNY interview 7, Battalion 4 (Jan. 9, 2004); FDNY interview 13, Battalion 1 (Jan. 13, 2004); FDNY interview 23, Chief (Jan. 23, 2004); FDNY interview 26, Battalion 8 (Jan. 28, 2004); FDNY interview 12, Battalion 4 (Jan. 13, 2004).

170. FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2 (Apr. 22, 2004).

171. For hotel’s damage, see Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet, video footage, Sept. 11, 2001. For individuals in the lobby, see FDNY interview 43, Chief (Mar. 3, 2004); FDNY interview 36, Chief (Feb. 10, 2004); FDNY interview 1, Chief (Mar. 26, 2004). On assisting the civilians, see FDNY interview 43, Chief (Mar. 3, 2004). For the line of 20 men and the 4 survivors, see FDNY interview, transcript 13, Battalion 11, Dec. 12, 2001.

172. For the two companies and their actions, see FDNY interview 22, Battalion 28 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 37, Battalion 35 (Feb. 10, 2004); FDNY interview 39, Battalion 35 (Feb. 11, 2004); FDNY interview 41, Battalion 35 (Feb. 12, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 12, Battalion 35, Dec. 12, 2001. For the PAPD having cleared the area, see PAPD statement 3, WTC command, Nov. 12, 2001. For FDNY personnel checking the area afterward, see FDNY interview, transcript 12, Battalion 35, Dec. 12, 2001.

173. For the senior leaders confirming the collapse, and the Chief of Department issuing a radio order, see FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004). For his ordering the post’s relocation and two companies to respond, see FDNY interview 45, HQ (Mar. 8, 2004).

174. For the chiefs’ delay in learning of the collapse, see FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 56, Chief (Apr. 23, 2004). On one chief ’s view of the North Tower, see FDNY interview 51 (Apr. 2, 2004); FDNY interview 36, Chief (Feb. 10, 2004).

175. For firefighters’ actions after the collapse, see FDNY interview 49, Chief (Mar. 17, 2004); FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004);FDNY interview 36, Chief (Feb. 10, 2004);FDNY interview 45, HQ (Mar. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 51 (Apr. 2, 2004); FDNY interview 22, Battalion 28 (Jan. 22, 2004); FDNY interview 1, Chief (Mar. 26, 2004); FDNY interview, transcript 1, Battalion 7, Jan. 28, 2001; FDNY interview, transcript 12, Battalion 35, Dec. 12, 2001. For some not knowing about the collapse but others knowing and remaining to help, see FDNY interview 49, Chief (Mar. 17, 2004); FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004); FDNY interview 36, Chief (Feb. 10, 2004); FDNY interview 45, HQ (Mar. 8, 2004). For the quotation, see FDNY interview 49, Chief (Mar. 17, 2004). For the firefighter directing those exiting, see FDNY interview 29, Battalion 1 (Jan. 29, 2004); FDNY interview 24, Battalion 6 (Jan. 23, 2004). For the using a bullhorn, see FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004). For the three senior members’ actions, see FDNY interview 51 (Apr. 2, 2004).

176. NYPD recordings, City Wide 1 and Special Operations Division radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001; see also NYPD interview 12, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 14, Aviation (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 13, Aviation (Mar. 10, 2004); NYPD interview 16, Aviation (Apr. 1, 2004).

177. NYPD recordings, City Wide 1, Special Operations Division, and Divisions 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001; NPYD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

178. For the ESU teams’ situational awareness, see, e. g. , NYPD interview 5, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004). For the evacuation order, see NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004);NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

179. For the message being clearly heard, see, e. g. , NYPD interview 5, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview


552 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004). For the subsequent exchange, see NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview 5, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

180. For the ESU team’s perspective, see NYPD interview 5, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004); NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004). For a firefighter stating he would not take instructions from the NYPD, see FDNY interview 38, Battalion 4 (Feb. 11, 2004). For a firefighter alleging that ESU officers passed him without sharing evacuation instruction, see FDNY interview 57, SOC (Apr. 15, 2004). A member of the only ESU team that this firefighter could have encountered above the 11th floor states that his team did share its evacuation instruction with firefighters it encountered. NYPD interview 6, ESU (Feb. 19, 2004).

181. NYPD interview 11, ESU (Mar. 9, 2004); NYPD interview 10, ESU (Mar. 1, 2004).

182. NYPD interview 7, ESU (Feb. 20, 2004); NYPD interview 15, ESU (Mar. 11, 2004); NYPD interview 18, ESU (Feb. 24, 2004).

183. NYPD interview 22, Intelligence (June 10, 2004); NYPD interview 23, Intelligence (June 10, 2004); NYPD interview 24, Intelligence (June 15, 2004).

184. NYPD interview 20, Manhattan SouthTask Force (May 4, 2004);NYPD interview 21, 6th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 4, Housing (Feb. 17, 2004);PAPD interview 4, Port Authority Bus Terminal Command (Nov. 20, 2003).

185. For officers being in the concourse, see NYPD recordings, City Wide 1, Special Operations Division, and Divisions 1, 2, and 3 radio channels, Sept. 11, 2001. For the survivors’ actions, see NYPD memo, requests for departmental recognition 3, 4, 5 and 6, June 26, 2002; NYPD interview 19, 13th Precinct (May 4, 2004); NYPD interview 2, Transit (Jan. 2, 2004).

186. For the collapse’s effect, see PAPD interview 3, LaGuardia Command (Nov. 20, 2003). For officers not receiving the evacuation order, see PAPD interview 7, WTC Command (Nov. 25, 2003); PAPD interview 5, Lincoln Tunnel Command (Nov. 24, 2003). For officers deciding to evacuate, see PAPD interview 10, GW Bridge Command (Sept. 25, 2003); PAPD statement 5, Lincoln Tunnel Command (Dec. 10, 2001). For officers slowing their descent, see PAPD interview 10, GW Bridge Command (Sept. 25, 2003).

187. For the North Tower collapsing at 10:28:25, see NIST report, “Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC, ” June 18, 2004, appendix H, p. 40. For those in stairwell B who survived the North Tower’s collapse, see FDNY report, Division 3 report on operations on Sept. 11, 2001, undated; Dennis Cauchon and Martha Moore, “Miracles Emerge from Debris, ” USA Today, Sept. 6, 2002, p. A1.

188. According to the number of death certificates issued by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, the WTC attacks killed 2, 749 nonterrorists, including nonterrorist occupants of the hijacked aircraft. New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner report, “WTCVictim List, ” undated (as of July 9, 2004). The Pentagon attack killed 184 nonterrorists, including the occupants of the hijacked aircraft. FBI report, list of Pentagon victims, undated (as of July 9, 2004). Forty nonterrorists died in the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. FBI report, list of Flight 93 victims, undated (as of July 9, 2004). Our conclusion that these first responder death totals were the largest in U. S. history is based on our inability to find contrary evidence. For FDNY fatalities, see FDNY report, September 11 tribute, undated (online at www. ci. nyc. ny. us/html/fdny/media/tribute/tribute. html). For PAPD fatalities, see PAPD report, “In Memoriam, ” undated (online at www. panynj. gov/AboutthePortAuthority /PortAuthorityPolice/InMemoriam/). For NYPD fatalities, see NYPD report, “NYPD Memorial: 2001 Heroes, ” undated (online at www. ci. nyc. ny. us/html/nypd/html/memorial_01. html).

189. Rudolph Giuliani interview (Apr. 20, 2004); OEM interview 3 (Mar. 16, 2004); Richard Sheirer interview (Apr. 7, 2004);Thomas Von Essen interview (Apr. 7, 2004); Bernard Kerik interview (Apr. 6, 2004).

190. The Incident Command System (ICS) is a formalized management structure for command, control, and coordination during an emergency response. ICS provides a means to coordinate the efforts of individual agencies as they work toward the three main priorities of most emergencies--life safety, incident stability, and property/environment conservation. Within ICS, incident command is organized into five major components: the command function, the planning section, the operations section, the logistics section, and the finance/administration section. When multiple agencies or jurisdictions are involved in a response, ICS provides for and can evolve into a unified command, with a decisionmaker from each key agency represented at the incident command level. For the system being used on 9/11, see, e. g. , Arlington County, Virginia, report, Titan Systems Corp. , “Arlington County:After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon, ” 2002, pp.

11, A-20--A-21.

191. Grant C. Peterson, “Introduction: Arlington County and the After-Action Report, ” July 28, 2003 (presented at conference in Arlington, Va. , “Local Response to Terrorism: Lessons Learned from the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon”).

192. For the death toll, see FBI report, list of Pentagon victims, undated. For patient care and victim disposition, see Arlington County, “After-Action Report, ” pp. B-1, B-12--B-15.

193. For reasons the response was mainly a success, see Arlington County, “After-Action Report, ” pp. 11--12; Edward Plaugher interview (Oct. 16, 2003). For preparations for the International Monetary Fund and the World


NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 553


Bank meetings, see “Washington Is Seeking Support to Handle Protests at 2 Meetings, ” New York Times, Aug. 18, 2001, p. A8;Arlington County, “After-Action Report, ” pp. 12, A-4, C-26.

194. For a list of the response agencies, see James Schwartz and Christopher Combs, “Incident Command, Joint Operations Center and Incident Communications, ” July 28, 2003 (presented at conference in Arlington, Va. , “Local Response to Terrorism: Lessons Learned from the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon”). When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms moved from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice after 9/11 in connection with the creation of DHS, it was renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (still abbreviated ATF); see ATF press release, “ATF Moves to the Department of Justice, ” Jan. 24, 2003.

195. For the establishment of incident command on September 11, see Arlington County, “After-Action Report, ” appendix 1, p. 1-1; Schwartz and Combs, “Incident Command. ”

196. Arlington County, “After-Action Report, ” appendix 1, p. 1-1. Other sources put the time of the partial collapse as late as 10:14. See Edward P. Plaugher, “Fire & EMS, ” July 28, 2003 (presented at conference in Arlington, Va. , “Local Response to Terrorism: Lessons Learned from the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon”).

197. Ibid. , pp. A-30--A-31.

198. Edward A. Flynn, “Law Enforcement, ” July 28, 2003 (presented at conference in Arlington, Va. , on “Local Response to Terrorism: Lessons Learned from the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon”).

199. Arlington County, “After-Action Report, ” pp. 12--13.

200. For the estimate, see NIST report, “WTC Investigation Progress, ” June 22--23, 2004. For the updated death certificate information, see New York City report, “WTC Victim List, ” June 21, 2004. The analysis in this paragraph is based upon the following sources: CNN, “September 11: A Memorial, ” updated 2004 (online at www. cnn. com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index. html); company contacts, June 29, 2004 (online at http://World Tradeaftermath. com/wta/contacts/companies_list. asp?letter=a); CNN, WTC tenants, 2001 (online at www. cnn. com/SPECIALS/2001/trade. center/tenants1. html); September 11 personal tributes, June 19, 2004 (online at www. legacy. com/LegacyTribute/Sept11. asp); September 11 personal profiles, Oct. 11, 2003 (online at www. september11victims. com/september11Victims); New York Times, Portraits: 9/11/01:The Collected “Portraits of Grief” (Times Books, 2002). It is possible that a person who worked above the impact zone had not yet reached his or her office and was killed below the impact zone, either by falling debris, by the fireballs that exploded into the lobby, or by being trapped in an elevator. Individuals below the impact zone may have been killed for the same reasons. Individuals may also have been killed while in the process of evacuating.

201. Ironically, had the towers remained up longer, scores more first responders would have died. Twenty-six additional FDNY companies--more than 150 firefighters--were en route at the time of the South Tower’s collapse, and scores more PAPD officers on Church and Vesey were preparing to enter the towers.

202. The “advisory” announcement directed by protocol (without the expanded instruction for occupants to return to their floors) would have given greater leeway to those who judged, based on a firsthand awareness of conditions on their floors (e. g. , some could feel heat from North Tower explosion), that evacuation was warranted. In retrospect, occupants would only have had to reach a point below the 77th floor to be safe.

203. Appended to the directive was a list of different types of emergencies with designated Incident Commanders. Terrorist incidents were subdivided according to the types of attack. Conventional weapons and bomb threats were assigned to the NYPD, while chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks designated “NYPD or FDNY” as the Incident Commander. The directive noted:“The handling of a threat of a chemical or biological release or the use of conventional weapons falls to the NYPD. Dealing with the consequences of the explosion or release is the responsibility of the FDNY. The investigation that follows, once the consequences of the event have been mitigated, is the responsibility of the NYPD. Any conflicts regarding the issue of Command at these incidents will be resolved by OEM. ”NewYork City memo, Office of the Mayor, “Direction and Control of Emergencies in the City of New York, ” July 2001.

204. For the NYPD clearing lanes, see, e. g. , FDNY interview 43, Chief (Mar. 3, 2004).

205. For the Mayor and Police Commissioner’s consultation with the FDNY Chief of Department, see Rudolph Giuliani interview (Apr. 20, 2004).

206. The FDNY’s lack of command and control had some unintended positive consequences. One battalion chief was dispatched to the South Tower but instead responded to the North Tower, where he was instrumental in saving many lives after the South Tower collapsed. Some FDNY units dispatched to the South Tower--where they would have perished--instead were mistakenly sent to the North Tower and in many cases survived.

207. For the FDNY addressing these issues, see generally FDNY report, McKinsey & Company, “FDNY Report, ” Aug. 19, 2002; Peter Hayden interview (Jan. 14, 2004). For the PAPD not changing standard operating procedures or training, see PAPD regulations, “Manual of Police Division Instructions, ”undated (in existence before and after 9/11); Barry Pickard interview (Nov. 24, 2003).

208. One instance in which the FDNY/NYPD rivalry may have had an impact on the total fatalities was the alleged failure of ESU officers descending past at least two firefighters after 9:59 in the North Tower to share their evacuation instructions. It should be noted, however, that at least one firefighter has conceded that he, too, descended past other stationary firefighters without telling them to evacuate. In addition, according to one of the ESU offi


554 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9


cers and one of the firefighters in the North Tower, at least some FDNY personnel were unwilling to take evacuation orders from police that morning.

209. Based on more than 100 interviews we conducted and our review of 500 internal FDNY interview transcripts, we conclude that out of these 32 companies, all on-duty members of 19 companies are likely to have known to evacuate (Engine Companies 1, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24, 28, 33, 39, and 65; Ladder Companies 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 110; and Rescue 1). We also conclude that at least some members of each of five companies knew to evacuate (two firefighters from Ladder Company 10; the officer of Ladder Company 20; all but the officer of Engine Company 10; at least two firefighters from Squad 18; and at least three firefighters from Engine 6). We do not know whether members of the eight other companies knew to evacuate (Engine Companies 55, 207, and 226; Rescue 2, 3, and 4; Hazmat 1; and Squad 1) because they all died, and we have come across no on-point eyewitness accounts related to their operations. It is very possible that at least some of these firefighters did hear the evacuation order but nevertheless failed to evacuate in the only 29-minute period between the collapse of the two towers. In addition, it is possible that several of the eight companies for which we have no record of their receiving evacuation instructions were in the South Tower and thus died in its earlier collapse.

210. Eric Lipton, “A New Weapon for Firefighters, ” New York Times, May 30, 2004, p. 27.

Previous    Next


 

Back to 9-11 Commission Report (Main Page)

9-11 Project at MidEastWeb: 9-11 Commission Report: Whitewash as a public service 9-11 commission report OIG Report on CIA Accountability With Respect to the 9/11 Attack Osama Bin Laden Fatwa of 1998 Osama Bin Laden Statement on Afghanistan War  Inside Al-Qaeda Who is Osama Bin Laden? - Fatwa of 1996 (Declaration of war) Terrorist threat greater than before 9-11

Main History Page

Mideastweb Middle East

Map of PalestineMap of Israel Map of Iran Map of Syria Map of Afghanistan Jerusalem Detail Map  Map of Egypt Dictionary Middle East Recipes Jerusalem/Quds to Jericho   History of Israel & Palestine - Part I Israel & Palestinian History current since the Oslo accords  Middle East Countries   Detailed Iraq Map Map of Iraq Baghdad Map Iraq Iran Islam History History of Arabia   Egypt  History of Israel & Palestine - Part I Israel & Palestinian History current since the Oslo accords  Israel-Palestine Timeline  History of Zionism Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in a Nutshell Population of Ottoman Palestine Palestinian Parties and armed Groups Middle East Maps  Hamas  MidEastWeb Middle East Master Reference and External Sources

The 9-11 Commission Report