Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Submarine cables to Pentagon?

Expand Messages
  • Pete Misisco
    It was some time ago, but I do remember cable crossing signs on the fender system of the CSX railroad swing bridge just downstream of the Pentagon. That may
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      It was some time ago, but I do remember "cable crossing" signs on the
      fender system of the CSX railroad swing bridge just downstream of the
      Pentagon. That may have had more to do with powering the machinery for
      the movable span, but could plausibly be for telco cables too.

      Also, remember that the original 14th St. Bridge and the Memorial Bridge
      were at one time both working drawbridges. Any cables that would have
      crossed that part of the river couldn't have been strapped to the bridge
      deck.

      Pete



      On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Albert LaFrance wrote:

      > A 1944 Western Electric booklet titled "Circuits for Victory: Western Electric Through its First 75
      > Years" includes (p. 13) a photo of cable reels on a barge at a dock, with the caption:
      >
      > "In 1942, these giant reels of submarine cable manufactured by the great cable-armoring machines at
      > Point Breeze [in Baltimore, MD] were transported by barges to be laid under the Potomac, connecting
      > the Army Pentagon building at Arlington, Va., with Washington exchanges."
      >
      > That's the first I'd heard of any underwater telephone cables in the immediate DC area. Does anyone
      > have more information about them?
      >
      > I know of two Long Lines cable routes which would have crossed the river: Dranesville to Washington
      > 3, and Garden City to Washington 1. But I'd always assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that the cables
      > were in conduits on bridges.
      >
      > Albert
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Peter E. Misisco
      Broadcast Engineer
      Reston, Virginia
    • hooligan@aol.com
      Another thing that sounds wrong, because it is wrong, is McDill. It is now, & has been for about the past sixty-five years, MacDill AFB. In a message
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Another thing that sounds wrong, because it is wrong, is "McDill." It is
        now, & has been for about the past sixty-five years, MacDill AFB.


        In a message dated 8/25/2006 8:33:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
        mharpe79@... writes:

        Good! I thought that sounded wrong. McDill is outside Tampa.



        Cryptome rules, John!

        Thanks!

        Mike Harpe

        --- John Young <jya at pipeline.com> wrote:

        > Bolling AFB not McDill, off-target by merely 1000 miles.
        >
        > "... across the Anacostia to the Naval Station and McDill."





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kenneth Coney
        I always thought the Crystal City complex (begun shortly after the letters) was what happened to the DUCC concept. The foundations of some of those buildings
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I always thought the Crystal City complex (begun shortly after the
          letters) was what happened to the DUCC concept. The foundations of some
          of those buildings were easily deep enough to stick a small office
          complex in the bottom somewhere. Digging oneself out from -3000 feet
          after the 100 meg burst above would be fun, but technically survivable
          as a facility.

          Albert LaFrance wrote:
          > My theory is that the East Potomac Park project is primarily a hardened shelter/EOC for use in
          > short/no-notice attacks on Washington area, and is very possibly linked by tunnels to the Pentagon,
          > White House and/or other nearby federal buildings. In fact, we may finally be seeing some version
          > of the DUCC concept ( http://coldwar-c4i.net/DUCC/ ) or one of its successors, though I'd bet that
          > it's nowhere near the original proposed depth of 3500 ft.
          >
          > I don't think that the installation of communications lines is a major goal of the project, because
          > the apparent extent of the construction work far exceeds what would be needed for that purpose. For
          > example, directional drilling technology has advanced to a point where long underwater bores are
          > very feasible even for regular telecom projects.
          >
          > In some ways, a close-in shelter makes more sense in today's threat environment that it did in the
          > Cold War era. In those days, the threat to Washington was better defined: a nuclear weapon,
          > presumed capable of destroying much of the city, delivered by a Soviet missile or bomber.
          > Early-warning systems could be expected to provide enough notice to allow helicopter evacuation of
          > key officials and activation of emergency relocation sites, and except for the "bolt from the blue"
          > scenario, additional warning would come from Soviet-bloc military movements and diplomatic actions.
          > Furthermore, the development of more powerful weapons likely made sheltering in place unacceptably
          > risky.
          >
          > In contrast, the present terrorist threat includes an ever-changing array of potential attackers, a
          > variety of possible targets, multiple types of weapons - not just a nuclear detonations but also
          > radioactive, chemical and biological agents, and conventional explosives - all with multiple
          > delivery modes. In addition, the attack would likely take place with little or no warning, and its
          > nature might not immediately be obvious (e.g. detonation of a RDD would appear as a simple bombing
          > until radiation measurements were made).
          >
          > And because mass transit is a known terrorist target, I think it's unlikely that the Metro is a part
          > of a senior VIP evacuation plan or that East Potomac Park was chosen for its proximity to a Metro
          > line.
          >
          > Albert
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "John Young" <jya@...>
          > To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:04 PM
          > Subject: RE: [coldwarcomms] Submarine cables to Pentagon?
          >
          >
          >
          >> The extensive underground work located in East Potomac Park next to
          >> the National Park Service facility, reportedly directed by the US Navy, may
          >> have as one of its purposes to provide better-protected passage for
          >> trans-Potomac communication lines.
          >>
          >> What began as a small, openly-visible staging yard has become a fully
          >> enclosed multi-building operation, with a quite noisy exhaust fan facing
          >> traffic on the adjacent highway. The high-volume fan is probably for
          >> exhausting the excavation.
          >>
          >> (Other noisy high volume fans can be heard from sidewalk grates towards
          >> the White House but these may be to ventilate the subway rather than
          >> related to this operation.)
          >>
          >> An 8-foot high, solid board fence surrounds the operation at East Potomac,
          >> with two contractors identified at the entrance as Clark Construction and
          >> Kiewet. Kiewet is a well-known underground contractor which specializes
          >> in tunnels and mines.
          >>
          >> This site adjoins the subway tunnel under the river and the work may only
          >> parallel the subway or be an expansion of it. Subway tunnels, like bridges,
          >> are often used to house communications cabling. Some are built with
          >> unpublicized cable and servicing accommodations for security, and a
          >> few have truly secret purposes and/or capabilities which are cloaked by
          >> the public functions.
          >>
          >> Curious that the US Navy is said to be in charge rather than the Army
          >> Corps of Engineers, but that may be due to the riverine aspect of the
          >> project or perhaps more.
          >>
          >> For example, this operation may be excavating under East Potomac Park
          >> rather than tunneling under the river, if not both, with possible tie-ins
          >> across
          >> Washington Channel to McNair and the Navy Yard and across the Anacostia
          >> to the Naval Station and McDill.
          >>
          >> Older underground work at the Ellipse, and new work supposedly associated
          >> with a new subterranean tourist and press center may be related to the
          >> Navy project. There has been a huge increase in underground government
          >> facilities since 9/11 around the world, and most are secret.
          >>
          >> Possible White House emergency evacuation via underground systems
          >> were debunked here a while back, so that is a long-shot. That long-running
          >> project at Treasury is reportedly for mere renovation of the aged structure.
          >> But its long life comes closer to that of an underground project below the
          >> observables.
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • tsniffin20902
          I wouldn t think a tunnel to the White House would be easily constructed from this location given the amount of underground crap (old sewer tunnels, utility
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I wouldn't think a tunnel to the White House would be easily
            constructed from this location given the amount of underground "crap"
            (old sewer tunnels, utility lines, steam pipes, etc..), but the rest
            of your logic is dead on. Given that the HSOC and many other vital
            facilities that would be fully staffed during an incident in/around DC
            are located in leased office space and open areas it would make sense
            to have a secure, hardened facility for the feds to run to.

            I don't remember the timing, but perhaps this is the solution to the
            GSA perimeter set back requirements that have forced other federal
            clients to move outside the immediate area to more remote/secure
            locations?

            I too am curious why the Navy was selected to manage the project.
            Perhaps the missile battery or radar control facility really do make
            more sense? I'll have to make a vist down there this week and see
            what has changed lately.

            Todd


            --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Albert LaFrance" <lafrance@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > My theory is that the East Potomac Park project is primarily a
            hardened shelter/EOC for use in
            > short/no-notice attacks on Washington area, and is very possibly
            linked by tunnels to the Pentagon,
            > White House and/or other nearby federal buildings. In fact, we may
            finally be seeing some version
            > of the DUCC concept ( http://coldwar-c4i.net/DUCC/ ) or one of its
            successors, though I'd bet that
            > it's nowhere near the original proposed depth of 3500 ft.
            >
            > I don't think that the installation of communications lines is a
            major goal of the project, because
            > the apparent extent of the construction work far exceeds what would
            be needed for that purpose. For
            > example, directional drilling technology has advanced to a point
            where long underwater bores are
            > very feasible even for regular telecom projects.
            >
            > In some ways, a close-in shelter makes more sense in today's threat
            environment that it did in the
            > Cold War era. In those days, the threat to Washington was better
            defined: a nuclear weapon,
            > presumed capable of destroying much of the city, delivered by a
            Soviet missile or bomber.
            > Early-warning systems could be expected to provide enough notice to
            allow helicopter evacuation of
            > key officials and activation of emergency relocation sites, and
            except for the "bolt from the blue"
            > scenario, additional warning would come from Soviet-bloc military
            movements and diplomatic actions.
            > Furthermore, the development of more powerful weapons likely made
            sheltering in place unacceptably
            > risky.
            >
            > In contrast, the present terrorist threat includes an ever-changing
            array of potential attackers, a
            > variety of possible targets, multiple types of weapons - not just a
            nuclear detonations but also
            > radioactive, chemical and biological agents, and conventional
            explosives - all with multiple
            > delivery modes. In addition, the attack would likely take place
            with little or no warning, and its
            > nature might not immediately be obvious (e.g. detonation of a RDD
            would appear as a simple bombing
            > until radiation measurements were made).
            >
            > And because mass transit is a known terrorist target, I think it's
            unlikely that the Metro is a part
            > of a senior VIP evacuation plan or that East Potomac Park was
            chosen for its proximity to a Metro
            > line.
            >
            > Albert
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "John Young" <jya@...>
            > To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:04 PM
            > Subject: RE: [coldwarcomms] Submarine cables to Pentagon?
            >
            >
            > > The extensive underground work located in East Potomac Park next to
            > > the National Park Service facility, reportedly directed by the US
            Navy, may
            > > have as one of its purposes to provide better-protected passage for
            > > trans-Potomac communication lines.
            > >
            > > What began as a small, openly-visible staging yard has become a fully
            > > enclosed multi-building operation, with a quite noisy exhaust fan
            facing
            > > traffic on the adjacent highway. The high-volume fan is probably for
            > > exhausting the excavation.
            > >
            > > (Other noisy high volume fans can be heard from sidewalk grates
            towards
            > > the White House but these may be to ventilate the subway rather than
            > > related to this operation.)
            > >
            > > An 8-foot high, solid board fence surrounds the operation at East
            Potomac,
            > > with two contractors identified at the entrance as Clark
            Construction and
            > > Kiewet. Kiewet is a well-known underground contractor which
            specializes
            > > in tunnels and mines.
            > >
            > > This site adjoins the subway tunnel under the river and the work
            may only
            > > parallel the subway or be an expansion of it. Subway tunnels, like
            bridges,
            > > are often used to house communications cabling. Some are built with
            > > unpublicized cable and servicing accommodations for security, and a
            > > few have truly secret purposes and/or capabilities which are
            cloaked by
            > > the public functions.
            > >
            > > Curious that the US Navy is said to be in charge rather than the Army
            > > Corps of Engineers, but that may be due to the riverine aspect of the
            > > project or perhaps more.
            > >
            > > For example, this operation may be excavating under East Potomac Park
            > > rather than tunneling under the river, if not both, with possible
            tie-ins
            > > across
            > > Washington Channel to McNair and the Navy Yard and across the
            Anacostia
            > > to the Naval Station and McDill.
            > >
            > > Older underground work at the Ellipse, and new work supposedly
            associated
            > > with a new subterranean tourist and press center may be related to the
            > > Navy project. There has been a huge increase in underground government
            > > facilities since 9/11 around the world, and most are secret.
            > >
            > > Possible White House emergency evacuation via underground systems
            > > were debunked here a while back, so that is a long-shot. That
            long-running
            > > project at Treasury is reportedly for mere renovation of the aged
            structure.
            > > But its long life comes closer to that of an underground project
            below the
            > > observables.
            >
          • Charles Fargis
            maybe corps of engineers is too tapped out or suffering from post Katrina and the CeeBees are at work! ... From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 28, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              maybe corps of engineers is too tapped out or suffering from post Katrina
              and the CeeBees are at work!

              -----Original Message-----
              From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of tsniffin20902
              Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:19 AM
              To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [coldwarcomms] Re: Submarine cables to Pentagon?



              I wouldn't think a tunnel to the White House would be easily
              constructed from this location given the amount of underground "crap"
              (old sewer tunnels, utility lines, steam pipes, etc..), but the rest
              of your logic is dead on. Given that the HSOC and many other vital
              facilities that would be fully staffed during an incident in/around DC
              are located in leased office space and open areas it would make sense
              to have a secure, hardened facility for the feds to run to.

              I don't remember the timing, but perhaps this is the solution to the
              GSA perimeter set back requirements that have forced other federal
              clients to move outside the immediate area to more remote/secure
              locations?

              I too am curious why the Navy was selected to manage the project.
              Perhaps the missile battery or radar control facility really do make
              more sense? I'll have to make a vist down there this week and see
              what has changed lately.

              Todd

              --- In coldwarcomms@ <mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com, "Albert LaFrance" <lafrance@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > My theory is that the East Potomac Park project is primarily a
              hardened shelter/EOC for use in
              > short/no-notice attacks on Washington area, and is very possibly
              linked by tunnels to the Pentagon,
              > White House and/or other nearby federal buildings. In fact, we may
              finally be seeing some version
              > of the DUCC concept ( http://coldwar- <http://coldwar-c4i.net/DUCC/>
              c4i.net/DUCC/ ) or one of its
              successors, though I'd bet that
              > it's nowhere near the original proposed depth of 3500 ft.
              >
              > I don't think that the installation of communications lines is a
              major goal of the project, because
              > the apparent extent of the construction work far exceeds what would
              be needed for that purpose. For
              > example, directional drilling technology has advanced to a point
              where long underwater bores are
              > very feasible even for regular telecom projects.
              >
              > In some ways, a close-in shelter makes more sense in today's threat
              environment that it did in the
              > Cold War era. In those days, the threat to Washington was better
              defined: a nuclear weapon,
              > presumed capable of destroying much of the city, delivered by a
              Soviet missile or bomber.
              > Early-warning systems could be expected to provide enough notice to
              allow helicopter evacuation of
              > key officials and activation of emergency relocation sites, and
              except for the "bolt from the blue"
              > scenario, additional warning would come from Soviet-bloc military
              movements and diplomatic actions.
              > Furthermore, the development of more powerful weapons likely made
              sheltering in place unacceptably
              > risky.
              >
              > In contrast, the present terrorist threat includes an ever-changing
              array of potential attackers, a
              > variety of possible targets, multiple types of weapons - not just a
              nuclear detonations but also
              > radioactive, chemical and biological agents, and conventional
              explosives - all with multiple
              > delivery modes. In addition, the attack would likely take place
              with little or no warning, and its
              > nature might not immediately be obvious (e.g. detonation of a RDD
              would appear as a simple bombing
              > until radiation measurements were made).
              >
              > And because mass transit is a known terrorist target, I think it's
              unlikely that the Metro is a part
              > of a senior VIP evacuation plan or that East Potomac Park was
              chosen for its proximity to a Metro
              > line.
              >
              > Albert
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "John Young" <jya@...>
              > To: <coldwarcomms@ <mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:04 PM
              > Subject: RE: [coldwarcomms] Submarine cables to Pentagon?
              >
              >
              > > The extensive underground work located in East Potomac Park next to
              > > the National Park Service facility, reportedly directed by the US
              Navy, may
              > > have as one of its purposes to provide better-protected passage for
              > > trans-Potomac communication lines.
              > >
              > > What began as a small, openly-visible staging yard has become a fully
              > > enclosed multi-building operation, with a quite noisy exhaust fan
              facing
              > > traffic on the adjacent highway. The high-volume fan is probably for
              > > exhausting the excavation.
              > >
              > > (Other noisy high volume fans can be heard from sidewalk grates
              towards
              > > the White House but these may be to ventilate the subway rather than
              > > related to this operation.)
              > >
              > > An 8-foot high, solid board fence surrounds the operation at East
              Potomac,
              > > with two contractors identified at the entrance as Clark
              Construction and
              > > Kiewet. Kiewet is a well-known underground contractor which
              specializes
              > > in tunnels and mines.
              > >
              > > This site adjoins the subway tunnel under the river and the work
              may only
              > > parallel the subway or be an expansion of it. Subway tunnels, like
              bridges,
              > > are often used to house communications cabling. Some are built with
              > > unpublicized cable and servicing accommodations for security, and a
              > > few have truly secret purposes and/or capabilities which are
              cloaked by
              > > the public functions.
              > >
              > > Curious that the US Navy is said to be in charge rather than the Army
              > > Corps of Engineers, but that may be due to the riverine aspect of the
              > > project or perhaps more.
              > >
              > > For example, this operation may be excavating under East Potomac Park
              > > rather than tunneling under the river, if not both, with possible
              tie-ins
              > > across
              > > Washington Channel to McNair and the Navy Yard and across the
              Anacostia
              > > to the Naval Station and McDill.
              > >
              > > Older underground work at the Ellipse, and new work supposedly
              associated
              > > with a new subterranean tourist and press center may be related to the
              > > Navy project. There has been a huge increase in underground government
              > > facilities since 9/11 around the world, and most are secret.
              > >
              > > Possible White House emergency evacuation via underground systems
              > > were debunked here a while back, so that is a long-shot. That
              long-running
              > > project at Treasury is reportedly for mere renovation of the aged
              structure.
              > > But its long life comes closer to that of an underground project
              below the
              > > observables.
              >







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • John Young
              There are three submarine Potomac cable crossings in the Pentagon area shown on a nautical chart available here:
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                There are three submarine Potomac cable crossings in the Pentagon area
                shown on a nautical chart available here:


                http://www.nauticalcharts.gov/bookletcharts/12289_BookletChart.pdf

                Scroll down to page 4.

                One area is below the five bridges connecting East Potomac Park to
                Virginia, another nearby and a third not far upriver.

                Nauticalcharts.gov is a marvelous resource which I had not seen before.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.