# The Order to "Stand Down"



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

Check out the following article

Found: The 911 "Stand Down Order"?

Jerry Russell | March 31 2004

Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 
June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be 
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward 
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 
1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to 
save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving 
"potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, 
vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the 
Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in 
any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.

While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate 
responsibility from 911, nevertheless there is the possibility that this 
discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo.

If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it 
would be interesting if Fry could testify as to the reasoning behind making 
it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a 
timely fashion.

The relevant documents are on the Web at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf
Best regards,

Jerry Russell


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

Yes...every aircraft that looses radio contact now must be immediately shot down...either by the squadrons of fully loaded interceptor aircraft sitting on tarmaks for instant response, or by the secret anti-aircraft batteries scattered throughout the USA. You really think those are "watertowers"??


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes...every aircraft that looses radio contact now must be immediately shot down...either by the squadrons of fully loaded interceptor aircraft sitting on tarmaks for instant response, or by the secret anti-aircraft batteries scattered throughout the USA. You really think those are "watertowers"??



Yep, especially after the first planes hit and we KNEW the planes were hijacked.  "Stand down guys, no big deal..."  Don't blow this off man.  For Christ Sakes people were making telephone calls telling the AUTHORITIES that the planes were hijacked...this order was still issued.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

At the time, how many combat capable aircraft with pilots were fueled up and within range to have made a difference? When I was in the military, just getting live ammunition took longer than you would think. Pre 9/11 MP's at Army Post gates were about as much firepower as you could scrape up at a moments notice.

Up to 9/11...even with the Al Queda warnings about aircraft weapons...hijackings resulted in landings and demands...who wanted to shoot down the first plane and find out that they planned on landing? After the first planes struck they saw that they were wrong, but the system wasnt prepared.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

I've heard from several sources that there is or has been an order for local law enforcement to secure an area, but not to engage.  They are to wait for the 'pros' as it were.  When this was issued, or if its still in effect I don't know.

Regarding the ability of a local police force to handle things... I don't know about the rest of the US, but WNY cops aren't (to my knowledge) well equiped to tackle such things.  Maybe the swat teams, but thats not a lot of manpower against a commited hostile.

As to air prep.... I don't have the specifics, but is say 30 min enough time to load, scramble and engage during a peace-time footing?  Rumors of course exist that the PA crash was shot down...that however hasn't been proven.

After the attacks, CAP was in place over NYC, Washington and other cities... (I heard them over Buffalo, the NF airbase being right next door.)  But, before then....was there even a CAP of -1- plane over Washington?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

No...theres no such orders, theres no "pros" close enough to make a difference unless they are contained in a classic building/vehicle hostage scenario. If the @#$% hits the fan, we deal with terrorists like we would Hollywood Bank robbers. Theres no time. "Rapid deployment" tactics to respond to school shootings developed because Columbine showed that in some situations you cant wait for SWAT to arrive. Some agencies are better prepared (weapons/training) than others. Our dept. added M-4 carbines to "reach out and touch someone" to patrol and have incorporated SWAT-type training to patrol as well. We do the best we can with what we have.

As to the "scramble time"....you point out the exact point I was making.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

The scramble time for NYC and Washington is less then ten minutes according to the CAP.  They had plenty of time.  The fighters were in the jets...and told to stand down.  Why would that have happened?  I hope this comes up at the 911 commission.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The scramble time for NYC and Washington is less then ten minutes according to the CAP. They had plenty of time. The fighters were in the jets...and told to stand down. Why would that have happened? I hope this comes up at the 911 commission.


Some arguement for and against this at ...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/sept11/whatwasthegovernmentdoingon911.html

but many military types disagree with that.
*6        Official reasons why the Air Force jets were not promptly dispatched to intercept the troubled airliners. *

a         In General

i     The U.S. doesnt have fighter jets on standby, ready to take off.

(A)   Warren B. Rudman, former New Hampshire Senator, veteran of the Korean war, and a national security expert

(1)     "This country is not on a wartime footing.  We don't have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the '70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and makes no sense at all."  [Boston Globe 9/15/01]

(B)    Air Force Col. Robert Marr Jr., Commander of the North East Defence Sector.

(1)     According to Marr, the threat of such an attack had _never_ been considered.  Consequently, there were only four armed combat-ready fighter jets available in the Northeast Air Defense Sector, covering the area from Minnesota to Maine to Virginia and only 10 other armed jets available to protect the rest of the U.S.  [BBC 8/29/01]



ii     Presidential approval was needed to shoot down the aircraft.

(A)   Statements that the presidents approval was needed to shoot down the planes.

(1)     Dick Cheney.

(a)     He stated the following, referring to the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania: The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? ...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.  He didnt feel it was necessary to put the jets to flight earlier because It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate. [NBC, 9/16/01]

(B)    Statements that the presidents approval came too late.

(1)     Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, then commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(a)       During the May 23 hearings before the 9/11 Independent Commission, he said that the presidents approval to shoot down commercial aircraft had come too late, noting that the order wasnt made until 10am [the record shows the decision was made shortly after 9:56]. He also claimed that he hadnt been notified about the decision until after Flight 193 had already crashed in Pennsylvania [which occurred at 10:06]. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03; Knight Ridder, 5/23/03; Dallas Morning News, 5/24/03] 

(C)    Statements suggesting that the fighter jets could have reached Washington in time to intercept Flight 77 - had the shootdown order been given earlier.

(1)     Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold then commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(a)     During the May 23 hearings before the 9/11 Independent Commission, Gen. Larry Arnold admitted it was certainly physically possible that fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base could have made it to Washington to intercept Flight 77 had the shootdown order been made earlier. [Dallas Morning News, 5/24/03]

(D)    Criticism.

(1)     Presidential approval is not needed for a jet to monitor, track, and intercept a commercial airliner.



iii     We werent prepared for it.

(A)   NORAD was operated as a Cold War Vestige

(1)     Statements.

(a)     Major General Craig McKinley, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

(i)       Major General Craig McKinley told the 9/11 Independent Commission on May 23, 2003 that NORADs system operated like a Cold War vestige, insisting, It was developed during the Cold War, to defend against long-range Soviet bombers. He claimed that although U.S. intelligence had been aware that terrorists were considering using hijacked planes as missiles, this information was never shared with NORAD. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03] 

(ii)     McKinley told the commission that NORADs ground communications with its pilots were not designed to coordinate a defense operation against an attack from within the country. As a result, NORAD was unable to communicate directly with its pilots and had to go through the FAA, McKinley said. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03]

(iii)    McKinley also told the commission that NORADs radar system had been designed only to defend the U.S from overseas attacks. Consequently, on 9/11 NORAD had to use radar information provided by the FAA.  [New York Newsday, 5/23/03]

(B)    NORAD was unaware of intelligence suggesting that terrorists were considering using hijacked planes as missiles to attack targets in the U.S.

(1)     Statements.

(a)     Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, in response to Richard Ben-Venistes question: Given the awareness of the terrorist use of planes as weapons, how was it that NORAD was ... not better prepared to protect against the hijacking of commercial jets?

(i)       McKinley responded, In retrospect, I would agree with your comment. He later added, however, that his agency had no intelligence information of a terrorist threat using commercial airlines. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03] When members reminded him that there had been _several_ indications that terrorists were considering to use airplanes in this manner, NORAD and transportation officials continued to insist that they were never apprised by the nation's intelligence community of the potential for a U.S. jetliner to be used in such a way. [New Jersey Star Ledger, 5/24/03] 

(2)     Evidence suggesting otherwise.

(a)     Statement made by General Ed Eberhart of the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) 

(i)       General Ed Eberhart of the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense

01.     _Slate_ MSN reported on February 16, 2002, that General Ed Eberhart of the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) admitted that NORAD had been aware of the possibility that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles by suicidal terrorists. _Slate_ reported: NORAD had practiced responding to a hijacked plane trying to slam into a target in the United States, the exercises assumed that the flight had originated overseas, giving intercepting jet fighters more time. More important, he also said that even if his aircraft had practiced the domestic scenario, it wouldn't have mattered. Why? I really think that, for sure in the first two instances, and probably in the third, the time and distance would not have allowed us to get an airplane to the right place at the right time. [Slate 2/16/02] 

(ii)     Statement made by NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Maj. Mike Snyder.

01.     On June 4, 2002, Snyder said plans to conduct a training exercise for a commercial airliner-hijacking scenario had been made before the Sept. 11 attacks. The exercise did not happen, however, until June of 2002. [American Forces Press Service, 6/4/03]

(iii)    In late October 2000, the Pentagon conducted a training exercise involving a plane crash at the Pentagon.

01.     In late 0ctober 2000, the Pentagon, concerned about the ability of its emergency response teams to respond to a major accident at the Pentagon, conducted an exercise involving a mock plane crash at the Pentagon. [Military District of Washington News Service, 11/3/2000] 



iv     I dont know.

(A)   Air Force General Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs on 9/11.

_Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing On Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C. , SEPTEMBER 13, 2001_ 

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit? 

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record... That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck. ... I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time. And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening. 

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit? 

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record. 

SENATOR LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft? 

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, we were . . . 

SENATOR LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there has been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist. 

GENERAL MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force. 

SENATOR CLELAND: General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit. 

GERERAL MYERS: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... General Myers, The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. That's approximately. You would know specifically what the timeline was. 

The crash that occurred in Pennsylvania after the Newark westbound flight was turned around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington was approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second explosion. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why? 

GENERAL MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact timelines. 

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question. 

I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer. 

GENERAL MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft... 

In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out. 

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. 

So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. And it is an hour and seven minutes until the crash occurred in Pennsylvania. 

SENATOR LEVIN: The time that we don't have is when the Pentagon was notified, if they were, by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency, relative to any potential threat or any planes having changed direction or anything like that. And that's the same which you will give us because that's . . . 

GENERAL MYERS: I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately. 

So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time. 

SENATOR LEVIN: Or the time that I asked you for, which was whether the FAA or FBI notified you that other planes had turned direction from their path, their scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards Washington, whether there was any notice from any of them, because that's such an obvious shortfall if there wasn't. 

GENERAL MYERS: Right. 

SENATOR LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that information. 

GENERAL MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at that time, so that part of it is a little hazy. After that, we started getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other flights that we were worried about. 

And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . . . 

SENATOR LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don' t know them. 

GENERAL MYERS: But we'll get them.




b           Regarding specific flights

i     Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

(A)   "There were no jets available."

(1)     Comments to this effect.

(a)     "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."  [USA Today 9/16/01]

(2)     Evidence to the contrary.

(a)     "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." [USA Today 9/16/01]

(b)     The _San Diego Union Tribune_ observed on September 12, "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes. . . . But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon."  [San Diego Tribune 9/16/01]

(B)     We had no idea there was a plane heading our way

(1)     Summary.

(a)     According to NORADs official timeline, the agency was not formally notified of the Flight 77 hijacking until 9:24, 14 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. 

(2)     Statements indicating NORADs alleged ignorance regarding Flight 77.

(a)     Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Vic Warzinski, a Pentagon spokesperson, told _Newsday_, "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesdays event anyone would have expected anything like that here."  [Newsday 9/23/01]

(3)     Statements that suggest NORAD was aware that Flight 77 was heading towards Washington.

(a)     Former FAA administrator Jane Garvey told the 9/11 Independent Commission on May 23, 2003 that FAA officials made several informal notices to NORAD during the morning of Sept. 11 prior to the formal notice at 9:24. [New York Newsday, 5/23/03] In fact, the Washington Post reported that according to Garvey, FAA officials were in a conference call with NORAD after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center [Washington Post, 5/24/03]

(b)     During the May 23, 2003 Sept. 11 hearings, an unnamed military person said that a regional NORAD office had spoken with the FAA well before 9:24. [Washington Post, 5/24/03]



ii     Flight 11 and Flight 175 in New York

(A)   "We didnt have enough warning."

(1)     Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, spokesman for the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD)

(a)     "We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice.  . .  . This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly."  [Boston Globe 9/15/01]



(B)    NORAD claimed it had lost Flight 11 on radar.

(1)     Official account.

(a)     Aviation week and Space Technology.

(i)                   On June 3, 2002, the magazine reported, "Back at the NEADS Operations Center, identification technicians were sorting thousands of green dots on their radar scopes, looking for American Flight 11. Since terrorists had turned off the Boeing 767's transponder, FAA controllers could only tell NEADS technicians where the flight had last been seen. The NEADS radar screens showed primary or skin-paint returns, the raw radar pulses reflected from an aircraft's surface.    We were trying to determine which [radar return] was him. But we couldn't get what we needed just from our scopes, said MSgt. Maureen Dooley, a noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) of NEADS' identification technicians. She and other troops were constantly on the phone with the FAA, airlines and others, looking for clues. If we could get good last-known-positions and tail numbers, that would help the fighters pick out the right aircraft."   [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02]

(2)     Contradictory reports.

(a)     _Christian Science Monitor_

(i)                   On September 13, the _Christian Science Monitor_ interviewed some of the air traffic controllers who had been tracking Flight 11.  The article explained, "Flight 11's transponder had stopped working. It was no longer sending a radar pulse. The plane's altitude also became a matter of guesswork for controllers, _though the Boeing 767 was still visible on radar_. Still, the controllers hoped that the plane simply had an electrical problem."  The plane remained visible, according to the controllers account, until it collided with the World Trade Center: "Two F-15 jets were reportedly dispatched from Otis Air Force Base [at about 8:46AM]. Just before or after the military planes got off the ground, however, the controllers report they lost site of Flight 11's radar signal over Manhattan. The controller who had handled the plane from the beginning of the ordeal was stunned." 

(b)     _The Washington Post._

(i)                   On September 17, the _Post_ reported, "Controllers scrambled to direct other planes out of the way of both United 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 -- which also originated in Boston -- as they headed toward the twin towers."  [Washington Post, 9/17/01]

(c)     _The Wall Street Journal._

(i)                   On October 15, the _Wall Street Journal _reported, "The FAA had tagged the radar blip that Flight 11 had become, and it was now isolated on an Aircraft Situation Display, a big radar-tracking screen. All eyes watched as the plane headed south. On the screen, the plane showed a squiggly line after its turn near Albany, then it straightened." [Wall Street Journal, 10/15/01]


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

So, how are we suppose to sort the disinformation from the real?  It seems as if two versions of history are being presented.  Which one goes down the memory hole, Winston?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

Im sorry..all those sources I posted must have spent a lot of time getting their stories straight, another government cover-up....I'm just saying that at the time we were unprepared.

 "We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice. . . . This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly." 

Im personally testing the radio equipment of every plane I fly on from now on though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sorry..all those sources I posted must have spent a lot of time getting their stories straight, another government cover-up....I'm just saying that at the time we were unprepared.
> 
> "We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice. . . . This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly."
> 
> Im personally testing the radio equipment of every plane I fly on from now on though.



Perhaps...

Or it is problem - action - solution...thesis + antithesis = synthesis

Again, I hope this ends up in front of the commision.

By the way, did anyone catch the press conference?  I loved the presidents reaction to the question "So, why did you decide to appear in front of the commission with VP Cheney?"


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Some arguement for and against this at ...
> 
> http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/sept11/whatwasthegovernmentdoingon911.html
> 
> but many military types disagree with that.


Some great quotes here. But as I looked at the links on this page (again), it seems there are many comments about how the military is supposed to respond, and has responded in the past when an aircraft deviates from it's flight path.

There is alot of information I was not aware of, that reading this site has given me knowledge of, and I can only assume that with all of the references on the site, somewhere in the middle is what should have happened.

Two things I have seen strike me as strange, and possible connected to the "Order":

1 - The Military was in the middle of a big exercise, which means the planes, if not in the air, should have been ready to go.
2 - The travel time from Otis Airforce Base to New York City for a fighter plane, should have closed that distance quicker than it reportedly did.

I think there are still some hidden truths.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2004)

*And I just saw this on the MSNBC web site.*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4740329/



> *Pentagon crash rejected before attacks*
> *Scenario called unrealistic, not in keeping with exercises*
> WASHINGTON - The U.S. military rejected a scenario in which a hijacked airliner flew into the Pentagon as it planned a training exercise five months before an airliner slammed into the building in September 2001, defense officials said Wednesday.


This doesn't exactly jibe with the repeated statements by Dr. Rice that 'no one could have conceived that terrorists would use hijacked planes as missles'.
Hmmmm,


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some great quotes here. But as I looked at the links on this page (again), it seems there are many comments about how the military is supposed to respond, and has responded in the past when an aircraft deviates from it's flight path.
> 
> There is alot of information I was not aware of, that reading this site has given me knowledge of, and I can only assume that with all of the references on the site, somewhere in the middle is what should have happened.
> 
> ...


Somewhere in the middle would still probably have resulted in 9/11.

"there were only four armed combat-ready fighter jets available in the Northeast Air Defense Sector, covering the area from Minnesota to Maine to Virginia and only 10 other armed jets available to protect the rest of the U.S."

Where those jets were, and if they could have reached any of these flights, I dont know.

And Ive been on my share of "military exercises". Live ammunition isnt just lying around everywhere. Getting ahold of aircract ordinance at a moments notice must be on a whole other order....remember the "tank on a rampage" footage from that nut that stole a tank from a NG Armory? Remember how there was nothing the military/guard/police could do till the guy hung the tank up on a median barrier?? Unless its standing by "a-purpose" it takes time to "lock-n-load".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

I think a key point here is the "Armed" part...lest someone think there were only 14 jets in the entire country...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't know ... as I read the following link, I take away something different.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=0:10am-11:50pm%2011%20Sept%202001




> Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins and other NORAD employees at NEADS (NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector that covers the Washington and New York areas) are starting their work day. NORAD is unusually prepared on 9/11, because it is conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command is in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported. An article later says, In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02]





> [color=#0000]FAA Administrator Jane Garvey later testifies that NORAD is notified Flight 11 has been hijacked. [New York Times, 12/30/03] This contradicts both the account of one NORAD employee who says it happens three minutes earlier (see 8:31 a.m.), and NORAD's official account, which claims it happens six minutes later (see 8:40 a.m.).


[/color]




> Boston flight control supposedly notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked (other accounts say it happens earlier (see





> 8:31 a.m. and 8:34 a.m.). [8:38, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:38, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:40, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:40, AP, 8/19/02, 8:40, Newsday, 9/10/02] This is about 20 minutes after traffic control noticed the plane had its transponder beacon and radio turned off. Such a delay in notification would be in strict violation of regulations.Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Powell, a member of the Air National Guard at NEADS, part of NORAD, takes the call from Boston Center. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02] He gives the phone to Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins, regional Mission Crew Chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise: I picked up the line and I identified myself to the Boston Center controller, and he said, we have a hijacked aircraft and I need to get you some sort of fighters out here to help us out. Deskins then tells Colonel Robert Marr, head of NEADS, I have FAA on the phone, the shout line, Boston Center. They said they have a hijacked aircraft. Marr then calls Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and says, Boss, I need to scramble [fighters at] Otis [Air National Guard Base]. Arnold later says, I said go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later. [ABC News, 9/11/02] Deskins later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call was part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. After the phone call she had to clarify to everyone that it was not a drill. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he hears of the hijacking at this time, The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up? [ABC News 9/11/02]






> Major Daniel Nash (codenamed Nasty) and Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy (codenamed Duff) are the two F-15 pilots who would scramble after Flight 11 and then Flight 175 . Nash says that at this time, a colleague at the Otis Air National Guard Base tells him that a flight out of Boston has been hijacked, and to be on alert. [Cape Cod Times, 8.21.02] NEADS senior technician Jeremy Powell also later says that he telephones Otis Air Base and tells it to upgrade its readiness posture. [Newhouse News, 1.25.02] Duffy also says he is told in advance about the hijacking by the FAA in Boston. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6.3.02] Nash and Duffy put on their flight gear and get ready. [Cape Cod Times, 8.21.02] They are already halfway to their jets when battle stations are sounded. Duffy briefs Nash on what he knows, and, About 4-5 minutes later, we [get] the scramble order and [take] off. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6.3.02]





All of this happened before the first plane strikes the World Trade Center. It is interesting how each of us reading the same thing, can come to different conclusioins.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

Golfer Paine Stewarts airplane was off course for ten minutes and was surrounded by f-16s in 15 minutes.  911 happened in some of the most monitored and controlled airspace in the world.  What is happening?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Still sounds like the typical "fog of war" situation when dealing with large military organizations rather than some governmental conspiricy designed to get us into the Iraq war...which is where I see this going....when taken as a whole, this report points more to a military structure unprepared for what happened rather than some huge cover-up.

What are you implying really happened here??


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What are you implying really happened here??



TMI - I don't know what happened.  There are two sides of the story.  One points to a screw up, one points to something intentional.  I think we have a duty as citizens to debunk one of the sides.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

What would that "something intentional" be??


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What would that "something intentional" be??


A conspiracy theory might be that we have been without a realistic enemy for sometime now. By keeping the citizenry in fear, the administration is able to perpetrate control over sectors of the soceity that would otherwise be locked away (The USAPATRIOT ACT). Certainly, there has been a huge financial windfall to the Military Industrial Complex. All of those weapons used to conquer Iraq will need to be replenished. Halliburton seems to have ended up in a pretty good place. I would be willing to bet that Lockheed is going to see some funding move its way. The increases in spending to the military have been positive when compared to revenues or budget growth.

There are some who have, and will, benefit from the changes in government policy since September 11, 2001. 

See Gore Vidal - Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

Mike


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

But one has to wonder if those in power would kill hundreds of thousands just to enrich themselves, or distract from their failings.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> But one has to wonder if those in power would kill hundreds of thousands just to enrich themselves, or distract from their failings.


Certainly, you have to wonder how far those with the juice might go. Look at Rupert Murdoch ... CEO of NewsCorp. As I understand it, he is extremely conservative, but if you look at the crap he allows on his FOX television network, it is apparent that his personal beliefs do not drive his corporate philosophy. (You could reverse that argument if you looked at FOXNews).

He has shown that he will sleep with the devil if it is going to make his company (and thus him) more money. (see the satellite broadcasting rights to China).

Is he unique in these behaviors? I think not.

Speculation Here ---

Assume for the moment, the Adminstration wanted to get the country on a war footing, for a few of the reasons mentioned earlier (and you can probably envision others as well) .... and assuming they had an inkling that a terrorist attack might take place on american soil ....

Could the Administration just 'stumble' a little bit when an attack started, let's say .... the president sit in a classroom of second graders reading about a pet pig .... 

And then, things get a bit out of control .... buildings collapse. Instead of one attack, there are four coordinated attacks ...

All of a sudden ... instead of Pan-AM 103, you have 9/11.

------ End of Speculation

I wonder if there is a cute little ICON for throwing bombs


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Yet another highly co-ordinated, well planned conspiracy with nobody blowing any whistle.. yet we cant co-ordinate a "discovery " of WMD in Iraq to justify the war...find Osama...etc.

I dont buy it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Maybe the reason we can't find Osama is because we (meaning those who are really looking for him) aren't?

Saddamn was found in under 1 year.  Its now almost -3- and still no Osama.
Purhaps the resources that should have been focused on finding him, have been distracted by the illegal action in Iraq? Purhaps he's sitting on a lawn chair at Camp David drinking a Mint Julip?  

The truth is somewhere in between.  As Robin Williams said, "Osama Bin-Ladin is a six foot tall Arab on dialysis... why is that so ****ing hard to find?"


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yet another highly co-ordinated, well planned conspiracy with nobody blowing any whistle.. yet we cant co-ordinate a "discovery " of WMD in Iraq to justify the war...find Osama...etc.
> 
> I dont buy it.


It doesn't take a hell of a lot of work to do nothing.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Maybe his remains are buried in a mountian bunker somewhere and well never find him...just as viable an option.

I still wonder how people can believe in huge government conspiracy...but not wonder why WMD havent been "found" yet...if I was "minister of conspiracy" a plane load of nerve agent would have been airdropped somewhere and "hidden" for later discovery....much easier to pull off than some of these ideas Ive seen tossed around.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It doesn't take a hell of a lot of work to do nothing.


Yes but your starting to remind me of a defense attny...."So officer isnt it *Possible* that my client wasnt trying to kidnap the victim, that he was just trying to pull her off the street to avoid being hit by a car?"

"He was dressed in camoflauge, jumped out of the bushes, covered her mouth..."

"Officer, Isnt it possible?"

"Yes I suppose anything is possible."


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes but your starting to remind me of a defense attny...."So officer isnt it *Possible* that my client wasnt trying to kidnap the victim, that he was just trying to pull her off the street to avoid being hit by a car?"
> "He was dressed in camoflauge, jumped out of the bushes, covered her mouth..."
> "Officer, Isnt it possible?"
> "Yes I suppose anything is possible."


But at what point would you entertain that such a possibility exists. And my speculation is not exactly where my beliefs are, but I try not to start from my conclusion and work back through the facts.

Is what I propose a possibility? I say YES, it is. How much of a possibility? Well, pretty damn slim, say 1 in 1,000 odds. 

But then, 35 days earlier, the government was warned about possible hijackings? Gee-willickers, why did it take so long for those planes to get scrambled? Why were they flying at only 700 mph from Otis to NYC? (either that or they got lost). The military was in the middle of a big alert exercise, surely they should have been able to adapt more quickly.

Does that tighten the odds any ..... well, maybe a little ... let's say to 1 in 950.

Some have proposed this Adminstration has wanted to go to war with Saddam Hussein since the first day of their service. Could an attack on our country serve as a justification for an invasion on Iraq.... well, maybe.... does that trim the odds any? ... a little? ...

Sure, it would be a whole lot easier to have had the CIA plant some weapons of mass destruction. I'm kinda surprised that hasn't happened (after all, they are the organization of the exploding cigar to kill Castro). Perhaps, the administration was so wrapped up in its own 'GroupThink', and they were so certain that the weapons existed, they didn't think it was necessary to plant it. Hell, the Administration is still spouting that WMD might be found (oh, damn. I apologize for using that WMD acronym ... I so hate it. - By the way, there are excellent arguements against calling biological weapons - weapons of *mass* destruction).

So, Yeah ... The possibilities of the Bush administration (or their clients) intentionally perpetrating such an activity (or in-activity, I guess) is slim. But it is not a *zero% *possibility.

I think it far more likely that they are incompetent. The administration was too busy looking to build a Star Wars Defense System to fight the Soviet Union than they were to address terrorism, the middle east conflict and extreme Islamic fundamentalists who were pissed off that non-believers were living in their holy cities. (after-all we were invited in).

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Yes councilor I suppose anything is possible... 

and lets not forget that this "ball-dropping" spans multiple administrations..

Im not really saying its "impossible" just unlikely for many of the same reasons you just said.....Just another "darkness" thread...maybe we should start an "Amerika Sucks" forum to keep these all together.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes councilor I suppose anything is possible...
> 
> and lets not forget that this "ball-dropping" spans multiple administrations..
> 
> Im not really saying its "impossible" just unlikely for many of the same reasons you just said.....Just another "darkness" thread...maybe we should start an "Amerika Sucks" forum to keep these all together.


It is spelled "America". 

It is a bit discouraging that I can not participate in a conversation without you insinuating that I am a communist.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

No..no..no...I was griping about yet another thread of the same "tone" as all the other Pax Americana, Etc. threads.....

Im agreeing with you...(believe it or not) the possibility exists. I may make the odds higher than you, but I do have an open mind...just arrive during business hours.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

The part of everthing that worries me, is that if we were really -that- unprepared, how would we have reacted if a full blown invasion hit our soil?  A couple thousand submarine based assault troops hitting various beaches in the dead of night could have taken various locations, fortified and been well entrenched b4 we could mobilize.

That can still happen.

Lets be honest here.... drugs get through still.  The Mexican boarder is not well patroled except at certain locations.  We have thousands of miles of coastline as well. The concept of Blitzkreig was invented in the 1860s....its not new.  A small force could easily take a few small towns, or important landmarks.

We are still vulnerable to attack.

Yes, that dropped ball spans over 4 administrations.  However it was on the current administration that the hull was breached.  It must be patched, strengthened and fortified under the current administration.

Now...since I will be asked 'whats the plan', here it is:

Line of site 24/7/365 border patrol involving land, air and sea.
Fortify the Mexican border
Line of site border watch stations
Search every ship, plane, car, truck, etc that enters our territory. 
If you find a plane flying down low on the deck, under radar limits, splash it.
Use seized assets as a partial funding source.
Sell war bonds
Streamline government agencies bloated with do-nothings.  Lean and Mean.


Part of the question here is "What Happened."
The bigger is "How do we ensure it never happens again?"


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

You think the Patriot Act stirred things up....imagine what happens after that!!!

Havent seen many 1,000 troop capable "submarine assault" craft though...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

I think geography prevents any invastion from being successful in the long term. Sure, an enemy could invade Nantucket, or Key West, but if they tried to take over let's say Arizona, in a short time, the US could strike back from Montana.

The ability to eliminate all of the counter threats just doesn't exist, without multi-war-head nuclear missles (MAD).

I think terrorism is the only weapon left to assault the United States successfully. And it succeeds when we establish those 'line of sight' borders. The United States is never going to be a secure state. And, if we don't want to end up like Israel, launching counter-attacks against counter-attacks of counter-attacks, we are going to have to find a way to have people make the choice that terrorism is an unnacceptable option.

This is the line the President is taking ... Create Freedom and Terrorism is no longer an acceptable choice.

The problem is, you can't impose freedom with a gun. It is quite hard to impose freedom from outside of a society. The people who inspire freedom (such as Ghandi & Martin Luther King Jr) can't be flown into a country with their supports (ala Chalabi & Karzai)

I think a 1000 person assault submarine is a cool weapon ... have we floated the idea to Lockheed yet? 

m


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

I had a bit more indepth suggestion....it involved napalm and coca fields....people got a little, umm...'concerned'. 

Shhh.... Captain Nemo might be offended. 


Seriously, there is enough surplus hardware floating around out there that someone with a cash flow could assemble a small strike force.
As an example, the Qiongsha Class Troop Transport Ship can carry 400 troops.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/qiongsha.asp
While thats a bit obvious, small freighters, speedboats and such can easily ply the coastal waters.  

Some equipment is easily found, though its condition is, questionably.
http://vlad.tribnet.com/1999/iss188/focus.htp

It would take some planning, preparation and coordination to pull off.  But, if they can hijack -4- jets in 1 shot, landing a couple hundred suicide troops isn't much more of a leap is it?

That is the part that scares me.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Im with Mike on this one too...its Terrorism, not conventional military attack thats our biggest threat. Bunker-up our boarders and were not America (note the proper spelling Mike) anymore, which is one of their goals.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

The part is, its a given that they won't hold the ground.  There's no way short of a major meltdown that enough troops can land to take and hold ground.

But, to hear that terrorists have seized the Statue of Liberty, or Grand Central Station, or a local high school....then a police station....then a mall...then another place, etc.... all over the country.

9/11 knocked us off kilter....such escalation of terror would possibly send us over the edge, and we would be as paranoid as those poor folks in Israel...never knowing if this trip to the cafe will be your last.


It is because of this, that hearing the gaps that allowed 9/11 to occur concern me.  While I care that they happened...I'm more concerned with knowing that steps have been taken to ensure it doesn't happen again. Specifics aren't needed...but we need to know that the 'broken' parts are being not just fixed, but improved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

I'm with ya too.
We have to protect America, without becoming Amerika.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The truth is somewhere in between.  As Robin Williams said, "Osama Bin-Ladin is a six foot tall Arab on dialysis... why is that so ****ing hard to find?"



The Elder Bush was meeting with Osama's brother.  After the attacks and all the planes were grounded, the entire bin laden clan was flown out of the United States.  Also, what about all of the high level officials that were warned not to fly to Washington or NYC...like the whole joint cheifs of staff.  This is not conspiracy stuff, people, this has been printed in major sources and has been everywhere on the internet.  What is going on?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No..no..no...I was griping about yet another thread of the same "tone" as all the other Pax Americana, Etc. threads...



Oi Rome again.  Sigh.  Read on my friend and connect the dots yourself.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I'm with ya too.
> We have to protect America, without becoming Amerika.



IMHO the best protection against that sort of thing is the 2nd amendment...any "invasion" short of full scale D-Day type landings wouldnt last long.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

Fear of Flying Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial only weeks before 9-11?

by James Ridgeway

WASHINGTON, D.C.Like most of the Bush cabinet, Attorney General John Ashcroft took commercial jets when he traveled. But on July 24, 2001, he changed that practice and began flying in chartered government jets. Asked by CBS News at the time about the change, the Justice Department cited a "threat assessment" by the FBI and said Ashcroft had been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. "There was a threat assessment, and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. But as CBS went on to report, "Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected, or who made it." A "senior official" at the CIA said he wasn't aware of specific threats against any cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself declared, "I don't do threat assessments myself, and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes." When asked if he knew details of the threat or who might have made it, Ashcroft said, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer." 

The Justice Department did say that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly in leased airplanes, but that it was the idea of his FBI security detail. The FBI had no comment. All other Bush cabinet members flew on commercial airliners, save for the secretaries of Energy and the Interior when they traveled to remote areas. Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, traveled by commercial jets.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

Bin Ladens Brother-in-law Had Close Ties to Bush
by Tom Flocco *
AmericanFreePress.net * And Scoop.co.nz
August 28, 2002

Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, an Osama bin Laden benefactor, has laundered money into tax-exempt U.S. entities for years as a foreign financier of terrorism. But a new 9/11 lawsuit is thrusting Mahfouzs latent past business links to George W. Bush back into the spotlight and raising important questions about links between Saudi finance and terrorism in America. 



Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz
Bush Financier & Osama Bin Ladens Brother In Law
Nine hundred families of September 11 victims recently filed a trillion-dollar lawsuit against members of the royal Saudi family, businessmen worth a combined $5 billion, and banks and charities. The lawsuit accuses them of financing Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban government. And one of the defendants - Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz -- will likely draw increasing attention in coming months due to his past business relationships with President George W. Bush - the sweetheart deals he made during the elder Bush's presidency. 

According to a Saudi government audit acquired by U.S. intelligence officials, five of Saudi Arabias wealthiest businessmen, including National Commercial Bank (NCB) founder and chairman Khalid bin Mahfouz, transferred personal funds along with $3 million diverted from a Saudi pension fund, to New York and London banks with accounts linked to terrorism. (USA Today, 10-28-99) 

The money transfers were discovered in April, 1999 after the royal family ordered an audit of both NCB and Sheikh Mahfouz. 

The plot thickens when we find Mahfouz is also linked by marriage to terrorist Osama bin Laden, as Mahfouzs sister is married to the Al Qaeda leader, according to not only former CIA Director James Woolsey in 1998 Senate testimony, but also Jean-Charles Brisard, lead 9/11 lawsuit attorney Ronald Motley's researcher, and author of the book, The Forbidden Truth. 



9/11 attorney Ronald Motley  Photo PBS
Motleys 9/11 lawsuit alleges that Saudi money has for years been funneled to encourage radical anti-Americanism as well as to fund the Al Qaeda terrorists, a fact not taken lightly by 9/11 family members fighting back tears at the podium during Motleys recent press conference. 

NCB deposited the money into accounts of such Islamic charities as Islamic Relief -- and Blessed Relief, where Mahfouzs son Abdul Rahman serves on the board in Sudan. Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Mahfouz and others transferred, tens of millions of dollars to bank accounts linked to indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden. 

Powerful Washington, D.C. law firm Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP has earned hefty fees representing Mahfouz, other billionaire Saudi businessmen and the Texas-based Islamic charity, Holy Land Foundation  the largest in America -- which FBI officials fingered as a terrorist front organization in America. And two of Bushs closest Texas friends, James C. Langdon and George R. Salem -- chair of Arab-Outreach in his 2000 campaign -- are partners at Akin, Gump. (Boston Herald, 12-11-2001) 

Five days before September 11, the FBI raided Holy Lands internet firm InfoCom Corporation, indicating pre-attack investigative interest in the charitys links to terrorism. 

But no reports indicate whether the FBI has asked the Presidents friends at Akin, Gump about financial dealings with the U.S. firms terrorist-connected Saudi clients. 

Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a political watchdog group, said Akin, Gumps willingness to represent Saudi power brokers probed for links to terrorism presents a unique ethical concern since partners at the firm are so close to the president. 

A BATH ALWAYS COMES IN HANDY 



Does George W. Bush Have Something To Hide?
Mahfouzs past also includes business dealings with George W. Bush, having invested $50,000 in the younger Bushs first company, Arbusto Energy, through his U.S. representative James R. Bath, an aircraft broker and friend of Mr. Bush from their days together in the Texas Air National Guard. (Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Vetting the Frontrunners: From Oil to Baseball to the Governors Mansion, 9-28-1999) 

Legal papers regarding Bath's contested divorce listed one of his assets as a $50,000 investment in Arbusto Oil -- Bush's first company. Moreover, Bath's business partner said he had no substantial money of his own at the time he made the Arbusto investment, implying that Bath received the money from someone else: "Most of Bath's investments....were really fronts for Mahfouz and other Saudis connected with the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI)." (The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI, Random House, Beaty & Gwynne, 1993, page 229.)

Award-winning author and journalist at the Houston Chronicle and The Economist, Peter Brewton, consulted James R. Baths resume and wrote that in early summer 1976 Bath received a huge business break: 


Bath was named a trustee for Sheikh Salem bin Laden of Saudi Arabia [half-brother of Osama bin Laden], a member of the family that owns the largest construction company in the Middle East. Baths job was to handle all of bin Ladens North American investments and operations. ( The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush, Shapolsky Book Pub., 1992) [Simon & Schuster had first signed Brewton, then decided not to publish his book]
Shortly thereafter, Bath also began working for billionaire Sheikh Mahfouz, NCB banker for Saudi billionaire financier Abdullah Bakhsh. Meanwhile, George Juniors failing Arbusto company was renamed Bush Exploration -- hoping to trade on his fathers increasing importance; however, it was soon merged with Spectrum 7 Energy, as oil prices were collapsing. 

While hard times continued for Spectrum, in 1988 Harken Energy Corporation absorbed the company, according to WSJ. And in return for adding the famous Bush name as a corporate asset, Texas-based Harken in effect bailed out the future presidents failing fortunes with generous stock options, a salaried seat on Harkens board of directors, low-interest loans, and other helpful perks. [ Harken Energy: George W.s Perfect Storm, 7-15-2002 -- http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0207/S00104.htm ] 

The astute Saudi billionaires sought to develop intimate financial relationships with the upwardly mobile political Bushes, even using their Arkansas connections to pull off some deals. 

Bakhshs Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz and Bill Clintons close Stephens Company friend, David Edwards -- representing Bakhshs U.S. interests -- arranged for Bakhsh to purchase 17% of Harken Energy in 1987, as Harken also began to struggle with debt, while sorely in need of a cash infusion -- in this case, $25 million from Saudi Arabia. 

After the Saudi money propped up Harken, reports revealed that Bakhshs other U.S. associate, Palestinian-born Chicago businessman Talet Othman, was given a seat on Harkens board with George Bush Jr. -- the Presidents son -- further linking them both to Saudi interests. But the financial bail-out came with a political quid pro quo: a seat at President George H. W. Bushs White House foreign policy table. 

The WSJ added that by 1990, Othman began attending White House meetings with the elder Bush to discuss Middle East policy -- begging the question whether 9/11 victim families future terrorist sponsor Mahfouz and his wealthy Saudi banking client Bakhsh had purchased political, military, and financial influence within the Bush Administration. 

According to Fortunate Son by James H. Hatfield, after George Ws Harken Energy drilling contract with Bahrain was signed, Mahfouz and Bakhsh saw to it that Othman was added to a list of fifteen Arabs who met with President George H. W. Bush, then-White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu [father of New Hampshires current U.S. Senate candidate John E. Sununu], and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, three times in 1990 -- once just two days after Iraq invaded Kuwait -- to discuss Middle East policy. 

WHITE IN THE NICK OF TIME 

Saudi banker Mahfouz and construction magnate Salem bin Ladens U.S. representative James Bath had a close business associate named Charles W. Bill White. Time Magazine reporters Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne described the former Navy fighter pilot as the All-American Boy -- and Baths quiet personality required a complement: 


After the navy he [White] put away his combat decorations, earned a Harvard Business degree and returned to Texas to become a well-paid investment point man for a lot of heavy-hitting Republicans....He was sponsored by another Harvard MBA, Lloyd Bentsen, Jr., son of the Texas senator. Young Bentsen had discovered White on a Harvard recruiting trip....looking for someone who could handle discreet private investments. 
As White explained it, Bentsen suggested he should look up a Houston businessman named James Bath, who was in real estate and aircraft sales, and represented some of the richest Arab sheikhs. Bath, also a friend of George Bush, Jr., was looking for a business partner. Bentsen thought that since Bath was also a former fighter pilot, the two men would have a lot in common. ( The Outlaw Bank) 



White and Bath became partners; and predictably, they were successful in a number of land development deals. White was the affable front man, while George Juniors friend James Bath quietly found the investors -- including Saudi billionaires. Bath told me that he was in the CIA. He told me he was recruited by George H. W. Bush himself in 1976, when the elder Bush was CIA Director, according to Beatys interview with White. 

White added further, That made sense to me, especially in light of what I had seen once we went into business together. He [Bath] said that [CIA Director] Bush wanted him involved with the Arabs, and to get into the aviation business. 

John Mecklin, investigative reporter for the Houston Post, independently verified Jim Baths CIA connections -- and that he was also future president George Jr.s Air National Guard friend -- as Beaty had corroborated in the White interview for The Outlaw Bank. 

Moreover, White said the elder Bush recruited Bath to monitor the activities of his Saudi Arabian investors, as Beaty confirmed the elders friendship with Bath for himself: White said that one time in 1982 he and Bath were at the Ramada Club in Houston when Vice-President Bush walked in. Bush waved at Bath and said, Hi, Jim, according to White. 

Texas ties became a habit with Baths future terrorist financier, author Peter Brewton implied, when in 1979 Mahfouz purchased the Houston River Oaks mansion of Chester Reed, father-in-law of John Ballis, who pled guilty to Savings and Loan fraud. Mahfouz paid $4.23 million through Houstons Baker & Botts -- a law firm traversing many Bush family business deals -- which handled the Saudi Sheikhs Houston land investments through James Bath. Wide reports say Mahfouz still owns the Texas mansion. 

Times Beaty and Gwynne chronicled the terrorist financiers alleged 1985 sweetheart purchase of the Texas Commerce Bank Tower for $200 million during the mid-1980s Texas oil-business crash. Baths partner Bill White said Mahfouzs purchase greatly benefited the fortunes of President Bush 41s confidant and Secretary of State James Baker, Baker & Botts law firm, and Bakers family -- founders and principal holders of Texas Commerce stock. 

Beaty said the Tower was built for $140 million at the apex of the oil boom; but Mahfouz paid the elder Bushs family friends $200 million at the bottom of the real estate crash, when commercial office space couldn't be given away. And interestingly, Mafouzs partner in that purchase, Saudi-based billionaire Rafik Hariri, also over-paid Florida Senator Bill Nelson $2 million more than the assessed value to buy his McLean, Virginia home in 1989 -- illustrating the penetration of Saudi financial corruption in Congress. 



Texas Commerce Bank Tower, Dallas, USA
Mahfouz also bought into Houstons Main Bank as a partner with Bath and former Texas Governor John Connally in 1976. And in 1981 Mercantile Texas Corporation/Capital Bank -- soon to become MCorp -- bought Main Bank from Sheikh Mahfouz: 


Strangely, The Outlaw Banknoted that Houstons Main Bank made news when a bank examiner discovered that the small Texas bank was purchasing $100 million in hundred-dollar bills each month from the Federal Reserve Bank -- an amount that dwarfed its miniscule asset base. That was strange, but there was nothing illegal about it.
However, Bill White also told Jonathan Beaty that Bath had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) while the two were partners, adding the DEA suspected Bath was using his planes to fly currency to the Cayman Islands, although they didnt know why, since drugs didnt seem to be involved. Curiously, the probe ended. 

Media interest may increase now, however, as Federal Reserve financial records are likely to be subpoenaed by Ron Motley and the 9/11victim families, detailing the inordinate amount of currency that passed through Mahfouzs small Houston, Texas bank -- and the curiously indulgent investigation of Bath and the Federal Reserve by the DEA. 

Even to the uninitiated, the Caymans are synonymous with corruption and circumvention of the law. Thus it will fall to court depositions, subpoenas, and political pressure from 9/11 victim families to question why stacks of U.S. currency from the Federal Reserve Bank were flown into the Caymans by Saudi-backed representatives like James Bath -- friend to the Presidents son -- let alone where the cash went, whether is was looted from the U.S. Treasury via Federal Reserve fiscal maneuverings, and to what extent the practice continues -- given current world terrorism. 

Evidence points toward such tax havens as financial conduits for September 11 terrorism -- not just money-laundering refuges for current corporate wrongdoing, drug lords, organized crime, and those seeking to avoid a voracious U.S. tax system. 

Michigan Senator Carl Levins February, 2001 Minority Banking Report calls correspondent banking the gateway to money laundering, a financial technique wherein
illicit money is moved from bank to bank with no questions asked, thereby cleansing funds
prior to being used for legitimate purposes. 

Banks in the Caymans which are not licensed, for example, gain access to American financial markets by establishing correspondent relationships with U.S. banks that are. 

Thus, Saudi financial supporters of terrorism such as Khalid bin Mahfouz are able to move millions from one country to another. 

Strangely, given wide reports that Saudi billionaires are and have been financing terrorism in the United States for years, President Bush has still not issued a freeze on all correspondent transactions linked to banks in Saudi Arabia -- since most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. [ See Executive Order 3224 Blocking Terrorist Property, The White House, 9-23-2001 http://www.banking.state.ny.us/il01102a.pdf ] 

A Washington Post report (9-29-20010) also questioned why [Bushs] original Executive Order did not name any banks, as the President has the power to freeze American monetary operations connected to global banks with institutions in countries refusing to cooperate in the terrorist finance probe. Thus Saudi financial scrutiny has been avoided. 

Three months later, on December 31, 2001, a U.S. State Department memo revealed that the President again declined to deal with middle eastern banks, by announcing that assets of one German and five Irish terrorist-linked organizations had been frozen. 

Still left off the frozen assets list were all banks linked to the epicenter of terrorist finances in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain, where Bush 41 campaign contributors and Bush 43 have carried on personal financial business in the past via Harken Energy Corporation.
[ 12-31-2001 State Dept. Memo http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02010202 ] 

However, given documented monetary ties to U.S. terrorism, exemplified by Mahfouz and other Saudis, cable TV news interviews now reflect a growing victim family outrage regarding secret 9/11 congressional hearings postponed till late September -- and lack of truth and accountability. [See  Secret Hearings Conceal 9/11 Terrorist Links to Congress & White House
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00045.htm ] 

MAHFOUZS MALFEASANCE 



Osama Bin Laden
The worlds most wanted, has business connections to George Bush.
Osama bin Ladens brother-in-law, Sheikh Khalid, remained at NCB until he was indicted in 1992 on charges that he had schemed to defraud depositors, regulators and auditors of the insolvent BCCI, according to Brewton in The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush. 

At the same time, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it found Mahfouz and NCB had violated American banking laws in trying to acquire Washington-based First American Bancshares in concert with BCCI. 

Shortly thereafter, a federal judge signed an order freezing Sheikh Khalids U.S. assets, including a luxury penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York and stock in MCorp, according to Brewton. [The value of MCorp stock, however, was next to useless -- Newsweek reported on 2-18-2002 that the company had gone bankrupt in 1989] Conveniently, however, the New York court permitted the Saudi billionaire-turned terrorist sponsor to pay the U.S. a settlement fine of $225 million to let him walk away. 

In what is probably the most thoroughly-sourced book ever written about George W. Bush [literally thousands of credible newspaper articles, archived document lists, interview sources, and online reports collected may alone be worth the cost of the book], author J. H. Hatfield details George W.s friend James Baths incredible saga as the personal representative of terrorist -linked Khalid bin Mahfouz, one of the 9/11 victim family defendants: 


A deal broker whose alleged associations run from the CIA to a major shareholder and director of the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI). BCCI was closed down in July 1991 amid charges of multi-billion dollar fraud and worldwide news reports that the institution had been involved in covert intelligence work, drug money laundering, arms brokering, bribery of government officials, and aid to terrorists. An accounting commissioned by the Bank of England finally exposed the extent of BCCIs deficits and criminal offenses, forcing the banks eventual collapse. ( Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President, St. Martins Press, November, 1999, and Soft Skull Press, 2000, by J. H. Hatfield) 

Victim family scrutiny of Federal Reserve financial records related to BCCI, Islamic charity documents and bank accounts -- but also political pressure to make public the Saudi audit of Mahfouz will go a long way toward ascertaining just how much money bin Ladens brother-in-law laundered through U.S. and foreign banks to financially support the killers of their loved ones. Moreover, Beaty and Gwynne indicate that Ron Motley and his legal team will not have an easy time of it, as corruptions previous tracks have been well-covered: 


Sami Masri began talking again, the hushed words tumbling out painting a detailed, vivid picture of the Bank of Credit and Commerce Internationals global involvement with drug shipments, smuggled gold, stolen military secrets, assassinations, bribery, extortion, covert intelligence operations, and weapons deals. These were the province of a Karachi-based (Pakistan) cadre of bank operatives, paramilitary units, spies, and enforcers who handled BCCIs darkest operation around the globe and trafficked in bribery and corruption. As the plane began its long descent, both men (Jonathan Beaty) sat silently, lost in their thoughts. ( The Outlaw Bank, page 66)
SKYWAYS AIRCRAFT LEASING AND OTHER TEXAS TALES 



The Cayman Islands
Home to sun, surf and dirty money looking for a laundry.
Perhaps Mahfouzs most interesting Houston investment through his agent, CIA-linked Jim Bath, was Skyways Aircraft Leasing. Skyways began on July 2, 1980 as a company called Cotopax Investments, registered in the Cayman Islands, according to Pete Brewtons The Mafia, CIA & George Bush. 

In off-shore, money-laundering, shell-corporation traditional style, the Skyways Board of Directors met one week before Cotomax notified the Cayman Island authorities that the company name had been changed -- after 29 days. 

The directors named Mahfouzs envoy James Bath as president and director, and then resigned. All of the stock was made into bearer stock, which meant that it belonged to whoever possessed it, according to Brewton. 

And in his sworn lawsuit against Bill White, Bath refused to reveal the owners of Skyways stock. But Brewtons research revealed that documents filed in another lawsuit indicated that Mahfouz owned Skyways. 

One of the original subscribers to the renamed Cotopax Investments, Cayhaven Corporate Services, Ltd., was also a subscriber to I.C., Inc. -- incorporated in 1985 -- but curiously found in the very center of a chart drawn by Oliver North, found by investigators in Norths White House safe. The chart showed the private network that provided support and money to the Iran-Contras -- another story with multiple legs. 

White told Jonathan Beaty that he believed Bath was using Skyways money, which may have belonged to the CIA, to speculate in Houston real estate. When the real estate market tanked, Bath turned on White for the money rather than tell Mahfouz and the CIA that he had lost it. 

SAVING A BUCK OR TWO 



Air Force One Taxiing At Ellington Field
Participated in fuel scam to fund Junior Bushs business partner
In 1990, Houston Posts John Mecklin reported that the Bush Administrations Department of Defense (DOD) was paying millions of dollars more than necessary by buying aviation fuel from Mahfouz surrogate Jim Baths Southwest Airport Services company at Houstons Ellington Field. 

Southwest was charging government military aircraft anywhere from 22 cents a gallon to over 40 cents more than the price the Air National Guard base at Ellington was paying to buy its jet fuel. Even George the elders Air Force One regularly participated in the scam each time it pulled into Houston -- consistently using Baths privately owned Southwest Airport Services instead of Ellington Fields less expensive government fueling station. (Time, Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes, 10-28-1991) 

Further illustrating the Saudi corruption of George Sr.'s administration at taxpayer expense, Mecklin reported that DOD paid Mahfouz stand-in, James Bath, more than $12 million in contract overruns for over-priced aviation fuel. 

Mecklin estimated that between November, 1985 and November, 1989, the DOD paid Baths Southwest Airport Services more than $16.2 million for fuel under government contracts that should have cost about $3.6 million -- courtesy of American citizens. 

Southwest even had a City of Houston lease at Ellington for $650 per month, won by Bath in a lottery, making the scheme possible; however, the lease had not been offered to anyone else for years, even though it was supposed to be temporary. Someone else was getting a private cut of the proceeds to pull off that kind of fraud; however, the Houston Post and Time revelations prompted no official investigations, leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag. 

TRUTH, JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

After a year of grieving, family members of brave firefighters and police, emergency medical service workers, brilliant Wall-Street minds, intrepid airline crews and passengers, and Pentagon military personnel are probably beginning to ask themselves: What did the government know, and when did they know it? 

The unanswered questions linger each day, even as Congress has delayed open hearings and the Senate postpones consideration of an independent 9/11 Investigative Commission with three or four victim family members participating in the process -- perhaps waiting for the Second Gulf War (aka The First World Oil War) to eliminate 9/11 justice and accountability from the table altogether. 

That Khalid bin Mahfouz and other Saudis have been financially linked to terrorist Osama bin Laden has been verified by U.S. Intelligence; but that notwithstanding, the seriousness of current events compels an additional awareness and understanding of the bin Laden benefactors strangely extensive financial associations with Houston, Texas entities  and powerful public persons. 

For in a cryptic comment, former CIA official Larry Johnson once told the Washington Post:
The Saudis have been complicit....Its one of the dirty secrets. 


***************************************
Supplementary research was contributed by the writers former assistant, Mario Calabrese, now employed in the research and investigation department at Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman's public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, Inc., in Washington, D.C. 

Copyright (c) 2002 by Thomas Flocco. 

* - Tom Flocco is an independent investigative 
journalist who has written for Scoop.co.nz, AmericanFreePress.net, WorldNetDaily.com, FromTheWilderness.com, NewsMax.com, NarcoNews.com, and JudicialWatch.org. 
Contact: TomFlocco@cs.com 

* - http://www.americanfreepress.net/ - The Uncensored National Weekly Newspaper Published On Capitol Hill. 1433 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. Washington D.C.20003. Order Line: 1-888-699-6397 for print subscriptions and more investigative stories.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11

Sep 24, 11:35 AM (ET)

By KEN GUGGENHEIM 

(AP) Concealed by an opaque screen, unidentified CIA and FBI agents testify before the Joint Senate...
Full Image 


WASHINGTON (AP) - A Minneapolis FBI supervisor said in a pre-Sept. 11 conversation with headquarters that he wanted to prevent suspicious student pilot Zacarias Moussaoui from flying a plane into the World Trade Center, a congressional investigator testified Tuesday. 

The supervisor said he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but made the remark in a frustrated attempt to convince headquarters that a special search warrant was needed to search Moussaoui's computer, investigator Eleanor Hill told a House-Senate committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Moussaoui is now accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers to commit terrorism, and Hill outlined the Minneapolis FBI's office's repeated and unsuccessful efforts to convince headquarters that he was a possible terrorist. 

The supervisor told the committee staff he was "trying to get people at FBI headquarters 'spun up' because he was trying to make sure that Moussaoui 'did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,'" Hill testified. 


Hill said the headquarters agent responded, "That's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist." 

The headquarters agent told the investigators he did not recall the conversation. 

Hill also said that a July 2001 memo by an FBI agent warning that Osama bin Laden might send terrorists to the United States for flight training was disregarded by headquarters, which was unaware officials previously tried to identify Middle Eastern flight students in this country. 

The investigator said the failure to connect the so-called Phoenix memo with the arrest of Moussaoui a month later - and a general increase of terrorist alerts - represented major intelligence failings before the Sept. 11 attacks. 

"No one will ever know whether a greater focus on the connection between these events would have led to the unraveling of the Sept. 11 plot," said Hill. 


(AP) Members of the Joint Senate House Select Intelligence Committee, listen on Capitol Hill Friday,...
Full Image 

"But clearly, it might have drawn greater attention to the possibility of a terrorist attack in the United States, generated a heightened state of alert regarding such attacks and prompted more aggressive investigation and intelligence gathering," she said in a report for the House and Senate intelligence committees. 

The committees looked into the handling of the Phoenix memo and the Moussaoui case as it held its fourth public hearing into the Sept. 11 attacks. 

The Phoenix-based agent, Kenneth Williams, wrote a memo to his superiors in Washington two months before the attacks, suggesting that terrorists might be learning to fly commercial jetliners at U.S. flight schools. He asked for a check of flight schools, but no checks were made. 

Williams was not identified by name in the report and was to testify later anonymously. As his own prepared testimony noted, his identity has already been revealed in many news accounts of his memo, which was disclosed earlier this year. 

Hill said New York FBI personnel who reviewed the memo found it "speculative and not particularly significant." They said they knew some flight students were affiliated with bin Laden, she said, but believed they were intended to fly goods and personnel in Afghanistan. 


(AP) Eleanor Hill, staff director for the House and Senate intelligence committees inquiry into...
Full Image 

Hill wrote that both Williams and the FBI agents in headquarters were unaware that the FBI had received a report in 1998 that a terrorist organization might be planning to bring students to the United States to train at flight schools. 

By November 2000, though, an analyst wrote a memo informing FBI offices that he found no evidence of terrorists studying aviation and that further investigation "is deemed imprudent" by FBI headquarters. 

Agents involved in the Moussaoui case also were unaware of the Phoenix memo and the earlier investigation. 

Moussaoui was arrested by FBI agents in Minnesota on immigration charges in August 2001 after a flight school instructor became suspicious of his desire to learn to fly a commercial jet. FBI headquarters denied agents' request to seek a warrant to search his computer. Moussaoui has since been charged with conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks. 

In his prepared testimony, a Minneapolis-based FBI agent blamed legal restrictions, FBI headquarters and the circumstances of the case for impeding a more aggressive investigation of Moussaoui before Sept. 11. 


(AP) Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, D-Fla., puts his nameplate in place on Capitol...
Full Image 

Lawmakers have been meeting behind closed doors since June, but public hearings were delayed until last week, partly because of questions about what information could be revealed in the Moussaoui case. 

The committees have also been clashing with the Bush administration about whether it can reveal what intelligence about terrorist attacks was disclosed to the White House before Sept. 11. 

The administration doesn't want to reveal what the White House knew, even if the intelligence has already been declassified. 

On Tuesday, leaders of the committees again called on the White House to allow the information to be disclosed, or explain why the information should be kept secret. 

House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the White House's failure to allow the information to be disclosed "will undoubtedly further weaken public confidence in the entire classification system." 

"To classify for the wrong reasons, when security is not at stake, when nothing of substance is really at stake, undermines the willingness of the American people to put their faith and trust in the government," the California Democrat said.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 16, 2004)

Planes don't sit on the tarmak fully armed anymore. I would be very surprised if it took less than 30 minutes to get a plane combat ready. Add anouther 15-20 minutes to fly from Otis to New York. Then do you order the passenger plane shot down over the densely populated area that is New York?

Jet fighters on major exercises do not carry live ammo, unless they are heading for a range.

As for the Ashcroft thing, hey I'm no fan of Bush and his croonies, but if the FBI had credible intelligence of a possible hijacking, they would act in that way. Remember that prior to 911, a hijacking meant LANDING the plane somewhere to negotiate.

AT that time, when ATC loses contact with a commercial airliner, the assumptions were that it was just equipment failure. 

There might have been a failure in intelligence. There certainly was a failure in security at the airport, but I don't believe that there was a failure in execution.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

So, we have high level officials avoiding the places that were hit.  We have tons of connections between the Bin Ladens and the Bushes.  And we have evidence of a cover-up (or at least stonewalling) in Minneapolis.  Are these all coincidence?  

So far the 911 commission has dealt with two of these things.  One in a very cursory fashion.  As far as the Minneapolis situation goes, there are two search warrents that can be issued and only one type can be issued at a time.  The FBI's explanation is that they stalled because they didn't want to get in the way of the CIA.  (What is the CIA's excuse I wonder - probably the inverse)  For the Asscroft - other high level official not flying thing, Ashcroft himself said that they knew there was a threat - then they went no deeper (thank you NPR for broadcasting this thing live).  The Bush - Bin Laden connections have not been explored.  (Is anyone seeing parellels between this and the Warren Commission)

Vladimir Putin changed the old KGB in Russia to some new name I can't remember what it was.  They still do the same things though.  It turns out that his (KGB) were arrested by Moscow Police for PLANTING bombs all over Moscow.  Shortly after, the police officers were arrested and thrown into the Gulag.  Then "terrorist" bombs went off in the streets of Moscow - leading to more military action against rebels in that country.  hmmmmm

What is going on?  Why all of the stalling?  Where are the questions that would negate alternative hypothesis?  If you do a search on Google right now and type "911 Evidence Pentagon" the first ten sites you get are all conspiracy theory.  (It's some pretty bogus stuff but...)  This is popular information and should be officially debunked, shouldn't it?  Don't you think this 911 commission has some responsibility to dig as deep as it can into all avenues regarding these events.  If people screwed up, fine we need to know about it.  If there is a conspiracy of ANY kind, it should be unearthed.  

"Has anyone realized that NOT ONE OFFICIAL HAS BEEN FIRED AS THE RESULT OF 911!" Sen. John McCain to Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

(plenty of average people have been canned though - the whole economic slow down thing)


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Planes don't sit on the tarmak fully armed anymore. I would be very surprised if it took less than 30 minutes to get a plane combat ready. Add anouther 15-20 minutes to fly from Otis to New York. Then do you order the passenger plane shot down over the densely populated area that is New York?
> 
> Jet fighters on major exercises do not carry live ammo, unless they are heading for a range.
> 
> ...


Dont muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy with personal experience and common sense...:rofl:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy with personal experience and common sense...:rofl:



What is so wrong with looking at ALL the information?  :idunno:  

There ARE fighter jets armed and ready to go all across the country.  We have an airbase in my home town and I personally know people there.  Five minutes.  A jet can be armed and ready in five minutes.

Keep the points coming though, sooner or later, when you look at the whole body of evidence (if you have the courage to do so), you come up with some fishiness...  :asian:

Are Americans even interested in the truth of this matter?  Perhaps "American Idol" is more important now... :jedi1:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "Has anyone realized that NOT ONE OFFICIAL HAS BEEN FIRED AS THE RESULT OF 911!" Sen. John McCain to Tim Russert on Meet the Press.



 :jedi1:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 18, 2004)

Interesting article...theres more to it, but here's a few bits that fit this preparedness discussion.  ​​*



			Excerpt from http://mediastudy.com/articles/av4-15-04.html

Click to expand...

*​*



Operation Vigilant Resolve Ignites Hellfire in Iraq
While Condi Rice Makes Nice With the Warren, I mean, 9/11 Commission.​By Michael I. Niman, ArtVoice 4/15/04 ​

Click to expand...

*


> *Preparations for Hijackings*​Last week also saw Condoleezza Rices long awaited and much over hyped testimony before the 9/11 commission. Again, there wasnt much new information here. What was new, however, was the mainstream medias sudden interest in covering a story that the alterative media has reported over and over again ad-nausea since 2001. Black Congressional Caucus Chair Elijah Cummings summed up the corroborating points of Rices testimony quite succinctly, explaining that *on August 6th, 2001, while Bush was on a thirty-day vacation in Crawford Texas... He was informed by his national security team that al Qaida operatives in the United States had the ability to hijack passenger planes.* Rice revealed the title of the classified presidential briefing as Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States. We now know that this memo clearly stated that al Qaida was engaged in patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings.
> 
> The Bush administrations response to this information is even more telling. Testimony before the 9/11 commission shows that *they chose not to share this threat information with the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration or the FBI field office in charge of international terrorism. Hell, Newsweek reports that Bush and Cheney even decided not to tell Attorney General John Ashcroft, under whose watch the FBI falls. Instead, they just chose to have top administration officials such as John Ashcroft stop flying on commercial flights. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Ender (Apr 18, 2004)

I just crack up at you guys trying to find some mysterious conspiracy or some protocol that wasn't followed correctly. I remember 9/11 because I was working at JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) at the time and was just arriving to work. In the military and in Aerospace there is a procedure or specification for everything. Did you know there is a MIL-SPEC for condoms??..*L..anyway, on that day, pandemonium reigned at the Lab, and all they could come up with was to send everyone home, and to shut down the campus. The lab was closed for 3 days after that until they figured out what to do. Well, come to find out, there was a plan and a procedure to deal with something like this event, but no one knew where it was, and no one knew who was in charge of it. So management regrouped and came up with a new plan which involved incoming inspections and searches. This is kinda funny in itself because there is enough material and technology ON the lab to build a bomb!

Also, there is a plan for everything somewhere, even something like a plan to invade Canada. Doesn't mean anyone would ever use it, or find it, but there is a plan. Aand all these plans are made to give the US a strategic advantage or position. Included in these plans are different scenarios with different outcomes. So, of course there were plans made for Iraq, There are also plans to battle China, Russia, even Mexico.

I even laugh at these people who try to make something out of the military exercise that may have been going on. Again, having worked on some of these programs (SAWE), I can tell you that most of them are done unarmed or with VERY limited live munitions. These excercises are extremely focused and to try to convert these into a real time emergency situation would be extremely difficult.

Anyway, the point is, monday morning quarterbacking is just that. Hindsight.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 18, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Add anouther 15-20 minutes to fly from Otis to New York.


Otis Air National Guard Base is located 193 miles from the World Trade Center.
A McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle has a top speed of 1650 miles per hour. 
My simple mathematics tells me that an F-15 should be able to travel 165 miles in 1/10th of an hour - 6 minutes - Which means certainly, the Eagles should hve been able to reach NYC in less than 10 minutes.

Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:13 AM ... 
the flight attendant reported the hijacking during a phone call at 8:20 AM ...
There are reports that NORAD received notification of the hijacking at 8:31 AM / 8:34 AM / 8:40 AM. It is unclear at which time Norad was alerted...
The order to scramble the aircraft occurs at 8:46 AM...
The F-15's launch from Otis ANG Base at 8:52 AM...
9:02 AM (10 minutes after launch) the F-15's are still 71 miles away.

That's 33 minutes from Hijacking until the scramble order is issued. 
That's 26 minutes from someone on the plane reporting the hijacking until the scramble order is issued. 



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Jet fighters on major exercises do not carry live ammo, unless they are heading for a range.



And just for the record ... here is a report form 'Aviation Week'.

[color=#0000]Shortly after the second WTC crash, calls from fighter units start pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, What can we do to help? At Syracuse, New York, an ANG commander [tells Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) commander Robert] Marr, Give me 10 min. and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 min. and I'll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams]. Marr replies, I want it all.[/color]

​Could the planes have responded quicker? Don't know.

But ... the F-15's were not travelling at top speed, or they were not flying to Metro-New York.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> I just crack up at you guys trying to find some mysterious conspiracy or some protocol that wasn't followed correctly. I remember 9/11 because I was working at JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) at the time and was just arriving to work. In the military and in Aerospace there is a procedure or specification for everything. Did you know there is a MIL-SPEC for condoms??..*L..anyway, on that day, pandemonium reigned at the Lab, and all they could come up with was to send everyone home, and to shut down the campus. The lab was closed for 3 days after that until they figured out what to do. Well, come to find out, there was a plan and a procedure to deal with something like this event, but no one knew where it was, and no one knew who was in charge of it. So management regrouped and came up with a new plan which involved incoming inspections and searches. This is kinda funny in itself because there is enough material and technology ON the lab to build a bomb!
> 
> Also, there is a plan for everything somewhere, even something like a plan to invade Canada. Doesn't mean anyone would ever use it, or find it, but there is a plan. Aand all these plans are made to give the US a strategic advantage or position. Included in these plans are different scenarios with different outcomes. So, of course there were plans made for Iraq, There are also plans to battle China, Russia, even Mexico.
> 
> ...



None of this should matter in a true inquiry.  In fact, this sort of attitude ensures that the truth of the matter doesn't MATTER.  I think we need to explore all facets of this event - even the unsavory ones - even the ones that we don't want to deal with.  Anything else is just going to turn this commission into a sham.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 18, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> I just crack up at you guys trying to find some mysterious conspiracy or some protocol that wasn't followed correctly. I remember 9/11 because I was working at JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) at the time and was just arriving to work. In the military and in Aerospace there is a procedure or specification for everything. Did you know there is a MIL-SPEC for condoms??..*L..anyway, on that day, pandemonium reigned at the Lab, and all they could come up with was to send everyone home, and to shut down the campus. The lab was closed for 3 days after that until they figured out what to do. Well, come to find out, there was a plan and a procedure to deal with something like this event, but no one knew where it was, and no one knew who was in charge of it. So management regrouped and came up with a new plan which involved incoming inspections and searches. This is kinda funny in itself because there is enough material and technology ON the lab to build a bomb!
> 
> Also, there is a plan for everything somewhere, even something like a plan to invade Canada. Doesn't mean anyone would ever use it, or find it, but there is a plan. Aand all these plans are made to give the US a strategic advantage or position. Included in these plans are different scenarios with different outcomes. So, of course there were plans made for Iraq, There are also plans to battle China, Russia, even Mexico.
> 
> ...


So, what would the situation have to be for you to say "Gee, you know, the United States Government and Military *really Screwed That Up*".

I bet at JPL, when somebody screws up, somebody gets fired. No one has been terminated for the security lapses. No one, apparently has been reprimanded.

Although, Paul O'Neil got canned for saying tax cuts at times of deficit may not be a good thing for the country.

If you look at the record, on average, military airplanes are dispatched to investigate planes that are off course about twice a week.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2004)

http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/old_cohss/polisci/faculty/ssconsp.htm



> (10) Why are conspiracy theories regarding 9-11 not credible?
> 
> For each of the different conspiracy theories, various possibilities exist for who was conspiring. Thus, when we take into account all the permutations of who was involved for each different theory, we have at least several dozen different conspiracy theories for 9-11. The average Leftist is supposed burrow among all this, virtually endlessly. Yet in fact none of these theories is even moderately persuasive.
> 
> ...




Contrary opinion at...
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2004)

Wow...even The Nation published this.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5206/view/print

I must be arguing with you guys too much since I see some sense in this...



"There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with "X Files"-like nonsense.

By now, youre probably wondering why I have bothered to go through this exercise. Arent these conspiracy theories too silly to address? That should be the case. But, sadly, they do attract people. A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoners claim and cites the _Toronto Star_ as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the _Star _did not confirm the mans account, that the paper reported that some observers "wonder if it isnt just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the _Star _subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. Theres still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So Im not expecting a check. 

Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with "X Files"-like nonsense. 

Examples? Theres the intelligence services failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of 15 to 20 local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation _not _be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. 

There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or 20 or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (Whats a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?) Perhaps theres a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now theres a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesnt it make sense? Doesnt it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 18, 2004)

One can compare alot of the speculation to that which occured during and after world war 2.

Did Roosavelt know Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked?   Some folks believe so.  There is evidence that suggests the attack on Pearl was known to those at the top days before it occured.  Who is right?  We'll never know.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.hollywood.com/sites/pearlharbor/id/422053 (someone made a movie about it it seems)

There are also those who believe that Winston Churchhill sacraficed Coventry during WW2 so that the Germans wouldn't know their code had been broken. 

One can argue that the Bush administration is simply repeating history here.

This one will argue that at best, gross neglect is evident, at worse, crimes for which those responsible must be brought to justice for.  Which is it?

You can only read, investigate and make your own mind up.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Otis Air National Guard Base is located 193 miles from the World Trade Center.
> A McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle has a top speed of 1650 miles per hour.
> My simple mathematics tells me that an F-15 should be able to travel 165 miles in 1/10th of an hour - 6 minutes - Which means certainly, the Eagles should hve been able to reach NYC in less than 10 minutes.
> 
> ...




To also keep in mind. Up until 911, hijackers DID NOT plow planes into buildings. Nobody you have ordered the downing of a hijacked plane, let alone over a populated area like metro-NYC.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 19, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> To also keep in mind. Up until 911, hijackers DID NOT plow planes into buildings. Nobody you have ordered the downing of a hijacked plane, let alone over a populated area like metro-NYC.


You are correct, that hijackers did not plow planes into buildings. But, terroriss using planes as weapons is a scenario that had been widely discussed throughout the Counterterrorism Security Group (headed by Richard Clarke) since before the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics. 

Next, the 'Standard Operating Procedure' (and that there is a 'Standard Operating Procedure' about this say alot in itself) is that the military aircraft would intercept the commercial airplane that has deviated from its flight plan.
A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.​Finally, *I have not *ordered the military aircraft to destroy a commercial airliner. Although, as I understand the events of September 11, 2001. Richard Clarke did seek that authorization through Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in turn received positive authorization from President George Bush. 

But, since the US Military F-15's (from Otis) and F-16's (from Langley) could not close the gap quick enough, this order was not put to the test.

Mike


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You are correct, that hijackers did not plow planes into buildings. But, terroriss using planes as weapons is a scenario that had been widely discussed throughout the Counterterrorism Security Group (headed by Richard Clarke) since before the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics.
> 
> Next, the 'Standard Operating Procedure' (and that there is a 'Standard Operating Procedure' about this say alot in itself) is that the military aircraft would intercept the commercial airplane that has deviated from its flight plan.
> A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.​Finally, *I have not *ordered the military aircraft to destroy a commercial airliner. Although, as I understand the events of September 11, 2001. Richard Clarke did seek that authorization through Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in turn received positive authorization from President George Bush.
> ...



Sorry Mike, it should hae read WOULD. as in would have ordered.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2004)

Is the 911 Commission doing a good job?

FBI agent Robert Write on tape at the National Press Club said, "I can't tell you what I know, I'll be arrested.  All I can say is that the Bush family vacations with the Bin Ladens."

Where is this guy?  Why can't we hear what he has got in his head?


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 20, 2004)

Other than Osama, the Bin Ladens are as upstanding a businessman and person as any Saudi can be.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2004)

I, too, have heard that Osama is the "pariah" of the family, yet how does this explain their funding of his operations.  Two stories again.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

The problem I have with the 911 commission is that it is not asking the right questions.

They are trying to find out if there was negligence on the part of the administration in regards to national defense. In other words, should the administration have been able to prevent 911 through clues that they had. So far, very little has come out inconclusively to prove that the administration knew that terrorists were going to ram planes into buildings beforehand. I doubt any of this evidence will come out from these hearings, and I doubt that any penelties will be doled as a result from this commission.

I think that the commission knows this, but it continues because it is a bi-partisen attempt to expose the Bush administration for its faults. I am not a Bush supporter, yet I feel that this is the wrong way to go about it.

9-11 happened because of foriegn policy problems, and ideological problems that we have had going at least as far back as the 80's in recent memory.

*Ideological Problems:* 

1. Ideology - Free Trade: By having trade opened up "freely" with another country, then both the U.S. and that country will benefit from the trade relationship. Because of this benefit, then both the U.S. and that country will not wage war against one another.
Problem: This only works between 2 countries who's leaders have similar ethics, and if the trade is fair. Often times the trade is not fair, but is forced through trade commissions by the unilateral power (us), and through the idea of "mutual gain." So, other countries who are not mutually benefiting become fustrated and begin to detest the unilateral power (us) because of the relationship rather then being happy with the relationship. Depending on how skewed the benefits become, other countries may detest us enough to want to uproot our unilateral powers through trade control, lack of support, support to our enemies, or even violence. Then, ethics become an issue. When we trade with and support terrorists and dictators, our ethics and values do not match, and war is not prevented. We traded with Saddam Huessien, for example. We currently trade with and have relationships with many other dictatorships who hate us. Even though the trade is often not exactly "fair," even if it was, they still don't have the same "free trade" ethics as us, and would still work to try to harm our country. Indonesia is another example; it is a well known fact that they are a dictatorship where muslim fundamentalism is rempent, and they harbor Al Queda terrorists. Yet, we still have factories and plants over in their country.

THis ideal leads to all sorts of problems. Our policy has never been to fight for "democracy," and it has always been about "free trade," as evident from many of the dictators that we set up in power in other countries to secure our own interests.

#2 Ideology - Mutual Gain: This is related to trade as well. Mutual gain works like this; "Hey India! Let's set up a trade relationship. You make all the rice, and we'll make the cars and computers. No! We won't teach you how to make cars and computers for yourself! Plus, you are not allowed. Only certian countries have a world wide patten on the technology to make such things, and your not one of them. So don't even try it, or you'll be in BIG trouble with us! You just stick to making what your good at, which is rice. And we'll trade, rice for cars and computers, and everyone will be happy because we are both doing what we do best!" 

The problem with this ideology is that how much rice does india have to produce to buy 1 car or computer. Try lots. So, in a trade relationship like this, the less advanced country will NEVER get ahead, and get beyond the third world. This may matter very little to the unilateral power who doesn't see the effects of mutual gain, but the countries involved with this relationship are filled with disdain, and are willing to oust the U.S. from their position to fix trade laws, if given the opportunity.

#3 Idealogy - Mutual Gain II, "Can I have my cake and eat it too, please?"
#4 Idealogy - Trickle down effect
I combined these two ideals because they are directly related.
This is the idea that if I, Mr. President, can secure my own financial interests while I am helping the public. Also, I can help all the wealthy companies who will help me. This will all, in turn, have a "trickle down effect" on america that will boost the economy and provide prosperity to the "average" american.

The problem with this is that there is no way to tell if the securing of self interest is truely beneficial to the public, or if it is just a fancy justification for satisfying personal interests. Furthermore, this becomes the root to how we allow ourselves to do business with terrorists.

There is more to these few ideologies, but for the sake of the fact that I have a meeting to prep for, I won't go any further. However, these are examples of where the real problem lies.

The fact is, the Bush family has had a relationship with the Bin Ladens going far back, through the Carlyle group and through oil interests. The fact is that Bush and Dick Cheney, and many of their pals had plans to drill in the largest untapped resource for oil; the caspian sea. They had made a deal with the Carlyle group, Haliburten, Unicol, and Al Queda to hire Al Queda to head of the project to run a pipeline through Afganistan to the Arabian sea so the oil could be shipped. A deal was in place, and prior to 911 the administration gave Afganistan 48 billion in aid. This money, as well as Al Queda's own wealth was used to help finance the project. Long story short, the deal turned sour, and some of the companies involved pulled out, leaving Al Queda high and dry, at at a financial loss. Low and behold, months latter, planes come crashing into our buildings.

Point? The ideology of Mutual Gain, Free Trade, and the Trickle down effect is what caused us to deal with nutcases who would be inclined to crash planes into our buildings. The conflict of interest between Bush, Cheney, and certian said companies also played a role.

Yet, how come the 9-11 commission isn't asking these questions to our administration? How come we aren't talking about structural problems in our ideology, and the way we handle foriegn policy, which are non-partisen issues?

That is my problem with the commission. It isn't addressing the real problems.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 24, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is the 911 Commission doing a good job?


Much of the work of the 911 commission is going on behind closed doors; which is appropriate. The testimony taking place in public does contain a certain amount of partisan showboating, on the part of the panel, and the witness. For the conversations I have heard from commission members, the whole process is proceeding in a very non-partisan way. Even if it doesn't look that way from the public comments and testimony.

In the end, it is true that criminals perpetrated the acts that occured on September 11, 2001. It is also true that there were multiple failures on the parts of the government that are responsible for monitoring criminal activies. Some of these failures were structural, but some were, no doubt, policy based. Where that line is drawn is an interesting question that the 911 commission is trying to answer (we on the left claim it is based on Bush's policies, those on the right claim the failures were institutional).

When the final report is issued, it will be interesting reading.

One point that was leaked and that I found interesting, is that President Clinton informed President Elect Bush that Osama bin Laden would be the most important foreign policy issue of his presidency. We know that Sandy Berger had this same conversation with Condolezza Rice during the transition, but now it appears that conversation also took place one level higher.

Mike


----------

