Search This Blog

The September 11 Attacks: 100 Reasons for Dissent



By Jonathan Metcalfe Sott.net 2006





"But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me."- George W. Bush (12/21/01)


Selected passages from: The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin (for extensive notes to the 100 listings please buy the book and also visit cooperativeresearch.org and their The Terror Time line by Paul Thompson. Further onsite links at the end of this page.


There remains today a wealth of information on the internet and in published books regarding the events of September 11th 2001 and the World Trade Center attacks. After the whitewash of the 9/11 commission and the still deafening silence of much of the mainstream media concerning the role of the Bush Administration, researchers and investigative journalists are in serious danger of losing any initiative they may have had. The dire consequences for the American people, and for the world in general cannot be overstated. What has become known as the 9/11 Truth Movement is fast becoming infiltrated with disinformation, infighting and the flavors of COINTELPRO. 

This summary is intended to present authors' research (largely from David Ray Griffin) as a basic summary of the points of controversy for those still unsure as to the validity of claims and counter-claims. This is by no means exhaustive. Indeed, it represents a tiny sample of the available data. However, what does seem clear, is that a pattern has emerged in which the official line touted by the Bush Administration and the mainstream US media is simply untenable. It is up to us all to decide whether the implications raised deserve to be disseminated or ignored. 


When faced with questions which are born of objective evidence from not just the few, but from the many, we may then choose to ask ourselves what, in all conscience, are we prepared to accept? This includes taking on board the possibility that what we assumed to be true was in fact false and what we assumed to be false may well be true; that the trust we placed in those currently in power may be wholly unfounded. It requires that we face the high probability that we have been lied to, not just beyond the bounds of mere "coincidences" and "failures of intelligence," but from a systematic, purposeful propaganda strategy designed to fulfil a set of long-known ideological and geopolitical objectives. We therefore, have an opportunity to discover how much of this proffered evidence impinges on lives. In doing so, we may also have to re-evaluate our own "response-ability" and thus the way in which we have understood the workings of democracy, government and its media - even our place in society and the world. 

Pull a thread hard enough and for long enough, it will eventually reveal more than we may care to know. The tragic events of September 11th offer such a thread. It may reveal our ignorance, our blind faith and beliefs, our naivety and acquiescence. Yet when our preconceived ideas are shattered it can also open our minds, shock us into realizations concerning the way in which the world works, however unpleasant, creating a wider field of awareness as to what we can do with this information. In parallel, we can have a better idea as to who we are from what we choose to see. We may then be in a position to translate our thoughts into a "purer" form of action on this issue. 


While uncertainty, fear and conflict have increased significantly since 9/11, the individual and collective responses to this important event will reveal how creatively we can act for freedom and truth, or how deeply we have chosen to believe the Lie.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -- Dwight David Eisenhower, 1961




FLIGHTS 11 AND 175: HOW COULD THE HIJACKER'S MISSIONS HAVE SUCCEEDED?




"For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground." - Andreas von B├╝low
"Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday...As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up." - Anatoli Kornukov, Pravda online September 13, 2001



1. "...at 8:46am September 11th 2001, Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Centre's North Tower. This was 32 minutes after evidence that the plane had possibly been hijacked and 25 minutes after knowledge that it had definitely been." [...] "There are standard procedures for situations such as this and that, if they had been followed, Flight 11 would have been intercepted by fighters within ten minutes of any sign that it may have been hijacked. Had the plane then failed to obey the standard signal to follow the fighter jets to an airport to land, it would have been shot down. This would have occurred by 8.24, or 8.30 at the latest, so that the question of whether to shoot down a commercial airliner over the heart of New York City would not have arisen."
 

2. "...if radio contact and the transponder's signal had not been lost, the fact that the plane went radically off course at 8:20 would have led the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] to notify the military." [...] "...the plane should have been intercepted by 8:30, or 8:35 at the latest,..." [...] "Why was the plane not even intercepted?


3. "...the regulations give the responsibility for shooting down hijacked airplanes 'to the Secretary of defense. ' ...Furthermore,...if the Secretary for Defense cannot be contacted in time, other people in the line of command would have the authority. [...] One might argue...that at that time no one would have known that the plane was going to do that. Besides not explaining why Flight 11 was not intercepted [this] would not apply to the second plane to crash into the WTC."


4. "UA Flight 175 left Boston at 8.14 am, which was just when the FAA was learning that Flight 11 may have been hijacked. At 8:42, it's radio and transponder went off and it veered off course ...NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] should have had fighter planes intercepting this plane by 8:53...No planes intercepted Flight 175, and it crashed into the WTC's South Tower at 9:03."


5. "...at 8:55 a public announcement was reportedly broadcast inside the South Tower, saying that the building was secure, so that people could return to their offices. Such announcements reportedly continued until a few minutes before the building was hit and 'may have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of people.'...' Given that at 8:43 NORAD was notified Flight 175 was hijacked and headed toward New York City, why weren't people in the building warned?' A disturbing question,...[the] implication seems to be that perhaps someone other than the hijackers was seeking to ensure that a significant number of lives were lost."

6. "17 minutes after the first crash ...all the technicians at NORAD's North East Air Defense Sector 'had their headsets linked to the FAA in Boston to hear about Flight 11,' so NORAD would have been fully aware of the seriousness of the situation."


7. "General Myers in his ...testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 13, said: 'When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft.' When asked whether that order was given 'before or after the Pentagon struck,' Myers - who was acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - replied: 'That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.' One problem with this statement...is that officials at NMCC would have become clear about 'what the threat was' long before the Pentagon itself was hit at 9:38. It would have been clear at least by 8:46, when the WTC was hit and another hijacked plane was heading in its direction. "...it was not necessary for officials at NCMM and NORAD to understand fully 'what the threat was' in order for there to be jets in the air to intercept Flights 11, 175 and any other unauthorized aircraft headed toward Washington. Standard operating procedures should have taken care of those things."

8. "Despite the fact that statements by Myers and Cheney seemed to suggest otherwise, it requires no command from on high for jets to be scrambled...an order for them not to be scrambled is what would require an order from on high." 


9."Within a few days...NORAD began saying that it did have jets scrambled but they arrived too late ...according to this version, NORAD was not notified by the FAA of the hijacking of Flight 11 until 8:40. This would have been 26 minutes after the plane's radio and transponder went off and 20 minutes after it went off course. [...] The air traffic controllers ...should have been fired and subject to possible criminal charges for their inaction. To date, there has been no word of any person being disciplined...If NORAD's claim is false, and it was indeed informed within the time outlined in FAA regulations..., that would mean NORAD did absolutely nothing for almost thirty minutes while a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished. The lack of disciplinary action suggests either that this story is false or that the relevant parties at FAA and/or NORAD did what they had been instructed to do."
10. "After NORAD received word of the hijacking, according to this account, it did not give the scramble order until 8:46, six minutes after it had been notified. Furthermore, NORAD inexplicably gave this order not to McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, which is only 70 miles from NYC, but to Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, which is over 180 miles away.


11."NORAD says that it received notification at 8:43 from the FAA of Flight 175's hijacking, so the two F-15s that were given the scramble order at 8:46 were sent after this flight instead. But, inexplicably, the F-15s are said not to have taken off until six minutes later at 8:52.

12. [Even with all those delays, why did the planes not arrive in time to stop the second attack on the WTC?] At 8:52, there were still eleven minutes until 9:03 when Flight 175 would have hit the tower. Lieutenant Timothy Duffy, a pilot said to have flown one of the F-15s, has been quoted as stating that he 'was in full blower all the way,' which would mean he was going over 1,875 mph. [if we accept NORAD's timeline - 700mph] At this speed the F-15s would have been covering over thirty miles a minute...they should have reached Manhattan in about 8 minutes having a full three minutes to shoot down the errant airliner. And yet according to this official account, the F-15s were still 70 miles away when Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.






THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC TOWERS



"...the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers." - Bill Manning, Fire Engineering
The North Tower (WTC-1) was struck at 8:46 AM. It collapsed one hour and 42 minutes later, at 10:28. The South Tower (WTC-2) was struck at 9:03 AM. It collapsed 56 minutes later at 9.59. Building Number 7 (WTC-7) which was two blocks away and was not struck, collapsed at 5:20 PM. These facts immediately suggest two questions: Why did the South Tower, which was struck 17 minutes later than the North Tower, nevertheless collapse 29 minutes earlier? And why did WTC-7 collapse at all, given the fact that it was not struck?

- David Ray Griffin


13. "According to the official account, the North and South Towers (the Twin Towers) collapsed due to the impact of the airliners plus the intense heat produced by the resulting fires....The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was given the task of investigating the collapse, but when it issued it's report in May of 2002, it declared that 'the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitely determined.' [...] [The 'official theory'] is widely rejected by those familiar with the facts."

14. "It is now universally agreed,...that the fires would not have been nearly hot enough." [to cause the collapse of the North and South Towers] To melt steel one needs a temperature in the range of 2,770°F (1,500°C), which can only be produced only be some special device, such as an oxyacetyline torch. A hydrocarbon fire, such as one based on refined kerosene - which is what jet fuel is - does not get nearly that hot ...since the WTC fires were fuel-rich fires, as evidenced by the fact that they gave off much black smoke, they were not even very hot for hydro-carbon fires, [according to Thomas Eagar, MIT Professor of engineering systems] 'probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.' [...] "For the official theory to be credible, therefore, the fires in the towers must have been moderately hot; they must have been large fires, spreading throughout the buildings; and they must have burned for a considerable length of time. All the available evidence, however, suggests that the opposite was the case."


15. "Photographs of the North Tower provide no evidence of any fire that could have weakened its steel significantly. A photograph taken within 16 minutes of when the North Tower was hit (because the South Tower had not yet been hit) shows only a dark hole with black smoke pouring out of it. No flames are visible ...Another photo, taken from another angle just after the South Tower was hit, shows some flames on floors just above the point of impact but no others. However great the flames may have been in the first several minutes, while they were being fed by the jet fuel, this sky-scraper was not a towering inferno by the time 16 minutes had passed."

16. "...even if the Twin Towers had been engulfed in raging fires, they would not have collapsed. Prior to the alleged exceptions of 9/11, a steel-framed building had never before collapsed." 


17. "Given these special characteristics, they contend [ defenders of the fire theory] the fire did not have to heat all the steel by spreading throughout all the floors...it was sufficient to have a hot fire that covered one floor. The culprits...were the 'angle clips' which 'held the joints between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure,' and which he says were not designed to hold five times their normal load...'it put extra load on other angle clips and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.' [...] 'This started the domino effect that caused the building to collapse in ten seconds' [...] There are...many problems with this account. First, even this more modest view of the amount of steel that had to become very hot would seem to require more heat than was present, especially in the South Tower. Second, as [Eric] Hufschimid points out: 'In order for a floor to fall, hundreds of joints had to break simultaneously on 236 exterior columns and 47 core columns.' For a 1,300 foot building...ten seconds is almost free-fall speed...Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower parts?...'How could the debris crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects fall through air? ' "

18. 'Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true...one would expect the massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30 floors to have remained standing.'


19. "...another fact about the collapse of the towers that counts against the fire theory is the fact...that the South Tower collapsed first...it would take considerable time for fire to heat steel up to its own temperature. All other things being equal, then, the tower that was struck first should have collapsed first. And yet, although the South Tower was struck 17 minutes later than the north Tower, it collapsed 29 minutes earlier. This surprising fact would perhaps not create a problem if the fire in the South Tower was actually much smaller. Upon hearing that one tower took almost twice as long as the other one, therefore, one would assume that that was the South Tower. And yet, the opposite was the case."

20. "[An] alternative explanation is that the collapse was an example of a controlled demolition based on explosives that had been placed throughout the building...With regard to why the collapse was so total and rapid, [Peter] Meyer says that 'this is understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by explosions at the level of bedrock. WIth those bases obliterated, and the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground level in about ten seconds [...] Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus has to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower.'


21. "...each collapse produced a lot of fine dust or powder, which upon analysis proved to consist primarily of gypsum and concrete [...] ' Where does the energy come from to turn all this reinforced concrete into dust?' [...] virtually every piece of concrete in each tower was pulverized to a powder. This required a lot of energy.' [...] "...things would actually be moving quite slowly at first...It is very hard to imagine a physical mechanism to generate that much dust with concrete slabs bumping into each other at 20 0r 30 mph...In order to pulverize concrete into powder, explosives must be used."

22. "...when the towers started to collapse, they did not fall straight down, as the pancake theory holds. They exploded. The powder was ejected horizontally from the buildings with such force that the buildings were surrounded by enormous dust clouds that were perhaps three times the width of the buildings themselves...What other than explosives could turn concrete into powder and then eject it 150 feet or more?"


23. "...some people, including firemen, reported hearing explosions, feeling explosions, or witnessing effects that appeared to be the result of explosions, both in the immediate floors and in the subbasements of the Towers."

24. "...a moderately powerful earthquake was recorded as each tower was collapsing. The seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake beginning at 9:59:04, then a 2.3 quake beginning at 10:28:31. In each case, 'the shocks increased during the first 5 seconds then dropped abruptly to a lower level for about 3 seconds, and then slowly tapered off.' This pattern ...reflects the fact that the first explosives detonated were those near the tops of the towers, where the steel columns were the thinnest. The shocks get stronger as the detonation pattern, controlled by a computer program, worked it's way down." 


25. "...molten steel was found at the level of the subbasements." [...] '...hot spots of molten steel...at the bottoms of elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels ...which kept smouldering for weeks.'

26. "...after the collapse of the main towers, the debris, including the steel, was quickly removed before there could be any significant investigation." [...] 'a way to prove that the supporting steel columns of the Twin Towers had been blasted by explosives would be to examine fragments from them among the debris for evidence of what metallurgists call "twinning." But the WTC debris was removed as fast as possible and no forensic examination of the debris was permitted ...Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel from the Twin Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to places like China and Korea as it could be loaded onto the ships, thereby removing the evidence.' "






FLIGHT 77: WAS IT REALLY THE AIRCRAFT THAT STRUCK THE PENTAGON?


"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them." 

- Donald Rumsfeld in an interview for Parade "We Have to Defend Our Way of Life" by Lyric Wallwork Winik 18 Nov 2001.





27. "Flight 77 left Dulles Airport in Washington DC at 8:20 At 8:46 it went significantly off course for several minutes, but reportedly no jet fighters were scrambled. At 8:50 the plane got back on course, but radio contact was lost and at 8:56 the plane's transponder went off and the plane disappeared from the air traffic controller's radar screen in Indianapolis. But no jet fighters were scrambled to find it. At 9:09, this air traffic controller warned that the plane may have crashed in Ohio. USA Today,...later printed a story with this statement: 'Another plane disappears from radar and might have crashed in Kentucky. The reports are so serious that [FAA head Jane] Garvey notifies the White House that there has been another crash.' ...Flight 77 is not heard from again ...according to the official account, not until 9:25."

28. "At 9:25 which was 29 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared, air controllers at Dulles Airport reported seeing a fast-moving plane, which they warned, appeared to be heading toward the White house. At 9:27, Vice President Cheney and national Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice were reportedly told, while in the bunker below the White house, that an airplane being tracked by radar was 50 miles outside Washington and headed toward it. Beginning at 9:33, radar data reportedly showed the aircraft crossing the Capitol Beltway and heading toward the Pentagon, which it flew over at 9:35. Then, starting from about 7,000 ft above the ground, the aircraft made a difficult 'downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 ft in two and-a-half minutes.' "At 9:38, the Pentagon was hit."
 

29. "Danielle O'Brien, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25, said: The speed the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." 

30. "Another witness seeing the plane from a 14th floor apartment in Pentagon City said that it 'seemed to be able to hold eight to twelve persons' and ' made a shrill noise like a fighter plane.' "Lon Raines, editor at Space News, said: 'I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.' Still another witness who saw it first from his automobile, was reported as saying that it 'was like a cruise missile with wings.'

31. "At 10:32, ABC News Reported that Flight 77 had been hijacked, but there was no suggestion that it had returned to Washington and hit the Pentagon. Indeed, Fox T.V. shortly thereafter said that the Pentagon has been hit by a US Air force flight."


32. "The identification between AA Flight 77 and the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was made only gradually [and] the original sources for this identification are dubious...all but one of the statements on which this identification was based came from military personnel."

33. The one other statement used to connect Flight 77 with the strike on the Pentagon was made by Theodore ('Ted') Olsen, the US Justice Department's Solicitor General. He said that his wife, Barbara Olsen - the well known author and commentator - had made two phone calls to him from Flight 77 at about 9:25 and 9:30. These conversations as reported said nothing about where the plane was or in what direction it was headed..." 


[...] There are at least four reasons to doubt Ted Olsen's testimony. First, he is very close to the Bush Administration. Besides having pleaded George W. Bush's cause before the Supreme Court in the 2000 election dispute. He more recently has defended Vice President Cheney's attempt to prevent the release of papers from his energy task force to the committee investigating the Enron scandal. Second, Olson has stated that there are many situations in which 'government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out.' Third, Olsen's reports about the conversations with his wife are both vague and self-contradictory. Fourth, on the other flights, telephone calls were reportedly made by several passengers and flight attendants, but Ted Olson is the only person reported receiving a call from Flight 77. This latter fact is especially strange in light of a later report that at about 9:30 the hijackers told the passengers that they were all going to die and so should call their families...' Given this announcement, why are there no phone calls from this flight except for Barbara Olsen's?' 

[See also: Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77]

34. "Most important is the evidence is provided by photographers that were taken immediately after the crash. One crucial photo was taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press just after the fire trucks had arrived but before the firemen had been deployed...When this photograph was taken, the West wing's facade had not collapsed. Another photo taken at this time shows that the hole in the facade was between 15 and 18 feet in diameter, contradicting a newspaper report that it was 'five stories high and 200 feet wide.' "This photo also shows no damage above the hole or on either side of it. And neither photo shows any sign of an airplane - no fuselage, no tail, no wings, no engine - or evidence that the lawn had been scraped." 


35. "...since the aircraft penetrated only the first three rings of the Pentagon, only the nose of a Boeing 757 would have gone inside...The rest of the airplane would have remained outside. [...] ' While the plane's nose is made of carbon and the wings, containing the fuel, can burn, the Boeing's fuselage is aluminum and the jet engines are built out of steel. At the end of the fire, it would necessarily left a burnt-out wreck.' "

36. "...the orifice created by the impact...was 18 feet in diameter. Is it not absurd to suggest that a Boeing 757 created then disappeared into such a small hole?...the planes wings give it a breadth of 125 feet. Can anyone seriously believe that a 125-foot-wide airplane created and then went inside a hole less than 20-feet wide? 


37."...on a Boeing 757,...the jet engines, made of steel, are attached to the wings, so the wings would hit the facade with great force. And yet prior to the collapse...the photos reveal no visible damage to the facade on either side of the orifice, even where the engines would have hit the building...the fact that the photographs clearly show that the facade above the opening is completely intact and even unmarked creates a still more insuperable problem, given Boeing 757's big tail."

38. "A Boeing 757, besides being so tall and having such a wide wingspan, weighs over 100 tons. Traveling at a speed of 250 to 440 miles per hour, it would have caused tremendous devastation. And yet, as a photograph supplied by the Department of Defense itself shows, ' the plane only destroyed the first ring of the building.' The second and third rings were merely penetrated by an aircraft small enough to create a hole only seven feet in diameter."


39. "...the nose of the Boeing, which contains the electronic navigation system, is made of carbon fibres rather than metal. 'Being extremely fragile,' such a nose could not have gone through three rings of the Pentagon, creating a seven-foot exit hole in the inside wall of the third ring. The Boeing's nose would have been ' crushed rather than piercing through. ' What could create such a hole is the head of a missile."
40. "Photos of hydrocarbon fires, such as the fires produced in the Twin Towers by the burning of jet fuel, show yellow flames mixed with black smoke. But photographs of the Pentagon fire show a red flame, indicating the kind of fire produced by the type of missile described above - a much hotter and more instantaneous fire. Suggesting the Pentagon was hit by one of the latest generation of AGM type missiles armed with a hollow charge and a depleted uranium BLU tip." 


41. "The Pentagon is ...protected by '[f]ive extremely sophisticated antimissile batteries. [...] ' Contrary to the Pentagon's claims, the military thus knew perfectly well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capitol. Yet the military did not react. Why? '[...]

42. "When the aircraft was making it's circular approach to the Pentagon...it came very near to the White house..." [why did the White house's missile system not shoot it down?]


43. [The Boeing 757's] "...fuselage is made from aluminum which does not melt in an ordinary hydrocarbon fire. It's engines are made from steel, which also does not normally melt. And yet the more-or-less official story was that the fire was so hot that all this metal not only melted but vaporized. Is this believable? In the first place, if the fire was that hot, how did the upper floors of the Pentagon survive? In the second place, why would the fire have been so hot if it were a hydrocarbon fire?...Would even fire this hot vaporize aluminum and steel?"

44. "According to at least one version of the official story authorities were able to identify victims of the crash by their fingerprints. To provide support for the official account, therefore, the fire would have to be hot enough to vaporize aluminum and steel cool enough to leave human flesh intact. This would, of course, be impossible,..."


45. "When the flight control transcripts for the 9/11 planes were finally released on October 14 Flight 77 ends almost 20 minutes before it crashes. Although there is more than one possible explanation for this fact, one of these explanations is that government officials did not want the press and the public to hear what actually occurred during the final 20 minutes of Flight 77."

46. "if what hit the Boeing 757 had been a Pentagon, it would be very surprising to have reports of people - especially people with trained eyes and ears - claiming to have seen a small missile or military plane. These reports of having seen a small missile or military plane must, accordingly, be given more weight. Properly interpreted, then, the eye witness testimony does not contradict, but instead supports, the missile theory."


47. "Beginning with 19 accounts said by the Urban Legends web site to be eyewitness testimony that an American Airliner hit the Pentagon, [Gerard] Holmgren found, for starters, that a majority of the people cited did not actually claim to have seen the Pentagon hit by a commercial airplane. Instead, '[w]hat they claimed was to have seen a plane flying way too low, and then immediately afterwards to have seen smoke or an explosion coming from the direction of the Pentagon which was out of sight at the time of the collision." [...] Holmgren found one of more of the following problems: the alleged witness could not be identified; the claim that the witness had seen an American Airlines plane was added by the reporter; or the witness who initially claimed to have seen the American airplane hit the Pentagon withdrew the claim under questioning..." 'What appeared at first reading to be 19 eyewitness accounts ...actually turned out to be none.' [...] ' My conclusion is that there is no eyewitness evidence to support the theory that F77 hit the Pentagon...'"

48. "Assuming that terrorists in control of a Boeing 757 would want to be certain of hitting their target, why would they aim at one of the facades, which are only 80 feet high, when they could have simply dived into the roof, which covers 29 acres? More important, one would have assumed that they wanted to cause as much damage to the Pentagon and kill as many of its employees as possible, and these aims would also have made the roof the logical target. Furthermore,...why would they hit the west wing, which was the one part of the Pentagon that was being renovated?" [...] 'It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars [and blast resistant windows] to withstand bomb blasts... While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest areas, because of renovation work only about 800 were there.'


49. "One would assume that terrorists would be especially interested in killing the Pentagon top civilian and military leaders, but the attack on the west wing killed none of them. Most of the casualties were civilians."

50. "...according to reported radar data, the aircraft, given its trajectory, was able to hit the west wing only by executing a very difficult downward spiral. In other words, it was actually technically difficult to do as little damage to the Pentagon as was done." [...] "...no pilot with the minimal training the hijackers evidently had could have executed this maneuver." [...] the man who was supposed to be pilot, Hani Hanjour, was reportedly not just an amateur but also an especially incompetent one. According to a story in the New York Times:...[a] former employee said...'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon...He could not fly at all.' [...] 'I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had,' said Peggy Chevrette, Arizona Flight School Manager."

51. A Pentagon spokesman reportedly said: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.'...Even if local air controllers did not have the kind of radar system that can track a plane with it's transponder off, as claimed, the FAA system certainly would have been able [to] track the flight path back to Washington...the Pentagon possess 'several very sophisticated radar monitoring systems, incomparable with the civilian systems.' The PAVE PAWS system, for example, 'does not miss anything occuring in North American airspace.' According to its website, it is capable of detecting and monitoring a great number of targets that would be consistent with a massive SLBM [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile] attack.' Are we to believe that it can do all this...while not being able to detect a single giant airliner headed toward the Pentagon itself?"


52. "Assuming that the strike was made by Flight 77 under the control of hijackers, why was it not prevented by standard operating procedures?...[the strike] occured over half an hour after the second WTC tower was hit, so that the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon should have been in the highest possible state of alert, and also because the Pentagon is probably the most well defended building on the face of the planet. How does the official account explain the fact that in this case it was not defended at all?"

53. "Why was not the NMCC and hence NORAD, with it's superior radar system, independently monitoring its flight path? Even if we ignore this question, how could the FAA have been so leisurely, especially given the fact that shortly after 9:03 everyone in the system would have known that two hijacked airplanes had been flown into the WTC? 'Is such a long delay believable,...or has that information been doctored to cover the lack of any scrambling of fighters?' 


54. "...why would it take NORAD, after finally hearing from the FAA, another three minutes to order planes scrambled? And why would it order those planes from Langely, which is 130 miles from Washington, rather than from Andrews Air Force Base, which is only 10 miles away and has the assignment to protect Washington?"

"...USA Today reported that it was told by Pentagon sources that Andrews 'had no fighters assigned to it.' Another story in that newspaper the same day reported that Andrews did have fighters present 'but those planes were not on alert.'..."According to [the US military information website] Andrews houses the 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing which is equppied with F-16 fighters and ' provides capable and ready ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency.' Andrews also has the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, which ' flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet ' and is supported by a reserve squadron that ' provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness.' Andrews also has the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) which said on its website that it's 'mission' was ' to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.'"

55. "...the falsity of the claim that Andrews had no fighters on alert,..is shown by the fact that, as widely reported, immediately after the attack on the Pentagon, F-16s from Andrews were flying over Washington. One of the disturbing questions, therefore, is why the Pentagon would have put out disinformation?"


56. "Another question is why some of the websites were changed after 9/11...the DCANG website was changed to say merely that it had a 'vision' to ' provide peacetime command and control and administrative mission oversight to support customers, DCANG units, and NGB in achieving the highest states of readiness.'"

57. "...if F-16s were airborne by 9:30, as alleged, they ' would have to travel slightly over 700 mph to reach Washington before Flight 77 does. The maximum speed of an F-16 is 1,500 mph. Even at traveling 1,300 mph, these planes could have reached Washington in six minutes - well before any claim of when Flight 77 crashed.' [...] ' Why is the emergency considered important enough to stop all takeoffs from Washington at this time, but not important enough to scramble even a single plane to defend Washington?''


58. "Flight 77 was lost at 8:56, just after the radar allegedly showed it making a U-turn back towards Washington. Given the fact that the Pentagon was called by its staff 'Ground Zero' even having a snack bar of that name, why would its officials, knowing of the attacks on the WTC, not have ordered its immediate evacuation? Furthermore, even if they did not do so shortly after 8:56, why did they not do so immediately upon learning that the air traffic controllers had spotted an unidentified fast-flying aircraft heading in the direction of the Pentagon and the White House at 9:25? In the 13 minutes remaining before the Pentagon was hit, virtually everyone, presumably, could have been evacuated." [...] 'Is it believable that everyone in the Pentagon outside of that command center, even the secretary of Defense, would remain uninformed? And if it is not believable, then why were those people in the west wing allowed to be killed?'"






FLIGHT 93: WAS IT THE ONE FLIGHT THAT WAS SHOT DOWN?



"Flight 93 departed from Newark 41 minutes late, at 8:42am. At 9:27, one passenger, Tom Burnett called his wife, telling her that the plane had been hijacked and that she should call the FBI which she did. At 9:28, ground flight controllers heard sounds of screaming and scuffling. At 9:34, Tom Burnett again called his wife, who told him about the attacks on the WTC, leading him to realize that his own plane was 'on a suicide mission' At 9.36, the plane turned toward Washington. At 9:37, Jeremy Glick and two other passengers learned about the WTC attacks.

At 9:45, Tom Burnett told his wife that he did not think, contrary to the hijackers' claim, that they had a bomb, and that he and the others were making a plan. By this time, which was 19 minutes before the plane went down, the FBI was monitoring these calls. At 9.45, with the FBI listening in, passenger Todd Beamer began a long phone conversation with a Verizon representative, describing the situation on board. Shortly after 9:47, Jeremy Glick told his wife that all the men had voted to attack the hijackers, adding that the latter had only knives, no guns...At 9:54, Tom Burnett called his wife again. According to early reports, he said: 'I know we're all going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'

- The New Pearl harbor, David Ray Griffin

59. "The following incidents...suggest...that the plane was shot down after it became evident that the passengers -among whom were a professional pilot and an air traffic controller - might gain control of the plane.At 9:57 one of the hijackers was heard saying that there was fighting outside the cockpit. A voice from outside said: 'Let's get them.' "

60. "At 9:58 Todd Beamer ended his phone call by saying that the passengers planned 'to jump' the hijacker in the back of the plane, then uttered his famous words: 'Are you ready guys? Let's roll.' "


61. "At 9:58, a passenger talking to her husband said: 'I think they're going to do it. They're forcing their way into the cockpit.' A little later she exclaimed: 'They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!' But her husband then heard screaming in the background following by a ' whooshing sound, a sound like wind.,' then more screaming, after which he lost contact."

62. "Another passenger calling from a restroom reportedly said just before contact was lost that he heard ' some sort of explosion ' and saw ' white smoke coming from the plane.' (Months later, the FBI denied that the recording of this call contained any information of smoke or an explosion, but the person who took this call was not allowed to speak to the media.)


63. The person listening to Jeremy Glick's open phone line reportedly said: ' The silence lasted two minutes and then there was a mechanical sound, followed by nothing. '

64. According to one newspaper report: ' Sources claim the last thing heard on the cock pit recorder is the sound of the wind - suggesting the plane had been holed. ' [Paul] Thompson believes that this record shows that the plane was indeed ' 'holed ' - shot down by a missile or two - after it seemed that the passengers were gaining control of it. 


65. Relatives of victims have been allowed to listen to [the tape of the cock pit recording] and the official crash time. It begins at 9:31 and runs for 31 minutes, so that it ends at 10:02. This would close to the time of the crash - if the crash occurred at 10:03, as the US government claims. However, a seismic study concluded that the crash occured slightly after 10:06, leading the Philadelphia Daily News to print an article entitled "Three Minute Discrepancy in Tape." And this was not...the only record of this flight that was missing. On October 16, the government released flight control transcripts of the airplanes - except for Flight 93.

66. "It is significant that according to news reports, it was shortly after 9:56 that fighter jets were finally given orders to intercept and shoot down any airplanes under the control of the hijackers. Shortly, thereafter, a military aide reportedly said to Vice President Cheney: ' There is a plane 80 miles out. There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?, ' to which Cheney responded ' Yes, ' after which an F-16 went in pursuit of Flight 93. It was also reported that as the fighter got nearer to flight 93, Cheney was asked two more times to confirm that the fighter should engage, which Cheney did...Furthermore, when President Bush was told of the crash of Flight 93 at 10:08, he reportedly asked: ' Did we shoot it town or did it crash? ' These reports which are contained in Thompson's timeline, suggest to him that the intention to shoot down Flight 93 was in several minds."

67. "Shortly before the crash, CBS television reported that F-16 fighters were tailing the flight. And a flight controller ignoring an order to controllers not to talk to the media, reportedly said that ' an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93....[T]he F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.' 


68. "The existence of a fighter plane in the area is supported,...by many witnesses on the ground. According to a story in the Independent ' At least half a dozen named individuals...have reported seeing a second plane flying low...over the crash site within minutes of the United flight crashing. They describe the plane as a small , white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings. ' The FBI claim that it was a Fairchild Falcon business jet. But, said one woman: 'It was white with no markings but it was definitely military....It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler....It definitely wasn't one of the those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.... But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 feet above my head. They did not want my story. ' "

69. " One witness said that after she heard the planes engine, she heard 'a loud thump ' and then two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore.' Another witness heard 'a loud bang.' Another heard ' two loud bangs ' before watching the plane take a downward turn. Another heard a sound that ' wasn't quite right ' after which the plane dropped all of a sudden, like a stone. ' Another heard ' a loud bang ' and then saw the plane's right wing dip, after which the plane plunged into the earth. And the Mayor of Shanksville reportedly said that he knew of two people who ' heard a missile,' adding that one of them ' served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them. ' 


70. "...a half-ton piece of one of the engines was reportedly found over a mile away. One newspaper story called this fact ' intriguing ' because ' the heat-seeking air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would likely target one of the Boeing 757's two large engines."

71. "...witnesses reported seeing burning debris fall from the plane as far as eight miles away, with workers at Indian Lake Marina saying that they saw ' a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion. ' And debris, including what appeared to be human remains, was indeed reportedly found as far as eight miles from the crash site. 


72. "Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, reportedly said that ' the Air Force was tracking the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania...and had been in a position to bring it down if necessary.' "Thompson believes that the government decided that it was necessary - but not because the hijackers' mission was going to succeed. Thompson asks why fighter pilots were given authorization to shoot down hijacked airplanes only after Flight 93 was the only one left in the sky...his implicit answer, given the evidence that the passengers were successfully wresting control of the plane away from the hijackers, is that this was the one plane that was likely to be landed safely - which would, among other things, mean that there might be hijackers to be interrogated....This evidence suggests that when the authorities wanted a flight shot down, they were not hindered by lack of either competence or coordination. The evidence from this flight suggests, like the previous ones, active involvement of the US military leaders in planning the attacks. In this case, they apparently also had to take remedial action because of an unexpected development."




THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR: WHY DID HE ACT AS HE DID?





' I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in,' he claimed, ' and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, there's one terrible pilot. ' - George W. Bush 



73. 'The first media reports of Flight 11's crash into the World Trade Center began around 8:48, 2 minutes after the crash happened. CNN broke into its regular programming at this time....So, within minutes, millions were aware of the story, yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for another ten minutes.' [...] "The members of the president's traveling staff, including the Secret Service,...' have the best communications equipment in the world...' " within a minute after the first airliner hit the World Trade Center the Secret Service and the president would have known about it. [...] "During his interview on ' Meet the Press ' on September 16, Cheney said: ' The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines before the World Trade Center was...' stopping himself ...before finishing his sentence."


74. "It is even part of the official account that Ari Fleischer learned about the attack on the way. [before the motorcade arrived at the school at 9.00.] ' It would make sense that Bush is told about the crash immediately and at the same time that others hear about it. Yet Bush and others claim he isn't told until he arrives at the school.'

75. Upon learning that a plane had hit the WTC, President Bush reportedly referred to the crash as a ' horrible accident.' However,...by that time, the Secret Service and the president would have known that several airliners had been hijacked. So how could President Bush have assumed that the first crash into the WTC was an accident?


76. "...the President reportedly told the school's principal that a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center and we're going ahead and...do the reading thing anyway. [...] If the hijackings were unanticipated occurences as claimed, with one of the hijacked airplanes having already completed its terrorist mission, the country was suffering the worst terrorist attack of its history. And yet the Commander in Chief, rather than making sure his military was prepared to shoot down all hijacked planes, sticks to his planned schedule.

77. Bush's behavior is made even more astounding by the fact that his Secret Service would have had to assume that he was one of the intended targets...' Why doesn't the Secret Service move Bush away from his known location?...' Hijackers could have crashed a plane into his publicized location and his security would have been completely helpless to stop it. '


78. ' Having just been told the country was under attack, the Commander in Chief seemed uninterested in further details. He never asked if there had been any additional threats, where the attacks were coming from, how best to protect the country from further attacks ...Instead, in the middle of a modern-day Pearl Harbor he simply turned back to the matter at hand: the day's photo op. ' [...] As President Bush continued with his reading lesson, life within the burning towers of the World Trade Center was becoming evermore desperate ....Within minutes, people began jumping, preferring a quick death to burning alive or suffocating.' 

79. " While this was going on the president was listening to the students read: ' The-Pet-Goat. The-girl-got-a-pet-goat. But-the -goat-did-some-things-that-made-the-girl's-dad-mad. ' After listening to this for several minutes President Bush made a joke, saying: Really good readers, whew! These must be sixth graders!" [...] ' Bush was openly stretching out the moment. ' When the lesson was over, according to [Bill] Sammon's account, Bush said:


' Hoo! These are great readers. Very impressive. Thank you all so much for showing me your reading skills. I bet they practice too. Don't you? Reading more than they watch T.V.? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch T.V.? [hands go up] Oh that's great! Very good. Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very impressed.' Bush then continued to talk advising the children to stay in school and be good citizens. And in response to a question he talked about his education policy. Sammon describes Bush as smiling and chatting to the children ' as if he didn't have a care in the world, ' and ' in the most relaxed manner imaginable. ' After a reporter asked if the president had heard about what had happened in New York, Bush said, ' I'll talk about it later, ' then ...stepped forward and shook hands with [the classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo op pose. He was taking his good old time....Bush lingered until the press was gone.' "


80. "...the White House put out a different account a year later. Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, was quoted as saying that after he told the president about the second attack on the World Trade Center, Bush ' excused himself very politely to the teacher and students ' and left the classroom within a matter of seconds. [...] "...the White House was so confident that none of its lies about 9/11 would be challenged by the media that it felt safe telling this one, even though it is flatly contradicted by Sammon's pro-Bush book and by the video tape produced that day..."


81. "When Andrew Card and Karl Rove were later asked why the president had not left the classroom as soon as he had word of the second attack, their answer...was that he did not want to upset the children. But,...' why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets? ' Might the answer be that Bush knew that there was no danger?"


82. "The idea that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the attacks is further suggested by a statement later made by Bush himself: ' I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in,' he claimed, ' and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, there's one terrible pilot. ' Given the fact that according to the official story, Bush did not have access to a television set until at least 15 minutes later, this statement raised questions. An article in the Boston Herald said: '...Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit - which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.' " 


83. "On the morning of the 9/11, therefore, Bush could not have seen the pictures of the first crash that we have all seen time and time again. Therefore, [Thierry] Meyssan suggests, the pictures must ' have been secret images transmitted to him without delay in the secure communications room that was installed in the elementary school in preparation for his visit. But if the US intelligence services could have filmed the first attack, that means they must have been informed beforehand. ' "



DID US OFFICIALS HAVE ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS?


"I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use ...a hijacked plane as a missile." - Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor, May 2002.



84. "...in 1993 a panel of experts commissioned by the Pentagon suggested that airplanes could be used as missiles to bomb national landmarks. However this notion was not published in its report, Terror 2000, because, said one of its authors: ' We were told by the Department of Defense not to put it in.' [...] In that same year, there were three planes hijacked with the intent to use them as weapons, including a highly publicized plan of a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda to crash one into the Eiffel Tower. In 1995, Senator Sam Nunn, in Time magazine's cover story, described a scenario in which terrorists crash a radio-controlled airplane into the US Capitol building."


85. " [In] the year 1995...Philippine police found an al-Qaeda computer with a plan called Project Bojinka, one version of which involved hijacking planes and flying them into targets such as the World Trade Center, the White House, CIA headquarters, and the Pentagon."


86. "In 1999, the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and US intelligence agencies on emerging threats, said in a special report on terrorism: ' Al-Qaeda's expected retaliation for the US cruise missle attack [of 1998]...could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation's capitol. Suicide bombers belonging to al-Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives...into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. '


87. "Officials in October of 2000 carried out an emergency drill to prepare for the possibility that a hijacked airliner might be crashed into the Pentagon." [...] "...the claim that the possibility of such attacks had not been envisioned is clearly untrue." 


88. "...there were evidently many quite specific warnings in the months leading up to 9/11 and, given the fact that by May of 2001, warnings of an attack against the US were reportedly higher than ever before, US intelligence agencies should have been especially alert. This state of alert should have been increased still further, one would assume, given the fact that an intelligence summary for Condoleeza Rice from CIA director George Tenet on June 28 said: "It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks. "


89. In late July...the Taliban's Foreign Minister informed US officials that Osama bin Laden was planning a ' huge attack ' inside America that was imminent and would kill thousands. That the information indicated that the attack was to involve commercial airlines is suggested by the fact that on July 26, CBS News reported that Attorney General Ashcroft had decided to quit using this mode of travel because of a threat assessment - although ' neither the FBI nor the Justice Department...would identify what the threat was, when it was detected, or who made it. ' In May of 2002, it was claimed that the threat assessment had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft, according tot he Associated Press, walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. The San Francisco Chronicle complained: ' The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind.... The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances. ' CBS's Dan Rather later asked, with regard to this warning: ' Why wasn't it shared with the public at large? ' 


90. " A Moroccan agent who had penetrated al-Qaeda was evidently brought to the United States to discuss his report that bin Laden, being disappointed that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the WTC, planned large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001."


91. " Some warnings...were given by several foreign intelligence agencies. For example, Russian President Putin later stated that in August, ' I order my intelligence to warn President Bush in the strongest terms that 25 terrorists were getting ready to attack the US, including important government buildings like the Pentagon. ' The head of Russian intelligence also said: ' We had clearly warned them ' on several occasions, but they ' did not pay the necessary attention. ' "Warnings were also given by Jordan, Egypt and Israel, with the latter country warning a few days before 9/11, that perhaps 200 terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden were ' preparing a big operation. ' "


92." [An official warning in the form of a memo provided by Great Britain] was included in the intelligence briefing for President Bush on August 6th. This warning said that al-Qaeda had planned an attack in the United States involving multiple airplane hijackings. The White House kept this warning secret, with the President repeatedly claiming after 9/11 that he had received no warning of any kind. But on May 15, 2002, CBS Evening News revealed the existence of the memo from British intelligence..... [The US administration] refused to release the memo while claiming there was nothing specific in it."


93. "Intelligence agencies monitor the stock market...to watch for clues of impending catastrophes. And the days just before September 11 saw an extremely high volume of ' put options ' purchased for the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center and for United and American Airlines, the two airlines used in the attacks. For these two, ' the level of these trades was up by 1,200 percent in the three days prior to the World Trade Center attacks. ' To buy a put option is to bet that the price of shares is going to go down, and in this case the bet was highly profitable.... This unusual set of purchases 'raises suspicions that the investors has advance knowledge of the strikes.' "


94. " Shortly before 9/11, the FBI reportedly intercepted messages such as 'There is a big thing coming ' and ' They're going to pay the price.' On September 9, a foreign intelligence service reportedly passed on to US intelligence an intercepted message from bin Laden to his mother, in which he told her: ' In two days you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while. ' And the next day, September 10, US intelligence reportedly obtained electronic intercepts of conversations in which al-Qaeda members said: ' Tomorrow will be a great day for us.' "






DID US OFFICIALS OBSTRUCT INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO 9/11?




"There is no question we had what looked like the biggest failure of the intelligence community since Pearl Harbor, but what we are learning now is it wasn't a failure, it was a directive." - Greg Palast


"There were particular investigations of the bin Laden family that were effectively killed." - American intelligence agent



95. "According to a reported story by ABC News, Julie Sirrs, an agent for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), traveled to Afghanistan twice in 2001. On her first trip, she met with Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Masood. On her second trip she returned home with what she said was ' a treasure trove of information, ' including information that bin Laden was planning to assassinate Masood (and Masood would indeed be assassinated on September 9...) But she was met at the airport by a security officer, who confiscated her material, after which the DIA and the FBI investigated her. However, she said, no higher intelligence officials wanted to hear what she had learned in Afghanistan. Finally her security clearance was pulled and she resigned from the DIA."


96. "In March of 2001, the Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submitted ' an unprecedentedly detailed report ' to the UN security Council about bin Laden and his whereabouts, including ' a listing of all bin Laden's bases, his government contacts and foreign advisors ' - enough information, they said, to kill him."


97. "By the summer of 2001, Osama bin Laden was America's 'Most wanted' criminal, for whom it was offering a $5 million bounty, and the US government had supposedly tried to kill him. And yet in July, according to reports by several of Europe's most respected news sources, bin Laden spent two weeks in the American hospital in Dubai (of the United Arab Emirates) Besides being treated by an American surgeon, Dr. Terry Calloway, he was also reportedly visited by the head of Saudi Intelligence and, on July 12, buy the local CIA agent, Larry Mitchell. Although the reports were denied by the CIA, the hospital and bin Laden himself, Dr. Calloway reportedly simply refused to comment, and the news agencies stood by their story. [...] '...the US could have ordered his arrest and extradition in Dubai last July. But then they would not have had a pretext for waging a war.' "


98.  i. "The Bin Laden family - one of the wealthiest and most influential families in Saudi Arabia - and the Bush family had business relations for over 20 years. 

ii. Although Osama bin Laden has been portrayed as the black sheep of the family who was disowned for his terrorist ways - so that the 'good bin Ladens' could be radically distinguished from the 'bad bin Laden' - there is much evidence that Osama's close ties with his family continued.

iii. There is evidence that Osama bin Laden continued to receive covert aid from America's close ally, Saudi Arabia.

iv. Immediately after 9/11, the US government, working with the Saudi government, helped many members of the bin Laden family depart from the United States, even allowing their jets to fly before the national air ban was lifted.

v. When the final report of the Joint Inquiry into 9/11 carried out by the House and Senate intelligence committees was finally released in 2003, the administration had insisted on blocking out some 28 pages, which reportedly dealt primarily with Saudi Arabia." 


99. "On August 22, 2001, John O'Neill, a counter-terrorism expert who was said to be the US government's 'most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists,' resigned from the FBI, citing repeated obstruction and his investigations into al-Qaeda." 


100. [sections paraphrased]

i. Ignoring the FBI in Phoenix: On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams warned the counter-terrorism division about a a suspicious group of Middle Eastern men taking flight training lessons. He was removed from his investigations and reassigned to an arson case.


ii. Blocking the FBI in Minneapolis: In mid-August of 2001, the staff at a flight school in Minneapolis caleld the local FBI to report their suspicion that Zacarias Moussaoui, who had paid to train on a Boeing 747 simulator, was planning to use a real 747 'as a weapon.' After a threat was clearly established the FBI proceeded to sabotage any further attempts to place Moussaoui under the spotlight, it seems to soon. One agent in another saw to it that all references to al-Qaeda in connection to Moussaoui were removed. Then insufficient evidence was used as a justification not to investigate further.


iii. Blocking the FBI in Chicago: In 1998, FBI agent Robert Wright had begun tracking a terrorist cell in Chicago, suspecting that money used for the 1998 bombings of US embassies came from a multimillionaire living in Chicago. In January of 2001, in spite of his belief that this case was growing stronger, he was told that it was being closed. In June he wrote an internal memo charging that the FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, ' was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.' In May 2002 , Wright announced that he was suing the FBI for refusing to allow him to publish a book he had written about the affair.


iv. Blocking the FBI in New York: On August 28, 2001, the FBI office in New York, believing Khalid Almihdhar - who would later be named as one of the hijackers - had been involved in the bombing of the USS Cole, tried to convince FBI headquarters to open a criminal investigation. But the New York request was turned down on the grounds that Almihdhar could not be tied to the Cole investigation without the inclusion of sensitive intelligence information. One New York agent expressed his frustration in an e-mail letter saying, 'Whatever has happened to this - someday someone will die - and....the public will not understand why we were not more effective... Let's hope the [FBI's] National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most 'protection.'


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...