A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a thorough
inquiry."
This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the
military.
The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.
As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was repeated at
virtually every level of civilian air defense, in relation to all four planes.
Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented negligence –on the
part of those entrusted with the protection of American skies.
Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the sheer scope of
it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public inquiry; yet the government
has strictly avoided opening itself to public scrutiny; instead, it has used
the tragedy to wrap the protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.
The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30 billion
intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on the C.I.A.'s use of
unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)
As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official documents,
statements, and mainstream media reports) this assumption is utterly wrong.
That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush to identify
the attackers) is all the more reason that an open, public investigation be
initiated.
In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we found it
virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal incompetence which must have
accompanied it; and our government, media, (and other centers of influence)
seem to have found it convenient to inflame our anger –diverting our attention from the
outstanding, obvious questions:
The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government, was
temporarily put on hold.
It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public investigation.
There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts –simply an increased
budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and state power.
It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for ourselves; and
yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months following, may have made such
an inquiry seem impossible to us, passe, perhaps even irrelevant.
So I ask you, dear reader, for but a few minutes more of your time: to briefly
take a step back with me, unto a morning and a day when our world seemed to
change forever.
I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information which have
passed across our view screens so quickly, their significance seeming to fade
in the absence of meaningful debate.
Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense research:
carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential points may be grasped with
a clarity and ease, hitherto elusive.
Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence, I’m sure
you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery may lie within.
Within ten minutes of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center,
President George W. Bush was aware of it.
Then, (according to CNN) he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National
Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school,
(CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31,
Sept.11).
Then the President was updated a third time.
And what did George W. Bush do when he received the third update from Andrew Card?
Apparently, nothing.
"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on television sets
here at the elementary school... Shortly before [his] statement [addressing the
tragedy] he was actually sitting down with some children here at the elementary
school reading them a book....
Reporters asked him if he was aware of the situation in New York.
He nodded a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say about that
shortly.
"Well, precisely.
And the president has a way of letting reporters know that it's either an
appropriate... or inappropriate time to take questions
. He does that in many different environments, many different situations.
Clearly this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an even keel,
keep the situation under control as best as possible. He just nodded and said
-- we'll talk about this later."
"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I
was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit
the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said,
"There's one terrible pilot."
"The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after
the World Trade Center was...."
Cheney neglects to finish his sentence, but the implications are clear.
We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that
a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but
the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a
national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that he has
a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that he is among
the first to be informed, not the last.
Only at 9:30 did the President finally confirm what the FAA, the
military, and the secret service had already known fifty minutes
before -and what the entire television-watching world had
known for forty.
His inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following
events.
By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had
been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at approx. 8:46). It had made
a huge northward /westward/southward loop, before resuming its proper course again. (7)
"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have known that...
Flight 77 had probably been hijacked." (NY Times, Sept 15)
"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled
American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of
American
Flight 11 even before it crashed [at 8:46]
CNN, Sept 16, ibid."
Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)
Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic Control
officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also aware that another plane on the east coast
had been hijacked-confirmed.
Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight 175 had been
declared "hijacked,"
(at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid, earlier than the
NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is based on official government, NORAD, timeline).
This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine procedures of ATC
and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,
"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the
White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than
400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The
hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending
turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete
circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no
fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had
better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later
it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at
480mph." (10)
"provide capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in
the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." (10)
" Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in
the air over Washington DC."
" an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume
of smoke arose from the Pentagon... Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from
Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to
scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly
cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from
Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The
D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter
planes, a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to the skies
over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon’..."
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews
Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes
were not on alert and not deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17, ibid))
Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during an
absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try to leave for
Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may still recall) his plane
was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska, and he didn’t return to Washington
until 7pm –ten hours after the first attack!!
Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN, (3:10)
the next day. (11)
So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in time to
intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the President that it
was "not safe" for the President to fly back to Washington.
Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient planes in the
air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure would normally ensure that
there were).
Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA,
FBI, etc.
Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this shocking
possibility.
The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within two weeks it
was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever even existed.
"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This has nothing to
do with anything . . . that may or may not have been directed at President
Bush. This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)
The FAA’s Boston Center knew... that Flight 11 had made a dramatic, roughly
100-degree left-hand turn to the south. (MSNBC, ibid)
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is
unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane
deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers
will hit the panic button.... When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet
missed a turn at a fix, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched."
(MSNBC, Sept 12, ibid)
"When planes are intercepted... typically handled with a graduated response.
The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention,
or make a pass in front... can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or...
down it with a missile."
Standard FAA procedure, when radar and cockpit contact is lost, (or when the
plane goes off-course) is to get a plane up in the air to regain contact with
the pilot.
This is criminal negligence, pure and simple; and, as we have documented this
same degree of negligence in the case of
Flight 77
, we can thus see that this was no "fluke," no "isolated accident," no
infrequent "bad day at the office."
We don’t yet know where the exact disconnect point is, (ATC? FAA? NORAD?) but
we can clearly see a huge gap in credible response time.
By 8:38 Flight 11 was already nearing the outskirts of New York City, eight
minutes away from its target.
Now notice what Air Base NORAD chooses to scramble fighters from: Otis Air
Force Base, on the eastern-most tip of Massachusetts, (Cape Cod, on the
Atlantic coast).
This is about two-hundred miles away from where Flight 11 was.
As it was, it was already too late for Flight 11.
It struck the WTC at 8:46am, (CNN, April 16, ibid). The intercept planes would
not be in the air for another six minutes.
"To maintain highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military forces in
order to provide combat-ready A-10 aircraft for wartime requirements. To
provide trained personnel to support state and local authorities in time of
natural disaster or civil strife at the command of the Governor."
111
th
FW Home Page
"the 111th Fighter Wing has a state mission to protect the safety and
security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania."
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section 2.6
Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or
a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal
basis for
mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/
search.asp
Now, it is true that escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as
the Otis Air Force Base near Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at
Langley, Virginia; but this not always the case:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for
the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any
military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide
escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon]
will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the
squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct
coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
Thus, when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training
flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then
picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from
Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (
www.tenc.net
ibid)
We are told by military officials that,
"The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable
to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
If we take this "official" speed, (just under 10 miles/minute) and calculate
the distance, (approx. 190 miles) it would have taken the planes from Otis
about twenty minutes to reach Flight 175’s last known position; and judging
from Flight 175’s last known speed and direction, (precise speed unknown, let's
say 300 mph) in twenty minutes the airliner would still be another one hundred
miles away.
So we can see that it would take about thirty minutes for the Otis fighters to
reach Flight 175.
If, on the other hand, NORAD ordered jets to scramble from outside
Philadelphia, (at say, 8:50, and even allowing for the eight minutes it took
the Otis fighters to get into the air) those jets
could be expected
to make visual contact with Flight 175 in approximately
thirteen minutes
.
If Atlantic City had been chosen, two planes could have scrambled and flown the
less than one-hundred miles (to intercept) in less than twenty minutes.
Neither of these bases received an order to scramble.
Again, we see the same pattern as in the case of
Flight 77
; in both cases: incredible FAA delays in notifying NORAD, and NORAD choosing
bases which are far away.
This picture is further complicated by the fact that, according to the
Federation of American Scientists
,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
the top speed of the F-15 is over 1800 mph.
This top speed is rarely achieved, given the weight of weapons and extra fuel;
but given the extreme nature of the emergency, would it not be reasonable to
assume that the F-15's should have achieved a speed of at least 1,000 or 1,200
mph? about 20 miles/minute?
Apparently, that's not what happened.
According to the NORAD timeline, (CNN, Sept. 16, ibid) the two F-15's left Otis
AFB at 8:52. When Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center at 9:02, (ten
minutes later) the
"F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away."
If we calculate the distance between OTIS and NYC, (about 190 miles, see
note 13
) and the time it took the planes to get there, they flew about twelve miles
per minute, or 720 mph. -hardly what we'd expect.
In total then, it took civilain air defence, (on Sept. 11, 2001)
fifty minutes
to get two fighters to the interception point, (NY City) after the initial
airline emergency had commenced.
Compare this with the "Payne Stewart" incident,
9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot.
For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38: Having failed,
the controller calls in the military... 9:54 - 16 minutes later -- the F-16
reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection.
Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138
Even given the discrpencies over the "official" flight speed, we should also
remember that, if ATC or NORAD had responded to Flight 11 in a reasonable
amount of time, numerous other bases in the area could have been called upon to
put jets in the air, such as,
The 104 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Westfield, Massachusetts, (center/west part
of the state)
The 174 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Syracuse, New York, (which was directly
in Flight 11’s flight-path, until it turned south)
Or the 103, or 118 Fighter Wings, (ANG) twenty miles north of Hartford,
Connecticut, (100 miles N/E of NYC).
The "state" mission of 174 Fighter Wing, for example, is as follows:
"protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety.
State missions, which are funded by the state, include disaster relief in times
of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires; search and rescue;
protection of vital public services; and support to civil defense."
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/ang/nyang.html
As most American citizens know very well, the primary, stated purpose of the
Air National Guard is civil defence.
For some reason, even though this was the most extreme of civil emergencies, no
other jets were scrambled on Sept 11 -besides those under the direct control of
NORAD, (Otis and Langley, as we shall see).
All the other National Guard bases were left un-activated.
Even given the outrageous twenty-four minute delay in responding to Flight 11,
(which irrevocably doomed it to its’ fate) jets still should have been
scrambled from Westfield, MA., Hartford CT., Philadelphia, or Atlantic City;
and they would have then been in the air in time to intercept Flight 175.
As it was, Flight 175 made a sharp turn south, (towards Atlantic City) which
would have brought it into closer range with both 111, and 177 Fighter Wings.
--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path.
(CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
IF NORAD had acted decisively –even
after
the first confirmed attack on the World Trade Centre- there still would have
been a chance to avert the second attack, but the needed order to scramble
additional jets never came.
--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south
tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.)
(CNN, Sept 16, ibid)
Thus it was unprecedented incompetence and negligence which allowed two
hijacked planes to crash into the World trade Center towers -just as had been
the case for
Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, (see Part 1A).
Thousands of American citizens would not have lost their lives if ATC, FAA,
NORAD, and/or Pentagon officials had done their jobs, (though again, we don’t
yet know exactly whom, and to what degree).
The same pattern of incompetence remains:
For Flight 11, no effective actions were taken to regain visual contact, (via
an escort) once cockpit/transponder contact was lost.
A response only occurred twenty-four minutes after the plane had been off
course, was obviously hijacked, and then confirmed.
In the case of both Flight 11 and 175, the base chosen to scramble jets from
was a great distance away –relative to numerous other bases- and ultimately
proved incapable of defending the citizens and property of New York City.
Was Boston ATC in charge of both flights?
Who was responsible for the ensuing decisions made at NORAD?
By the close proximity of attack-times between the two planes, and the
outrageously long response-time/ineptitude of ATC/FAA and/or NORAD, two cargoes
of innocents were condemned to an infamous fate.
In this, let us be perfectly clear: the source of our outrage is not for
vengeance against those who may have unconciously
donned the uniform of criminal negligence on Sept 11; for, even when thousands
of lives are lost, the heart
of a nation can be very large. We may yet choose to
understand that, in the midst of a crisis, some people in positions
of high authority may have "lost their heads," "missed their cue" -when their
skills and training were most
needed.
What we cannot countenance, however,
is being lied to; and so long as the government utterly refuses to acknowledge
the criminal negligence that the available documentation clearly implies,
then the possiblity that there are very good and reasonable
explanations for the security failure on Sept 11th remains on very thin ground.
Flight 93
Index
The general timeline for the final voyage of Flight 93 is as follows:
--8:42 a.m.: United Airlines flight 93 takes off from Newark
International Airport, bound for San Francisco.
--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that Uniteed Airlines flight 93 may have
been hijacked.
--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from Unitted flight 93 ceases and radar
contact is lost.
--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tappes, a radar signal is detected
near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
CNN, Sept 16. ibid
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
By numerous accounts, Flight 93 is believed to have crashed at 10:06 EST, or a
few minutes after. (12)
Many of us will remember, during the first few hours after the crash, hearing
reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane.
This was flatly denied by the White House and military officials, and the
mention of it was soon dropped in the media coverage.
There is much evidence to suggest that Flight 93
was
shot down, (which we shall discuss in a subsequent report); but for the
moment, this question is largely irrelevant.
If a military plane had shot down the airliner, (after three other planes had
devastated three highly populated buildings) few people would have found fault
with the military for carrying out the gruesome task.
In fact, it is far more damning of the U.S. Air Force, and civilian defense,
that officials are claiming there were
not
any fighters in the immediate vicinity.
Let’s take a closer look at the timeline.
According to the above CNN report, (based on NORAD’s own statement) the FAA
informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16.
The plane crashed at 10:06.
That means it was in the air, hijack-confirmed for almost an hour, (fifty
minutes) with no jets intercepting it –
after
two planes had struck the World Trade Center.
Is this not incredible?
We are told that the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77, (the third plane)
"may have been hijacked" at 9:25; and only then, at 9:27, did NORAD
order jets to be scrambled from Langley.
But why, (for God’s sake) did NORAD not order jets to be scrambled from Langley
at 9:16, when first informed that Flight 93 had been hijacked?
If they had immediately ordered jets airborne at 9:16, the F-16’s from Langley
would have actually made it to Washington before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon,
(9:38).
If NORAD had responded as it is mandated to do, the F-16’s from Langley would
have caught up to Flight 93 soon after it altered its course near Cleveland.
Nor would fighters from Langley have been the most logical squadrons to call
upon.
Andrews Air Force base would have been closer.
Near Toledo, Ohio, less than 100 miles west of Cleveland, is 180 Fighter Wing,
and about thirty miles west of Columbus Ohio, is 178 Fighter wing.
tp://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/Military_Install_N_R.html#ohio
http://www.ang.af.mil/directory/ANGDir.html
Also, recall from the earlier reports, (cited above) that F-16/15 Fighters were
scrambled from both, Langley AFB and Andrews AFB, for protection over
Washington, D.C.
From those reports, which said the Andrew’s planes were in the air "within
minutes" of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, (at 8:38)
(Sunday Telegraph)
–and the Langley planes which arrived at about 9:49, (CNN. Sept 16, ibid)
eleven minutes after the crash- we can reasonably assume there was extra
fighter-power over Washington by 9:50.
Furthermore, Flight 93 was widely believed to be headed toward Washington. It
had made a 180-degree turn over Cleveland, and was heading in the direction of
the capital.
Recall the radar map, previously cited,
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
and,
"As we walked, a voice over a fire truck loud speaker told everyone to
move as far away from the Pentagon as possible due to a second plane coming
toward the Pentagon. Evidently, this plane was American Flight #93 that crashed
east of Pittsburgh."
Lt. Col. Alan Maitland, Pentagon employee
http://www.easttexasnews.com/news/story6_10_21.htm
and further,
At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector,
code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad
timeline. Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning.
"A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves
as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White
House at all costs.' "
Tuesday October 16 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller
By MATTHEW L. WALD with KEVIN SACK, The New York
Times
When Flight 93 crashed east of Pittsburgh, it was approximately 150 miles away
from Washington, (approximately twenty minutes away, by airliner, at 400 mph,
or fourteen minutes away, by super-sonic jet).
The FAA had ordered all commercial planes to be grounded at 9:25.
There were very few planes left in the sky. There would have been virtually no
other planes on radar that could have threatened Washington, D.C., (even
without the extra fighters in the air) –that is, besides the hijacked plane
which had reversed course and was barreling towards Washington at a ferocious
speed.
If the main priority of those jets was to protect Washington, why were some of
them not sent to intercept flight 93? even at 9:50? -well before the crash,
some sixteen minutes later?
If there were no fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93 when it crashed, there
bloody-well should have been.
Apparently some of these planes were eventually ordered to intercept; but we
have not been told when, and how close they were; and again, they appeared to
arrive upon the scene about ten minutes after the plane had crashed –in a now
familiar pattern.
Notes
13)The distance between Otis AFB and New York City is about 188 miles,
[NOTE: According to the following site,
http://airtravel.about.com/library/misc/blmileageair.htm
the air mile distance between Boston and New York City is 188 miles. A look on
a map located through yahoo.com shows that Otis AFB is on the outer edge of
Cape Cod, (on the shores of the Atlantic). Thus, it appears as if Otis is as
far, (if not further) from New York City as Boston. I include this rather
lengthy explanation here, due to the fact that numerous other sources have
repeatedly under-estimated the distance by a wide margin.]
If we subtract the 70 miles from the 188, that leaves about 118 miles that the
F-15's travelled in ten minutes. That's about twelve miles per minute, or 720
mph.
14)10:06, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Sept 13,
10:10, Washington Post, Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
15)
10: 06 NY Times online,
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/WTC_Shanksville.html
Note: the reference to this NY Times article is from the site of Holocaust
denier David Irving. This simply shows that relevant information can sometimes
be gained from sources that are otherwise suppliers of consistent
dis-information.
 
Unanswered Questions, Part 1C:
Summation of Civilian Air Defense, Sept 11, 2001
Index
WHO IS TO BLAME?
[Dear reader: We now enter into a serious investigation.
Thus far, we have only laid down the groundwork for
why
an investigation
is warranted. You are now engaging a much wider, more-complex
landscape of
facts, times, dates, possibilities, conclusions. I want to encourage
you, in the
strongest way possible, to trust your own instincts.
When you feel that you're being asked, to cram so much information into
your brain,
as to oppress your heart, your hope, your health; please, turn to
something else.
Put the page down, close the computer screen, or just take
a deep breath. By all means, use this work to feed your own
expression: write, sing, paint, draw, dance.
More than anything else: may you feel empowered
to listen more-deeply, to that voice within you,
without which, the better world we seek
must remain but a distant dream.
(Then come back and read some more).
In our review of the events of Sept 11
th
, (thus far) we have found a consistent pattern, whereby, Air Traffic Control,
the FAA, and NORAD consistently failed to do their jobs -in anything
approaching a reasonable frame of time.
In the case of Flight 11, Boston ATC took
eighteen
minutes
to notify NORAD, after the plane had
ceased its transponder signal, after radio contact with the pilot had been
lost, and after the plane had begun going dramatically off-course.
When NORAD was notified, it took
six
minutes
for the call for jets to scramble to go through; and the order was sent to a
base which was two hundred miles away, when numerous other
"battle-ready" fighter squadrons in Philadelphia, Atlantic City, and
Hartford were far closer.
(The question of whether any of those planes were on "strip alert" or
not we shall look at shortly).
This galling, unprecedented delay, coupled with NORAD’s inept judgement, also
doomed Flight 175 to its ignoble destruction, sixteen minutes later.
Flight 77 was clearly in trouble before Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center at
8:46. ATC officials watching Flight 77 were aware that Flight 11 had been
hijacked before it crashed; yet it took the FAA until 9:25, over
thirty-five
minutes
later, to inform NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked.
NORAD again responded by ordering planes to scramble from a base (Langley)
which was 130 miles away from where Flight 77 was, (just outside Washington)
when active fighters were stationed at Andrews AFB, just ten to fifteen miles
away.
Flight 93 was hijack-confirmed at 9:16,
fifty
minutes
before it crashed in rural Pennsylvania –with not a single fighter being close
to intercepting it.
When the President of the United States, George W. Bush, was first informed
that a hijacked plane had crashed into the World trade center, (and another
plane hijacked) at about 8:55, he made no change in his plans. After being
updated at 9:00 am, then 9:05 (presumably about the second attack) he did
nothing for another
twenty-five minutes
, even though he was supposedly the only one authorized to shoot the planes
down.
When the president tried to leave Florida for Washington, his plane, (Air Force
One) was re-routed to Louisiana, and then Nebraska. He limped home, nine hours
after the attacks,
because of "credible evidence of a threat to Air Force One and the White
House", which were later denied and dismissed by the very officials who
first mouthed them.
It is now exceedingly clear that, alongside a terrorist attack on Sept 11th,
there existed a campaign of gross negligence at practically all levels of
American air defense: ATC, FAA, NORAD, and the Executive.
Without this colossal incompetence, the collisions of Flights 11, 175, and 77
-into those buildings- simply could not have occurred.
Within this above group we must also include the Pentagon and the Dept. of
Defense, which is at the center of all command and control decisions in the
case of hijackings, (and other national emergencies).
"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack
coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center
(NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the
Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.
"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus
monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne
Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet
on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center."
--'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (
www.tenc.net
ibid)
This gives specific clarification to a previous reference in Part 1A, (New York
Times, Sept 15)
"military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon]
were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do,"
All of this is now a confirmation of what everyone (with access to a
television) instinctively knew on Sept 11:
something went horribly wrong with American airspace security;
somebody was asleep at the switch.
Now we can see, that it was not just one official, in one department; it was
system-wide
; and we can further see why the government, and the military, do not want us
to ask too many questions about it.
This gross,
systematic
incompetence points to one of three probable causes:
1) criminal negligence, which miraculously occurred at all five levels of
civilian air defense at the same time, (with varying degrees of culpability)
or,
2) criminal negligence, emanating primarily from the highest levels of
governmental authority,
or,
3) intentional sabotage, (treason) operating from within the government, (which
then may have caused other negligent acts to occur).
The first scenario is not very likely.
It would mean that a long process of decay, apathy, and inefficiency would have
set in: a ticking time-bomb, in place, imperceivable, waiting for a terrorist
group to eventually take advantage.
While such a degradation of the overall system may have played a part in the
Sept 11th breakdown, it seems far more likely that a particular ingrediant set
it off: either unintended criminal negligence at a very high level, or
intentional negligence, (sabotage) at a middle to high level.
It's also possible that very little negligence existed at the lower levels of
the FAA and ATC; and instead, occurred in the upper echelons of the military.
For example: NORAD and the Pentagon are the last leg of communication in
civilian air-defence; negligence at this level, means that the planes don't get
airborne, no matter what ATC and the FAA do.
While it's also true that the planes don't get airborne if the military is not
informed, it's less-likely that such negligence would occur across numerous
branches of Air Traffic Control centers, and the FAA, all at the same time. The
fact that the President was also utterly incapacitated, points to command and
control centers in the military.
We should further remember that much of what we know of as evidence in
mainstream publications -timelines, who did what, etc- ultimately comes to us
from the military.
In matters of "national-security," the FAA and ATC bow to the military
authority -for the final word on what "officially" transpired.
See, for example, the previously cited Newsday article, (Sept 23) wherein we
read,
"FAA spokesman William Shumann said the agency would not comment on its actions
during the Sept. 11 crisis."
"because the attacks are under investigation, the agency is not discussing the
timing of its alerts to the military."
By the "official" documentation gathered thus far, it appears that the FAA and
ATC is more at fault -for not informing NORAD in time- than is NORAD, (for not
ordering the appropriate bases to respond); yet this documentation comes to us
largely from NORAD; and we would not expect to publicly hear from ATC or FAA
officials, if their experience differed markedly from the "official" line.
It's possible that the ATC and FAA officials did everything by the book on Sept
11 -and that NORAD simply refused to act, or the Pentagon ordered bases not to
respond, (for whatever reason).
The fact that no FAA/ATC officials have been publicly charged with negligence,
would suggest that the military, (which holds ultimate authority here) is
either covering up for them, (taking heat onto itself) or is not charging
anyone to cover up its own culpability.
Anyone familiar with the U.S. military knows that the first option, (the act of
a senior authority passing up an opportunity to pin the blame for a disaster on
a guilty subordinate) is the far less likely of the two.
If the negligence was intentional, (i.e. sabotage) then it still would have had
to occur at a fairly high level -for it to have a critical, causitive affect
across so many jurisdictions and levels of authority: ATC, FAA, NORAD, the
Pentagon, and the President.
The infrastructure of civilian air defence is very complex: it may take some
time before we are able to pinpoint precisely who was responsible for what, and
to what degree of concious intent.
Intentional or not, such gross negligence and incompetence demands a full
public hearing –and for those responsible to be brought to trial.
The only way for this to happen is for individual citizens and groups to spread
the word, gather together evidence, separate fact from conjecture, cease
accepting government pronouncements as gospel, then make our voices heard
across the entire body-politic.
The fact that the whole affair has been overlooked by the Bush Administration,
Congress, (and the mainstream media, as we shall see) does not bode well for
the search for justice -for the thousands of innocents who needlessly died.
Such is the challenge which befalls the sacred duty of citizens -living in a
free society.
Now: while we still do not have a conclusive idea of where the criminal
negligence of Sept 11th emanated from, we may be able to shed some further
light on the subject, by expanding the scope of our investigation.
That is: if the negligence of Sept. 11th emanted from a high level in the
military, (and/or executive) then we should also see it reflected in other
jurisdictions which are lower than the military authority, but higher than the
FAA/ATC.
If it is not, this would make it more plausible for us to assume that the
negligence came from the lower ranks.
It is in this regard the the "official" FBI investigation now represents a
potentially fertile ground for gathering evidence -as to exactly where the
breakdown (and/or collusion) of authority occurred.
It is to this that we now turn our attention.
Part 1D: "The Investigation"
FBI, CIA, and other agencies.
Index
First recall that the CIA/FBI claim they had no real warning of the Sept 11
th
attacks.
This claim is dubious in the extreme.
The CIA has an "official" budget of $30 billion/yr.
While the CIA/FBI claim no advance warning, it took them only a few days to
discover the identities of all sixteen hijackers, their backgrounds, where they
traveled, trained to fly, etc.
Within the first week after the attack, German intelligence officials are
shocked, (and a little angry) to find that U.S. intelligence forces had been
monitoring the suspected terrorist cells in Germany for four years, and had
massive files of information on them -yet hadn’t told the Germans a thing.
(Analyst John Cooley, "Democracy Now" archive, Sept 26,
www.webactive.com
)
As the question of CIA "advance warning" involves many variables, (and is not
as central to our investigation, as what happened on the specific day of Sept.
11th) we largely leave that question to a subsequent report.
Here we focus on the investigative work of the FBI.
So, what do we know so far?
Let's start with the "terrorists."
The FBI says that a number of the terrorist/pilots
were trained at certain small-engine flight schools in Florida.
The instructors at those schools freely admit that such training would have
been of no significant help to someone wanting to fly commercial airliners.
They are "completely different systems." (
www.tenc.net
Interview with Huffman Aviation).
Remember that the hijacker-pilots were near-universally recognized to have
"extraordinary skill," (Washington Post, Sept. 12). It would seem to take
significant amount of discipline and training to be able to fly a jet airliner,
travelling at 480 miles an hour, (apparently, twice the legal speed) into a
target not much wider than
an airplane. (Not to mention the above-noted
acrobatics
over the Pentagon, Part 1A).
Here’s how the various instructors described these "pilots,"
Mohammed Atta, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, (Flight 11)
"neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and
intercept."
The Washington Post
(September 19, 2001)
Nawaq Alhazmi, Khaid Al-Midhar, (Flight 175)
"Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse...
like they had hardly even ever driven a car ... in the plane, they were
dumb and dumber."
The Washington Post
(September 24, 2001)
And how about Hani Hanjour? -the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who was supposed to
do the Pentagon air-show?
"... Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors.... three
times... [hoping] to rent a plane from the airport.... after three times in the
air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo.... [he] had 600 hours listed
in his log book... and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better
with the amount of experience." (pg. 1.)
The Prince George's Journal
(Maryland), September 18.
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/valentine.htm#hani_hanjour
Second, while even the most seasoned military strategists were shocked at the
sophistication and precision of the Sept 11
th
operation, the clumsiness of the terrorists -in leaving evidence behind, in
hotel rooms, suitcases, and loud public behavior, etc.- was impressive in turn.
There’s the crop dusting manuals, maps, diagrams -that we’ve all heard about.
"In one case, we’re told that two of these super devout Moslems spent the
night
before their suicidal act drinking in strip bars -a double
blasphemy." (whatreallyhappened.com)
"Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending
bloodshed
the night before the terrorist attacks."
"the men in [the] bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks,
paying with
credit cards.... They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said
'Wait 'til
tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,'" the owner of the strip bar was
quoted as
saying."
"Furthermore, [the bar owner] said that he gave the FBI their credit card
receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one of the
suspects
and most amazingly, a copy of a Koran that one of the men had left at the bar."
Associated Press, September 13
Early in the morning of Sept 11
th
, there was reported to be a "road rage" incident
at Boston’s Logan Airport -involving four Arabic-looking people. A witness to
this later led
police to the vehicle, in the airport parking lot.
They found there: Arabic flight training manuals, and a Koran packed away in a
suitcase,
(something not done by devout Moslems).
(investigator John Judge,
www.astridmm.com/radio/archive.htm)
Then we find out that the FBI doesn’t really have a firm handle on who most of
the
hijackers were. Of the sixteen originally identified, two are now known to be
still alive,
(and living in the middle east); at least one has been dead for two years, and
the
possibility of forged documents has not been ruled out in all but a few cases.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/who.html
newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-warid1021.story?coll=ny%2Dtop%2Dheadlines
This may partly explain why, when we check the list of passengers on the planes
which went down,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
we find that the passenger-count for each plane is short four or five of the
listed total; and none of the names listed are Arabic-sounding. We may assume
from this that because the identities used by the hijackers may not have been
their real ones, the FBI may have asked the airlines to keep those names
secret; but it remains a mystery.
Yet the pictures of these various "hijackers" are plastered across
every
major newspaper in the country -as if it’s a fact- for months after most of
their identities are
proven to be uncertain.
There were apparently seven phone calls made from the various hijacked planes;
only one of them, (Flight 93) mentions the hijackers being of middle-eastern
origin. This may be particularly significant because one of the callers was
Barbara Olsen, the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General, (who argued before the
Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore). She was, herself, a noted author, journalist.
Are we to believe she simply neglected to mention an important identifying
characteristic?
Then we find that five of the suspects appeared to have lived at and/or
"got some training at American military bases." (Newsweek, Sept 15)
Does this mean that the terrorists had inside help? Or that the identities had
been stolen?
We are not likely to hear.
There's the "chilling" final letter of instruction to the terrorists
which conveniently connects the three different flights: one in the baggage
that "accidentally" got left behind, one in an airport parking-lot
garbage-can; and one, intact, at the Pennsylvania crash site where
"everything [was] all but obliterated."
A veteran Middle East reporter, Robert Fisk, described the authors of the
letter as
being "surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion" -due to numerous
expressions in the letter, foreign to practicing Moslems, (The Independent,
Sept 29, 2001)
"The document begins with the words, 'In the name of God, the most merciful,
the most compassionate... In the name of God, of myself, and of my family....
The time of fun and waste is gone.'
"The problem is that no Molsem -however ill-taught- would include his family in
such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after
he mentioned God in the first line. Lebanese and Palestinian suicide bombers
have never been known to refer to 'the time of fun and waste' -because a true
Muslim would not have 'wasted' his time and would regard pleasure as a reward
of the after-life."
"The full Arabic text has not been released by the FBI. The translation, as it
stands, suggest an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt
-asking to be forgiven for sins, explaing the that fear of death is natural,
that 'a believer is always plagued with problems.'"
Yet
the effect
of this "chilling" disclosure,
(mouthed by Attorney General John Ashcroft on national TV) is instrumental
in helping to pull the strings of assumed guilt closed around the
"terrorists"
-in the minds of many.
Then we have the question of the so-called "black boxes": the flight
data recorder, and the cockpit voice recorder, designed to withstand a crash of
great intensity. Each plane had both, an FDR and CVR.
Only the boxes from the crash in Pennsylvania have been recovered: one
unusable, the other
blank. All of these occurrences are exceptionally rare.
Yet while none of the eight flight recorders have been found intact, it seems
investigators were fortunate enough to find one of the terrorists’
passports
in good shape, a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center had been.
Apparently, the passport must have fallen into the air just as the crash
occurred, survived the almost 1,000 degree heat of the fire, then come across a
strong wind to blow it several blocks away -according to New York Police
Commissione Bernard Kerik, and Deputy Chief Barry Mawn.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
Can you believe this?
The shoddy, convenient, and questionable nature of such "evidence" is
so
brazen, that it must be obvious to any thinking person that
investigators, (at least to some degree) put a "case" together,
to re-assure the public -when, in fact, they had no clear idea who was
actually involved, responsible, how they did it, etc. (and/or didn’t want to
admit
what it was they knew).
Obviously, there's a lot more involved to an investigation of this nature, than
what
we have covered here; but,
pilots who can’t fly the planes?
Hijackers whose actual identities seem irrelevant?
Behavior absolutely inconsistent with devout Muslims?
Eight missing black boxes?
Indestructible passports?
How stupid do they think we are?
The fact that most of this information came out within a week of the attacks,
and has been soundly forgotten by the mainstream press, suggests that it was
designed to quickly close the books on the case, and move on to other,
less-contentious matters.
That few cries of protest have arisen amongst the general public is no
vindication that we are stupid -or that there is nothing to protest against:
it's simply a reflection of the fact that most citizens are so pre-occupied
with trying to earn a living, raise a family, and maintain some sense of
normalcy in the wake of a traumatic attack, that the thought of powerful forces
in government fabricating evidence
was
too much to bear.
Nor have we all swallowed the story.
Both President Bush, (at the U.N. General Assembly)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wackyconspiracy.html
and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, (ABC News, AP, Dec.9)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/t12092001_t1209abc.html
have been compelled to publicly speak about "outrageous conspiracy theories."
This is of no small significance; for men of power know that the best way to
discredit something is to ignore it; they only speak of things which threaten
to temporarily take the freshed-buffed sheen off their face when they feel they
can no longer afford to ignore them.
For many observers, it was the ridiculous nature of the FBI investigation which
told them that their initial doubts about American civil air defense on Sept
11th were justified.
This poor excuse for a case clearly implicates the FBI in the cover-up of the
criminal negligence which occurred within the ranks of civilian air defence on
Sept 11th.
Whether Attorney-General John Ashcroft himself, (nominal head of the FBI) was
directly involved in this cover-up, (or whether he was just "fed" -and then
blindly delivered- information convenient to closing the case) remains to be
seen.
The N.Y. Police commissioner's participation in the passport charade, (noted
above) is an indictaion of how the various local police and investigative
forces were likely subordinated to the FBI's authority; and, as in the case of
civilian air defense, the network of influence within the police services is a
complex one: it may take us some time to discover exactly who did what, when,
and by what authority.
The significance of this FBI fabrication, for us, is clear: it strongly affirms
the probability that the criminal negligence in civilian air-defence must have
occurred at a very high level: higher than the FBI; that is, in the Department
of Defense/Pentagon, and/or the Executive Branch.
The Executive has already been implicated in the negligence, by the President's
refusal to act during a critical thirty minutes of the attack; and if the
military was directly involved in an act of intentional treason, it's possible
that that this was done under the direction of the White House.
In terms of immediate, concrete fact, however, the decision or inability of the
Air Force to put fighter-intercepts into
must have
come through the military.
In comparison to the absence of fighter-intercepts, the documented negligence
of George W. Bush pales. His inaction would only have been recognized by
citizens as serious if the fighter-intercepts had been scrambled, (as they were
supposed tohave been); then Bush's refusal to leave the children's classroom,
(to authorize the shoot-downs) would have clearly been the deciding factor in
why the planes "got through."
The military controls daily operations. In terms of a "spontaneous" event,
where unintended criminal negligence prevails,
the lead agency
would have to be the military. The Executive could only be considered as a
possible
lead agency if a planned, treasonous negligence had been undertaken.
Other areas relevant to airspace/national security still remain to be explored,
(airports, the CIA); yet sufficient evidence now lies before us, that we may be
justified in attempting to zero in on elements within the Defense Dept. and the
Pentagon -as prime suspects in the negligence and/or treason surrounding 9/11.
For such a secretive, tightly-controlled organization as the military,
practically the only source of information we have on it's Sept. 11th behavior
is through its' "official" explanations of how the tragedy occurred -as
revealed in the mainstream media.
So it is there to which we now turn.
Unanswered Questions, Part 1E:
"Official" (military) Explanations
Index
"Official" Explanation: explained
As we have already determined, the ultimate authority for the "official"
explanation for the air defense failure of Sept. 11th is the U.S. military.
In matters of defense, the military holds the power, authority, and critical
information. Even where the media "fills in" certain parts on its own, (which
don't directly relate to civilian air defense) we find they do tend to
correspond quite tightly to the military line; so our examination of the
"official" explanation is also about the behavior of the media.
Whether the "official" explanation is true or false, accurate or inaccurate,
(and to what degree)
this
is where the military stands. By examining the "official" explanation in some
detail, we come closer to understanding the military's role in the tragedy.
The "official" military explanation may be summarized as follows:
The delayed response in getting planes into the air was primarily the fault of
the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control.
[FAA Delay]
This made it impossible for Air Defense to intercept the hijacked planes in
time. A companion to this component is also looked at here: 'we really tried.'
[Note: as we shall see, the military doesn't actually "talk" about the FAA
delay, (which, in itself, is significant); the delay simple stands as a fact,
indicating blame]
The reason that the bases, (chosen to scramble jets from) were far away from
their targets, was because military cutbacks caused a drastic reduction in the
number of bases with planes on "standby" "strip alert."
[few planes available]
Officials also raise the question of what fighter pilots would have done if
they had been able to intercept the Airliners -suggesting that, this "terrible
decision" may have caused some delay in responding.
[To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down]
Then there are a number of "smaller" factors, (such as transponder
technologies, foreign intelligence, "airline watch lists," communications,
etc.) all of which are said to have added to the culture of
[confusion]
which prevailed on the morning of Sept 11th. Themes here include: 'We're all a
little to blame,' and 'we could not have foreseen.'
Let's look at each one of these positions, and see if they hold up to serious
scrutiny, and/or whether they provide any insight as to what went wrong on
Sept. 11th.
FAA Delay
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
Readers may recall that the "official" NORAD timeline of events, contained in
the Sept. 16th report from CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
(6)
was the starting point for our discovery that, a shocking abandonment of
routine procedure, and delays in responding to the hijackings had occurred on
Sept 11th. In this, the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control appears to be directly
responsible for: ['leaving the Air Force no opportunity to respond in time'].
Although most readers would not have taken the time to add and subtract the
various times in this article -to clarify the exact length of the delays- the
official figures are there; and the negligence they reveal is truly staggering.
Our Newsday article of the 23rd does not hold back any such punches in
clarifying the details,
"after the terrorists turned off [Flight 77's] transponder, ....about 29
minutes went by before the FAA alerted the military to the new threat from the
airliner,
and,
"After losing track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the
plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert
the military.
and,
"Another response-time question involves American Airlines Flight 11... air
controllers first knew at about 8:20 a.m. that there had been a probable
hijacking of that plane. But the FAA didn't notify the military until 20
minutes later"
"Did critical information get from the FAA to the military quickly enough? The
record suggests that teenagers on instant-message networks communicate faster
than some federal officials did during the crisis."
(Newsday, 23rd, ibid)
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
So an extraordinary negligence on the part of the FAA/ATC is clearly a matter
of public record.
The military, we are told, was so handicapped by the delay in being notified,
that fighter-intercepts could not be gotten "there" in time.
Thus, we hear the theme
'We Really Tried'
FAA Delay
Reflected Spin
repeated, implied, in numerous forms and guises.
"Fighter jets were only eight minutes away from one of the hijacked
airliners when it crashed into......... Two other military jets were 12 minutes
away when an airliner hit..."
//www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/terrorism/attack/story/84825p-1141645c.html
and
"Air National Guard fighter jets scrambled in a desperate but vain
attempt to intercept two of the hijacked airliners..."
"The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable
to catch up to the airliner.."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
And from our CNN article of the 16th, (cited above) we read,
"The fighters broke the sound barrier and travelled supersonic at 720 knots to
Washington, making the approximately 130 miles in 14 minutes."
If we recall our previously cited information from the website of the
American Federation of Scientists
, however,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
and,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
we find that the top speeds of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.
While the planes could not be expected to reach their top speeds with a full
fuel and weapons load, it seems pretty clear that,
the "official" speeds given were well below what those planes were capable of,
and
the media/military sources described those speeds so as to give a very
different impression.
If the F-15's from OTIS AFB, for example, (taking off at 8:52, NORAD/CNN, ibid)
had travelled at 1200mph, (20 miles/minute, two thirds their top speed) they
would have flown the 190 miles to New York City in 9.5 minutes -in time to
intercept Flight 175, before it struck the tower at 9:02.
Given that the pilots (supposedly) 'really tried,' it's rather extraodrinary
that:
those supposedly most responsible for forcing those pilots to make "a desperate
but vain attempt," (FAA/ATC officials) have not only not been charged with
criminal negligence; military officials have not even openly criticised them
Instead, the military has talked about other "factors."
'Few Planes Available'
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
Speaking before the Senate Confirmation hearings, soon-to-be Chairman of the
Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers said,
"far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for
attacking planes
since the end of the Cold War."
How many fewer, exactly?
It makes sense that there not be as many fighters on alert, as there was during
the Cold War; but no more than two? (three?) active bases for the entire
eastern seaboard?
Well, that seems to be exactly what top military officials are suggesting.
In the following article,
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, says,
"During the Cold War, the Air National Guard and Air Force kept planes on
''strip alert'' -- ready to fly within minutes -- at more than 100 bases around
the country. But with the decline of the Soviet threat, that number was
drastically reduced."
"Since 1997, the Air National Guard has kept two fighter planes on strip
alert at only seven bases on the East, South and West coasts of the country to
guard against threats coming from outside U.S. borders, Weaver said."
(ibid)
This view is repeated in our previously mentioned Newsday article of the 23rd,
"the number of air bases where fighter planes are kept on alert has dwindled
sharply in recent years... no longer [including] any bases close to two obvious
terrorist targets - Washington, D.C., and New York City...."
Only seven bases? For the entire United States?
This is an extraordinary claim.
First of all, although the Soviet threat has been dramatically reduced, it
still is a nuclear power, and an unstable one at that.
Second, the armed forces is not one of those institutions which has a hard time
finding a justification to maintain funding in the context of a reduced threat.
So while a reduction would be reasonable, from one hundred to seven seems
absurd.
Third, since we have documented numerous ANG bases as maintaining full
"battle-ready" squadrons, (parts 1B, Flights
11
and
175
) and since
"continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard",
(above article)
does it not seem reasonable to assume that a few dozen bases, (distributed
somewhat evenly across the United States) would have at least two of their
"battle-ready" fighters fuelled up and ready to go? -with two pilots
on standby?
Does the above "official" statement mean that the
internal
protection of American skies was
entirely
abandoned?
If we recall our earlier reference to the Lear Jet of Golf Pro Payne Stewart,
‘First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training
flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then
picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from
Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota.’ --'ABC
News,' 25 October 1999" (
www.tenc.net
ibid)
it certainly doesn't seem as if only seven bases had active jet-fighters on
that
day.
Fourthly, the fact that four separate reports, (on the scene, Sept 11th) stated
that
Andrews Air Force Base
outside Washington scrambled F-16's, (after the Pentagon was hit) -and that
these reports were later denied by the military, (through other media reports)-
suggests further room for doubt.
Overall, the claim of "too few planes" stands on shaky ground.
Even if the claim was accurate, however, it would still remain largely
irrelevant
to the central cause of the Sept 11th failure: the extreme
delay
in airforce response.
If routine procedures had been carried out, the planes from Otis AFB would have
been ordered to scramble within a few minutes of lost transponder/radio
contact; they would have intercepted Flights 11 and 175 in time; and the
Langley planes would have intercepted Flights 77 and 93. In this latter case,
planes could have been routinely scrambled from Montana and they would have
still reached the target in time.
So the above claim does not lessen or explain the outrageous delays attributed
to the FAA, nor does it explain why the military authorities have said nothing
critical about that; it merely serves to spread a small piece of the blame
around.
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
Continuing on with the article....
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the
hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.
''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot
shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission
to do that.''
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air
with the capability to shoot the second hijacked
plane out of the sky."
Meaning what? That we didn't put planes up in the air because we didn't have
the presidential authority to shoot them down?
On Sept 16th, Vice-President Dick Cheney was interviewed on the television
program "Meet the Press."
Pleading sympathy for the "horrendous decision" that had to be made,
(to "shoot it down") he says,
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them
instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Although this line was repeated in report after report, this has absolutely
nothing to do with why routine, standard procedure was not followed by the
FAA/ATC (and others) on Sept 11th.
You and I may expect to experience some hesitation, if we were faced with the
decision of authorizing the shoot-down, (just as George W. Bush found a sudden
fondness for the third grade); but military personel are trained to follow
procedures in emergencies precisely because those procedures put you in the
best position to handle unknown contigencies, whenever they come up.
One does not know in advance, -whether the appearance of a fighter-intercept
may cause hijackers to turn a plane around, surrender, land, crash, etc.
Regardless of the unknowns, you follow routine procedures to the furthest
extent possible.
You get the planes in the air.
Truly, the above line of thinking from such top military officials runs
contrary to everything the military stands for.
In no way does it help to explain or lessen the FAA delay -nor explain why the
FAA is not being openly criticised for having left the Air Force so unable to
respond.
It merely deflects attention away.
Confusion
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
In our attempts (so far) to find within the "official" explanations something
to satisfy our grasp of the facts, the reader may, no doubt, be aware of a
growing sense of
confusion
.
This may be, in part, due to the confused or insubstantial nature of the
explanations themselves; yet it's also a reflection of something else.
Confusion
, it turns out, is one of the central reasons that the media and the military
give as the cause of the civilian air defense failures of Sept 11th.
Within this framework, we see two principle components.
'We're All A Little To Blame'
Reflected Spin
Confusion
This is where the blame for the failure of civilian air defense on Sept 11th is
spread around to many "factors."
Included in amongst the three components discussed above, (the FAA delay, 'too
few planes,' and 'to shoot or not to shoot down,') we read of,
transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing
airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military
preparedness," "intelligence."
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
In the above article, each one is discussed in some detail, (i.e. a paragraph
or two).
Although
some
of these elements clearly had a role in allowing the initial hijackings to
occur, none of them, (as described in the article) would have had any effect on
the critical question surrounding Sept. 11th: why routine procedure was not
followed in the notification of NORAD by the FAA, such that intercepts were not
in the air in time.
The article further informs us,
The nation's sharpest military thinkers simply had never planned for such a
massive and well-coordinated assault, one defense official told Newsday.
'I don't think any of us envisioned an internal air threat by big aircraft," he
said. "I don't know of anybody that ever thought through that. We're probably
all at fault in some way for not thinking through the scope of that.'"
If this "defense official... didn't know anybody" who had thought through the
possibility of airliners as weapons, maybe he should try to 'get out' more.
He's certainly not qualified to speak for those in strategic operations.
He is, however, not the only one.
'Could Not Have Forseen'
Reflected Spin
Confusion
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski... Pentagon spokesman: 'I doubt prior to
Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
(Newsday, ibid)
"despite provisions for close communication between civilian and military
traffic officials, and extensive procedures for security control over air
traffic during attacks on the United states, it does not appear anyone had
contemplated the kind of emergency that was unfolding..... They didn’t have a
procedure for handling such an occurrence." (N.Y. Times, Sept 15)
" '...The coordinated assault on the world's financial and political capitals
caught the United States completely off guard -- despite a massive intelligence
and law enforcement network devoted to detecting and thwarting such
attacks...[This was because efforts were] focused largely on guarding against
bomb threats to overseas targets... ' ('The Washington Post,' September 12,
2001).
We can certainly see a great sense of
confusion
here.
Just how
real
it is, may be a little more-difficult to determine.
It's clearly untrue that "no one" had envisioned the hijacking of American
airliners as suicide weapons.
Best-selling books had been written about it.
Yoseff Bodanksy, who is not exactly a fringe figure, wrote about airport
training camps dedicated to hijacking and suicide air bombings in detail in a
book published in 1993 called "Target America."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/coast.htm
Military strategists are paid, (top-dollar) to discuss and plan for
every
contingency; and while there are practical limits to this, it certainly would
have included terrorist hijackings and suicide attacks.
Another example, (from way back in 1994)
"During the cold war, when security agents used to play war games involving
terrorist threats to the White House, the one unsolvable problem was a
commercial airliner loaded with explosives working its way into the landing
pattern at Washington National Airport, then veering off for a suicide plunge
into the White House."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/941114/941114.presidency.html
"If reading "old" books is too much work, how about this refresher course:
Bush, on his trip to Italy just weeks before 9-11, was aware that there was a
threat on his life from precisely such an attack when he was in Genoa. The
pictures of the surface-to-air batteries set up to defend Genoa were all over
the news media at the time:"
" [excerpt from LA Times] 'WASHINGTON -- U.S. and Italian officials were warned
in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other
leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized
nations, officials said Wednesday'
'Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary
precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing
the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's
airport.'" [tenc.com, /indict/coast, ibid]
Obviously, the military wouldn't have been as "completely caught off-guard" as
the media and the public was.
If the unprecedented nature of the attacks did catch some personel off-guard,
this still does not explain the abandonment of
routine
procedure -
for an extremely long period of time
- whereby, the FAA and/or NORAD did not get the planes in the air, (in anywhere
near the time that they should have).
So the culture of "confusion" we have thus far chronicled seems to be expanding
further still.
After examining,
the Extreme FAA Delay,
(as yet unexplained, no charges laid)
We Really Tried,
(after the fact)
Few Planes available,
(on shaky ground)
To Shoot or Not Shoot Down,
(irrelevant)
‘all share a part of the blame…’
‘could not have foreseen…’
we find the "official" explanation still standing, but on legs faltering;
stumbling 'round inconclusive corners: most-relevant questions, remaining
unanswered.
Confusion reigns. To resolve it, we must continue following its' winding trail
to the highest peak: to the successful attack on,
The Pentagon
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
Nowhere is the
confusion
surrounding the events of Sept. 11th more clearly expressed than in the attack
on the Pentagon; for here is the command centre of the world's most powerful
military: unable to defend itself from a hijacked airliner.
Newsday quite rightly says,
"To many Americans, it probably seems inconceivable that an unauthorized
aircraft could get that close to the nation's military command center
[Pentagon]on any day, let alone one when the nation was under attack." (23rd,
ibid)
We are told,
"Although the military's air defense command got word from the FAA about 13
minutes before Flight 77's crash that a hijacked airliner was streaking toward
Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides remained
unaware of any danger up to the moment of impact, officials said. After
learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Rumsfeld remained in his office,
and Pentagon security officials took no steps to alert or evacuate the
building's 20,000 employees. Neither the White House nor Congress were
evacuated, either."
and this,
Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, added: "The
Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way."
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
and this, from CNN, Sept 16,:
"Officials at the Pentagon also said they were never made aware of the threat
from hijacked United Airlines flight 93 until after it crashed in Pennsylvania."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
In other words:
top Pentagon officials "weren't aware" of hijacked Flights 77 and 93.
This makes no sense, with what we already know about the Pentagon.
At the risk of repetition, readers may recall ,
"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack
coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center
(NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the
Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.
"....When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military
Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the
identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft.
NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated
military unit."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2
"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus
monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne
Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet
on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center."
--'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (
www.tenc.net
ibid)
So, it's absolutely clear (to us now) that the Pentagon and the Department of
Defense would have been at the very heart of communications during the
hijackings.
Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers, (second-highest U.S. general
at the time) verified this during his appearance before the
Senate Hearings,
(confirming his appointment as Chairman to the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
"At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, [8:46] we stood up
our crisis action team. That was done immediately.... And we started talking to
the federal agencies.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm
As we shall see, the General’s recollection of events on that day is extremely
hazy, so the actual notification may have been ten minutes earlier than that;
or, if ATC and the FAA did their jobs properly, another ten minutes before that
still. (The first hijacked plane went off-course/broke contact at 8:20).
NORAD claims the FAA informed them that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:38; by law,
the command-center in the Pentagon would have also been informed at that time.
At any rate, the second highest officer in the Pentagon admits that officials
were informed by 8:50 about a terrorist attack. This would have surely included
information about a second hijacked plane (NORAD-confirmed, at 8:43, also near
New York).
In short, they knew that an unprecedented, national emergency was taking place.
General Myers said “I don’t know… [whether it was the FAA that informed the
NMCC]” -as law and procedure dictated; but clearly, once the NMCC was informed,
then they would have been alerted to every suspect plane, and privy to any
relevant radar screen they felt inclined to monitor.
Yet we are told that the Pentagon was
“simply not aware that this plane, [Flight 77] was coming our way,”
“never made aware that Flight 93 was in trouble…”
that
"the secretary of Defense and his closest aids were “never made
aware…”
NORAD and the Pentagon claim the FAA didn’t inform them about Flight 77 being
hijacked until 9:25; yet Newsday tells us that,
“at 9:06, Washington notifies all ATC….”
Are we to believe that every Air Traffic Control center in America knew that
Flight 77 was hijacked nineteen minutes before NORAD and the Command Centre in
the Pentagon did?
General Myers says “we” put the crisis-action team “up”; but he neglects to
inform us that he was
not even
informed
of the emergency for another fifty minutes -after “it” was “up”; that is,
after the Command Centre was informed of a large-scale assault on America!!
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/myersafrts.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html
Whoa.
As it further turns out, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton,
(the top-ranking general in the armed forces) was on a plane over the Atlantic
at the time, en route to Europe.
So the two top-ranking generals in the armed forces were not even informed of
the emergency -much less in on the command decisions- for fifty minutes after
the command center had been notified.
Is this not incredible?
Did Generals Myers or Shelton express any anger over this negligent behaviour
on the part of their subordinates in the Pentagon’s command centre?
Nope.
Myers said,
“Conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the command
centre.”
So now we have the Secretary of Defense, his closest aides, the top two
generals, and many other top Pentagon officials, all claiming they were
clueless as to what was going on, due to "conflicting reports."
If we recall, (along with General Myer’s “crisis-action statement) our earlier
statement from the New York Times, (Sept 15)
“military officials in a command center in the Pentagon were urgently talking
to law enforcement officials about what to do…”
it’s absolutely clear that some officials in the Command Center were well aware
of what was going on; and that they either didn’t inform their superiors, or
their superiors ignored them.
Either way, (and for whatever reason) planes did not get in the air in time;
and the entire Pentagon staff afterwards acted as if they were caught
completely unaware. They gave the impression they had
no idea
; that, in effect, the command centre didn’t even exist; so much so, that even
when the Pentagon admits being informed by the FAA that Flight 77 was hijacked,
(thirteen minutes before it struck) the
Pentagon didn’t even warn their own employees
to take defensive measures.
"By the time employees inside the Pentagon realized they were the terrorists'
next target, it was already over. The sound of Flight 77 slamming into the
building - a deafening crash to those nearby, a dull thump elsewhere in the
massive structure - was their first alert.
There had been no warning broadcast inside the building that a plane might be
approaching, and no orders given to evacuate, even though the FAA had notified
air defense commanders that a hijacked airliner was heading toward Washington
13 minutes before it hit the Pentagon.
Even the clear sign of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil - the second plane
slamming into the World Trade Center 35 minutes before one hit the Pentagon -
barely elevated the state of readiness inside the nation's military
headquarters, leaving many of the building's 20,000 workers still sitting at
their desks when the plane struck. Some told Newsday they heard the crash but
didn't know the plane had hit the Pentagon until they saw it on TV." (Newsday,
ibid)
Even after they admit being informed by the FAA, the Pentagon left it's own
employees completely unaware -defenseless.
Some readers may recall officials offering an excuse for this outrageous
negligence: saying they believed the
White House was the original target
, and that the plane turned towards the Pentagon at the last minute..
As we have since learned, the actual radar data shows this claim, (repeated in
numerous mainstream reports) to be fraudulent, (see above link).
Even if this claim was true, neither did the Pentagon command warn the White
House personel to take defensive measures, (“get away from the windows,
y’all!”). Nor does this explain why, if the Pentagon admits to following Flight
77 on radar, (i.e. 'we believed it was headed toward the White House') why the
Defense secretary and his staff were not even informed of the crisis until
after the crash.
Truly, some parts of the command staff were aware of the situation, while
others, (the most senior ones) claim they were not.
"Conflicting reports" are claimed as culprit behind the "confusion"; when the
actual reports coming from top Pentagon officials themselves simply could not
be more conflicting, casual, and clumsy.
This is not the way that the military is supposed to operate.
"Confusion" or ignorance is, in the military, an excuse of those not fit for
command.
“Command” means taking responsibility for disorder, when it occurs; a
prevailing condition of confusion means
failure
at the command level; and
honour
dictates that responsibility for correction must go to the
highest
level of command at which the confusion prevails.
Only a command coward would pass off his/her own incompetence on the sincere
confusion of subordinates -or refuse to chastise those subordinates who neglect
to inform their superiors, while refusing to take decisive action.
This spits in the face of everything the military stands for.
Top commanders who claim "confusion" as the cause for inaction are not doing
their job.
When such commanders try to hide behind inaction, by suggesting they "weren't
informed,"
when a criminal negligence occurs alongside this -resulting in the death of
thousands of civilians, for which those commanders hold no one responsible-
then we have found the source of that negligence.
We thus arrive at the foot of the dark door of Sept 11th, 2001:
the black hole of accountability, the zone of the unknown
, the conduct collapsed.
By a careful, logical analysis of the available documentation, we have woven
our way through the fabrications and duty denied.
We do not yet know the intricate details, the motivations, the movements of
those involved; but we have established from where the kernel of dis-connection
comes.
Without abandoning our careful, consistent approach, it now becomes possible
for us to look into the shocking scope of confusion, and see a sudden clarity
beginning to emerge.
Thus, we move from confusion, to
Contusion
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
From a command perspective, a condition of confusion is considered a sign of
failure
; for which, an
honourable
command takes full responsibility.
Few of us seem to be aware that
confusion
can also be a
weapon
, by which a
dishonourable
command can strike upon its' subordinates -either to gain greater control over
them, or cover-up negligent/incompetent behaviour.
Just look at any number of national or international “events,” disasters,
emergencies, where certain elements are supposedly in control, yet where
“confusion” reigns; here, we see all the lower-level officials, bureaucrats,
reporters, frantically running around… trying to maintain some sense of order.
It rarely occurs to them, (or us) just how easy it would be, for top-level
commanders to sew a crippling confusion across a vast breadth of jurisdictions
-simply by
refraining
from making their small, but critical, contribution.
Such an elite wouldn’t have to openly interfere with the implementation of
standard procedure; they’d merely neglect to fulfill their role,
fade into the background
, and temporarily become
less visible
.
In other words: the perpetrators
do not appear to be involved
.
Citizens, be concious of the command concept!
The
conscious creation of confusion
does not necessarily mean a completely planned campaign from start to finish;
for it may simply be a response to unintended, high-level negligence/confusion,
(as damage-control); but either way, the claim of "confusion" is itself the key
to understanding the riddle in the middle of the clues.
Such a command wouldn’t, (or couldn't) go too far out of sight; (before its
claim to authority begins to be called into question); so soon as the "coast is
clear," and/or when "the job" is done,
dishonourable command
steps back into the picture, providing an explanation for “what went wrong,”
and relieves “the people” of the doubt which formerly prevailed.
In fact, in the midst of great shock, whole populations have shown themselves
to be
grateful
for the re-imposition of the most brutal escalations of authoritarian control,
(in lieu of the chaotic alternative).
The history of the twentieth century alone is rich with such examples: from
countless coup d'etats; to everyday, a shredding of rights in the name of
"national security."
In the case of Sept 11, we are not yet sure, the degree to which this
criminal confusion
was intentional... (at what point it became conscious).
At the very least, top officials in the Department of Defence instituted a
system-wide campaign of claimed ignorance and denial, to cover-up the fact that
something went horribly wrong in the
Penta-gone
Index
Official Explanation
Reflected Spin
It’s now absolutely clear that top Pentagon officials lied about,
"not being aware [of hijacked-Flight 77… before 9:25"] (when the FAA supposedly
informed them).
How do we know this?
Every Air Traffic Control station in America knew the plane was hijacked
nineteen minutes before that.
The Pentagon’s “crisis-action team” was “up” at 8:50, (thirty-five minutes
before).
Ridiculous
.
They lied about,
not being aware of hijacked Flight 93… for fifty minutes after NORAD admits
being informed by the FAA.
Are we to believe that NORAD was not talking to the Command Centre in the
Pentagon all that time? -after two, then three terrorist attacks?
We have General Myers on record as talking to NORAD commander Eberhart “about…
the actions he was going to take,” just after the Pentagon was struck, (9:40)
thirty minutes before Flight 93 crashed.
Absurd
.
The obvious question here is: why?
Why deny an awareness of Flights 77? and 93? Why not simply say, ['we were
monitoring the situation from the time of the first hijacking, and the FAA
failed to inform NORAD in time']?
Well, the truth is, if it became common knowledge that the Command Centre was
informed about the situation at 8:50, then it doesn’t matter what the FAA did
or didn’t do: the Pentagon would have been obligated to act; which means,
immediately declare a state of emergency, order NORAD to get as many jets in
the air as possible, and tell George W. Bush that Sesame Street is temporarily
cancelled, (so that he can authorize any shoot-downs).
The fact that this wasn't done, would have compelled even the lamest of media
to ask the Pentagon why it didn't act when it knew what was happening. The
Pentagon would then have to admit that it was not "in command" during a
national emergency.
In the case of Flight 77, the Pentagon had to claim ignorance, to deflect the
obvious questions: why did the military not defend itself? why were no
defensive measures taken?
The statement denying knowledge of Flight 93, (a clearly ridiculous one, given
that the military, NORAD, admits being informed fifty minutes earlier) was
simply to reinforce the falsehood about Flight 77.
(Officials here obviously felt confident enough that, (with the attack on the
Pentagon as "evidence") no one in the mainstream media would ask the obvious
questions about the command-center being "uninformed" of its own radar
facilities).
None of the above officials talked about a knowledge of flights 11 and 175,
until General Myers was compelled to acknowledge the existence of the NMCC
"crisis-action team" before the somewhat secluded chambers of the Senate.
The Pentagon denied only what it had to, and remained silent about everything
else, (citing national security, if necessary).
Again, exactly when such top officials went into the damage-control mode of
ignorance and denial is still open to question; what
is
now abundantly clear is that the “official” timeline, (of when NORAD claims
the FAA informed them about the various hijackings) has lost practically all
its credibility.
It’s quite possible that the FAA/ATC did everything by the book on Sept 11th,
and informed the Pentagon/NORAD within minutes of the first signs of trouble
-and that, the Pentagon’s descent into incompetence and negligence began long
before Flight 77 struck its’ walls.
Far more likely than the FAA informing NORAD that Flight 77 was hijacked at
9:25, (at least
thirty-five minutes
after it should have) is that the Pentagon concocted that story after the
attack, so as to make it seem as if they had little time to respond.
The Pentagon would have known that Flight 77 was a suspected hijack by 8:50,
(as per radar data, ATC, The NY Times, etc.); with all the necessary radar
screens in front of them, they would have known of the lost transponder contact
at 8:55/9:00 am (Newsday); yet they warned no one in Washington; as the plane
approached, they left their own employees to the mercy of a ruthless attack.
When the Pentagon got hit, most everyone assumed that it must be true: ‘they
were
caught off-guard.’
We can now see that this is simply not true; but the
appearance
of being caught "off-guard," (with all its attendant sympathies) is largely
why the Pentagon could get away with concocting the story about being “unaware”
of Flight 77, and being “uninformed” about Flight 93:
Is it possible that top military officials could be so conscious of
damage-control tactics, (and the manipulation of the public mind) that they
intentionally did nothing, (even after they admit being informed about the
plane) knowing this would increase the apparent credibility of their story?
It boggles the mind to consider, (if the plane had continued on to another
target) how long the Pentagon may have continued to stay curled up in its
cocoon of isolation, in order to maintain the virtuous vaccuum of "we were not
informed."
Within this nebulae of layered-denial, it may be difficult to extract clear
information, as to the identities of those directly involved; yet with this
criminal confusion
now within our conscious grasp, we can turn to look upon the many mirrors by
which we have arrived at our vantage point, with a clarity hitherto unseen.
THE "OFFICIAL" EXPLANATIONS:
EXPLAINED
Index
Official Explanation
'could not have foreseen'
'all a little to bLAME'
'downplay the FAA Delay'
'We Really Lied'
'phew, planes available'
To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down,
(that ain't the question)
The White House as Target
The Military-Media Alliance
Could Not have Foreseen
(In a House of Mirrors)
Index
Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
In our earlier examination of '
we could not have foreseen
,' we observed such quotes as,
"'I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected...'"
"it does not appear anyone had contemplated..."
"caught the United States completely off guard..."
These claims have little foundation in fact.
Their intent is clear:
Appeal to an emotion that the public is feeling; compel us to sympathize with
those in command... to identify with them, as fellow victims.
The editors at the "Emperor’s Clothes" website put it this way,
"This argument resonates with many Americans because it corresponds to how they
experienced 9-11... shocked and unsure what to do.
But most Americans are not part of the air traffic control system,.. or the air
defense system.
Most are unaware that these systems have routine procedures developed over many
years. These procedures, practiced in drills and used in day-to-day situations,
are meant to ensure that air safety and air defense personnel can function when
confronted with unexpected events, even though ordinary people are
understandably at a loss."
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
Here is a call for compassion to cushion the blow;
a solace, seeking
soft sympathy
scrutiny unravelling
in the strings
of tied-up emotional trauma; we wrap
our arms instinctively 'round
the claimants to an equal burden of pain,
and raise high the silent admonition:
'Do not even think of criticizing us now.'
We're All A Little to
b
LAME
Diffuse the Clues
Index
Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
We can now clearly see that
earlier references
to,
transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing
airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military
preparedness," "intelligence."
primarily serve to diffuse attention from the high-point of decision-making
authority.
Diffuse the clues,
spread the blame around,
that the focus forming in towards the core of command,
finds no solid ground;
freedom from doubt
flying in on
the wings of
confusion.
If we recall our earlier list of three possible explanations for the collapse
of civilian air defense, (Part 1C:
Who is to Blame?
) we can see that the military and media authorities have chosen the
least-likely scenario, (simultaneous combustion) as the explanation of choice.
Even the central source of the deception, (The Pentagon) takes a small share of
the heat. This is likely the reason why officials there did not even warn their
own employees about Flight 77, thirteen minutes after they admit being notified
by the FAA
The failure to evacuate/warn is a small one, in comparison to the planes being
allowed to get through.
Yet by taking a small share of the blame, the Pentagon manages to re-gain some
credibility, albeit in a rather twisted way.
i.e. ['Yes. We were caught off-guard; but relatively-speaking, only a little'].
In spreading the blame around, the DOD would have known they couldn't be too
obvious in laying the blame at the door of the FAA: they'd have to admit being
informed at some point; so they made it "thirteen minutes"; and afterwards,
they laid no charges (nor criticism) in an attempt to,
'Downplay the FAA Delay'
Index
Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
For its part, the Military excuses what, (by official accounts) could only be
called extreme criminal negligence on the part of the FAA; no charges are laid;
nor does the military even openly criticize them.
FAA officials are merely told that they cannot speak directly to the media
about the events, (Newsday, 23rd) and any disciplinary action will take place
by
internal
review.
In this case, it appears the primary role in explaining the FAA "lapses" falls
to the mainstream press.
From our oft-cited Newsday article of the 23rd, we read,
When the Boeing 757 reached central West Virginia, it was routinely "handed
off" by Leesburg to the next air traffic control center, outside
Indianapolis.... Flight 77 continued west... [the plane] began to turn slightly
- and abruptly disappeared from the radar screens. Suddenly there was no
transponder signal."
Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible
as what's called a "primary target" or "skinpaint" - a target the radar is
picking up but can't identify. The controllers in Indianapolis kept watching
for Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana - but they weren't
looking for it to reappear far to the east, over West Virginia where the plane
had come from, sources said.
"Back in Leesburg, air traffic controllers knew at about 9:05 a.m. that they
had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was Flight
77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no
transponder identification.
The simple action of turning them off appears to have given the Flight 77
terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable invisibility as they sped toward
Washington.
During the confusion, rumors circulated that Flight 77 might have exploded in
midair. It wasn't until 9:24 a.m. that the FAA alerted the military that the
plane was heading for Washington."
The only thing confused here is the logic of the reporting:
For those of us now familiar with basic
FAA regulations
, the loss of transponder signal is considered to be an "emergency situation."
After two planes in the region had, (by this time) been hijacked -and one of
them flown into the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack- it's real simple:
if you lose transponder signal with a plane, it's an emergency, don't delay,
assume the worst. Call the FAA, NORAD, 911, mommy, anybody... 'America is under
attack.'
The above report tell us that, "controllers in Indianapolis kept watching for
Flight 77 to appear over Kentucky, Ohio or Indiana, " (right after telling us:
"Normally, when an aircraft's transponder cuts off, the plane is still visible
as what's called a "primary target....").
Are they saying that Indianapolis didn't have access to generalized radar? Why
did they have to "wait" for it to re-appear? Could they not have gotten out of
their chair to look at another screen? (By this account, one can almost imagine
seeing officials craning their necks to look "far to the east, over West
Virginia").
How about calling someone down the hall? Or Leesburg? Or NORAD? -to say, "We've
got an emergency!!"(?) "Flight 77's off the screen!!!"
['Uh, ya know that plane we've been watching? That went way off-course about
twenty-minutes ago?... Uh, no... Not the one that just crashed into the World
trade Center... no, not the second plane hijacked outside New York... this is
another one.... right... oh, you're on your coffee-break... I had no idea...
No, I wouldn't think of...'].
Our 'investigative' reporters tell us that the plane was 'lost' for ten
minutes, before Leesburg picked the signal up again; and when they did pick it
up, "they had a new eastbound plane on their radar, but they didn't know it was
Flight 77. The aircraft had entered their airspace with no radio contact and no
transponder identification.... [and] during the confusion...."
Now, repeat after me class, (very slowly): no radio contact, no transponder
signal = ?
E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y
That's right. No confusion here.
The point at which Flight 77 went silent may have been strategically chosen to
maximize confusion amongst ATC officials; but this would have bought the
terrorists no more than a minute -at the most- before high level security
officials would be called in.
Remember: an emergency within a national emergency existed. "If you're in doubt
as to whether a situation is an emergency, handle it as if it is one." (FAA
Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c)
And what is the
routine response
to lost transponder/radar/cockpit contact? You order intercept fighters into
the air to re-establish contact.
Warning signals should have been going off all over the place -right to the top.
The article tells us, "The simple action of turning.. off [the transponder]
appears to have given the Flight 77 terrorists about 10 minutes of valuable
invisibility."
So "valuable," in fact, that the authors appear moved to downplay the
nineteen minutes
more that it took the FAA to inform NORAD.
The authors repeat this theme in relation to Flight 11,
"One aviation expert said a simple change in the way airliner transponders work
could have helped significantly on Sept. 11."
It's a safe explanation, the mantra of the machine: we never have enough
technology; look to better systems to solve our problems; don't ask questions
about the people in control of them.'
[The only thing "the simple act of" putting such wily words on paper "appears
to have given the" above authors is some valuable column space -and the
opportunity at self-parody].
Can you see how thin the explanation is?
Yet it's quite effective in diffusing people's attention from the obvious
questions.
Why?
The short answer is that this information is coming to us from the military,
(whom we have been trained to think of as our "protectors" in times of crises)
and is being accepted as fact by every major newspaper and television station
in the country, (a
fuller explanation
to follow).
'We Really Lied'
Index
Explanation Explained
Reflected Spin
In our earlier section, (
'we really tried'
) we were told that the F-15 jets from Otis Airforce Base "flew like a scalded
ape, topping 500mph, and that the F-16's from Langley "broke the sound barrier,
and travelled supersonic at 720 knots."
We compared this with the apparent fact that the top speed of the F-16 is 1500
mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.
While the planes would not be expected to reach their top speeds with a
standard fuel and weapons payload, it seems clear that the official version
shows the planes flying well below their capability, while giving the oppositte
impression.
This contradiction may be explained easily enough, given the liklihood that the
planes were not even scrambled; that is, that the
entire story
, was a fabrication.
Consider the following report,
"The new cover story, that "the planes were sent up but they arrived too late"
also arrived pretty late: it was first put forth on September 14th on the CBS 6
PM news. Until that time, top officials said that no planes were scrambled to
protect Washington, DC until after the Pentagon was hit. Vice President Cheney
was giving out the old story as late as September 16th on the NBC TV program,
MEET THE PRESS..."
"Dan Rather broadcast this cover story on the CBS 6:00 news, September 14th.
This was the first time that anybody said planes were scrambled from Langley
AFB on 9-11. We did a little research and found 31 references to Langley in the
English-speaking mass media, that is newspapers & TV, worldwide, between
September 11th and the CBS News at 6 PM on the 14th."
Not one of these news reports about Langley Air Force Base mentioned Dan
Rather's excellent new fact!
"Read the transcript of that CBS news program. You will see that Rather cites
no source for his new 'information.' He just says, casually, "CBS News has
learned..."
"Four (4) days later, [actually two, see CNN, Sept 16, ibid] also without a
word of explanation for this rewriting of history, NORAD incorporated the CBS
report in its official timeline. The Langley interceptors had become a Fact."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq2.htm
[NOTE: the above report only specifically refers to the Langley planes, but
does, (imo) shed some suggestive light onto the OTIS ones as well].
Also of interest: it seems that in the first few weeks following the Sept 11th
tragedy, there was an inordinate amount of media attention paid to praising the
military.
Now, in a time of national shock, when a certain patriotic zeal is nearing its
height, such praise might not at first seem unusual -that is, for firefighters
and police, (who bore the brunt of the rescue attempts).
But for the airforce?
That seems like a bit of a stretch, given the fact that no regular citizen was
refering to the Air Force as heroes on Sept 11. If anything, there was a sense
of shame: not a vocal protest; more a dissappointment; certainly not praise.
Yet for the first time, (in my memory, at least) there was CNN: carrying live
coverage of the Military Ceremonies Confirming General Richard Myers as the new
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -with George W. Bush and Defence
Secretary Rumsfeld heaping praise upon praise, amongst others.
It was a long and tedious affair, yet CNN obviously felt it was "newsworthy"
enough to take a two-hour dip in the ratings.
Then there's the report I came across, (now where did my "tedious details"
folder go?) of Senator Edward Kennedy, presiding over a ceremony at Otis Air
Force base, thanking the pilots and ground crew for their 'valiant' attempts to
intercept the terrorists.
This appears to be but another arrogant attempt by the military authority to
associate the public's grief with its' own.
If some would justify this on the basis of trying to raise the morale of the
Air Force, it's a pretty pathetic reflection of the world's most powerful war
machine: to be praised in failure, that it doesn't have to look in the bloody
mirror.
phew, planes available
Index
Explanation Explained
In a previous section, (
'few planes available'
) Pentagon spokespersons told us there were "far fewer" bases with planes on
standby-alert than there used to be.
How many? exactly?
Seven.
We discussed the improbablity of this figure, based on the number of bases with
"battle-ready" squadrons, the still-existing Soviet threat, the legendary
budgetary appetite of the armed forces, the use of other bases in previous
emergencies, the cover-up surrounding ANDREWS AFB, and so on.
Well, it turns out that,
"Since Tuesday's events, the Defense Department has raised the number of
bases where planes are on strip alert to 26." (ibid)
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Now that didn’t take long, did it? (four days).
Thank God for the Air Force! See how quickly they act when they really want to?
We’re safe now.
This sudden capacity for
preparedness
was also reflected in the words of General Richard Myers, as he spoke before
the Senate on Sept. 13th.
In answer to the question,
"are there capabilities or equipment that the armed forces need today to
respond to the terrorist attacks that they do not currently have? Or are they
able to respond today..."
the General replied,
"I think we are able to respond today.... [there are always improvements]
but... we have what we need today to do what we need to do."
So, no new technologies, systems, intelligence needed: "we have what we need,"
two days
after the attacks.
As we have already seen, General Myers himself, (at the Senate hearings) laid
the bulk of the blame for the air defense failure on 'two few planes.' Two days
later, he says "we have what we need."
Does this mean that we had our 26 bases on strip alert within two days? Or
eighteen bases in one day?
It most likely means that the Air Force
already had
what it needed on Sept 11th, (and that those routine safeguards were not
implemented) -as the documentation has been suggesting all along.
As most Americans already know, the protection of American civilian airspace is
the specific "mission" of the Air National Guard, (ANG).
We have already discussed this "mission" in some detail -in relation
to a few
individual squadrons
.
Official documents from the National Guard are a little more specific.
File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section2.5
-
…The National Guard Bureau Operations Center…. Serves as the focal point of all
state emergency reports… ANG mobilization… 24hrs. 7days a week and maintains
close/immediate operational and reporting connectivity with the ANG Operations
Center… at Andrews Air Force Base.
-
Whether a crisis or emergency situation is deemed to be of such a serious
nature, or has the potential to escalate to such a level that it would require
support or continuous monitoring… a Crisis Action Team [will be activated]. The
CAT will bring to bear the entire capability of both the Army and Air national
Guard.
Section 2.6
Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or
a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal
basis for
mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
Section 2.2:
When an emergency or disaster occurs and waiting for instructions from a higher
authority
would preclude an effective response, a National Guard commander may do what is
necessary
and justified to save life…. Support will not be denied or delayed….
http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/
search.asp
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Does it not sound, (as far the regulations go) that the Air National Guard and
civilian air defence have an effective security apparatus in place? -which
features a healthy
reliance on the ability of
local
commanders to
act
, (when needed)?
So does it not also seem reasonable that, if the entire Air National Guard
force was
reduced from a "strip alert" readiness of one-hundred bases to seven,
(presumably from orders
on high) then this would be a clear betrayal of the Air National Guard’s
central
reason for existence? -what its members are paid to do?
And should not heads be rolling?
In suggesting the number of bases "on alert" was seven, it’s likely that
military spokespersons are playing a slight of hand: describing the seven bases
under the direct control of NORAD; when, in fact, other bases are fully capable
of putting planes in the air; such as, (noted above) when
Payne Stewart's
Lear jet went off course.
A clue to the veracity of this may be found in the following, from our Newsday
article of the 23rd, which specifically mentions
Andrews AFB
twice, in a clear attempt to counter
numerous earlier reports
that planes had been scrambled from there, (after Flight 77 crashed into the
Pentagon).
"The fighter jets launched toward Washington took off not from Andrews Air
Force Base, 15 miles from the capital, but from Langley Air Force Base near
Hampton, Va., 130 miles from Washington."
Then, much later in the article,
"Despite Andrews Air Force Base's proximity to the capital, fighter jets don't
"sit alert" there the way they do at Langley, ready to take to the air in 15
minutes. Until Sept. 11, one defense official said, they didn't have to -
fighters at Langley would have plenty of time to intercept any enemy aircraft
coming from outside the United States."
Do you notice how our "defense official" attempts to confuse NORAD's
external border patrols
, (protecting against outside, foreign threats) with protection against
domestic
air-emergencies? -for which fighter-intercepts are
routinely
deployed?
The article in question doesn't mention that Andrews is the home of Air Force
One, (the President's plane) which obviously implies that they would have
fighters on standy-by to protect it; (does anyone remember the "extraordinary
escort" Air Force One eventually recieved on Sept 11?).
This further attempt to deny the use of fighters at Andrews on Sept. 11, (see
USA Today, Sept. 16) raises the relevance of resolving this contradiction.
Were all four separate, on-the-scene media reports mistaken? -in their
description of fighters scrambling from Andrews AFB?
We can see why the military/media alliance would later try to deny the story:
because it blows the relevance of the Langley cover; but why would Andrews
fighters be scrambled at all? If the Pentagon was claiming "we weren't
informed," why not just keep the planes on the ground and maintain the chosen
appearance?
The likely answer shows the multi-facted nature of the cover-story:
A lot of people in Washington, (citizens, politicians, and service personel)
are fully aware of Andrew's alert status.
If fighters had not been scrambled
at all
, there would have been a big hue and cry about it in the local press, (which,
in Washington, often means national coverage).
By scrambling planes
after
the attack on the Pentagon, the claim of "we weren't informed" is, at least,
not immediately dismissed as absurd.
Afterwards, when the cover-story that Andrews AFB "had no planes available"
begins to appear in the national press, Washington area residents can pass this
"mistaken" report off as irrelevant, (since the planes made no difference
anyway); and they can chalk it up to 'some bozo in the press room not geeting
his/her facts straight,' the nature of the rumour-mill, and so on.
According to the above ANG documents, this same Andrews AFB houses the
headquarters of the Air National Guard.
May we surmise from this, that if Andrews AFB was to temporarily "stand-down,"
that the entire Air National Guard would be placed in a similar posture?
Also, it would appear that the "crisis-action team" spoken of in the ANG
regulations is the same crisis-action team that General Richard Myers speaks of
-as being "up" in the Pentagon, after the first plane attack occurred, (8:50).
(see
Senate Confirmation Hearings
).
At the highest levels of ANG and Pentagon command, at least, there appears to
have been no problem with communication.
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
(That Ain't The Question)
Index
Explanation Explained
Knowing what we now know, about the fabrication of timelines, unscrambled
planes, and "scalded apes," let's look at this
shooty
explanation... in a little more detail.
Continuing on with the article....
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the
hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.
(Acknowledged? Sounds like the reporter had that answer already in mind ).
''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot
shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission
to do that.''
(And you’re not going to get it if the President is incapacitated, are you?)
"Only the president could issue such an order," he confirmed in an impromptu
hallway interview at the Pentagon.
(Uh huh).
The Guard planes responded nevertheless, Weaver said, on orders from the
Northeast Air Defense Sector in Rome, N.Y.
So even though the scrambling of planes was "futile," they did their
duty anyway.
How noble.
What a perfect explanation for why the planes were nowhere near being in
position to do something, (as standard procedure demands) and just in case the
President didn’t happen to be sitting behind a flank of school children with
a "do not disturb" sign on his forehead.
"But it remains unclear what their pilots would do if terrorists again
succeeded in taking over an airliner and turning it into a flying bomb."
''There are certain rules of engagement for a hijacked plane -- if you know
it's a hijacked plane -- or a missing plane or off course,'' Weaver said.
''There's ways of getting their attention. But remember, this is an American
carrier with American pilots and Americans on board.
''This is new territory for all of us.''
Do you see what's being said here?
The authorities are going to great lengths to make it seem as if
it would not have mattered
if the planes had been in position to intercept: so as to suggest that, the
question of
why
they weren't, becomes irrelevant.
That's like the fireman saying to owner of the house which just burnt to the
ground, 'It doesn't really matter that we took so long getting here because the
hose we're using has a big hole in it.'
They're also making a clear attempt to confuse the issue of shooting a
commercial airliner down, with the concept of "interception" -a
routine procedure.
Here's Vice-President Dick (oil-slick) Cheney, speaking on the Sept. 16
th
edition of NBC’s "Meet the Press."
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them
instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
Earlier on, he had said,
"I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or
not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
deliberately confusing the issue of "interception" (which is done on
a
routine
basis) with shooting a plane down.
Yes, it’s true: shooting down airliners would be somewhat of a "new
territory." But does this justify the abandonment of time-honoured,
emergency procedure?
So what -if you don’t know what to do before the planes go up? You get the
planes in the air so that you have an option, if and when the time comes to
act. That's what procedure is for: to follow through on a prepared plan for
when the emotions want to spill over.
We didn’t know how the terrorists were going to act on Sept 11, did we? And we
still don’t know how a future suicide-pilot might respond to a fighter, sent to
intercept them.
Such sentiments issued by the military/media, are shameless appeals for a
wounded public to immerse itself in emotional grief, feel sorry for "the boys"
in uniform, and leave the question of military
order
, duty, and responsibility to those "more-qualified."
We find the same "shooty" logic in the following article of Sept. 13
th
,
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air
with the capability to shoot the second hijacked
plane out of the sky."
(Unless, of course, they’re one hundred miles away).
"At 9.00 UA175 changed direction again - heading straight for Manhattan
from the South over a very built up area.
I understand it would have required sanction from the President to shoot down a
civilian airliner and he was touring a school in Florida."
(And couldn’t be interrupted)
.
"We don't know whether he was even informed about the second plane - until - at
five minutes past nine, United airlines Flight 175 with 65 people on board was
deliberately crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre."
So, sympathy for the poor, beleaguered officials is the order of the day. Never
mind that the F-16’s "in the air" had no "capability to shoot
the second hijacked plane out of the sky" if they couldn’t get there in
time!!
All this is merely a distraction from the real question of why the planes
weren’t even in the ballpark.
Nor is it even necessarily
true
that the President is the only one who can authorize a shoot-down. I mean,
what if he's incapacitated? Kidnapped by terrorists? Or forcefully confined by
a group of school kids?
While any decision to blow commercial airliners out of the sky would normally
require presidential authorization, aviation expert John Nance told WABC
Radio's John Gambling on Sept. 15:
"Very often, and all the fighter pilots know this, they may have to make an
in-the-field decision even without higher authority."
p://westviewnews.virtualave.net/GIN/Project%20911/Flight%2093%20shot%20down.html
White House as Target
Index
Explanations Explained
Readers may recall (from
Part 1A
) that top White House officials repeatedly claimed, (on Sept 11 and 12) that
Air Force One, (the President’s plane) was re-routed to Louisiana, then
Nebraska on Sept 11, because there had been "credible evidence that Air Force
One and the White House were targets."
As we have documented, this claim was later dismissed as false and/or
irrelevant(!?) by those same top officials.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml
It's the 'White House' aspect of this story that was also used to explain why
the Pentagon was caught 'off-guard' in relation to Flight 77.
In response to reporters comments about radar data showing a direct path to the
Pentagon, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said,
"That's not the radar data we have seen... the plane was headed for the White
House."
(CBS news, cited below)
Pentagon officials may have been trying to corroborate this when they said,
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski....The Pentagon was simply not aware that
this aircraft was coming our way."
"To call for a general evacuation, at that point, it would have been just
guessing," said a Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood. "We evacuate when we know
something is a real threat to us."
(Newsday, ibid)
Vice-President Dick Cheney also makes his contribution,
"As best we can tell, they [the terrorists on Flight 77] came initially at the
White House and... when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was
headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the
basement..."
Cheney continues,
"...under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask
politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and
grabbed me and...
"MR. RUSSERT: Literally grabbed you and moved you?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor
periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me
very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down
some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a
matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends..."
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
This colorful commentary from Cheney receives an interesting examination in the
following article,
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
comparing his "treatment" by the secret service with that of George. W Bush.
In great detail, the article shows that both Bush and the Secret Service knew
about the first terrorist attack before Bush left the hotel in Sarasota
Florida, (at about 8:55). The President
should
have been considered to be in relatively great danger. Terrorist planes were
attacking buildings. His intinerary for the morning was well-known. In
comparison to Cheney, he was out in the open. Yet absolutely
no
extra precautions were taken.
Cheney may have indeed been privy to a joy ride to the basement, but the
treatment of George W. suggests that it was neither necessary nor consistent
with the actual priorities of the secret service on that day.
The most descriptive of all the 'white-house-as-target' stories came from
numerous voices in the mainstream press,
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
"In the skies over the city flight AA77 was heading straight for the White
House when at 9.38 it suddenly veered 270 degrees to right away from White
House and headed towards the Pentagon, It crashed into the west side two
minutes later."
"Just before the crash a civilian plane was filmed over the city
apparently banking hard and there were reports of a military plane circling the
US capital. Moments later, the Department of Defense was hit."
and The Washington Post, Sept. 12
th
".. the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at
a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House,
the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of
a fighter jet maneuver.
The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the
west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's
screens, the sources said." pgs. 1 & 11
This all sounds pretty confident, colorful, right? Is it unanimous?
Readers may recall an earlier report from Bob Orr, CBS Transportation
Correspondent,
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml
It says,
"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the
hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended
target."
"Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77
was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol
building. CBS News
Transportation Correspondent
Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows."
"Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane
as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet
continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of
the restricted airspace around the White House."
"At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph,
[which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker
pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete
circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no
fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had
better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later
it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at
480mph."
Obviously, these two stories contradict one another, (although they both agree
that a sharp turn was made).
One of them is clearly wrong.
Which one?
As Bob Orr shows in his report, the main source of the White-House-as-target
story appears to be government officials.
Judging from the fact that,
these same White House officials already played big-time media-spin with the
original story about Air Force One, (and White House) as being targets; and
since,
CBS news is actually daring to openly contradict the White House position with
evidence in hand, (albeit, after nobody cares); and since,
Bob Orr's report is the one with the most accurate timeline; and since,
Dick Cheney has shown himself not to be above making well-crafted lies,
it seems likely that the radar records do indeed show Flight 77 by-passing the
White House no-fly zone, heading directly toward the Pentagon.
(NOTE: The term, "new", in the above article, may be
journalistic-speak for facts which agree with what most experts and informed
reporters already know to be correct -in spite of what the White House is
saying.)
It appears far more likely, that White House officials concocted the
White-House-as-target story in order to justify George W's absence from
Washington for 9 & 1/2 hours, then found a ready excuse for the Pentagon not
warning its own employees.
The presentation of this position, to explain why the Pentagon was caught
'off-guard,' merely masks the far more-important falsehood: the Pentagon
claiming it was "not informed" about Flight 77 thirty-five minutes before.
As per usual, many in the mainstream media found it more convenient -simply to
take the government pronouncements as fact, and reproduce them, (with an
artistic flourish of a most consistent, clandestine kind).
Unanswered Questions, Part 1F:
Military-Media Alliance
Index
Explanations Explained
A Few Choice Articles
Media Summary
Senate Confirmation Hearings: General Myers
Ignorance and Responsibility
The Science of Spin
Now that we have examined the events of Sept. 11th, and found, (in the realm of
civilian air defence) a glaring, criminal negligence existing alongside the
acts of terror...
now that we have moved through an examination of the FAA, the executive, the
FBI, the epicentre of misconduct moving towards the upper reaches of the
Pentagon...
now that we have thoroughly examined the "official" explanations, (for which
the military is ultimately responsible) and found there a clear, convincing
affirmation of a deceptive, negligent command...
the reader may be moved to consider the nature of the
military-media alliance
by which such deception is allowed to carry on.
Though we long ago deduced that the negligence of Sept. 11th emanated from many
quarters, we can no longer assume that the epicentre of that negligence
emanates from within the government alone; for without the negligence of the
mainstream media, (failing to persist with fundamental questions of
accountability) the deceptions in the Department of Defense simply would not
have taken hold.
Thus, as we move forward in our investigation, we must now approach the roots
of negligence as if they are emanating from two, distinct camps: one supposedly
public, the other clearly private.
The two appear to feed off of and reflect upon the other, serving some kind of
common interest. Likewise should we continue to examine the one in the light of
the other, so as to reveal what that interest is.
Two main tasks now appear before us: uncover the character of the command
decisions which occurred within the military on Sept. 11th; and consider the
behaviour of the media, as a reflection of the cultural context in which these
decisions continue to operate.
An examination of the media in relation to this tragedy is worthy of its own,
extensive investigation; for now, we begin modestly enough: with a review of,
A Few Choice Articles
Index
Military-Media Alliance
MSNBC
(artfully-spun)
CNN
(military communique?)
"Channel Four News"
(crude, but effective)
Media Summary
Beginning with our oft-cited, MSNBC article,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY
the author carefully moves from criticism...
"Clearly, the Air Force had the capability and the training to intercept
the American and United flights that hit the World Trade Center."
"Once it is apparent that [a plane] is not following directions, it might
be forced over the ocean or to a remote airport - or even shot down. The intent
with Stewart’s plane
was
to shoot it down if it was going to crash into a major populated area."
to....
"Why didn’t Atlantic City fighter planes respond? One answer is that
Atlantic City is a National Guard base,
(Civilian air defense is the "mission" of the Air National Guard.)
not an Air Force intercept base,
(Otis Air Force Base is both, an Air National Guard Base, and a NORAD intercept
base).
and it may not have had planes on alert.
to.....
"Flying time to the World Trade Center is 24 minutes at high speed from
Albany. Flight time from Atlantic City, the nearest F-16 fighter base, to the
World Trade Center is just 18 minutes. That leaves just six minutes to launch
fighter jets to intercept the hijacked plane."
Meaning: the planes would not have made it on time; so we can ignore the
question!
"The nearest air intercept base, Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Mass.,
was reported to have launched two F-15s, but they could not get to the World
Trade Center in time."
Wonder why....
Having satisfied that question, the author suggests that,
"Once a hijacker had the twin towers in sight, only modest flight training
would be necessary to manoeuvre the plane toward them."
Hmmmm... When is the last time, (one may ask) did you fly a 767-class airliner,
not a simulator, into a building at 480 miles/hr? -twice the legal speed?
He closes with,
"Our nation has a long history of reacting to "credible threats"
and body counts rather than planning for unrealized but highly probable
threats. The thought of shooting down a commercial airliner may have been too
horrifying to contemplate, but it is something for which aviation authorities
must now plan."
Now doesn’t that sound nice?
I mean, how reasonable-sounding can you get?
Let's review.
The author begins smartly enough:
He notes that systems are in place to handle hijackings, (even to shoot the
planes down).
He does acknowledge the existence of fighter-squadrons near Atlantic-City,
(though he doesn't mention that this is just one of many such "battle-ready"
squadrons in the region, including Philadelphia, Syracuse, Westfield, Hartford)
and he does ask the question, "why weren't fighters launched?"
His answer?
A lame "maybe" they weren't on alert.
Maybe the above author would have done his readers a big service by using his
mainstream journalistic resources to actually find out.
As it is, it’s very hard for an ordinary citizen to find out anything about the
Air National Guard these days -on the internet, or otherwise.
From here, the author jumps to:
why the Atlantic City Fighter's difficulty in getting there in time somehow
explains why they were not launched.
He neglects to mention we
didn’t know where
the plane was intending to strike, (if at all) -and that another hijacked
plane was already within fifty miles of the first- (heading towards
Philadelphia/ Atlantic City).
The author, supposedly a part-time pilot, also seems to have forgotten that the
top speed of an F-16 is well over 1000 mph, (at least 17mile/minute). Atlantic
City is a little over 100 miles from New York City. We're talking about
six
minutes travel time, not
eighteen
.
From critical engagement, to selective omissions, to a comfortable conclusion:
all in one nice, neat flowing package.
"Our nation has a long history of reacting to "credible threats"
and body counts rather than planning for unrealized but highly probable
threats. The thought of shooting down a commercial airliner...."
This totally ignores the fact that the U.S. already has the most sophisticated,
far-reaching, and pre-emptive military force in the world. All told, we're
talking over a $300 billion yearly budget. Within that realm, there is far more
emphasis given to guarding against unwarranted threats, making them up, and
justifying defenses, than there is to overlooking them.
The article ignores the crucial question entirely: the unprecedented delays in
getting the intercepts into in the air.
Damage-control = engage, frame, pacify.
Offering doubt-afflicted citizens a quaff of controlled comfort, 'stead of
calling us to ask the necessary questions, only adds to the campaign of
criminal confusion.
We next briefly examine our oft-cited CNN article of Sept 16,
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/
we find that it leads with,
Government failed to react to FAA warning
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Following Tuesday's terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center, and for at least 12 minutes after the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) warned the military's air defense command that a hijacked airliner
appeared to be headed toward Washington, the federal government failed to make
any move to evacuate the White House, Capitol, State Department or the
Pentagon...
This, of course, utterly avoids the
real
delay-issue of Sept 11th, (not getting planes in the air in time); and it
shifts the burden of the blame, (for defense) from the military onto the
federal government.
We're talking about the Pentagon, right? The Pentagon got hit, right? -the
headquarters of the guys in hats and helmets who are supposed to defend against
such things?
What does "the Federal Government" have to do with the Pentagon being clueless
and unable to warn anyone else?
Having taken the military out of the picture, the framework proceeds with this
deft/daft diversion at a pace.
Officials at the Pentagon said that no mechanism existed within the U.S.
government
to notify various departments and agencies [to evacuate] under such
circumstances.
If the Pentagon knew that a suicide plane was on the way, they could just pick
up the phone and start calling people, or walk through the hallways, telling
people to make an orderly evacuation, or take defensive measures, (the
ever-popular, "duck and cover"); but
nothing
was done; and the ones
doing that nothing
were the Pentagonites, not "the federal government."
So CNN ignores the central question of why the Pentagon didn't defend itself:
why there were no fighters in the air, why the central command center claims it
didn't even know
what was happening; and it even has the galls to blame the "federal
government" for not having the facilities to evacuate.
It has to be quite clear here that "no mechanisms" exist at CNN for an
arms-length policy towards the military, if this is what passes for criticism
during an obvious catastrophe.
Officials also told CNN that President George W. Bush had not given
authorization to
the Defense Department to shoot down a passenger airliner until after the
Pentagon
had been struck.
So this explains why the Pentagon's surface-to-air missilies weren't used?
Ohhhh... I seeeee....
It's a pity that this article fails to mention that that the great General
("oscar") Myers himself had already said, (three days earlier) that the Command
Center in the Pentagon "was up" soon after the first plane attack, (8:46).
This would mean that
the reason
George W. Bush wasn't able to give the shoot-down order was because
the Pentagon
neglected to get Georgy out of Grade three: for over forty minutes, the
necessary
hiatus interruptus
message never came, (and we've still received no satisfaction from CNN).
The above comment, at least, does clearly show that once again, George W.
Bush's timing on
Sept 11 was perfectly in line with every other vestige of American Air Space
authority:
phonecalls delayed, warnings ignored, planes that "couldn't quite get there in
time" -every time.
We've already pointed out the nonsensical,
"Officials at the Pentagon also said that they were never made aware
of the threat
from hijacked United Airlines flight 93 until after it crashed in
Pennsylvania." (ibid)
The amusing point here may be that the
spin
and the
evidence against it, (when the FAA informed NORAD that the plane was hijcked,
at 8:50, almost an hour earlier) is in the same article,
(though only visible, perhaps, to those who have the time and instinct to find
it).
We close this brief sampling of the Sept 11
th
press coverage, with an example of how easily early reports can be extremely
inaccurate.
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm
The author of the
"terrifying dilemma"
article says,
"The four doomed airliners took off within 15 minutes of each other. Just
before 8 flight AA 11 left Boston. heading for Los Angeles Two minutes later UA
93 left New York for San Francisco."
Actually, Flight 93 took off at 8:42, forty minutes later.
It was supposed to take off at 8:02. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid, MSNBC.com Sept 22)
‘At 8.10 flight double A 77 left Washington for San Francisco. Four minutes
after that a second Boston flight headed for LA."
"The first visible sign of anything untoward came at 8.28 when flight AA11
out of Boston inexplicably took a 50 degree turn South as it flew over New York
state."
As the
documents cited
above have already clearly shown, the "first visible sign" was the
loss of transponder and radio contact with the cockpit, which occurred eight
minutes earlier. Flight 11 was well off-course by the time it veered sharply
south.
"Fifteen minutes later and two more planes suddenly change course. United
Airlines flight A93 reaches Cleveland and turned back on itself heading towards
Washington or possibly the Presidential retreat Camp David."
Actually, at 8:43, Flight 93 had just taken off a minute or two before. It
would still not be over Cleveland for almost an hour.
Here again we see the previously cited story about the White House as target.
"A few minutes later flight AA77 altered course over Kentucky also heading
towards Washington. Air Traffic Controllers at Reagan National Airport
immediately alerted the Pentagon that an airliner was headed for the restricted
airspace over Washington... heading straight for the White House...."
Now, of course, in the midst of a chaotic situation, a reporter cannot be
blamed for not
getting all the facts right, first time around; yet it goes to show how easy it
is for inaccuracies and confusion to dis-credit the discourse.
Once a falsehood is printed, its effect has already been felt -in the extra
effort needed by already-hard-working readers, just to come up with a basic
picture with which to begin a serious inquiry.
Inaccuracy fatigues the inquiring mind; and along with sensationalism, rarely
burdens the bottom-line.
Two more interesting quotations,
"By the time employees inside the Pentagon realized.....
There had been no warning broadcast inside the [Pentagon].....
Even the clear sign of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil... barely elevated the
state of readiness inside the nation's military headquarters...
To many Americans, it probably seems inconceivable that an unauthorized
aircraft could get that close to the nation's military command center
[Pentagon]on any day, let alone one when the nation was under attack. Yet U.S.
continental air defenses, slashed dramatically since the Cold War ended and
never designed to thwart an internal threat, were helpless to stop the attacks,
leaving the nation's capital and its most populated city exposed. (Newsday
9/23, ibid)
Dost thou see the slippery syntax?
The authors here are using a fact which is
related
to why the Pentagon was not
defended
, to explain why the Pentagon was not "
informed
." The (supposed) fact that fewer planes were available has
absolutley nothing
to do with why the Pentagon was (supposedly) "unaware."
This article specifically speaks to the obvious question of how the "command
center" was caught unawares -then deflects it to something which is totally
unrelated to the question of
command
.
Pretty blatant, no?
That's classic damage control: seek out the obvious point of contention, frame
it, give an answer which sounds close enough to the truth, (before readers come
to their own conclusions). Leave them/us to think that the sense of
dis-connection we're feeling, (from this answer) is because we're too stupid to
put two-and-two together; so they/we let it pass.
To what degree each of the authors were aware of this obvious distortion,we
cannot say.
Far more important: now
we're
aware of it.
Here's an interesting line,
"No regular Air Force planes were scrambled during the terrorist attacks
because continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard, an
Air Force spokesman said,
speaking on condition of anonymity
."
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml
Now, since when does a "spokesman"
speak on condition of anonymity? Either you’re a "spokesman" with a
name,
representing an organisation, or your a "nameless official," a
"source,"
etc. This sounds more like someone from a private corporation, (than a public
servant): doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow with our tepid, intrepid reporter.
MEDIA SUMMARY
Index
Military-Media Alliance
In our review of the Sept 11 events, we have recalled and/or uncovered some
incredible facts,
hijacked planes that are in the air for almost an hour without any
fighter-planes scrambled to intercept them,
a President who is allowed to sit amongst a classroom of children for thirty
minutes during a confirmed national emergency,
a supposed "inside" threat to Air Force One which keeps the President away from
Washington for 9 & 1/2 hours, later cast aside as 'irrelevant' by the same
officials who initially made the threat public,
top officials in the Pentagon, (including the Secretary of Defense) claim they
were "unaware" of the plane that was coming towards them, (and of another plane
which crashed in Pennsylvania, an hour after radar defense was "officially"
notified).
an FBI investigation of dissappearing black-boxes and indestructible terrorist
passports, Islamic "confessions" in biblical tongue, "pilots" who can't fly,
hang out in strip-clubs, whose real identities seem irrelevant.
Such glaring contradictions to the concept of competent leadership -in the wake
of a tragedy which cost the lives of thousands of civilians- demand that
pointed and sustained questions be asked by the media; yet, as we have seen,
the mainstream has consistently avoided this; rather, the emphasis has been to
try and patch up the tattered image of the government/military authority, by
accepting "official" pronouncements as fact.
We have examined a whole web of these "official" pronouncements, which are
supposed to explain why civilian air defense failed on Sept. 11th -yet only
leave us with more-troubling realizations:
the air bases which were not used, (with "battle-ready" fighter squadrons)
twenty-six of which have squadrons on stand-by alert within a few days of the
attack,
the supposed FAA delays -criminal in scope- which are explained as
"transponder," "communications," and other minor, technical issues,
stories, the prime purpose of which appears to be to distract from other, more
essential questions,
deliberate confusion of "intercept" with shoot-down,
propogation of false radar reports to justify Pentagon inaction,
the soft-peddling of emotional "buttons" which only serve to shroud the harsh
reality of what went down,
"we tried," "we could not have forseen,"
the denial of planes used at Andrews Air Force base,
the intentional diffusion of blame so as to distract from the command
responsibility at the core of the military,
all this, the mainstream media has met without a sustained protest, criticism,
or insight.
There are numerous reasons for this.
Chief among these must be the stunning degree of media concentration in America
-where four or five massive conglomerates control the vast majority of the
newspapers, radio, and television stations: through outright ownership, control
of media services, news-wires, dependence on advertising, etc.
These voices, (CNN/Time-Warner, MSNBC, CBS, etc.) thoroughly dominate the
exchange of ideas -and by their vast corporate
holdings/partnerships/parent-companies, are as equally committed to the
preservation of elite interests in government, business, and the military.
Reporters who think for themselves never even get a chance to rise up in ranks
such as these, (though in the midst of a national crisis, critically important
reports may still come through).
There are still editors and reporters who struggle to report the honest truth;
yet it takes time and money to do investigative reporting, (much more
cost-effective to "manage" the news than to dig for it); and all are under
great pressure to "go along" with the "mass distress" in times of national
shock.
Like many of us, most reporters would like to believe that their government is,
on the whole, redeemable.
It's a truly frightening concept for anyone to consider that the government
upon which we depend for so much may be lying to us at every turn. Only a much
greater love for self and others can enable us to embrace that dark possibility
-to which the demands of working for a living do not easily surrender.
Such
esteemed
observers are quickly weeded out of the mainstream journalistic pool. Seasoned
reporters who think for themselves are ever on the verge of being replaced with
young "greenhorns," eager to please their editors.
At some points, the idiocy and irrelevance of the media -in not asking the
obvious questions, (and/or sticking to them until they get a decent answer)-
might appear as comical, absurd theatre, if it didn't have the reality of a
cluster bomb and "tribunals-for-all" attached to it.
Such an echo of
"Officials at the Pentagon also said that they were
never made aware
" (CNN 9/16 ibid)
was
not informed
prior to the.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
were "simply
not aware
" (Newsday, ibid)
may remind us of a rather stark, but essentially true assessment of modern
media from Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebels:
"You tell a lie often enough, and the people will eventually believe
it."
The central command, of the most powerful military force in the world
claiming a cranial vapour-lock of
"we weren't informed"
during a national emergency
must instinctively raise the eyebrows of any thinking human being.
The virtual absence of air-intercepts on Sept 11 must truly stun anyone
remotely familiar with routine air-defense procedure.
Yet the vast majority of reporters and editors have put their nagging doubts
aside, in order to preserve and protect what they think is essential; and in
the process, (whether by not knowing or not caring to know) they have moved
themselves and their viewers further away from the ability to face reality, the
next time it comes crashing in.
We now return to the other pillar of our analysis, the military. Let's see if
we can get a closer look at the command-structure on Sept. 11th, by examining
the
Senate Confirmation Hearing for General Richard Myers
Sept 13
Index
Military-Media Alliance
This "Confirmation Hearing" is where a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, (the highest ranking commander in the land, after the President and
Defense Secretary) is to be confirmed by the Senate.
The existing Chairman, (in this case, General Shelton) was stepping down.
Usually, this is a bit of a rubber-stamp affair. Senators in various
military-liason committees are already intimately involved with the workings of
the Defense Department, and rarely take serious issue with whomever the
President proposes.
Yet this was an extraordinary time: two days after the Sept 11th attacks.
If ever there was a time when one of the top military officials would be called
to speak on the civilian defense failures of Sept 11, you would think this
would be it; and the results, (or absence thereof) are quite telling.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm
The transcript is long, boring, and rather pathetic; in the midst of Senator
after Senator falling over themselves to praise and thank the new "commander,"
(sharing jokes about whose Alma Mater the general belongs to, like some "old
Boys Club") some of them actually ask a direct and relevant question about what
was on everyone's mind, yet in such a way that.... well.... you can see for yourself.
The timing of the hearing itself is significant.
The "old" leader, (who had technically been in command during the worst
security failure in U.S. history) was stepping down, and a new commander was
taking his place.
What that means is: say goodbye to the "old" leader, (Shelton) being called to
hold himself and his staff accountable for what he did or didn't do.
As it was, the "new" chairman, General Myers, was in a good position to
represent the "outgoing command," since he had been its second-in-command, as
Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ("at times acting as chairman in General
Shelton's absence"). He also refers to himself here as "the commander-in-chief
of North American Aerospace Defense Command," (NORAD).
Technically-speaking, he had still been second-in command during the crisis;
and for this reason, the Senate may not have felt as obligated to press for
solid answers, (though common sense would surely suggest otherwise).
Now, as America was only two days into recovering from the shock and confusion
of Sept 11, you'd think the Senators would have been inclined to postpone the
confirmation hearing for a few days, or a week, (at least) to give themselves
some time to identify where any security breaches may have occurred -so that
they could ask the general meaningful questions about it.
This would have also given General Myers some time to prepare the data he would
need to give the Senate a competent explanation for what had just happened.
Nope.
They just had to push right on through.
Even under such constraints, the General has an enormous staff of people at his
disposal. He knew this hearing was scheduled; and he could have ordered his
subordinates to put every timeline, memo, spread sheet, and briefing he needed
right in front of him -to make sure the Senate is fully informed.
Yet ad naseum, the General says, "I'll get back to you," "I'll check on that,"
"I can get that for you," (as we shall see).
(Note: The sequence of speakers has been altered so as to make the presentation
of the material more... digestible. Some of these comments have already been
discussed in previous sections of
Unanswered Questions
).
Near the beginning of the session, Myers makes a rather startling statement,
(to those of us who are now aware of FAA and Pentagon regulations).
LEVIN: General, in your personal view, are there capabilities or equipment that
the armed forces need today to respond to the terrorist attacks that they do
not currently have? Or are they able to respond today, should that decision be
made, to those attacks?
MYERS: Sir, I think we are able to respond today.... [there are always
improvements] but let me re-iterate...we have what we need today to do what we need to do.
So, two days after the attacks, the top military commander says with confidence
"we have what we need" [to stop another terrorist attack]. We don't need more
planes or bases, no more covert ops funding, sophisticated technologies. "We
have what we need."
It's possible that Myers was just saying this to re-assure the public, (when he
really wasn't sure); but his assertion dovetails exactly with what the evidence
has been saying all along: procedures, personel, and airplanes were in place on
Sept. 11th, to insure that the terrorist attacks would not be successful; the
problem was not their non-existence, but that they were not implemented.
WHAT MYERS DID
I was with Senator Cleland [in the senate] when [the attack] happened and went
back to the Pentagon.... they were evacuating, of course, And I went into the
National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station
when things are happening.
So, the vice-chairman, (second in command of all U.S. forces) gets to his
"battle-station" after the attack on the Pentagon, (9:40) over fifty minutes
after the first attack on the World Trade Center had occurred.
This raises a few questions:
General Myers was not "at" his "battle-station" until 9:40; was he at least
informed of the situation before that? That is: even though he was not "at" his
"battle station" was he already acting in consort with it? At what point was
this commander involved in the command decisions of his "battle station"?
Who else was there? Was the top commander? -the chairman, General Henry Shelton?
No, he was not.
According to the Department of Defense, General Shelton was,
"'somewhere over the Atlantic en route to Europe when the attacks occurred..."
http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/myersafrts.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html
General Myers continues,
MYERS: "At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up
our crisis action team. That was done immediately."
Yet according to "Defense Link," (cited above) General Shelton was not a part
of this "crisis action team," when it was "stood up."
Myers said he was on Capitol Hill that morning in the offices of Georgia Sen.
Max Cleland to discuss his confirmation hearing to become chairman. While in an
outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the
World Trade Center.
"They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers said. So the
two men went ahead with the office call.
Meanwhile, the second World Trade Center tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody
informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious.
Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."
Somebody thrust a cell phone in Myers's hand. Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of
U.S. Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, was on the
other end of the line "talking about what was happening and the actions he was
going to take."
"Nobody informed us of that,
[the second attack on the World Trade Center]...
then somebody said the Pentagon was hit."
In speaking of the "crisis-action team," General Myers uses the word "we";
when, in fact, he was
not even notified
of the emergency until fifty minutes after "we" were "up"!!
Good Lord!!
Is this not unbelievable? The top two commanders are away from their
"battle-stations" during a national emergency, and the second in command is not
even
notified
for at least fifty minutes! (NORAD was aware that Flight 11 had been hijacked
at least ten minutes earlier, by 8:38).
The General saw the television report almost a full hour before he heard about
it from his subordinates.
Can you spell criminal negligence, General?
Why were you not notified? And whose job was it to notify you? Who bears
responsibility for the decisions (not) made in the command center?
Perhaps it's not unusual for the two top commanders to be absent from their
"battle-station" at the same time; but surely the nearby second-in-command
should have been informed?
The Defense Link article adds that, because General Shelton was "somewhere over
the Atlantic")
"it was critical for Myers to get back to the Pentagon."
[Oh yes sir. Absolutely critical.... so critical that... well, ya see... the
"crisis-action team" had been "up" for over fifty minutes now... sweating it
out... they would surely have been getting hungry by now... and General
Myers... why, he knows all the best take-out places in town!!!]
"Make no mistake," (as George W. says).
The General continues,
"So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I
do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that
time."
So Myers "doesn't know" when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft...
Hey General, how about: 'Order it immediately!?!'
What other possible fact could be more important for you to know?
This is the military, right? And... it's the military's job to do what?
Respond
.
And
when
the military responded is what everyone wants to know, General... so we can
all either heave a little sigh of relief, or heave the ones who should be
relieved of duty out the door!!!
Could someone please explain why the General didn't just say, 'The planes were
ordered up, as soon as "we," (the crisis-action team) were "up"'(?)
That's the law; and if the General wasn't sure enough -as to whether the law
was carried out by his subordinate commanders- then he should have bloody-well
made it his business to find out, immediately!!
['Oh well... what with the confirmation hearing coming up... appointment at the
hairdressers, the manicurist at 9, speech writer at 9:15... who has the time?']
"DEFENSE-LINK" explains,
He said conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the Command Center.
Oh. Confusion huh? Maybe this is why the "confirmed" one wasn't notified for
fifty minutes?
OK, General, let's go back to
boot camp
basic.
What's the first thing you learn in the military, when confusion reigns in an
emergency? Those in command act to eradicate the confusion, and
take responsibility
for what does or
doesn't
happen.
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential
emergency,
handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (tenc, ibid)
No weanie excuses.
No passing the hot potato off to
some one else's
"conflicting reports."
The buck stops here.
Is there anything else you've forgotten about, General? Got your underwear on
straight? Got your NORAD timelines in front of you? ['Oh yeah, the confirmation
hearing'].
LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other
agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade
Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?
MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you,
for the record.
another odd thing for Myers to say.
Obviously, the Defense Dept. (NMCC) had been contacted by somebody, (after the
first attack). Why didn't he say, ['I'm not sure exactly when the FAA contacted
us, but I'm sure they did early on -because that's what they are mandated to
do.'](?)
Why leave the question hanging? Why not give a vote of confidence for the FAA?
-and make everybody feel a little more comfortable?
As we now know, it's because uncertainty around the FAA holds aloft its
supposed negligence, covering up the real gooey center.
WE KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW
LEVIN: [did] the FAA or FBI notify you that other planes had turned direction
from their path, their scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards
Washington, [was] there.. any notice from any of them, because that's such an
obvious shortfall if there wasn't.
MYERS: Right.
LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that
information.
MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at that
time, so that part of it is a little hazy. After that, we started getting
regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other flights that we
were worried about.
And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not
know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . .
LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don' t know them.
MYERS: But we'll get them.
"It probably happened"(??)
"We know you don't know"(??)
Sounds like the Senator here is reading from a script called, "let's blame the
FAA, lob an easy one to the general, then brush it aside when he hits a foul."
All Myers has to do is say, ['yeah, I guess so] -and he gets away with it!.
The candidate for the most powerful soldier in the most-powerful country in
the world didn't even bother to bring a NORAD timeline with him.
It's up to Senator NELSON to say,
"I do note with some irony that it's important to document all of the
timeframes by using our most able informant, CNN."
Even with little preparation time, the general has a huge staff of people at
his disposal to collect the relevant timelines, and have all his own movements
listed on a sheet of paper in front of him. Yet he simply flies by the "ah...
uhm... ah..." seat of his pants.
Acting like a schoolboy at his first exam: he sees no need to hold himself and
the military command accountable for the catastrophe that just occurred.
WHY THE DELAY?
BILL NELSON You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any
military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would
be: why?
MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go
back and review the exact timelines.
BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session.
But my question is an obvious one for not only this committee, but for the
executive branch and the military establishment.
If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did,
and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by
terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los
Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once
we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180
degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight,
turning 180 degrees? That's the question.
MYERS: ... after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD,
General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to
start launching aircraft.
Oooohhhh... interesting.
Do you see what's happening here?
The General is making
mistakes...
According the Senator, Myers had earlier said, "we had not scrambled any
military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit."
He had also said he "didn't know" when the order to launch intercepts was given.
Now he's saying he and Eberhart gave the decision to launch after the second
tower was hit; but he's already on the public record as stating he didn't speak
to Eberhart, (and wasn't even informed of the disaster) until after the
Pentagon was hit, almost forty minutes later!! (see Defense-Link pg).
He's lying so often, he's forgetting them as fast as he's making them up.
Now, the Senator here may be asking the General a perfectly reasonable
question: 'why the delay?'
It's also possible that he's
coming to the General's rescue
-giving him a chance to correct himself in public.
Can you catch the clue?
"Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session,"
(behind closed doors, right after the public one).
That may be code-word for: ['Hey, stupid, do we have to go over it again? Get
it straight, or you'll see an executive session that you'll never forget.']
What other reason could the Senator possibly have for indicating a closed-door
"executive session"?
So that the General can explain when planes were scrambled?
Is there any question of "national security" or "sensitivity" here?
You and I wouldn't think so.
So now we've gone from: 'planes launched after the attack on the Pentagon'; to
'planes launched after second attack on the WTC'; within a day or two we'll
learn that planes were launched just after the first attack.
Catch the General's decisive command capabilities:
"I think[???] the decision was at that point"???
He thinks? Doesn't he know when a serious decision is made? Didn't he insist on
knowing it?
And why did the top Pentagon Commanders wait for fifteen minutes -after they
were informed of the first attack- to (supposedly) launch fighters anyway?
Flight 175, (the second plane) was already declared hijacked, and was just
outside New York.
Coffee break, anyone?
The General's performance here is so sloppy, that it's obvious it can't be held
up to any serious scrutiny.
Within a few days, a nice, neat package of timelines will emanate down from on
high, making this farce of a command-performance seem irrelevant to all but a
few.
The General is unprepared; there has been no time for Senators to prepare
questions which they can insist on an answer for. And this seems to be just
what's intended: ['make a show of it, get through it and move on.']
WHAT WAS CAUSE? HOW TO FIX?
The General pits the blame for the air defense "lapse" on a lack of air bases
on ready alert,
"we've got just a few bases around the perimeter of the United States.... "it's
not just a question of launching aircraft, it's launching to do what? You have
to have a specific threat"
(repeating one or two of the same feeble spins we've already discussed).
To be more specific, he says,
In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for
the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually
crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I
recall. I'll have to check that out.
I do not recall if that was the case for the one that had taken off from
Dulles. But part of it is just where we are positioned around this country to
do that kind of work because that was never -- it goes back to Senator Collins'
issue. Is this one of the things that we'll worry about. You know, what's next?
BILL NELSON: Well, that one is one that we need to talk about together as we
get prepared for the future.
MYERS: Yes, sir.
"I'll have to get back to you"???? -for the record? Isn't this exactly what the
confirmation hearing is for?: to lay the general's competency out for the
public record? Isn't he supposed to be showing an ability to be in command of
the given situation?
The top commander in the U.S. military: "..if my memory serves me... I'll have
to check that out... I'd have to go back and review..." [We'd have to go back
and review how many times he says this, to get an exact sense of how inept he
is].
Naturally, he avoids the question altogether, of why it took almost an hour for
Air Force command to respond, (on two occasions): meaning, the planes could
have flown in from Montana in time, if routine response times had been honored.
General Myers prefers the classic damage-control combo: sounding smart, acting
dumb; and the Senator appears to give him a passing grade, with a
'you'll-do-better-next-time' nod -just for showing up!
CLELAND what lessons, over the last 72 hours, [have you] ...learned... that
you can share with this committee.
MYERS: Well, I think you've hit on some of them... what is the department's
role... and how all the agencies of this government collaborate and
cooperate... intelligence... the absolute essential nature of our
communications. And they worked fine in this crisis. But you could envision
other scenarios..
Myers, of course, completely avoids the issue of intercept-response-time,
(someone else's department) in order to emphasize "communications, [which]
worked fine in this crisis... but you could envision..."
Well excuse me, but must we countenance the gall of a commander talking about
vague, future threats -while still in the aftershock of the most colossal
domestic defense failure in living memory?
Can you envision calling it "fine communications" when the top commander is not
even informed of a national emergency for fifty minutes?
Ooops, sorry: forgot about CNN.
CLELAND Thank you very much for your service and God bless you.
[Thank you, tiny Tim].
REED:it seems to me, in a very narrow point of force protection, that in terms
of the Pentagon, a major military facility, you had absolutely no advance
warning that such an attack was being contemplated, prepared, planned or
executed. Is that correct?
MYERS: There was no strategic warning that this was contemplated or planned, to
the best of my knowledge.
The general is carefully avoiding the part of this question which speaks to the
Pentagon being unaware of an attack, as it was being executed, (underway,
in-motion, comin' down the pipe, 'round the mountain, in through the window).
REED: And I presume, based on your discussion with Senator Cleland, that this
has been a source of almost immediate examination and review by the Department
of Defense, as to what can be done in the future to avoid this situation?
MYERS: Absolutely. And it's not just the Department of Defense, but all the
civil agencies as well that have intel apparatus, given that this, you know,
that they may have knowledge as well.
['I agree. Now let me deflect your attention from the incompetence of the
Department of Defence one more time.']
REED: Thank you very much.
MYERS: Absolutely.
BUNNING: what action would you take to ensure the security of our nation, of
our armed forces, from terrorist attacks?
MYERS: I think we need to look really closely at our intelligence capabilities,
our ability to analyze the information we get.... I think we need to look at
our communications as well. And again, I go back to the other issue, and that
is the issue of homeland security, homeland defense. There are a lot of
unanswered questions in this area that we've just got to wrestle to the ground.
And we can't keep putting these off or we'll not be prepared in the future.
The General seems to be doing a very good job of "putting off" answering the
relevant questions.
Here he blames the defenceless skies on "intelligence capabilities," "our
ability to analyse information," and again on "communications" ["which," as he
said earlier, "worked fine in this crisis"].
COLLINS: I'm struck by the fact that the attacks that we experienced this week
are being treated more as a matter of law enforcement, that the Department of
Justice, for example, is the lead agency, rather than as an act of war, where
the Department of Defense would be, I would assume, the lead agency.
Do you have any comments on how we better define the role of the Department of
Defense?
MYERS: Well, as I indicated earlier... Is this a civil law enforcement issue?
Or is it one of national security? Because, however you decide that question,
then will decide who has got primary responsibility.
we need to define our roles and responsibilities, probably in ways that we
haven't yet today.
I will tell you though, that the cooperation among all the departments and
agencies of this government has been absolutely superb. And yes, this was a
terrorist act and the FBI and the Department of Justice are working the
evidentiary piece of this. And that's appropriate.
I must tell you though, General Myers is quite consistent with his insistent
refusal to deal with any contentious issues in a straightforward manner.
The Senator is asking him why the debate around the attacks is centered on law
enforcement? Why is justice the lead agency, when we were struck by a military
attack?
Why is the military hanging in the background?
Why is the General saying, "however
you
decide that question"(?) -when it is the clearly the military which is the
final arbitrator of who did? and does what?
We're not talking about policy here. We're talking about the power to
act
, (or not).
Could this avoidance of authority, (in appearance only) be related to the fact
that the Pentagon was struck, supposedly "unawares"?
General Myers spins this off into a question of "unclear" roles and
responsiblities -until the clarity of the original question is lost.
A FEW MORE POINTS OF INTEREST
It may be worthwhile noting that the Senators were going to have a closed-door
session with General Myers immediately following this one, (at which Deputy
Defense Secretary Wolfowitz was also going to be present) .
Numerous comments to this effect appear throughout the transcript.
ROBERTS: We're going to have to talk about that later. I won't go into it right
now.
SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have some other . . .
MYERS: I can tell you in closed session what I do know.
SMITH: I'll wait for that.
BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session.
Most of the confirmation hearing didn't even concern Sept 11.
Senators asked General Myers about space-command, missile-systems, biological
warfare, anthrax vaccines, maintenance.
While it would only make sense that not every other military concern be put on
hold for this hearing; (life must go on) one may be struck by just how much the
government seems bent on carrying on with "business-as-usual."
It rather begs the question: what has to happen in modern U.S. society for the
government to stop doing what it's doing, and really consider a fundamental
change of management.
ASSESSMENT:
The Confirmation Hearings bring some kind of closure to the uncertainties which
the evidence has thus far placed before us,
It was already abundantly clear that a gross, criminal negligence had occurred
in the realm of civilian air defense on Sept 11th -without which, the terrorist
plane attacks would not have been successful.
This appeared to involve ATC/FAA, NORAD, The President, and the Pentagon/DOD as
co-incompetents.
Subsequent investigation has shown that the FBI -through its travesty of an
investigation- is implicated at a very high level; and increasingly, the paths
of culpability point towards the highest levels in the Pentagon, as "ground
zero" -for
responsibility denied
.
Now with the appearance of General Myers before the Senate, we have clear
confirmation of,
his personal evasion of responsibility for his role as top General during a
national catastrophe,
incompetence beyond belief,
blatant contempt for considerations of accountability to the American public,
and as representative of the top Pentagon Commanders, clear indication of their
cover-up and probable guilt for the criminal negligence of Sept. 11th, 2001.
General Myers admits that he and the "crisis-action team [were] up" after the
first attack on the World Trade Center, (with a hijacked Flight 175, [NORAD
confirmed] still fifty miles outside of New York City); and they did not see to
it that a state of emergency was declared; and that fighter-intercepts from all
available bases were ordered on immediate patrol.
He said "I do not know when NORAD responded with fighter-aircraft" -as if
knowing that was an insignificant concern, a clear abandonment of his most
basic responsibility.... to find out why decisive action had not been
immediately taken.
The General is unable to answer the most basic questions about when the
Pentagon was first informed of the emergency, by whom, or whether planes were
dispatched at all. Six times he tells Senators, 'I'll have to get back to you
on that...' when he has an enormous staff available to provide him with every
stat he needs.
This reflects a similar negligence we've already seen in the command staff of
the Pentagon: from the Defense Secretary who says he and his staff were
"unaware" that hijacked Flight 77 was headed towards them; to the Joint Chief
Officers, monitoring the radar screens in the Command Center... aware of the
national emergency since at least 8:50, (likely 8:40 or earlier) privy to all
suspect radar data... yet no action taken for thirty-five minutes... if at all.
The Hearing has further confirmed that the Senate has no interest in uncovering
the truth about what occurred on Sept. 11; in fact, it's members are doing
everything they can to protect the military industrial complex from scrutiny.
This must widen and further complicate our examination of what happened on Sept
11, (and why). Amongst top officials in the Executive, the Pentagon, FBI, we
must now cast a wary eye across the network of elected officials who have so
thoroughly embraced the "war on terrorism" while avoiding the blatant criminal
negligence of American officials which pre-date it.
We can come to no other conclusion but that,
something went terribly wrong in the command centers of the Pentagon on Sept. 11
the President was incapacitated because of it, for an entire day
Top Pentagon officials initiated a campaign of lies and mis-information to
derail any public discussion.
the FBI generously fabricated evidence to quickly close the case in the minds
of the public
elected officials rallied around the military, denying the obvious
the press made it all seem believable, knowingly or unknowingly, whether out of
fear, servitude, or a lack of critical instinct.
The reality of such criminal negligence, widespread corruption, and
incompetence is ominous indeed.
It means that the main centers of power and influence in U.S. society -nay, the
world- are out of control, way out touch with reality, and that we are headed
for a disaster of far greater proportions than 9/11.
For those of us aware that,
planet earth may be made uninhabitable for humans in a relatively short
period of time,
humanity spends as much on weapons every two weeks -as it would take to feed
all of us for an entire year
this disturbing reflection coming off the waters of Sept. 11th may not come as
much of a surprise.
Ignorance and Responsibility
Index
Military-Media Alliance
Perhaps one of the most telling aspects of General Myer's performance before
the Senate, revolves around the language he employed, and the attitude this
language embodies.
It's deceptive, dishonest, without honour, yet in a singularly unremarkable way.
There's no outright, brutish force employed, no charismatic pull to follow;
simply an impetus to be left alone, to avoid contact, responsibility.... in
order to fulfill one's hidden agenda.
What makes this attitude significant to us is that, it is one which permeates
much of our modern culture.
From the attitude of children, (often having more respect for the TV than their
elders) to the elders in government, (looking down on the "unwashed masses")
there is a moral degeneracy which accompanies our refusal to be seen by others
for who we really are. Instead, we cultivate an
image
by which we attempt to get what we want from others -while avoiding an open
admission of intent as much as possible.
Thus, the vague, evasive language; the cultivated confusion of intent.
Underneath this soft, surreal blanket is the brutal face of power: in politics,
business, a conversation.
Pornography is about power. Teenage angst, fashion, fame, are primarily about
power: those who've got it, those who want it, and what people are willing to
do to get it.
This quest for power is driving our world.
There's a different kind of power, of course, formed in the interaction of our
vulnerable and courageous souls.
Yet when the deceptive power grows as a dominant force in society, it spreads
like a cancer in the minds and hearts of the millions amongst us, and
within.... crowding out most precious heart.
It is largely for this reason that the commanders in the Pentagon have been
able to get away with their evasion of responsibility for the criminal
negligence which occurred on Sept 11th, costing thousands of lives.
Sad to say: it is because we, the masses,
don't want to know about it
.
That is, we instinctively accept the Pentagon's claim of "we didn't know," "we
weren't informed," as a valid excuse, because we ourselves
want
to believe that our own ignorance of something absolves us of responsibility.
Thus: 'if I
avoid
knowing about something, then I am less responsible for what effect it may
have.'
Such an ignorance, of course, stops short of when we perceive it affecting us;
(though we ultimately blind ourselves to its effects on us) the emphasis of our
ignorance is on how it affects
others
.
Thus: 'I don't
want
to know what my government is doing to other people around the world, so long
as I don't perceive it affecting me personally; and if I'm not aware of it's
effect on others, then I bear no responsibility for it; hence, the reason we
choose to
avoid
being aware of it.
We know that the governments we elect are schools of deception, yet we continue
to elect them, and/or turn our backs on the true implications.... ignoring its
effects.
We know that the military let us down on Sept 11th, but we don't want to think
about it, for the implications that lie in the dark doorway beyond our
dependence on an authoritarian state.
The flip side of this, of course, is that most of us citizens today are unable
to separate ourselves from the actions of our government, when it is attacked;
for it is precisely because we choose to remain so ignorant, that we are
shocked if/and when the repercusions finally hit home.
This is why very few of us were able to listen to the the quite valid argument
that American (and European) foreign policy is largely responsible for creating
the culture of international terrorism in the first place.
Like a pendulum, we swing from ignorance, to shock, to blind allegiance, then
back to ignorance again.
Our governments, and centers of influence are very well aware of this; in fact,
they encourage it, cultivate it, because they can use it to their own advantage.
While we all share in a state of general ignorance, the rich and powerful are
are not ignorant about
power
, they merely use the
appearance
of being "unaware" of it in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for
the benefits they receive. We, on the other hand, ("the people") choose to
remain ignorant of the power-question, accepting the elite's avoidance of
responsibility, in return for a few table scraps, and the ability to knowing
what the elite are doing to others.
These are not our only motivations, of course; we struggle every day, (often
heroically) to live honourable lives -under great pressure, invariably put upon
us by those elites; yet at a certain point, our own oppression no longer
becomes a worthy excuse for ignoring the oppression of others; dignity demands
that we lift our heads up to behold our whole, human essence.
We are as yet, on the whole, unwilling to deal with the prospect that the
government is unworthy of our trust; wherein, we can rely on it no longer, to
shield us from our fears; and so the problem keeps getting worse... as it has
been for a long, long time.
We do not want to look beyond our own backyard, unless we have to.
This is where the government, military/media can say,
"those planes wouldn't have got there on time anyway... we wouldn't have been
able to shoot them down without..."
to mean,
'don't trouble yourself with asking questions.... it won't make any
difference.... we'll take care of it'.
And we accept it, because it lets us off the hook. All we have to do is let
those in power off the hook too.
How conveniant for all concerned.
Our menial comfort zones, and the
image
we have spent so long in crafting, we protect at great cost: we continue to
eke out our partial paths of pleasure, rarely realizing that there are some who
have learned to profit handsomely from this network of isolated illusions, in
which so many play a small, pathetic part.
The cry of our true inner being never grows silent; always we seek to find a
way; so even when we finally open our arms to embrace the whole truth, we find
the struggle continues.
The depth of denial which confronts us in the world today looms large;
ultimately, beyond comprehension: a devastating, relentless expansion of social
decay, disintegrating relationships, divided self, imperiled earth; wherein,
only the courage to continue shall find within us, a cool compassion, with the
capacity to endure.
We forge ahead, as solitary souls, faithful, that the underlying bond between
us shall become that much more visible; in the eyes of others, in the arms that
one day receive us.
When we look upon our everyday heroics and facades as expressions of one, whole
humanity, we can see in the language of a General Myers the tired, life-denying
ambition which so cruelly characterizes our present human condition: the
absence of clarity and concrete inspiration; the combination of lukewarm logic
and a vicious boot to the balls; bloody war, bombs to keep the economy booming.
Ignorance, confusion, diffusion of blame -all these contribute to the false
sense of freedom we associate with an absence of responsibility.
It's in this context, that we may find meaning in the
SCIENCE of SPIN
Index
Military-Media Alliance
Spin
is a topic worthy of detailed scrutiny.
In general, a
spin
evolves from an intention to hide the truth about a given situation, through
avoidance, delicate denials, and the semi-conscious creation of
confusion.
We may see the embryonic form of this quite clearly in the behavior of
children, (esp. teenagers): attempting to establish their own power and
authority amongst others more powerful than they, struggling with the ethical
challenge of short-term gain vs. long-term love.
In political/social terms,
spin
becomes significant to us, as an
organized system
of deception -whereby certain interests cultivate a culture of collective mind
management.
This
organized
form of
spin
is of a much more sophisticated, refined nature than the instinctive,
childhood kind, (though it relies on the dissemination of that same
ground-floor deception, to nourish the soil in which the
spin
can take root).
It almost goes without saying that, in our modern society, we are daily
bombarded with a whole labyrinth of sophisticated
spins
... from numerous levels of government, corporations, advertsiers, "experts,"
"specialists," "advisors," "think tanks" -and, of course, the media.
These are of varying degrees of sophistication.
We must always allow individuals and groups
some
bias in their advocacy of a certain point of view; and it is this open and
honest exchange of views which we want to distinguish from deception,
misrepresentation, and all the various
hidden
characteristics associated with what we call
spin
.
The
spin
is most often observed within nominally "democratic" societies, where the
"public's right to know" is an operating assumption. In fascist, totalitarian
states, this sense of accountability is openly declared irrelevant to the
exercise of power. In so-called "democracies," it is not so much denied as it
is
managed.
In general, the object of the
spin
is to
suspend
a clear understanding of a particular issue,
only long enough
for events to move the
spin
into the dustbin of irrelevance.
Thus, the operating principle:
neither deny nor confirm
.
Outright denial is often a confirmation of
something
; it allows some closure to a particular question, allowing the observer to
move on to other questions, or examine the denial as if it is standing still,
solid, confirmed.
Though
denial
itself is the essence of
spin
, a concrete, specific denial usually requires other "ingrediants" to draw
attention away from it.
The preferred practice is to both
engage
and
deflect
the inquiring observer's attention, so as to
occupy
it, keep it moving, in flux, until "nobody cares" anymore.
For instance: a "spinster" may say, 'yes, exactly... I'll be glad to answer
that...' then proceed to unveil a line of cause and effect which really doesn't
speak to the question being asked; but rather, to one which sounds like it...
leading to completely different, (confused and irrelevant) conclusions.
A few examples of this which we have already seen include:
General Myers before the Senate,
Q:
"[did you have] advance warning that such an attack was being contemplated,
prepared, planned or executed...?"
MYERS: "There was no strategic warning that this was contemplated or
planned...."
(carefully avoiding the component of the question.... 'did you have a warning
that an attack was being executed,' 'underway,' 'goin' down,').
Q:
"And I presume... that this has been a source of almost immediate examination?"
MYERS: Absolutely. And it's not just the Department of Defense, but all the
civil agencies...
"Absolutely... and... but..."
After describing how completely "unaware" the Pentagon was that a plane was
coming towards them, Newsday speaks to what is on everyone's mind,
"To many Americans, it probably seems inconceivable that an unauthorized
aircraft could get that close to the nation's military command center
[Pentagon] on any day, let alone one when the nation was under attack."
Then deflects the question into la la land.
"Yet U.S. continental air defenses, slashed dramatically since the Cold War
ended..."
substituting why-the-planes-were-not-intercepted for
why-the-Pentagon-was-"unaware."
Readers may also recall the deliberate confusion by Pentagon officials, Dick
Cheney, etc. of routine "interception" with "shoot-down."
Sometimes the object of the
spin
is simply to downplay controversy -to make glaring errors seem more reasonable.
After two weeks of silence, (following the President's nine-hour detour from
Washington on Sept. 11th, blamed by White House officials on "clear and
credible evidence" that the attackers had "access to Presidential codes") White
House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says,
"I'm not going to comment on... it's not an uncommon occurrence for people to
threaten.... This has nothing to do with anything.... This is about an attack
that took place on our country." (ibid)
We have also noted on numerous occasions, how the object of a spin may be to
appeal to more malleable, push-button emotions in the observer, which serve to
distract from the calm, contentious, critical ones.
"We could not have foreseen...."
"We were caught off-guard...."
"faced with a horrifying decision..."
"We really [lied -I mean] tried...."
The beauty and significance of the larger spin is that, once we have been able
to pierce through the web of explanations, the spin campaign itself becomes one
of the most damning and localized pieces of evidence, indicating guilt.
In the case of a 'national-event' such as Sept. 11, the
spin
campaign also provides a most penetrating lens by which to see into the inner
workings of a country's power-structure.
We can, however, only arrive at this insight after we have spent much time and
effort in piercing through the various explanations.
At first, the web of "stories" seems complex, diverse, and perhaps convincing.
As each "explanation" is explored, and found to be unconvincing -an array of
unresolved contradictions is left in the wake of our movement towards the
center, inevitably leading towards higher and higher levels of decision-making
authority.
As we near the source-point of the "larger spin," the sense of dis-connection
between the various diversionary spins starts transforming into connections of
persons, times, dates; and the remaining confusion itself begins to take on the
weight of solid evidence.
Then we discover, at the core of the various spins, the "main spin" which all
the others are designed to deflect attention away from.
Now turning, we can look back along the path and clearly see how all the
various "spins" serve the center; and then, to other observers, we can lay out
the structure of the spin, (as an organized whole) so that they/we/you can
grasp it's central character without having to go through all the sifting.
The
main spin
is usually rather subtle to the uninformed eye; glaring, once grasped.
In our case, we discovered that,
the Department of Defense is making it seem as if it was "uninformed,"
as to the aviation emergencies taking place on Sept 11.
This
evasion of responsibility
was necessary to cover-up the fact that something happened within the highest
levels of the Pentagon, to insure that the Air Force did not do its job.
To the uninformed observer, this may appear insignificant. To those of us with
a clear understanding of what "command" means, it's as solid as the human
spirit is wide.
Whether by unconcious, criminal negligence or intentional treason, we cannot
yet say; what is clear is that the blame directed (by the Pentagon) to other
segments does not hold sufficient water to hold back the tide of suspician.
The primary purpose of the various weak explanations was to divert attention
from what is, in essence, a glaring incongruity: the military, which justifies
its existence on its ability to be
in charge
, was not: thousands died; and a traumitized nation was provoked into war.
Standing at the gate of
spin-central
, we can now clearly see another essential component of the campaign:
the "fall-guy" -
the patsy
- the one who's supposed to take the bulk of the blame, just in case the
initial campaign of damage-control and distraction does not work.
Clearly, in the case of the air defense negligence of Sept. 11, the main body
of the blame would fall on the FAA/ATC.
No question.
This is in the official timeline of NORAD. It has been clearly identified in
the press.
There have been no charges publicly filed against FAA/ATC officials, yet;
because, to do so, would be to admit to the existence of the criminal
negligence. When innocent people are charged, there's bound to be resistance.
Far less messy to simply deny it, by downplaying the extent of the FAA delay.
Any "investigation" has so far been confined to an "internal" review; but if
sufficient public dissatisfaction with the "official" story of Sept. 11 begins
to mount, we can confidently predict that a selective blaming of certain
officials will be made public, (in controlled doses).
The cynical manipulations implied in such a conscious campaign of cover-up and
false accusation should not lead us to assume that the perpetrators of this are
the "personification of evil," or jump to conclusions about intentional
"treason," and so on; nor should it shock or surprise us.
An ongoing infrastructure of "damage-control experts," "p-r specialists," etc.
are now considered an essential component of any major governmental authority
or institution.
They are designed and constructed so as to be able to move into action, as soon
as an emergency, crisis, scandal occurs.
Those employed in these positions, (to varying degrees) have been well-trained
in the art of extracting personal morality out of their waking existence, and
maintaining passive, emotionless expressions while they lie.
Some do it for the money, some for the prestige, and the taste of power; some
have convinced themselves it's in the "national interest." Most are just
gutless wonders.
They're good at what they do; and they're an essential part of "doing business."
To see a real "master" at work, just watch a White House press conference,
presently hosted by Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:
smoother than a speeding bullet,
more dourful than a token motive,
able to leap tall falsehoods in a single bound;
trained to pacify an entire room of scoop-scrounging journalists,
with a mirage of meanings meandering
into a circular feast
of fresh-waxed sheen.
Having said this, it remains quite possible that the failure of the military to
protect American skies on Sept 11th, may be
solely
and entirely due to an unintentional, (though still criminal) incompetence and
negligence.
We have thus far simply proven that the negligence existed, emanating from the
highest reaches of the Pentagon (and the Executive) and that a system-wide
campaign of damage-control was quickly initiated.
If we have not yet made a case for the possibility of
intentional sabotage
and treason, it was because it would have been highly speculative. The facts
demanded that a case for negligence be verified, before the causes could be
explored.
Now that we can further see the extent to which governments are pre-disposed to
planning deceit, this may be the logical time to examine the more-troubling
question.
In doing so, we should not be tempted to assume some scenario.
The concept of
treason
doesn't necessarily mean that elements which may have intentionally undermined
civilian air defense on Sept 11th knew that thousands of American lives would
be lost.
An intentional sabotage of some kind may spark a corresponding unplanned
negligence which takes the effects to a level which a perpetrator does not
foresee.
Intentional acts on the part of some top officials does not mean that all, or
even most of them were involved; it could indicate some kind of internal
power-struggle, causing unforseen consequences.
Nor can we absolutely rule out the possibility that thousands of civilians were
intentionally sacrificed for certain ends; for, in the dark dimensions of the
human condition, great power can sometimes make men do unthinkable things.
Rather than assuming some scenario, we are simply asking the question: is it
possible?
The
systematic
nature of the criminal negligence, coupled with the Pentagon's claim of
surprise, then a spin campaign unfolding with military precision, makes it
reasonable for us to explore this possibility: if only to put the question to
rest, (make a clear distinction between "conspiracy theory" and serious
research) and move on.
Neither should we think that we are nearing the end of our investigation; for
if there is evidence to support the charge of intentional sabotage, then it may
be that our investigation is just beginning; and readers should be prepared for
a whole other scope of inquiry demanding the same careful, critical approach we
have thusfar employed.
The outline for a case of criminal negligence has been placed before you.
It is now up to the American people, world-citizens, community groups, to take
this information -test it in your own research and experience- and raise a call
for a process of national inquiry, in the most public way possible.
Let us now turn and face the question of intentional sabotage, by asking the
simple question,
"Who benefits?"
Index
Who could have been expected to benefit from the devastation of 9/11?
In attempting to answer this question, we must not be tempted to lay blame on
someone -simply because they may appear to benefit in some way.
Some benefits may be coincidental, some intentional, and some a mixture of both.
Whether someone actively participates in a crime, or merely takes advantage of
the situation, by covering over, (or ignoring) what may be unpleasant for the
public to hear, it is the nature of the question that we attempt to make the
distinctions clear.
Now,
It must first be absolutely clear to any thinking person, that the attacks of
Sept. 11 have not benefited those in the Moslem world who are violently opposed
to American foreign policy, (i.e. the "terrorist" community).
Nor could it have been otherwise.
It’s one thing to blow up an American Embassy in Kenya, or the USS Cole in the
Middle-East -thousands of miles away from the direct experience of the vast
American public. It’s quite another to bring death and destruction down on
thousands of civilians in the heart of America -in broad daylight- where it
could not help but be aired on nationwide TV.
The strengthening of public resolve behind American foreign policy -against
those resisting it; this would have been
entirely predictable
.
No doubt, there may be a percentage of people in the world
who are so angry at America, as to be irrational about it; that is, to think
that killing thousands of
American civilians in broad daylight will somehow "even the score," (for a
multitude of grievances); or, that it might bring
about a change in American foreign policy.
Clearly, such people are not operating with a full deck.
That such irrationality might be mixed in with a complex, covert operation of
"stunning
precision" -requiring a careful build-up over many years, and the execution of
cold-blooded operatives- may make us wonder to what extent
dupes, (of varying degrees) may have had the help of "skilled professionals"
-to gain
access to U.S. soil, airplanes, and training, etc.
As such, we may then wonder why such skilled professionals would use fanatics
to such an end; for
clearly, (from the point of view of those opposing American foreign policy)
it was a predictably stupid thing to do.
On the other hand, in spite of the trauma and suffering that Sept 11 has
brought to the
American people, (and much of the "western" world) there is clearly no doubt
that the Sept.
11
th
attacks have greatly benefited the prestige and power of the Bush
Administration, and of the American military machine in general.
Again, this would have been
entirely predictable
.
The rush of patriotic fervor behind the President has put aside nagging
complaints with
economy. The slide into recession, (which was already happening anyway) are now
largely blamed
on the attacks.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Bush has been allowed to push through legislation
and
initiatives which he would not have been able to do otherwise -such as his tax
giveaway
to huge multinational corporations, camouflaged as a "Stimulus
Package"
http://www.ctj.org/html/stimulus.htm
or his welcoming of China into the WTO.
Before Sept 11, this embrace of China, (whose slave-labor camps represent a
powerful point
of investment for "western" capital) would have seen massive protests
from the anti-globalization movement.
This movement, which only a few months previous, (in Genoa, Italy) had gathered
over
two-hundred thousand in protest, represents a powerful -though as yet, loosely
organized- force of resistance to the neo-liberal policies of the major
"western"
countries, (which lies behind the creation of the World Trade Organization, or
WTO).
The next mass demonstration was planned for Washington DC in late September, (a
meeting of the IMF/World Bank, it was subsequently held in Ottawa, Canada, on
Oct. 16th, under extremely subdued conditions).
By Jan. 2002, Bush had won important "fast-track" veto powers in regard to the
WTO, (Trade Authority Promotion Bill, passed in Congress, 215 for, 214
against); and interestingly enough, the organizers of the World Economic Forum,
(WEF) the next anticipated scene of mass protest chose... New York City... as
the location for their February meeting.
The attacks have also provided for a far-reaching curtailment of civil
liberties,
(powers of detention, military tribunals) which dovetail nicely with a "law and
order" president, (famous for the number of executions he presided over as
Governor of Texas) and a cabinet largely drawn from the CIA and Department of
Defence.
"The Vice President is an oil executive and former Secretary of Defense. The
national Security Advisor is a director on the board of a transnational oil
corporation and a Russian scholar. The Secretary of State is a man with no
diplomatic experience whatsoever, and the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff... Donald Rumsfeld... former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals... [along with
Cheney was] featured speaker at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business
Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this cabinet are petroleum, the
former Soviet Union, and the military."
http://www.narconews.com/goff1.html
Presently enforced on immigrants and foreign nationals, one could confidently
predict it would only be a matter of time before such powers would be used to
suppress dissent amongst American citizens, under the
guise of "patriotism."
"Attorney General John Ashcroft is rounding up or interrogating thousands of
immigrants in what will go down in history as the Ashcroft Raids. The FBI and
secret service are harassing artists, activists... publishers are firing
anti-war columnists and cartoonists. University presidents are scolding
dissident faculty members."
"They [secret service] said they had several reports of anti-American activity
going on here and wanted to see the exhibit."
"On November 1, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE)
sent a disturbing letter to its members.
'Dear Bookseller, Last week, President Bush signed into law an anti-terrorism
bill that gives the federal government expanded authority to search your
business records, including the titles of the books purchased by your
customers... There is no opportunity for you or your lawyer to object in court.
You cannot object publicly, either. The new law includes a gag order that
prevents you from disclosing 'to any person' the fact that you have received an
order to produce documents."
Taken from, "The New McCarthyism," by Matthew Rothschild, "The Progressive"
magazine.
NATO, the American-led international military force, has found a new, expanded
purpose on the global stage. It now leads a multi-national coalition whose
expressed purpose is an
ongoing
"war against terrorism", which finds legitimate expression in the
invasion of any country it deems guilty of "harboring the
terrorists", (without regard to international law, the U.N. or any other
body).
In this regard, two additional comments from the Confirmation Hearing of
General Myers may be relevant,
CLELAND: "...about the role of America in the wake of the Cold War being over
and that, in many ways, we were hyperextended. We were overextended. Our forces
were spread thin.
And I personally, like you and others in this body here, have been to see where
we have spent $300 million in defending, with Camp Bonnestille (ph), Kosovo;
where throughout the continent of Europe; where last August I was up on the
DNZ; where we've got 37,000 troops in Korea."
SESSIONS:
President Bush this year is proposing -- and will achieve, I believe -- a $38
billion increase, over $30 billion."
So before 9/11, hyperextended military power; after 9/11, huge increase in
military spending.
Senator Cleland adds,
"For this hyperextension of American power, all around the globe, it does seem
ironic to me that we can't defend New York and Washington."
All this can only be good for defense contractors, of course, and for the
protection of "western" corporations -milking the sweat off
impoverished workers in the developing world.
For those familiar with the behaviour of modern nation-states and superpowers,
one could have
seen this coming -even as the planes were seen striking the towers.
Beneath the screams of the September innocents, one could faintly hear the
echo of the screams to come, (which would not be heard) -in the prison cells,
the solitary confinements, beneath the veil of loyalty oaths imposed, of
neighbours no longer talking.
In the words of General Wesley Clark, (Supreme NATO Commander, speaking at the
time of the
the Serbian invasion of Kosovo) all this would have been "entirely predictable."
Again, none of this "proves" that members of the Bush Administration,
the military, etc. intentionally allowed the Sept 11
th
attacks to occur.
We are simply asking the question:
Who has benefited? And in what way?
The people of Afghanistan have certainly not benefited from the attacks,
(though we wouldn't know much about that -by the way the media has steadfastly
ignored the reports of civilian casualties; which, by late December, had
exceeded the number of deaths in the Sept. 11th attacks. see Webactive.com
Democracy Now, archives, Dec. 10).
If we look more-closely, we can see that it is actually certain American,
British, and other "western" interests that have much to gain from the ensuing
conquest of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan
Index
Afghanistan is located next to a number of Russia’s faltering former republics,
Uzebekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan -which represent a critical point of
entry (for "the west") into the undeveloped resources of Central/East
Asia.
The Caspain sea area is said to be one of the world’s richest untapped sources
of oil and natural gas.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SHA111A.html
Afghanistan is the logical route for an oil pipeline from the Caspain sea to
SouthEast Asia, which the Unocal company has been lobbying Congress on for
years.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/02/new-crogan.shtml
So long as the volatile Taliban remained in power, the pipeline would not get
built.
To some observers, the massive Afghan opium trade also holds strategic
importance.
There’s even plenty of information to suggest that, not only does the
administration have a motive for finding Bin Laden and co. at fault, (in order
to justify an intervention) but that they were
already planning
for an intervention into Afghanistan well before Sept 11
th
.
Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, says that senior American
officials in mid-July [told him] that military action against Afghanistan would
go ahead by the middle of October. (BBC, Sept 18).
"India Reacts," (June 26) reports that India, Iran, and Russia were
talking with American officials, (Powell) about "plans for ‘limited
military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic
sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime."
As of October, 2001, the U.S. administration began admitting that they’re not
after Bin Laden, so much as they want to get rid of the Taliban; then they’re
suddenly willing to include Taliban "moderates", (who were previously
only worthy of "no negotiations") in a new, [U.S. controlled] Afghani
coalition, (Washington Times, October 9, 2001)
For those of us aware of U.S. foreign intervention over the last one hundred
years, the pattern rings familiar.... as the motivating force, driving behavior.
More disturbing still, is how the demonizing of Bin Laden and the Taliban, (by
the Bush Adminstration, Congress, the military, and the media) may be partly
driven by the desire to cover-up the close ties between "the enemy,"
the CIA, and the American establishment.
bin Laden and the CIA
Index
By Washington’s own admission, the U.S. invested some $6 billion in covert
weapons support, (through Pakistan) to the Afghani rebels fighting the Soviet
Union, (1979-89). This was the largest covert operation in history.
In this context, the American government encouraged the most extreme Islamic,
(Saudi Arabian) factions.
Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries
would come to fight with the Afghani Mujahadeen.
Contrary to mainstream presumption, U.S. support for Osama Bin Laden and the
Taliban didn’t end with the Soviet withdrawal, or the Gulf War of 1991.
Numerous well-documented articles on Bin Laden and the CIA are available at:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm#2
It was American, (and through them) Pakistani funds which created the massive
expansion of the
Taliban schools in the first place; this support ensured the victory of the
Taliban over the other Afgani tribes, in the vicious civil war which followed
the pull-out
of the Soviets.
I can still remember a remarkable film shown on TV soon after the Sept 11
attacks: an old follower of beloved Afghani leader Ahmed Massoud, (assassinated
two days before Sept 11 by Pakistani hit-men) bitterly rages at the Pakistani
army for its support of the "foreign invaders" (Taliban)... re-igniting the
fighting after a ten-year battle.
They were on ‘our’ team.
According to "The Washington Times," "The Canberra Times,"
(Australia) "The Charleston Gazette," and numerous other
publications, Osama Bin Laden and co. were directly involved in pro-American
"terrorist" organizations in Bosnia, Kosovo, (KLA) and Macedonia
-right up until the summer of 2001.
"But, one may protest, "this doesn't make sense. Why would the U.S. military
support anti-American movements?"
The critical geo-political component to recognize here is this:
de-stabilization.
In the conquest and control of a foreign territory, progress often proceeds in
stages.
If the opponent's central government is strong, then it must first be weakened,
by inciting dissaffection amongst those groups who already feel marginalized
-exacerbating long-standing ethnic and cultural suspicians- giving arms to the
most extreme, criminal factions, even committing acts of sabotage to create
unrest.
This can then provide the pretext for a broader, full-scale invasion.
Even nominally "anti-American" governments, (i.e The Taliban) can be tolerated
if the military support and adherence to U.S. policy is maintained through a
third party, (i.e. Pakistan).
These same terrorist cells are also said, (by some, see tenc.com) to be active
in the Chechen separatist movement -perhaps responsible for the bombings of
apartment buildings in Moscow in 1999.
Equally disturbing may be the growth in the Afghani opium trade alongside
American/Pakistani involvement.
Citing numerous reports, University of Ottawa professor Micheal Chossudovsky
says that, "prior to theSoviet/Afghan war, the opium trade was directed to
small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin.... within two
years of.. the CIA operation in Afghanistan, 'the Pakistan-Afghanistan
borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per sent of
the U.S. demand…With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in
opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates)."
On July 12, 2000, (at a U.S. Congressional Committee Mtg) Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
bitterly "charged the U.S. State Department with pretending to oppose bin
Laden and the Taliban while actually secretly supporting them." (ibid, see
tenc.com "Congressman").
As late as May, 2001, the Bush Administration pledged "another $43 million
to Afghanistan, [Taliban] raising the total yearly aid to $124 million,"
(Washington Post).
So women's right's organizations, protesting the barbarity of the Taliban,
should not be fooled by the sudden expressions of sympathy for the plight of
Afghani women, by the Bush Administration and the media.
Then, the Oct. 10
th
2001 edition of the Wall Street Journal quotes The Indian Times as saying
that, Pakistan’s "Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad had been fired as head of
Islamabad's Inter-Services Security, [ISI] agency after U.S. linked him to a
militant allied with terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in
1999."
The article states: "Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the
general lost his job because of the ‘evidence’ India produced to show his links
to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US
authorities sought his removal
after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Att
a
from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd." [My
emphasis].
It further turns out that this same general had arrived in the US on the 4th of
September, a full week before the terrorist attacks. He had "a regular visit of
consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the
week prior to September 11, and meetings at the State Department after the
attacks. (This is fully confirmed by Reuters, N.Y. Times, Newsweek. For full
documentation, see
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.print.html
).
"The evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US, [as to
Pakistan’s involvement in anti-western terrorism] is of a much wider range and
depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced
act..." Agence France Press (AFP)
Is this not shocking?: the head of the Pakistani secret service, (the force
that is most-directly serving U.S. interests in the region) who is meeting with
top U.S. security officials in Washington, (before and after the Sept 11
th
attacks) is "let go" in Oct. because he’s linked to sending $100,000
to the supposed
ring-leader
of the
terrorist attacks
!?!
There was no meaningful discussion of this in the mainstream press.
Then there’s the report of the Wall Street Journal, Sept 27
th
2001, (amongst
others) which states that the Bin Laden family is part owner of the Carlyle
Group,
(the world’s largest private equity firm specializing in arms sales) for which
former
President George Bush sr. is a consultant, while numerous members of Bush’s
former
cabinet are either partners or directors. (The Bin Laden’s have since divested
themselves).
So at the same time that President Bush was declaring war on "the
evildoers,"
he makes no mention of all the intimate connections between them and the
American establishment.
None of these facts make Osama Bin Laden into a "nice guy," (or
absolve him of
possible involvement in Sept 11); but they do cast any involvement or knowledge
he might have
had into a different light; that is, elements of the American empire were using
him and his
network to achieve certain policy ends -right up to the summer of 2001, (and
probably beyond).
As an "asset," (or dupe) of American foreign policy, in certain aspects,
(usually funded and armed through a third party,
like Pakistan, the KLA, etc.) Bin Laden also served as a convenient way to
brand-name all those opposed
to that policy, ("look ma, bloody hands"); and now, as "evildoer": to divert
attention away from
the American security lapses that allowed the attacks of Sept 11 to occur.
The "collateral damage" which Pentagon playmakers often refer to, (as the number
of unintended casualties they are willing to tolerate -in the interests of
certain policy
gains) could just as well refer to the soldiers killed in the bombing of the
U.S. Cole, or
the U. S. Embassy in Kenya, as it does to:
dead civilians in Afghanistan, Isreal, or Rwanda,
disappeared trade-unionists in Columbia,
torture victims in Turkey, and so on.
Sometimes this is referred to as "blowback"; or it's just part of
"doing business."
We must further concede at least the possibility that, the existence of a
"terrorism" which supports "western" (NATO) foreign policy
doesn’t
necessarily end with that
foreign
policy.
At any rate, there’s simply no question that the above documentation does cast
serious doubt,
as to the Bush, (and Clinton) Administration’s sincerity, in presenting Bin
Laden as "the enemy".
Our exploration here, of "who benefits," has not yet pointed to specific
characters who may have intentionally abetted the attacks of Sept. 11; the
evidence simply suggests that there are many interests within a dominant
world-power, (economic, military, political) who have much to gain with the
creation of an ongoing, global, military campaign, while ensuring a compliant
U.S. population.
These gains have now been realized, compliments of the "war on
terrorism."
If you have any doubts about these conclusions, test the links for yourself.
Do your own research.
Make your own conclusions.
Blaming bin Laden
Index
The centerpiece of the government/media spin, of course,
surrounded the blaming and demonizing of Osama Bin Laden.
This began at full throttle within an hour of the attacks, with CNN’s own
"national security correspondent"David Ensor.(CNN "Breaking
News," 11am).
Government hawks like Gen. Wesley Clark, (11:28) John McCain and Orin Hatch,
(12:40) appeared soon after, pointing a trembling, accusatory finger.
On Sept. 12
th
, George W. Bush caused a bit of a sensation by referring to the attacks as
"acts of war," "bracing the nation for a long fight against
terrorism." (Nashua Telegraph, Sept 12)
Within two days CNN was already leading every show with the caption:
"America’s New War." (see "CNN Transcripts," cnn.com)
In less than a week, Bush had declared war on Bin Laden, The Taliban,
Afghanistan, and "all those who harbor terrorists" -and the burning
question of ‘how could such a breakdown in security have occurred?’ was
completely over-shadowed.
In the aftermath of national emotional shock, the American people found
themselves swiftly moving to an expanded military posture, (at home, and
abroad).
Few could find a reason to argue in such a moment of national grief and anger.
There was no room given for careful public debate or investigation -to which
the
mainstream media passively (and/or hatefully) complied.
Under the pretext of "national-security," the Bush Administration made not even
a pretense of providing evidence of
Bin Laden’s guilt -while issuing demands of the Taliban government which they
knew the Taliban could not possibly meet.
Now, any intelligent person understands that if you want to negotiate with
someone, (in order to avoid an all-out war) even "pathological liars," (as
Rumsfeld described the Taliban) have their negotiating points.
Even if we were to threaten an opponent with all-out war, surround the country
with troops, or make a demonstration of power, we must still leave them some
room to
move
towards our demands; or war then becomes "entirely predictable."
Although the Taliban were amongst the world's most brutal of religious
extremists -a vicious mercenary army ultimately funded by the CIA- what moral
standing they assumed in the Moslem world was based on their adherence to
Islamic law.
An important principle of the Islamic faith, (as some in the media informed us)
is,
‘one must never expose one’s guest, visitor, to the hands of their enemy.'
To demand that the Taliban "hand over" Bin Laden within a few days, without
even the pretense of respecting Islamic custom, codes of international law,
etc.; it was a foregone conclusion that the Taliban would not comply.
In the aftermath of the death, outrage smouldering in the ruins of the two
towers,
the terms "no negotiations" may have seemed reasonable to some Americans, (at
first); yet to those of us thoroughly-seasoned to the slice of past American
campaigns, (Noriega,
Saddaam Hussein, Milosevic) it seemed quite clear that the Bush Administration
was intentionally being beligerant because they didn't actually
want
Bin Laden handed over; rather, they wanted a pretext for invasion.
One wonders, (if the Taliban had been smart enough to realize that their former
benefactors were suddenly going to serve them up a buffet of beligerance beyond
even their
dictatorial comprehension): what would they have had to do to satisfy the
superpower, and avoid annihilation?
Alas, the Taliban were, in the larger scheme of things, small-time brutes:
blinded by the powers their petty fiefdom enshrined; and so, their response,
again, was "entirely predictable."
Then in comes England’s Tony Blair, vying for the title of imperial sidekick,
toady, millenial lick-spittle... with claims of providing
"overwhelming," "incontrovertible" proof -as to Bin Laden’s
guilt.
This turns out to be little more than loose-fitting conjecture and hearsay.
Upon investigation, we find the all-important phrase: "There is other
intelligence we cannot disclose of an even more direct nature indicating
guilt." (BBC Online).
Then in mid-December, with the initial conquest of Afghanistan coming to a
close, the U.S. happens to find a video "confession" of Bin Laden in
some bombed-out village.
It’s supposed to "close the book" on any lingering doubt’s about Bin
Laden’s guilt.
At first, many observers call the evidence "damning"; yet substantive
doubts soon begin to appear from all quarters and angles:
The possibilities of "Hollywood effects"-type manipulation,
(a la Forrest Gump)
http://www.realnews-online.com/ren036.htm
The problems of translation, sound-quality
http://www.dc.dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=16389&group=webcast
http://www.dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=16308&group=webcast
The quality of Bin Laden’s nose-job,
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/t.john/SmokingGun1.html
At any rate, (and as per usual) the actual content of the conversation, does
not appear to
be nearly as damning as officials first claimed, (and as media then assumes).
Whether Bin Laden knew about the attacks beforehand, (and could care less about
American civilians) is rather irrelevant to the question of:
Who masterminded these attacks? (upon which America has justified its invasion
of another country)
and
Have the members of the Bush Administration, the military, and the media -who
are presenting this as evidence- proven themselves to be trustworthy advocates
of the truth?
The fact that this "smoking gun" has only unleashed more controversy
than it sought to contain,
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,619480,00.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/yusuf1.html
suggests that the
real
questions remain unanswered.
Stock Market
Index
Another related, (though perhaps, as yet, not central) aspect of the September
11th breakdown in air defense, is the question of whether some elements within
society, (besides the terrorists) had advance knowledge of the attacks.
Of particular interest is the activity of the stock-market, in the days and
weeks before Sept 11.
Obviously, if one had advance knowledge, one could have predicted that certain
airline stocks would plummet after the attacks.
On Sept 13
th
, The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a massive trade of United
Airline (and related, insurance) stocks had taken place on the three days
before the attack.
(I can no longer locate this article online; but the following source goes into
the trading in some detail, discussing banking interests closely connected to
the CIA):
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/oct_2001/krongard.html
http://www.copvcia.com
This was followed up by Reuters reports, (9-20-1)
Chicago traders on Wednesday cited unusual activity in airline
options up to a month before attacks on U.S. landmarks, and German
bankers reported brisk activity in reinsurer Munich Re shares,
adding to speculation that those behind the attacks tried to profit from
their acts.
By Laura Jacobs and Thomas Atkins
and (9-22-1)
"Bundesbank President Ernst Welteke said that in addition to
strange movements in airline and insurance shares there were signs of
suspicious
dealings in gold and oil around the time of the September 11 attacks.
``There is lots of speculation and rumors at the moment so we have to be
careful.
But...that there are ever clearer signs that there were activities on
international
financial markets which must have been carried out with the necessary expert
knowledge,''
Welteke said during a break in an EU finance ministers' meeting.
`With the oil price we have seen before the attacks a fundamentally
inexplicable
rise in the price, which could mean that people have bought oil contracts which
were
then sold at a higher price,'' he said.
Gold markets also saw movements ``which need explaining.''
Welteke said the first evidence of unusual price movements emerged last
Thursday, two days
after the attacks.
By correspondent A. Chalomumbai
These extreme irregularities were soon transformed into
questions of how "the terrorists" (Bin Laden, Al Quieda) may have
profited from the
attacks; the possibility of any other "interests" profiting from them quietly
faded into
the background of the "internal" investigation.
Summary of Spin
Index
Now that we have included in our analysis of the Sept. 11th attacks, an
exploration of a key area,
foreign policy
, (which the U.S. government and mainstream media have completely left out of
the discussion framework) we can clearly see that
the Bush Administration and Department of Defense, (et al) are guilty of
transfering the rage that many Americans felt over the attacks, into a pretext
for attacking and annexing Afghanistan.
This must cause us to pause and consider with what speed and efficiency the
American military found its ground after being so "confused" on Sept. 11th; and
further, how the Pentagon could claim to be so caught off-guard during an
actual military emergency, then be able to so quickly and effectively create a
cover-story with all the precision and scope of a military campaign.
Minions in high places were dispatched to repeat the sacred mantras of "too few
planes," "no authorization to shoot down," "we simply weren't aware," and
transponderitis.
"Official spokesmen" speaking on condition of anonymity, the Secretary of
Defense and staff working diligently away in Pentagon isolation tanks, planes
"desperately" flying "like a scalded ape," indestructible passports and
porn-loving Moslems: each of these explanations we have examined and found to
be little more than flimsy spin.
And yet, with all the apparent deficiency of these arguments, we may marvel at
their effectiveness in satisfying public opinion; and we may be moved to ask:
are we, "the people" just stupid?; or does the apparent aquiesence of the
public cause us to doubt the worth of our conclusions?
We must first remark that it is the mainstream pollsters who are telling us
that the American people are solidly accepting the government's version of
events.
The unified consensus which appears to prevail amongst the mainstream press,
the military, government, and the public occurs within the context of an
increasing concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands.
This is occurring in banking, (de-regulation) business, (privitization,
mergers) media, and government, (executive orders, "national-security
directives").
The
control of the television set
, (the primary means of national communication) allows a relative few to
project an
image
of agreement amongst all which -if the majority is unable to project an
alternative image- becomes "reality"; yet this should in no way persuade us to
believe it to be of lasting substance.
History is rich with examples of ruling elites which become so successful at
controlling public debate, that they delude themselves, feeling impervious,
unstoppable -only to suddenly be de-throned within a short period of time.
We are entering a period of history where the mass of the population is so
completely shut out of the "info-tainment" machine as to be like a silent,
sleeping giant -audible only to those who are able, (themselves) to turn that
machine off.
Secondly: so long as the general public is utterly absorbed with the struggle
to survive, and the psychological stress that comes from living in the midst of
social, moral, and spiritual crises,
relatively few of us are in a position to stop the treadmill of
info/consumption which
feeds us the illusions -bearing short-term comfort.
Thus, it doesn't really matter that the explanations for the air-defense
failure of Sept 11th are flimsy: they're simply designed to satisfy people for
a short period of time, long enough to keep our attention span moving away from
the questions which have the capacity to generate a critical mass of
independent thought.
On a practical, surface level, (the level that power brokers undertsand best)
there is only a short period of time at which the attention of the public is
ripe for seeking real answers. After that, the public adjusts to the new
reality, and they/we don't really care about the flimsiness of the arguments
anymore, (should a critical voice happen to break through).
Thus, he who has the last spin is he who has the organizational power to pull
others along, until they/we move by our own consensual motion.
Such power brokers and spin-doctors, however, are quite incapable of
understanding the inner, human condition; whereby, after a long period of
development, millions of people "suddenly" begin to arrive at fundamental
conclusions at a similar point in time.
For the moment we are, realistically speaking, largely at the mercy of the
governments we elect, and the media monoploies which claim to inform us.
Powerful interests within government, military, media, money, clearly benefit
from
this.
In fact, while making obscene profits at the expense of others remains, (for
some) a time-honoured tradition, it could be said that an equally powerful,
underlying motivation for regressive government policy, inane television shows,
and the like, is that:
it actually "pays" to punish people -to keep them down, treat us like we're
stupid, ignore needs, blame, ridicule, etc.
Thus we are taught from an early age in school to be robotic sponges; and every
effort is made, (at the highest levels) to keep young people from getting the
tools and attention they/we need to become independent-thinkers, self-aware,
esteemed, empowered.
When an opportunity comes along to amplify the fear factor tenfold, just
look at how the various dominant interests tighten up the notch of hatred,
vengeance, and a blind allegiance
to the state apparatus -falling over themselves, in the attempt to compel
others to
agree more strongly with whatever punishment is to be meted out, (on whomever
it is decided is the next incarnation of Hitler).
While this mass indoctrination looks imposing, rest assured: the curve has an
apex -after which the sales of urinal cakes with Bin laden's face on them begin
to drop off dramatically; and while history has not yet proven to be an
indicator of decreasing atrocities, such a day will soon come.
It has been heart-breaking to see and feel the window of inquiry surrounding
the events of Sept 11th closing down into a tighter and tighter circle, (all
the while struggling to get these facts in front of you, as quickly as
possible); yet more-comforting still, has it been to feel the critical mass
finally taking hold.
Strands of independent thought which could once be so delicately broken have
now formed formidable roots in fertile minds.
You who have seen through the web of diversions -spun across the TV screens and
newsprint in all their graphic splendour- are now as free to see the cage as
few could have imagined, a generation ago.
May you use your gift wisely.
Summation:
Index
We have journeyed now through a long process, starting with the stunning,
delayed response-time of civilian air-defense on Sept 11th, 2001.
We saw how this grossly contradicted routine procedure.
Begining with Flight 77, we chronicled a thirty-five minute delay: between the
time that the plane was "probably hijacked" and when the FAA supposedly
notified NORAD.
With Flight 11, we found a twenty-four minute delay, between the time when
radio/transponder contact was lost, (plane off-course) and when the order for
jets to scramble went through.
In the case of Flights 175, 11, and 77, NORAD refused to use the many bases
with "battle-ready" fighter squadrons which were close to the planes,
(including Andrews AFB); and instead, chose bases which were 130 and almost 200
miles away.
Flight 93 was in the air for fifty minutes after the FAA declared it hijacked,
and not a single fighter-intercept was in the vicinity when it crashed.
The collapse and negligence of civilian air defense was clearly system-wide.
We also found that this included the President, who refused to remove himself
from a children's classroom for thirty minutes during a national emergency
-then was kept from returning to Washington for over nine hours, (due to some
"credible threat" that later vanished into "no comment").
Then we discovered that top officials in a Command Center in the Pentagon were
tapped into all civilian and military radar systems -and were, by law, to be
informed by the FAA of any hijackings, at the earliest opportunity.
Of necessity, all this expanded the scope of our inquiry to include the FBI
investigation, which turned out to be an almost comic festival of fabrication
which only a nation with no more stomach for bad news could have endured:
disappearing black-boxes and indestructible passports, devout Moslem suicide
bombers with a taste for strip joints and christian confessionals, who can't
fly bi-planes, and can't remember whether they've been dead for two years or
are still living in the Middle East; ad lib infintum.
This compelled us to continue looking up, towards a higher level of authority
for the source of the breakdown; and found, within the highest ranks of the
Pentagon, the claim that they were "uninformed" -as to the emergencies taking
place.
This stunning position was easliy proven to be both, groundless and
illuminating; from there, the whole labyrinth of explanations for the
air-defense collapse comes into a sudden clarity -casting the entire "official"
timeline, (of when the FAA supposedly informed NORAD of the hijackings) into
doubt.
Each one of these explanations, (or spins) we have examined in some detail:
"few planes available," "to shoot or not to shoot down," "we really tried,"
"communication problems," and found them flimsy at best, ludicrous or
fraudulent in the main.... all designed to divert attention from the command
center which claimed it was "not informed."
We examined the behaviour of the mainstream media at some length, (dedicated
damage-control) then the appearance of General Richard Myers before the Senate
Confirmation Hearing, fully confirming the evidence of criminal negligence at
the highest level in the Pentagon.
The Senate too, seemed to be in on the deal.
The wisespread nature of this collusion eventually led us to consider the
possibility that the high-level negligence may have been intentional, (i.e.
treasonous) and so we asked the question: who benefits from the Sept 11th
attacks.
Our answer?
The military,
NATO,
oil,
and a more-powerful Bush Administration benefited;
though we found
no clear evidence, by which we could discern whether such elements
intentionally abetted the "terrorists," or whether they merely took advantage
of the attacks to achieve long-standing policy gains and cover up their own
negligence.
We further discovered that Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the Taliban were paid
clients/servants of the CIA, (through Pakistan) -doing NATO's bidding in the
former Soviet Republics of Bosnia, Kosovo, Turkmenistan, and the like.
Like many of the U.S.-supported extremists and dictators around the world, this
group appears to have served a dual role: as fomenters of destabilization in
countries ripe for capital "investment", (plunder) and as the target for
America's rather routine wrath against the "enemies of civilization."
Whatever Bin Laden's relationship to the attacks of Sept. 11th, it's clear that
the Bush Administration has been summarily dishonest in its characterization of
Bin Laden and co. as a "distant" enemy.
We then clarified the role of the "spin":
give the public enough plausible-sounding information to keep our limited
attention span moving past the point of contention until we no longer care.
You who are now reading this have persevered, and stand in posession of clear
faculties to consider the following
Conclusions
Index
We have not been told the truth about Sept 11, 2001 -not by the government, the
military, media.
A criminal negligence occurred within the highest ranks of the Pentagon and
Executive on Sept. 11th -without which, the terrorist attacks would not have
been successful; and no one in positions of authority is willing to talk about
it.
The case against Osama Bin Laden and co. has never been in doubt; for there
never
has
been a case, to speak of. In the name of "national security," the Bush
Administration has made no attempt to make a case before the public; rather,
circumstantial evidence and hearsay has served to achieve long-standing
economic and military aims in Afghanistan, and to distract from the culpability
of top American officials, in the criminal negligence of Sept 11.
The possibility that some top officials intentionally abetted the terrorist
attacks, (and that others have covered up for them) has not been ruled out;
though this has yet to be adequately examined.
With more civilians killed from the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan than the
attacks on the World Trade Center, (webactive.com democracy now archive, Dec.
10th) the above actions by the Bush Administration are simply criminal in
nature:
unless, and to the
degree that, the Administration can demonstrate to U.S. citizens a willingness
to
first take responsibility for their own possible
failures during the events of Sept 11, by submitting to an open, public review.
Such an inquiry must start with the president being called to explain,
as commander-in-chief, why did he initially do nothing for thirty minutes, (in
the midst of a national emergency) when thousands of lives were at stake?
-where his own decision-making authority is officially claimed to have
been essential, if an airliner needed to be shot down.
Why, during this national emergency, was he flown halfway across the country,
and prevented from reaching Washington for 91/2 hours, because it was believed
there was "credible evidence" that Air Force One was in danger, from
terrorists who had secret access codes?
Who made that warning? Why was it heeded? Why was it later dismissed as
irrelevant?
Why was Flight 77, (hijack-suspected) allowed to stay in the air for
thirty-five minutes
after
the first attack on the World Trade Center had been confirmed -without a
single plane able to intercept it?
Why was Flight 11 in the air for twenty-four minutes, off-course, without
transponder or
radio contact, before fighters were ordered to intercept it?
Why did the Pentagon and NORAD not use planes at Andrew’s AFB to defend
Washington?
before
Flight 77 struck its target, rather than after? then deny that those planes
were used at all?
Why was Flight 93 in the air for fifty minutes after the military knew it was
hijacked, with no fighters near to intercepting it.
By it's refusal to openly discuss the affair, the Bush Administration has
profoundly abused the trust of the American people.
The voices in the immediate aftermath -speaking the obvious, seeking answers-
have
been swept away on a tide of vengeance, rising off the promise of
"evidence" undisclosed, insufficient, often ludicrous.
The most powerful nation on earth -one of the most tightly controlled air
spaces in the world- has just been struck in the heart of its jurisdiction,
and the security establishment wants us to let them do an
internal
investigation?
One may reasonably ask: How badly do they have to screw up before we, the
public, are allowed to
investigate
them
?
Under the rubric of "security," any "official" investigation into the
Sept
11
th
security breakdown will be little more than an internal condolence,
by which the "poor CIA" and its "dedicated" assortment of "assets"
will be allowed to lick their
sorry wounds.
The Bush Administration has a moral obligation to immediately call for the
fullest of national, public inquiries -the prime directive of which must be:
to involve as many local citizens as possible in the collection, discussion,
and presentation of research, through the creation of a national web-site, with
full interactive, and organizational support to ensure local, de-centralized
access and participation.
Make no mistake: these charges are in no way meant to imply a dis-loyalty to
America and its people.
Our capacity to criticize a government does not mean we are
for
the other side; on the contrary, only by fulfilling our role as conscious
citizens, (the watchdogs of government) do we truly earn the right to live in a
free society.
Appeal:
Index
The behavior of the mainstream media, in passively representing the government
position, (and in the most graphically entertaining way) suggests that they
cannot be relied on to pursue a rigorous critique of official doctrine.
Witness such bits of wisdom in the volatile days following the tragedy:
-
"World War III" ('New York Times,' 9/13)
-
"Give War A Chance" ('Philadelphia Inquirer,' 9/13)
-
"Time To Use The Nuclear Option" ('Washington Times,' 9/14).
It must be up to those of us in the various grass-roots communities to carry on
the research, share information –and articulate a review of the available
evidence, sufficient to put a demand for a full, public inquiry into the events
of Sept 11
th
at the
forefront
of our activity.
We cannot cease questioning the attacks on Afghanistan, (and other countries)
denouncing racist reaction, and the curtailment of civil rights, etc; yet
neither can we be satisfied with this purely defensive response.
Rather, we should seize upon the demand for an inquiry -as the pivot upon which
to expose the government’s duplicity in going to war; for, in its’ arrogance,
it has vastly over-reached itself.
Yet until we focus on this investigation, the opportunity will not be realized;
and the larger, deeper criticisms will not stand -amidst the fear that the
campaign
of terror enshrines.
A word here should be said about the position taken by respected critics such
as Noam Chomsky, Micheal Albert, and others: while technically correct in their
characterization of the United States government as the world's leading
supporter of global terror, (with Europe a close second) this position is
hopelessly flawed in terms of the present mindset of the American people -due
to the attacks of Sept 11.
We have to understand that while the attacks appear to have been a great
strengthener of the Administration, and American beligerance abroad, they
actually represent their deepest achilles heal -once the true nature of the
behavior becomes revealed.
Once the general public begins to hear a consistent, solid, and well-documented
voice –calling into question the government’s immunity from investigation- then
the whole justification for blindly accepting the government’s rationale for
bombing Afghanistan, (and blaming Bin Laden) will also come into question.
From there, public opinion will create a slow-closing vice upon the
governmental veil
-from which it will only be able to redeeem itself, by allowing an open and
honest truth to sail
through the bankrupt blanket of silence which now suffocates our real, human
hope:
that it may emerge, at long last, into the light of day.
If the evidence available so far, proves to be just the tip of the ice-burg,
then over time, the U.S. administration will prove itself far to be far more
vulnerable around the issue of incompetence, criminal negligence, or worse...
than from any foreign policy or civil libertarian standpoint.
It’s time for us to take the offensive, by building a case before the American
people.
As Stan Goff, re-humanized former member of U.S. special forces says, "the
left
[anti-globalization movement] has missed the boat on this one; by allowing them
to get
away with rushing past the question of who did what on September 11th....
accepting
[the govt's] framework... [we’re missing] the more crucial point that [the
official]
story about Sept. 11 is full of holes." (narconews.com)
http://www.narconews.com/goff1.html
So full of holes you could fly a plane through it.
Return to
Part 1: Index
(Top of This Page)
Note
Return To Main Index