Unanswered Questions of 9/11:
911 Prewarnings
Building 7 Collapse
Flight 77 and the Pentagon
Israeli Involvement
United Airlines Put-options
War Games
Atta and the $100,000
9/11 Terrorists Still Alive
Summary Analysis
Additional Resources
By
Peter Phillips, Ambrosia Pardue, Jessica Froiland, Brooke Finley,
Chris
Kyle, Rebekah Cohen, and Bridget Thornton with Project Censored
and
Guest Writer Jack Massen
Introduction
For
many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11
tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and
terrorist alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting
tensions and fears. The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of
partial healing and completion — especially given the corporate media's
high praise of the report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers
who continue to question the US government's version of what happened
on September 11, 2001. This resistance is rooted in our tendency toward
the inability to conceive of people we know as evil; instead evil ones
must be others, very unlike ourselves.
We
all remember, as young children, scary locations that created deep
fears. We might imagine monsters in the closet, dangers in a nighttime
backyard, and creepy people in some abandoned house down the street. As
we get older we build up the courage to open the closet, or walk out
into the backyard to smell the night air. As adults there are still
dark closets in our socio-cultural consciousness that make it difficult
to even consider the possibility of certain ideas. These fearful ideas
might be described as threshold concepts, in that they may be on the
borders of discoverability, yet we deny even the potentiality of
implied veracity — something is so evil it is completely unimaginable.
A
threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11
Commission Report was on many levels a cover-up for the failure of the
US government to prevent the tragedy. Deeper past the threshold is the
idea that the report failed to address sources of assistance to the
terrorists. Investigations into this area might have led to a
conclusion that elements of various governments — including our own —
not only knew about the attacks in advance, but may have helped
facilitate their implementation. The idea that someone in the
Government of the United States may have contributed support to such a
horrific attack is inconceivable to many. It is a threshold concept
that is so frightening that it brings up a state of mind akin to
complete unbelievably.
Philosophy/Religion
professor David Ray Griffin has recently published his findings on the
omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission report. Griffin notes
that the 9/11 Commission failed to discuss most of the evidence that
seems to contradict the official story about 9/11— for example, the
report by Attorney David Schippers that states that some FBI agents who
contracted him had information about attacks several weeks prior to
9/11, along with evidence that several of the alleged hijackers are
still alive. Griffin's book brings into question the completeness and
authenticity of the 9/11 Commission's work. Griffin questions why
extensive advanced warnings from several countries were not acted upon
by the administration, how a major institutional investor knew to buy
put-options on American and United Airlines before the attack, and how
an inexperienced terrorist pilot could have conducted a complicated
decent into an unoccupied section of the Pentagon.
Additionally,
Griffin notes questions remain on why the 9/11 Commission failed to
address the reports that $100,000 was wired to Mohamed Atta from Saeed
Sheikh, an agent for Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), under
the direction of the head of ISI General Mahmud Ahmed. General Ahmed
resigned his position less than one month later. The Times of India
reported that Indian intelligence had given US officials evidence of
the money transfer ordered by Ahmad and that he was dismissed after the
"US authorities sought his removal."
Also,
the 9/11 Commission report failed to address the reasons for the
collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 more than six hours
after the attack. WTC-7 was a 47-story, steel frame building that had
only small fires on a few floors. WTC buildings 5 & 6 had much
larger fires and did not collapse. This has led a number of critics to
speculate that WTC 7 was a planned demolition.
Overall
concerns with the official version of 9/11 have been published and
discussed by scholars and politicians around the world including: Jim
Marrs, Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, Cynthia McKinney, Barrie Zwicker,
Webster Tarpley, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Eric Hufschmid and
many others (see: http://www.911forthetruth.com).
The response to most has been to label these discussions as “conspiracy
theories” unworthy of media coverage or further review. Pursuit of a
critical analysis of these questions is undermined by the psychological
barrier about 9/11 issues as threshold concepts — too awful to even
consider.
We
may be on the borders of discovery regarding the possibility of a great
evil within our own government, and perhaps others outside as well. We
must step past the threshold and have the courage to ask the questions,
demand answers, and support research into all aspects of this American
tragedy. Perhaps the closet isn't as dark and as fearful as we
envision. If we don't courageously look and search into the deepest
regions of our fears how can we assure our children and ourselves a
safe and honest future?
In
Censored 2003, Project Censored lists the most important unanswered
questions about 9/11. Most of those questions remain unanswered today.
Since 2001, researchers have expanded the depth of concerns and the
reliability of information that continue to encourage the questioning
of the official government version of the 9/11 tragedy. The following
is Project Censored's effort to cross the threshold and address the
questions that are so difficult to imagine.
9/11
Pre-Warnings
by
Jessica Frioland
Paul
Thompson’s Terror Timeline, as well as his updated version of the 9/11
timeline located at www.cooperativeresearch.org,
was the key reference material used. For further information regarding
the information presented, see original articles used in Thompson’s
research, mentioned throughout.
In
a press conference on April 13, 2004, President Bush stated, “We knew
he [Osama bin Laden] had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there
was nobody in our government, and I don't think [in] the prior
government, that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such
a massive scale.” [Guardian, 4/15/04] He also said, “Had I any inkling
whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings,
we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country.” [White
House, 4/13/04; New York Times, 4/18/04 (C)] This statement is in
direct conflict with a May 15, 2002, statement wherein the White House
admitted that Bush was warned about bin Laden’s desire to attack the
U.S. by hijacking aircraft in August 2001. [New York Times, 5/16/02,
Washington Post, 5/16/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]. There is a massive and
growing body of evidence that asserts that the United States government
was not only aware of the possibility of the specific scenario of a
terrorist air strike/suicide attack, but that it had also received
dozens of credible warnings from both international and domestic
sources.
Many
countries warned the US of imminent terrorist attacks: Afghanistan,
Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel,
Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Warnings also came from within the
United States. Information from our own communications intercepts
regarding particular individuals with foreknowledge, previous similarly
attempted attacks, and from our own intelligence agents in charge of
the investigations of al-Qaeda.
While
many of these warning have been covered in the world media a collective
analysis and summary context has been avoided by the US corporate media.
The
Actual 9/11 Pre-Warnings
1993:
An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raised the possibility
that an airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington
Post, 10/2/01]
1994:
Two attacks took place that involved using hijacked planes to crash
into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third
attack, a lone pilot crashed a plane at the White House. [New York
Times, 10/3/01]
1996-1999:
The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from
Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several
score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time
senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound
intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin
Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]
1996-2001:
Federal authorities had known that suspected terrorists with ties to
bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and
abroad. An Oklahoma City FBI agent sent a memo warning that "large
numbers of Middle Eastern males" were getting flight training and could
have been planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] One convicted
terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to
crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01]
Dec
1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama,"
reported that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet—a strike
on Washington or possibly New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]
February
7, 2001: CIA Director Tenet warned Congress in open testimony that “the
threat from terrorism is real, it is immediate, and it is evolving.” He
said bin Laden and his global network remained “the most immediate and
serious threat” to US interests. “Since 1998 bin Laden has declared
that all US citizens are legitimate targets,” he said, adding that bin
Laden “is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no
warning.” [Associated Press, 2/7/01; Sunday Herald, 9/23/01]
In
June of 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA, Britain's
intelligence agency, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists
were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to
attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” A later article
quoted unnamed German intelligence sources, stating that the
information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that
British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there
were other informational sources, including specific information and
hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news
media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01;
Washington Post, 9/14/01; Fox News, 5/17/02]
June
28, 2001: George Tenet wrote an intelligence summary to Condeleezza
Rice stating: “It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack
is in the near future, within several weeks” [Washington Post,
2/17/02]. This warning was shared with “senior Bush administration
officials” in early July. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/18/02]
July
5, 2001: Richard Clark gave a direct warning to the FAA, to increase
their security measures. The FAA refused to take such action. [New
Yorker, 1/14/02; www.cooperativeresearch.org].
June-July
2001: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and national security
aides were given briefs with headlines such as “Bin Laden Threats Are
Real” and “Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks.” The exact contents
of these briefings remain classified, but according to the 9/11
Commission, they consistently predicted upcoming attacks that would
occur “on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the
world to be in turmoil, consisting of possible multiple—but not
necessarily simultaneous—attacks.” CIA Director Tenet later recalled
that by late July, he felt that President Bush and other officials
grasped the urgency of what they were being told. [9/11 Commission
Report, 4/13/04 (B)] But Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, later
stated that he felt a great tension, peaking within these months,
between the Bush administration's apparent misunderstanding of
terrorism issues and his sense of great urgency. McLaughlin and others
were frustrated when inexperienced Bush officials questioned the
validity of certain intelligence findings. Two unnamed, veteran Counter
Terrorism Center officers deeply involved in bin Laden issues, were so
worried about an impending disaster, that they considered resigning and
going public with their concerns. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (C)]
Dale Watson, head of counter terrorism at the FBI, wished he had “500
analysts looking at Osama bin Laden threat information instead of two.”
[9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)]
July
5, 2001: At issue is a July 5, 2001 meeting between Ashcroft and acting
FBI Director Tom Pickard. That month, the threat of an al-Qaida attack
was so high; the White House summoned the FBI and domestic agencies and
warned them to be on alert. Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11
commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on
July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the
“brush-off. "[MSNBC, 6/22/04]
July
10, 2001: A Phoenix FBI agent sent a memorandum warning of Middle
Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspected bin Laden's followers
and recommended a national program to check visas of suspicious
flight-school students. The memo was sent to two FBI counter-terrorism
offices, but no action was taken. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03]
Vice President Cheney said in May 2002, that he was opposed to
releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and
public. [CNN, 5/20/02]
July
16, 2001: British spy agencies sent a report to British Prime Minister
Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda was in “the
final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The
prediction was “based on intelligence gleaned not just from [British
intelligence] but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the
National Security Agency”. The report stated that there was “an acute
awareness” that an attack was “a very serious threat.” [Times of
London, 6/14/02]
In
July of 2001: President Bush took the unusual step of sleeping on board
an aircraft carrier off the coast of Italy after receiving a warning
from the Egyptian government that the summit of world leaders in the
city of Genoa would be targeted by al Qaeda. [New York Times, 9/26/01]
The Italians meanwhile highly publicized their heightened security
measures of increased police presence, antiaircraft batteries, and
flying fighter jets. Apparently the press coverage of defenses caused
al-Qaeda to cancel the attack. [BBC, 7/18/01, CNN, 7/18/01, Los Angeles
Times, 9/27/01]
On
July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial
airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] The report of this
warning was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report [Griffin 5/22/05].
Late
July 2001: CBS reported, “Just days after [Mohamed] Atta return[s] to
the U.S. from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a
report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda
members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight
training on Cessnas.” Egypt passed on the message to the CIA but never
received a request for further information. [CBS News, 10/9/02]
Late
July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil was given
information regarding a large attack on targets inside America, from
the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Tahir
Yildash. Muttawakil relayed this information to the U.S. consul
general, yet wasn’t taken seriously. One source blamed this on the
administration’s “warning fatigue.” [Independent, 9/7/02; Reuters,
9/7/02]
Aug
6, 2001: President Bush received a classified intelligence briefing at
his Crawford, Texas ranch, warning that bin Laden might be planning to
hijack commercial airliners. The memo was titled “Bin Laden Determined
to Strike in US”. The entire memo focused on the possibility of
terrorist attacks inside the US and specifically mentioned the World
Trade Center. Yet Bush later stated that the briefing “said nothing
about an attack on America.” [Newsweek, 5/27/02; New York Times,
5/15/02, Washington Post, 4/11/04, White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence
Briefing, 8/6/01] .
Early
August 2001: Britain gave the US another warning about an al-Qaeda
attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001, was vague as to
method, but this warning specified multiple airplane hijackings. This
warning was said to have reached President Bush. [Sunday Herald,
5/19/02]
August,
2001: Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the US that suicide
pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The
head of Russian intelligence also later stated, “We had clearly warned
them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary
attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01]
Late
Summer, 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) made a communications
intercept and relayed it to Washington. The message stated that a major
attack, code-named “The Big Wedding,” had been planned inside the US
and that aircraft would be used. “When it became clear that the
information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and
congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings
before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their
earlier confirmations.” [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02;
Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]
On
September 10, 2001, a group of top Pentagon officials received an
urgent warning which prompted them to cancel their flight plans for the
following morning. [Newsweek, 9/17/01] The 9/11 Commission Report
omitted this report. [Griffin, 5/22/05]
Given
all the pre-warnings and information available before 9/11 it seems
unconscionable that on May 16, 2002, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice could still claim to the press: “I don’t think anybody
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 an airplane as a missile.” She
added that “even in retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that.
[White House, 5/16/02] On June 7, 2002, President Bush stated, “Based
on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented
the horror of September the 11th.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02]
With
so many warnings, it is difficult to explain inaction as mere
incompetence. The existence of all of these warnings suggests, at
least, that people within the US government knew the attacks were
coming and deliberately allowed them to happen. This evidence would,
however, be consistent with an even more frightening scenario— that the
attacks were orchestrated by, or with the help of, people within our
government.
Additional
Sources:
Paul
Thompson, “The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by
Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11—and America’s
Response,” Regan Books, September 1, 2004.
Jim
Marrs, “Inside Job: Unmasking the Conspiracies of 9/11,” Origin Press,
June 2004.
The
9/11 Commissioners, “The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the
National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States,” W.W
Norton & Company, Inc.
The
Building 7 Collapse Mystery
By
Josh Parrish
The
collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is one of the more mysterious
events that occurred on September 11, 2001. It was not struck by an
aircraft as the Twin Towers were and video of the collapse appears to
resemble those of buildings brought down by a controlled demolition.
These facts have led to speculation that the building was brought down
deliberately. Deficient investigations that followed only served to
fuel this speculation.
The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted the first official
inquiry into the collapse the World Trade Center buildings. The report
is merely a collection of supposition and hypotheses arrived at through
the examination of photographic evidence and eyewitness interviews.
FEMA’s reasoning behind the collapse of Building 7 is as follows:
Debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers caused structural damage to
Building 7 and ignited fires on several different floors; including
floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. There were diesel generators located
throughout the building to supply electricity in the event of a power
outage. These generators were fed by pressurized fuel lines from large
tanks on the lower floors. The falling debris also damaged these
pressurized lines and provided a continuous source of fuel for the
fires. According to FEMA, neither fire nor structural damage alone
would have been sufficient to cause the building’s collapse. It was the
combination of the structural damage, which diminished the load bearing
ability of the structure, and the fire, which weakened the steel, that
brought the building down.
While
this explanation may sound plausible, it is not based on an examination
of any physical evidence. Specifically, the investigators were unable
to confirm how much, if any, diesel fueled the fires. “There is no
physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate or refute the
discharge of fuel oil from the piping system. The following is,
therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated
fact.” The investigators seem to have little faith in their own
theories, “Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence.” When subjected to critical analysis, the
investigation by FEMA appears to be nothing more than an attempt to
formulate theories that conform to the official version of the events
of September 11th, rather than a rigorous scientific study.
One
of the ways in which the FEMA investigation was hampered was by the
destruction of evidence. Almost immediately following the disaster, the
structural steel was removed from the site and placed on ships headed
for Asia to be recycled.
The
New York Times reported on 12/25, 2001 that, "In calling for a new
investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious
mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the
collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and
trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators
some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece
together an answer…. Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in
the fire protection engineering department at the University of
Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any
investigation of the collapses. 'I find the speed with which
potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be
appalling,' Dr. Mowrer said…. Interviews with a handful of members of
the [FEMA funded] team, which includes some of the nation's most
respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various
times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them
from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting
crucial information, like recorded distress calls to the police and
fire departments."
Even
if one accepts the Bush administration’s official version of the events
of that day, there were still compelling reasons to study the evidence.
The engineering and construction community could have greatly benefited
from a thorough examination of the structural steel. Prior to September
11th, there had never been a fire-induced collapse of a steel framed
building. If Building 7 did actually collapse due to fire and falling
debris, then a careful examination of the evidence would certainly be
warranted; if for no other reason than to learn some valuable lessons
about the safety of high-rise buildings in general. Destroying evidence
of a disaster of this magnitude is unprecedented. The fact that it
occurred raises questions about the motives of those involved in making
the decision.
As
incomplete and inadequate as FEMA’s investigation was, theirs was not
the only one conducted. The World Trade Center was heavily insured, and
the companies that were due to pay those claims commissioned their own
private investigation. The difference between the insurance
investigation and FEMA’s study is quite remarkable. The insurance
companies had unfettered access to the site of the collapse beginning
on the very afternoon of September 11th. They were also granted access
to powerful computer programs used by the Pentagon for classified
research; the FEMA investigators were not. The insurance companies have
produced thousands of pages of analysis and an equally staggering
number of diagrams and photographs. However, the results of these
investigations have remained private. It is interesting to note that a
shareholder in Allianz Group proposed denying payment due to evidence
of insurance fraud. Allianz Group carried a significant portion of the
insurance policy on the World Trade Center. In response to the
shareholders’ claim, the company made the following statement: “When
the company makes insurance payments it does so on the basis of careful
scrutiny – especially with payments in the order of magnitude referred
to here. Two official commissions in the USA have examined the
incidents of 11 September 2001 in detail. Their findings provided no
indication that the allegations submitted by the proposer are correct.”
The
mission of Project Censored is not to draw conclusions in the field of
structural engineering; it is to examine mainstream media coverage of
newsworthy events. In the case of World Trade Center Building 7, there
has been very little coverage of the surrounding issues. The collapse
of Building 7 had the appearance of a perfectly executed controlled
demolition; it fell straight down into its own footprint, at virtually
free-fall speed, yet this issue has hardly been raised in the
mainstream media, and was completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission.
The
lack of news coverage coupled with the destruction of key evidence and
the lack of a credible investigation has given rise to numerous
questions and accusations of government complicity in the attacks of
that day. The list of tenants that occupied the building lends itself
to these theories. Occupants of the building included: The Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Department
of Defense, IRS, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Office of Emergency
Management. Some detractors claim that the building was brought down to
destroy evidence against Enron and Ken Lay that was contained in the
SEC offices. Others claim that the CIA offices housed the evidence of
government involvement in the attacks and thus needed to be destroyed.
Investigations
into the destruction of Building 7 have been performed and conclusions
have been reached. Those who are not inclined to trust the current
administration will inevitably find fault with the investigation, but
the fact that the administration directed the evidence to be destroyed
leaves them open to this criticism. The facts surrounding the
destruction of Building 7 will likely remain a mystery, unless there is
a full and truly independent investigation, using subpoena power.
Endnotes:
World
Trade center Performance Study, May 2002, pg. 5-1
2
World trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, pg. 5-20
4 Wor
World Trade center Performance Study, May 2002, pg. 5-1
ld
Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, pg. 5-28
5
World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, pg. 5-31
7 New
York Times, 12/25/01
9
Glanz, James, and Eric Lipton, “Vast Detail on Towers’ Collapse May Be
Sealed in Court Filings”, New York Times, 30 Sept. 2002 8 Apr. 2005
11World
Trade Center Performance Study, May 2002, pg. 5-2
Concerns
About Flight 77 and the Pentagon
By
Bridget Thornton
At
8:20 a.m. on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 left
Dulles Airport en route to Los Angeles. Between 8:51 and 8:54, four men
hijacked the plane. At 9:38, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
Minutes before impact, the 757, headed for the White House, made a 330
degree turn, while descending 2200 feet, flew over a highway packed
with rush hour cars and crashed into the least populated area of the
Pentagon which was under construction at the time. This, at least, is
the official report as stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.
In
the days and months that followed the Pentagon attack, questions arose
about the veracity of the investigation and the amount of information
available to the public. How could the alleged pilot, with no
commercial plane experience, and complaints from his flight school
about poor performance, maneuver the airplane with such precision? Why
did the White House oppose an independent investigation? Why did
mainstream media fail to provide investigative coverage of the attack?
Could the government be complicit?
The
main question is whether the government knew about or assisted in the
attacks. In fact, a Zogby International Poll in August 2004 revealed
that 66% of New Yorkers want a new probe of unanswered questions by
Congress or New York’s Attorney General.1 Many people believe the
official investigation lacked public scrutiny and suffered from
uncooperative behavior by the White House. The media also failed to
provide the American public with significant investigative journalism.
Here lie some of the questions concerning the attack on the Pentagon.
Where
were our air defenses?
The
9/11 Commission Report states that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed
into an area of the Pentagon that was under construction, and therefore
the least populated area of the complex. This crash occurred at 9:38.2
The report explains that North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) never heard about Flight 77 and Northeast Air Defense Sector
(NEADS) concentrated instead on American Airlines Flight 11, which was
mistakenly still thought to be aloft.3 The report goes on to say that
the Indianapolis air traffic controller reported the missing flight to
Langley Air Force Base at 9:08 and that a C-130 cargo plane followed,
identified, and witnessed the crash.4 This same cargo plane happened
upon the smoking wreckage of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.5 The report
concludes that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, likely flown by
Hani Hanjour and that fighter jets were called to assistance only four
minutes before the impact.
Within
this confused document, inconsistencies exist. An audio recording
reveals that Langley jets did not follow explicit instructions given to
them by their mission crew commander. Based on audio reports, the
mission crew commander discovered at 9:34 that the jets headed east,
not north as instructed by their crew commander. The reason places
blame on lack of information about the position of Flight 77, incorrect
assumptions, and generic flight plans that allowed the pilots to follow
a due east path.6 However, the mission commander immediately orders the
planes to “crank it up” and goes on to say, “I don’t care how many
windows you break.” Could this mean the commander ordered the planes to
fly at top speed? If so, did they follow the command? The report does
not address this.
How
did an inexperienced pilot perform an intricate crash landing?
How
did the pilot maneuver the plane with such skill that experienced
military aviation experts noted skills similar to a ‘crack’ military
pilot?7 How did Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker who flew Flight 77,
make a 330 degree turn, away from the White House and south towards the
Pentagon, while descending 2200 feet, advance to full throttle and
perform a crash landing with exact precision into the Pentagon? CBSNews
reported, “And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better
flying skills than many investigators first believed.”8 There is
serious doubt that Hani Hanjour possessed the ability to maneuver a
commercial plane in such an experienced fashion. According to another
CBSNews report, managers at the flight school placed five complaints
with the FAA expressing serious concern about his ability to fly
safely.9 The Commission Report acknowledges his performance but does
not acknowledge a possible problem with this information. The question
remains unanswered by the United States government and invisible on
mainstream media.
Where
are the media?
The
media could have played an important role in the investigation of the
Pentagon attack. In the months following the attack, few reports
surfaced that questioned the validity of the independent
investigation.10 Investigative reports emerged that addressed the
skills of the alleged pilot and why Langley jets did not respond to the
crisis. Rena Golden, executive vice-president and general manager of
CNN International says, “Anyone who claims the U.S. media didn’t censor
itself is kidding you.”11
Mainstream
media reported the official theory, that four Muslim fundamentalists
controlled the plane that hit the Pentagon. The media portrays most
deviating explanations as conspiracy theories. A recent article in the
March 2005 edition of Popular Mechanics featured an article in which
they “debunked the 9/11 myths.” CNN interviewed Jim Meigs;
editor-in-chief of the magazine, on the Anderson Cooper show and the
exchange that followed proves there are biases and an unwillingness to
investigate the attacks. Mr. Meigs told Anderson Cooper, “Well, you
know, one thing that conspiracy theorists do is they ignore mounts of
evidence that support the ordinary view, then they seize on one or two
little inconsistencies and they say, see, how do you explain this?” Mr.
Meigs states further, “What we did at Popular Mechanics was to actually
take those claims by the conspiracy theorist, and subject them to
ordinary journalistic fact checking. None of them add [sic] up”. 12 Mr.
Meigs and CNN exemplify the type of news Americans receive. Questions
that search beyond the common theory suffer ridicule and therefore,
lack credibility with the public.
Is
our government capable of this?
Michael
Ruppert includes a document in his book Crossing the Rubicon called the
Northwoods Project. This was a report to the Kennedy administration
from his National Security Advisors that outlined a similar attack in
which the government would shoot down commercial aircraft, blame it on
Cuba and use it as a pretext to war.13 Ruppert does not claim that this
document is inspiration to the current administration but that we have
in our possession historical evidence that proves our government
considers covert and complicit attacks.
David
Griffin mentions a document by the Project for the New American Century
released in September 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”
The document states that “…the process of transformation, even if it
brings revolutionary change is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a New Pearl Harbor”.14 Professor
Griffin asserts that 9/11 gave the Bush administration a pretext to war
and the unquestioned authority to change fundamental institutions in
this country. In Crossing the Rubicon, Michael Ruppert offers
compelling historical analysis as to why our government has interests
in a Middle East war.
The
government refuses to examine valid questions and denies information to
the American public under the guise of national security. The attack on
the Pentagon contains too many unanswered questions about the pilot,
the forensics evidence, and the lack of defense for America’s military
headquarters.
There
is an overwhelming amount of information about the Pentagon attack and
the 9/11 Commission did not provide it to the public. For this reason,
the Pentagon attack deserves thoughtful media attention and open
investigation by our government.
ENDNOTES:
1
SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq— do New
Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war
(51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission—did it answer all the "important
questions" ( 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported
collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11— what was its number (28%
of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how
many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses
and demographics should be directed to Zogby International. SPONSOR:
911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim
family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical
questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400
questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the
9/11Commission which they fought to create. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
(Accessed May 8, 2005).
2
9/11 Commission Report, 1st ed. W.W. Norton: New York, 26.
3
9/11 Commission Report, 26.
4
9/11 Commission Report, 26.
5
9/11 Commission Report, 30.
6
9/11 Commission Report, 27
7
Ruppert, Michael C. Crossing the Rubicon. New Society Publishers,
British Columbia, 2004.
9
Griffin, David. The New Pearl Harbor. Olive Branch Press:
Massachusetts, 41.
10
This is based on a Lexis-Nexis search of 9/11 Pentagon coverage in U.S.
news sources from September 2001 to February 2005.
11
Griffin, xiv.
12
CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES 7:00 PM EST, February 21, 2005.
14“Rebuilding
America’s Defenses: A report of The Project for the New American
Century”, September 2000, www.newamericancentury.org.
Rumors
of Israeli Involvement in 9/11
By
Brooke Finley
After
the attacks of September 11, 2001, many stories circulated about
Israeli involvement. There was the story of the five Israelis filming
the burning of the World Trade Center and the “art student” spy ring
that warned of the attacks. While most of this information has been
glossed over by mainstream media, the reports remain extremely
important to understanding the overall picture of what happened on
September 11, 2001. As the writer, I attempt to cover the facts without
any bias and hope to be able to present them as clearly as possible to
the reader. I used Paul Thompson’s book The Terror Timeline, as a guide
for the dates and incidents reported and then used his reference
articles and any others that I could find, as research.
In
January 2000, a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) document was leaked to
the press suggesting that a large Israeli spy ring had congregated in
the United States. [DEA Report, 6/01] In April of that same year, USA
Today reported that certain DEA documents revealed that the Israeli spy
ring, now commonly called the Israeli “art student” spy ring, “has been
linked to several ongoing [Ecstasy] investigations in Florida,
California, Texas and New York.” [Insight, 3/11/02] Members of the “art
student spy ring” would go door-to-door, claiming that they were
selling artwork. Many of their areas of interest were offices and homes
of DEA officials.
Between
December 2000 and April 2001, Germany reported that Israeli
counter-terror investigators were posing as art students and following
terrorist cells within the United States. These “art students”
identified Atta and Marwan Alshehhi as possible terrorists, while
living within several feet of them in the town of Hollywood, Florida.
The “art students” were discovered in April and were immediately
deported, supposedly terminating the investigation of Atta and
Alshehhi. [Der Spiegel, 10/01/02] It was later reported by Fox News
that an additional 80 agents were taken into custody between the months
of June and December 2001. [Fox News, 12/12/01]
In
related foreign press reports, the Mossad learned of four terrorists,
living in the U.S., who appeared to be planning an attack in the near
future, on the U.S., through information gathered by its “art student”
spy ring. [Die Zeit, 10/01/02; Der Spiegel, 10/01/02; BBC, 10/02/02;
Ha’aretz, 10/03/02] By June 2001, close to 120 Israeli “art students”
were apprehended. [le Monde, 3/05/02; Salon, 5/07/02] A leaked DEA
document titled “Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students
at DEA Facilities,” described dozens of reports of the “apparent
attempts by Israeli nationals to learn about government personnel and
office layouts.” [DEA Report, 6/01] “The report connects the spies to
efforts to foil investigations into Israeli organized crime activity
involving the importation of the drug Ecstasy. The spies also appear to
be snooping on top secret military bases.” [www.cooperativeresearch.org]
At
some point, between August 8-15, 2001, two high ranking agents from the
Mossad came to Washington and warned the FBI and the CIA that an
al-Qaeda attack on the United States was imminent. [Fox News, 5/17/02]
On September 20, 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that Mossad
officials stated that indications point to a “large scale target” and
that Americans would be “very vulnerable.” [Telegraph, 9/16/01; Los
Angeles Times, 9/20/01; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times
retracted this story on September 21, 2001, because a CIA spokesman
stated, “there was no such warning” and that the allegations were
“complete and utter nonsense.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01] Israel
denied that there was ever a meeting between agents of the Mossad and
the CIA. [Ha’aretz, 10/03/02] The United States has denied knowing
about Mohamed Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks. [www.cooperativeresearch.org]
Between
December 12-15, 2001, the FBI, the DEA and the INS informed Fox News
that there were no connections between the “art students” and the
incidents of 9/11. They told Fox News that to continue pursuing this
topic would be a form of “career suicide.” On December 16, 2001, Fox
News pulled any information regarding the “art student spy ring” from
its website. Fox never made a formal correction. [www.cooperativeresearch.org]
The
mainstream media continued to deny any information about the Israeli
spy ring, which turned the original stories into “conspiracy theories”
and myths. Jane’s Intelligence Digest blatantly stated on March 13,
2002, “It is rather strange that the US media seems to be ignoring what
may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks—the
alleged breakup of a major Israeli espionage operation in the USA.”
[Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/13/02]
On
March 11, 2002, the Palm Beach Post mentioned the DEA report about the
Israeli “art students.” The newspaper stated that the DEA determined
that all of the students had “recently served in the Israeli military,
the majority in intelligence, electronic signal intercept or explosive
ordnance units.” [Palm Beach Post, 3/11/02]
On
March 15, 2002, Forward published the claim that “the incidents in
question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States
spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links
to Middle East terrorism.” [Forward, 3/15/02]
May
7, 2002, Salon carried a story on the “art student” spy ring,
mentioning that a government source suggested that the majority of the
“art students” were a “smoke screen.” The source suggested that while
most were getting caught up in the DEA’s Escasty case, others could
complete other missions, such as the monitoring of potential
terrorists, without being noticed. [Salon, 5/07/02]
There
are other Israeli incidents revolving around September 11, 2001 that
should be mentioned. On September 4, 2001, an Israeli-owned shipping
company entitled Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co., moved their North
American headquarters from inside the World Trade Center, to Norfolk,
Virginia— one week before the 9/11 attacks. [Virginian-Pilot, 9/04/01]
Zim had announced its move 6 months before the attacks,
[Virginian-Pilot, 4/03/01] yet 10 employees were still in the building
on Sept. 11, taking care of the final moving arrangements. They were
able to escape, unharmed. [Jerusalem Post, 9/13/01; Journal of
Commerce, 10/18/01] A year later, a Zim-American ship was caught
attempting to ship Israeli military equipment into Iran. [AFP, 8/29/02]
About
2 hours before the first plane hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11,
2002, Odigo, one of the world’s largest instant messaging firms,
received warnings of “an imminent attack in New York City.” Odigo’s
headquarters are located two blocks from the World Trade Center but the
warnings were received in their Israel location. The FBI was notified
immediately after the attacks began. [Ha’aretz, 9/26/01; Washington
Post, 9/27/01] The internet address of the instant message was given to
the FBI by Odigo in an attempt to find the name of the sender.
[Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 9/26/01] Two months after the attacks, the
FBI reported that they were still in the process of investigating the
instant message and reports have been nonexistent ever since. [Courier
Mail, 11/20/01]
A
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) memo written on Sept 11 explained
a situation where a passenger on Flight 11 was shot and killed by a gun
prior to the plane crashing into the World Trade Center. The passenger
who was killed was Daniel Lewin. On September 17, the Israeli
newspaper, Ha’aretz, identified Lewin as a former member of the Israeli
special-operations unit, the Israeli Defense Force Sayeret Matkal.
[UPI, 3/06/02] The gun story has been denied by officials, claiming
that Lewin was most likely, stabbed to death. [UPI, 3/06/02; Washington
Post, 3/02/02]
On
June 21, 2002, ABC News reported that five Israelis were arrested on
Sept 11, 2001 after being caught filming the burning of the World Trade
Center from the roof of the “Urban Moving Systems” building, shouting
cries of joy. The police found them driving in the company van. [Bergen
Record, 9/12/01] Investigators said that there were maps of the city
with certain places highlighted, found in the van. The FBI confirmed
that two of the five men were Mossad agents and that all five were on a
Mossad assignment. [Forward, 3/15/02] They were held on immigration
violations, questioned excessively and then released after 71 days in
custody. [ABC News, 6/21/02] The owner of Urban Moving System, fled the
United States to Israel on Sept 14, 2001. The FBI later told ABC News
that the company “may have been providing cover for an Israeli
intelligence operation.” [Forward, 3/15/02; New Jersey Department of
Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01; ABC News, 6/21/01]
While
little has been mentioned in the mainstream press about the “art
student” spy ring, the questions still remain as to their involvement
with the events of 9/11. Were they helping the U.S. government track
information regarding the possibilities of an attack within the United
States, or were there deeper connections of which the public is
unaware? Mainstream media began this story as an investigation, but
immediately stopped when officials claimed that it was a farce.
Additional
Sources:
Paul
Thompson, “The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by
Minute”, Regan Books, September 1, 2004.
For
the online version of Paul Thompson’s 9/11 Timeline: The Center for
Cooperative Research, “Complete 9/11 Timeline: Israeli spy ring,
Israeli foreknowledge”,
Michael
C. Ruppert, “Crossing the Rubicon: The decline of the American empire
at the end of the age of oil”, New Society Publishers, 2004.
Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed & The Institute for Policy Research &
Development, “The War On Freedom: How and Why America Was Attacked
September 11, 2001”, Tree of Life Publications, 2002.
Unanswered
Questions about the Put-options and 9/11
By
Ambrosia Pardue
It
was widely reported immediately after 9/11 that insider trading
occurred in which trading skyrocketed on put-options that bet on a drop
in UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. (parent company to American Airlines) stock
in the days before the attacks. According to Bloomberg data, Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. also
experienced pre-attack trading twelve, to more than twenty-five times
the usual volume of put-options. Morgan Stanley put-options jumped to
2,157 contracts between September 6 and September 10—almost
twenty-seven times a previous daily average of twenty-seven contracts.
Merrill Lynch’s daily activities previous to September 11th were 252.
12,215 contracts were traded from September 5 to September 10th.
Citigroup Inc. had a jump in trading of about 45 percent. One day
before the American Airlines planes were hijacked and crashed, 1,535
contracts were traded on options that let investors profit from the
American Airlines stock falls. 1 All companies were linked to the
hijacked airplanes or to the World Trade Center. Morgan Stanley
occupied twenty-two stories of the WTC and Merrill Lynch had offices
nearby.2 Christian Berthelsen and Scott Winokur of The San Francisco
Chronicle wrote on September 29, 2001 that as of that date investors
had yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits made in these put
stock options of United Airlines, and “the uncollected money raises
suspicions that the investors—whose identities and nationalities have
not been made public—had advanced knowledge of the strikes.”3
A
put option is a contract that gives the holder the right to sell a
specified number of shares in a particular stock, usually at a
predetermined price, called the strike price, on or before the option’s
expiration date—these are the stock index or dollar face value of
bonds. The buyer (holder) pays the seller (writer) a premium and the
buyer profits from the contract if the stock price drops. If the buyer
decides to exercise the option, as opposed to selling it, the seller
must buy the security. The seller profits when the underlying
security’s price remains the same, rises or drops by less than the
premium received.4 A short sale is where an investor borrows stock from
a broker and sells it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price.5 A put
option bets that a stock will fall, and a call option bets that stock
will rise; there were far more put options than call options in the
days proceeding September 11th.6 Cooperative Research states that
“assuming 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance
knowledge of the imminent attacks, these ‘insiders’ would have profited
by almost $5 million.”
Of
interesting note is that the firm that handled the purchase of many of
the put options on United Airlines, the Bank of Alex Brown, was headed
by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard until 1998. Krongard was the deputy director of the
CIA during G.W.Bush's first four years. Tom Flocco reported on July 16,
2002 that European reporters found most of the suspicious pre-September
11th trading “passed through Deutsche bank and Alex Brown investment
division by means of a procedure called portage, which assures the
anonymity of individuals making the transactions.”7
Cooperative
Research reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission published
a list that included some thirty-eight companies whose stocks may have
been traded prior to September 11th by people who had “advanced
knowledge” of the attacks. From the Wilderness reported that the CIA,
the Israeli Mossad, and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock
trading in real time using highly advanced programs. Stock trading
irregularities could be used to alert national intelligence services of
possible terrorist attacks.
CIA
spokesman Tom Crispell denied that the CIA was monitoring U.S. equity
markets trading activity prior to September 11th. Tom Flocco has found
growing evidence that the FBI and other government intelligence
agencies were more closely linked to the pre-September 11th insider
trading.8 The San Diego Union-Tribune January 5, 2005 article stated
that “a former FBI agent admitted that he gave online stock traders
confidential details of federal investigations, including a probe of
the Sept. 11 terror attacks.”9
The
New York Times, on September 28, 2001, reported that the “short
positions and volume of put options rose sharply across the travel
industry— which has been cited repeatedly in news reports as possible
evidence of illegal trading.” The London Telegraph quoted Ernst Weltek,
president of Bundesbank, on September 23, 2001 as saying that “there
are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international
financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary
expert knowledge.”10 Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News said that
“this could very well be insider trading at the worst, more horrific,
most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life. This would be one
of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it
was a coincidence.”11 CBSNews.com quoted McLucas, former Securities and
Exchange Commission Enforcement Director, as saying that “the options
trading in particular suggests to me that somebody, somewhere, may have
had an inkling that something bad was going to happen to certainly
those airlines stocks.”12
The
9/11 Commission report scantly covers the stock options issue. On page
499, footnote #130, the 9/11 Commission reports that, "some unusual
trading did in fact occur, but such trade proved to have an innocuous
explanation….A single U.S. based institutional investor with no
conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September
6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000
shares of American on September 10." This explanation only addresses
the UAL and American put-options, ignores trades in other companies,
and fails to identify the purchaser, thereby leaving even more
unanswered questions.
This
issue cannot be discounted, overlooked, or debunked as a conspiracy
theory. The questions remain: who put in the calls for these options,
and are the calls tied to Krongard, the CIA, the alleged terrorists, or
others?
End
Notes:
8
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0207/S00119.htm
9
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0207/S00119.htm
The
9/11 War Games
By
Rebekah Cohen
Among
the many mysteries surrounding 9/11 is the emerging information that
several government/military war games were taking place on the morning
of 9/11/2001. The military war games on that day could have been a
particularly interesting coincidence, or served the much greater
purpose of confusing, distracting, and potentially even facilitating
the September 11th terrorist attacks.
In
May of 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney was nominated to oversee
Domestic Counter terrorism Efforts. According to Michael Ruppert’s
book, Crossing the Rubicon this position put domestic military control
in the hands of Cheney, giving him the power to issue a scramble or a
direct stand-down order in the unlikely case of a terrorist attack.
Without Cheney’s consent the military would not act. (Ruppert 2004).
Interestingly
enough, several “live-fly” (as opposed to simulated) war games were
taking place the week of 9/11. “I have an on-the-record statement from
someone in NORAD that on the day of 9/11, the Joint Chief of Staff
(Richard B. Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly,
hijacked Field Training Exercised (FTX) which involved at least one
(and almost certainly more) aircraft under US control that was posing
as a hijacked airliner,” said Mike Ruppert (Kane 6/8/2004).
The
confirmed war game taking place on 9/11 was ‘Vigilant Guardian.’ An
annual drill in its second day, Vigilant Guardian was allegedly an
exercise focusing on old Cold War threats and was conducted by NORAD.
This “live-fly” war game was actually being used to test national air
response systems – involving hijacking scenarios (Kane 6/8/2004).
Another
drill taking place on 9/11 was titled ‘Northern Vigilance.’ This
exercise was also conducted by NORAD once a year and involved deploying
fighter jets to locations in Alaska and Northern Canada (Ruppert 2004).
This drill succeeded in pulling military personnel and equipment north,
away from the East Coast and away from the pending terrorist attacks.
There is also evidence suggesting a war game, titled ‘Vigilant
Warrior,’ was also being played on 9/11. This is a drill from the 1996
Persian Gulf. The name ‘Vigilant’ in both ‘Vigilant Guardian’ and
‘Vigilant Warrior’ suggests a possible connection between the two
drills. The common first name suggests the possibility of the two games
playing opposing forces (Ruppert 2004).
Another
potential drill going on was hosted by the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO). They have claimed to have been “running a drill for the
scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into its NRO headquarters
(coincidentally, located only four blocks from Dulles airport in
Washington D.C.)” (Kane 6/8/2004).
As
early as 8:30 A.M., on the morning of September 11th, air force Major
General Larry Arnold, involved with the Vigilant Guardian war game,
questioned the validity of the calls in regards to possible terrorist
activity. Upon hearing of the hijackings, he wondered if it was all
apart of the exercise or the real thing. It was apparently around this
time that the FAA, NORAD, and other agencies (FBI and CIA) were on an
open line discussing the possibility of a hijacked plane. When the
whereabouts of the taped conversation between these various agencies
was questioned, it was revealed that FAA manager Kevin Delaney,
destroyed the air traffic control tapes just months after 9/11. No
reason was stated and the issue has gone un-pressed (Haupt, 5/30/2004).
Also
taking place around 8:30 A.M., Colonel Deskins, Head of Northeast Air
Defense Sector (NEADS) and mission crew chief for ongoing exercise
Vigilant Guardian, was quoted as saying “uh, we have a hijacked
aircraft and I need you to get some sort of fighters out here to help
us out.” Although, contrary to Colonel Deskins, Major General Eric
Findley, who was in charge of NORAD on 9/11 in Colorado, claimed that
no calls for help took place until 10:01 A.M. Another conflicting
statement made by General Rick Findley claims that he commanded
fighters into the air as early as 8:46 A.M (Haupt, 5/30/2004).
The
controversial 2003 9/11 hearing revealed that their logs indicated 8:40
to be the first time the FAA reported a possible hijacking. Although,
the “tower logs” were not physically present at the hearing and the
fact was based on recollection only. Other reports claimed that NEADS
was most likely aware of a potential hijacking as early as 8:20 A.M
(Haupt, 5/30/2004).
There
was never a direct mention of war games on 9/11 in the 9/11 Commission
hearings. So the names of the possible war games and the people in
charge of them on September 11th were not overtly specified or further
subjected to mainstream criticism. However, when General Eberhart was
questioned about the authority heads behind the war games, he replied
with, “No comment.” His unwillingness to divulge names of the people in
charge is highly suspicious and warrants further explanation (Kane
1/18/2005).
Representative
Cynthia McKinney (D-Altanta) attempted to bring some attention to the
9/11 war games during the House Hearing on FY06 Department of Defense
Budget, on March 11th, 2005. She questioned Secretary of Defense,
Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Richard Myers
about the four war games that took place on September 11th. Myers
responded to the question with very ambiguous explanations. He claimed
that war gaming was being held by several different departments and it
was not NORADs overall responsibility to respond to the attacks, but
the FAA’s. Nonetheless, he felt the gaming actually provided “an easy
transition from an exercise into a real world situation” and
contributed to a quick response. Myers failed to comment on McKinney’s
question of who was actually in charge of managing the war games on
9/11 (Kane 3/1/2005).
SOURCES:
Michael
Kane, “Mr. Chairman, I have a Question: Representative Cynthia McKinney
Michael
Ruppert, “Crossing the Rubicon: The decline of the American empire at
the end of the age of oil”, New Society Publishers, 2004.
Atta
and the $100,000
By
Rebekah Cohen and Ambrosia Pardue
General
Mahmoud Ahmad, Chief of Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),
secret service, is said to have had connections to the alleged
terrorist “ring leader” and hijacker Mohamed Atta, as reported by the
Times of India (October 9, 2001).1 Times of India also reported that
the $100 thousand wired to Atta six months prior to 9/11 from Pakistan
by Ahmad Uhmar Sheikh was at the instance of General Ahmad.2
Michel
Chossudovsky reported that General Mahmoud Ahmad was in the United
States from September 4th until several days after 9/11. He had
meetings at the State Department and with CIA and Pentagon officials
during the week prior to September 11th. The nature of his visit has
not been disclosed. There has been no evidence confirming his
pre-September 11th consultations were routine, or if they were in any
way related to his subsequent post-September 11th consultations
pertaining to Pakistan’s decision to cooperate with the White House.3
According
to the Indian government intelligence report, the perpetrators of the
September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan’s ISI, which in turn has
links to US government agencies. This suggests that key individuals
within the US military intelligence establishment may well have known
about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist “ring-leader”
Mohamed Atta and failed to act.4 The Times of India further reported
the possibility of other ISI official’s contacts with terrorists,
suggesting that the attacks were not an act of “individual terrorism,”
but rather were part of a coordinated military intelligence operation
stemming from the ISI.
Nicholas
Levis of 911Truth.org raises the question about the reports that the
ISI wired $100k to Mohamed Atta. Saying that the “ISI has often been
credited as the creator of the Taliban, and its operatives have been
linked to the bin Ladin networks. ISI is also linked to CIA as a
historically close ally”.5
The
9/11 Commission report claims that "between $400,000 and $500,000 to
plan and conduct the attack….was funded by alQaeda…" (pg.172). There is
no mention of the Times of India report.
Early
October 2001, General Ahmad was dismissed from his position of Chief of
ISI at the request of the FBI.6
Though
one would think that this topic would cause a stir among journalists,
it has barely been touched and has remained stagnate. The links are
there, but unexamined. One can only speculate as to the connections
between General Mahmoud Ahmad, Mohamed Atta, the $100k, and the United
States government.
Endnotes
Some
9/11 Terrorists Still Alive? And Other Troubling Inaccuracies
By
Chris Kyle
In
the 9/11 Commission Report, the original list of hijackers is repeated,
and their pictures are presented. However, at least six of the named
hijackers are confirmed to be alive. Waleed al-Shehri is reported to
have been on American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the North Tower.
Yet he was interviewed by a London based Arab-language daily, Al-Quds
al Arabi, after September 11, 2001.
Among
the named hijackers are Salem al-Hazmi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Nami,
and Waleed al-Shehri. Al-Hazmi lives in Saudi Arabia and works for a
petroleum/chemical plant in Yanbu. At the time of the events of 9/11,
he had not left Saudi Arabia for two years. Al-Ghamdi is alive in
Tunisia and had not left the country for ten months prior. He is
learning to fly an air bus. Al-Nami, meanwhile, is an administrative
supervisor for Saudi Arabian Airlines and lives in Riyadh. Both
al-Ghamdi and al-Nami told David Harrison of the Telegraph (London
9/23/01) that they were quite shocked to hear that they had died in
Pennsylvania, a place they had not heard of. Al-Shehri lives in
Casablanca, Morocco, and was there during the attack. He is a pilot for
Royal Air Marco.Then there is the case of Mohamed Atta, the supposed
ringleader of the attack. The Commission describes him as a devout
Muslim. However, various accounts prove this not to be the case. Atta
gambled, drank alcohol, and paid for lap dances. According to reporter
Daniel Hopsicker, Atta at one time lived with a prostitute in Florida.
While there, he drank heavily, used cocaine, and ate pork chops. None
of these acts are those of a devout Muslim. (Griffin, 2005)
There
is also the matter of Atta's bags. Two bags supposedly belonging to
Mohamed Atta failed to get on Flight 11. In these bags were a copy of
the Koran, Boeing flight sim manuals, a religious cassette, a note to
other hijackers regarding mental preparation, his personal will,
passport, and international driver's license. The rest aside, who tries
to bring their Will aboard a plane they know, is going to explode? This
is a question the Commission could have looked into, but instead
ignored. (Griffin, 2005)
Of
course, this is not the only matter which the Commission ignored. There
is also the matter of the flight manifests for the hijacked planes. The
manifests that have been released have no Arab names listed. Efforts
have been made by independent researchers to get the final flight
manifests from these planes, but all such requests have been refused.
(Griffin, 2005)
Work
Cited:
David
Ray Griffin, “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions”,
Olive Branch Press, 2005
The
Democratic Party, Like The Republican Party and The Media, Covered Up
The Deep Complicity In The 9/11/01 Attack By Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Myers
By
John B. Massen, Guest Writer — Summary Analysis
On
March 11, 2003, Congressman John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House
Judiciary Committee, called an emergency meeting of 40+ top advisors,
mostly lawyers, to discuss immediately initiating impeachment against
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the impending war
against Iraq, which began eight days later. Also invited were Francis
A. Boyle, professor of law at University of Illinois School of Law, and
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, both of whom had drafted
Bills of Impeachment, to argue the case for impeachment. The meeting
ended with a second revised draft Bill of Impeachment, because eminent
lawyers believed that Bush et al deserved impeachment for multiple
violations of international treaties and laws. However, influential
Democrats opposed impeachment on the ground that the effort would hurt
their party's interest in gaining control of the federal government in
the 2004 election.
On
9-13-01, the Senate Armed Services Committee, with a Democratic
Chairman and majority membership, heard General Richard Myers testify
that fighter aircraft responded to an apparently hijacked plane inbound
to the U.S. and forced it to land in a remote base in Canada. Standard
operating procedures were clearly in effect outside, but not inside,
the U.S. on 9-11-01. If there had been no advance warning of the
attack, fighter planes responding under standard operating procedures
would have prevented all attacks inside the U.S. The Bush regime must
have decided to permit the attack to succeed.
A
comprehensive report was written, by myself, which cited Myers'
testimony, the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, Bush's behavior at
the Florida school, and evidence of planning, long before 9/11/01,
aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report was sent, by myself, to
Conyers on 11/17/03, to Rep. Barbara Lee on 1/3/04, and to all 257
Democrats in the House and Senate plus DNC Chairman McAuliffe on
1/26/04. The transmittal letters all strongly appealed for impeachment
of the Bush regime for complicity in permitting the 9/11 attack to
occur, and stressed that Democrats might receive, and should request,
effective political support by a comprehensive political-educational
campaign by MoveOn.Org and United For Peace and Justice that would
assure a majority vote in the House and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The
Report was sent to MoveOn.Org and UFPJ, for use as they wished to
inform and motivate their members.
David
Ray Griffin's vital book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11, was released in April 2004. It
presented comprehensive evidence indicating deep complicity by the Bush
regime in the 9/11 attack. The simplest "snapshot" of that evidence is
this: (a) the North Tower (WTC-1) was struck at 8:46 AM, and collapsed
102 minutes later at 10:28 AM; (b) the South Tower (WTC-2) was struck
at 9:03 AM and, with a much smaller fire, collapsed 56 minutes later
(55% of WTC-1 time) at 9:59 AM; and (c) the 47-story WTC-7, which was
two blocks away and not struck by a plane and had smaller interior
fires, collapsed at 5:20 PM. (p.12) The collapse of WTC-2 before WTC-1
indicates the cause was not fires, but controlled demolition. (p.17)
Copies
of Griffin's book were sent by myself to these Democrats: Dennis
Kucinich on 3/27/04 with an impassioned plea; DNC Chair McAuliffe,
Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi, and Senators Daschle, Feinstein and Boxer
on 3/31/04; Congress members John Conyers, Elijah Cummings (Black
Caucus Chair), Ciro Rodriquez (Hispanic Caucus Chair), Barbara Lee,
Louise Slaughter (Co-chair of Women's Issues Caucus), and Tom Udall,
between 4/05 and 4/28/04. All transmittal letters urged impeachment
action, contending that such action and injecting the "complicity
issue" into the 2004 presidential campaign was the only way to assure
Bush's defeat; and repeated that Congressional Democrats might receive,
and should request, effective political support from a comprehensive
political-educational campaign waged by MoveOn.Org and UFPJ.
Of
course, many Congressional Democrats received, from other persons, much
information about the Bush regime complicity in addition to that
reported above.
All
Congressional Democrats and especially its leaders, and DNC Chair
MCAuliffe, were adequately informed of the Bush regime complicity and
had staff and other resources to investigate further. Congressional
Democrats had sworn to protect and uphold the constitution. They
utterly failed in their obligations to the constitution and to their
constituents to be an effective opposition party. The title of this
essay is fully justified: the Democratic Party, like the Republican
Party and the Media, covered up the deep complicity in the 9/11/01
attack by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Myers.
Why
does the principal opposition party join the ruling party in covering
up what are probably the worst presidential crimes in U.S. history? In
response to my request for his evaluation of my report (cited above),
Michael C. Ruppert, on 1/1/2004, provided an astute evaluation of how
Congress operates:
"The
flaw in your work is not in the legal foundation or in the way the
evidence is presented, [but] in your basic assumption that the system
functions and operates as you think it should or the way it is
described in textbooks. History is replete with instances of
impeachable or prosecutable conduct which are much better documented,
more easily proven, and more glaring than what you have described."
"In
Watergate, there was an abundance of evidence that Richard Nixon had
committed offenses far greater than the one which brought him to the
brink of impeachment—obstruction of justice. The issue was not what
offense would be used to remove him, but (as far as Congress was
concerned) finding an offense which could remove a sitting president
without destroying the entire American system of government. The same
question governs Congressional response to 9/11," Ruppert wrote.
Ruppert
went on to write, "The entire system is corrupt. Those who participate
in it rationalize— in order to protect their seat at a crap table— that
when one player gets out of line the primary objective is to protect
the crap game. (I thank Peter Dale Scott for this analogy). I can
guarantee you that many members of Congress are aware of every detail
you have documented, and much, much more. . . To impeach Bush et al on
the grounds you have delineated would open a can of worms that would
call into question the legitimacy of the entire government. That will
never be permitted.
“In
the late 1990s I secured hard documents (much better evidence than you
have presented from a legal standpoint) showing an active conspiracy to
protect drug traffickers by the CIA that was sanctioned by the White
House. An impeachment trial would have been open and shut. It never
came about for the reasons I have stated above.
“In
the case of the Clinton impeachment, while there were perhaps ten (or
more) offenses upon which that president could have been removed and
jailed, none of them were ever pursued. Why? Because they involved the
simultaneous exposure of Republican corruption and/or demonstrated that
the entire government was complicit in one degree or another. So what
did they go after Clinton on? Extramarital sex and lying about it. It
was the only charge available that did not bring down the whole system.
“I
believe that (as it was with Watergate) Bush will likely be impeached
after winning the 2004 election. On what charge? The forged Niger
documents about alleged attempts by Saddam Hussein to reconstitute a
nuclear weapons program and the malicious exposure of Valerie Plame
(wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson who was critical in exposing that
lie) as a CIA case officer. That offense does not expose the whole crap
game.
“There
is no legal argument you can make that will make a broken system
function the way that you want it to function."
Another
valuable insight about the Democratic Party was provided on 2/20/05 by
Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space. Gagnon writes:
"Hillary
Clinton, who hopes to become president, is on the Sunday morning talk
shows saying that our troops might be in Iraq for some time to come.
‘We've been in Korea for 50 years,' she said. ‘We are still in
Okinawa,' she told the TV cameras.
“That
is it. Pack up your bags, peace movement, and just go home. Hillary has
made the pronouncement. She is in sync with George W. Bush, the neo-con
crowd, Haliburton, Bechtel....she wants to be president and she knows
that the road to the White House has to pass through the gates of the
military industrial complex....and the oil corporations....and the
globalization crowd that intends to create a ‘market economy' in Iraq
(read privatization of everything there.) Hillary has totally sold out.
"The
war in Iraq, and the very long presence of U.S. troops there, will
bleed America to the bone. The Democratic party, with few very noble
exceptions, is on their knees in loyal complicity with the war machine.
How can any self-respecting peace activist contemplate for a moment
supporting such a party in the next election?”
Obviously,
our nation is in very deep trouble. All citizens must unite and take
back our nation from the corporate oligarchs!
John
B. Massen finally retired at 90 in San Francisco this year. Massen's
peace activism was principally in the United Nations Association of the
USA, climaxed by his creation in 1980 and wide distribution of his
highly acclaimed 16-poster exhibit on the Effects and Dangers of
Nuclear War, co-sponsored by seven national organizations. E-mail: JackMassen@aol.com
7
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0207/S00119.htm
8
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0207/S00119.htm
Recommended
9/11 Resources:
Global
Research- Michel Chossudovsky's site:
Center
for Cooperative Research- Paul Thompson's Timeline
www.cooperativeresearch.org
9-11
Review- Jim Hoffman's Site
RICO-
Rodriguez Versus Bush
International
Citizen's Inquiry into 9-11
From
the Wilderness- Michael Ruppert's Site
Questioning
the War on Terrorism- Carol Brouillet's Site
9-11
Truth Alliance
Crimes
Against Humanity- Dave Ratcliffe's Site
Online
Journal-
Justice
for 9-11- Spitzer Complaint
The
Great Conspiracy- Barrie Zwicker's site
Global
Outlook
Guerrilla
News Network
Citizen's
for Legitimate Government-
Oil
Empire
New
York 9-11 Truth
The
Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance-
What
Really Happened?
9-11
Visibility Project
An
activist oriented site...
MUJCA-NET:
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
A new
Interfaith group, based in Milwaukee
9-11
Citizen's Watch
Propaganda
Matrix
Peter
Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and
Director of Project Censored. For a listing of current censored news
stories see http://www.projectcensored.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Censored - Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA
94928
(707) 664-2500
www.projectcensored.org Se