Sunday, February 19, 2006

Thursday, February 16, 2006


By Victor Thorn

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, a New York City auxiliary fire man asserted, as many others have that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” As you will note in many video's found on the www.
The ramifications of other statements are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.
He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it. It was reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World TradeCenter towers.
Also, he directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York .“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11.
There is more information related to this man circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.
Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story. Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN:
“I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”

Victor Thorn is the author of New World Order Exposed, and co-host of WING TV.
For more information, visit Thorn’s web site at or write P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA 16805-0495.
New World Order Exposed (#1080, $25, 560 pps., softcover) and 9-11 On Trial (#1178, 175 pages, $14, booklet) can be ordered from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Write 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) to order by Visa or MasterCard. (Issue #40, October 3, 2005)

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Monday, February 13, 2006

BBC News | World | America | Eyewitness

BBC News World America Eyewitness

As one of the lucky survivors of the WTC tragedy, I feel I have to convey my thoughts
We (a colleague and I) flew into NYC on Monday evening for a range of client meetings on Tuesday - the first being 8 am, Tower 2 WTC.

We were on the 72nd floor of WCT2 when the first plane hit tower 1. We heard the bang, and saw debris, and thank god, the client that I and my colleague were visiting had the sense to realise what was going on and told us to get out of the building. We were not so "street wise".

'The whole building rocked'
We walked down the stairs - 72 floors seems like one hell of a long way to have to go - afraid, but not really sure why - we really did not know exactly what had happened
The evacuation was very orderly, people were great - no panic.

As we got to around floor 50, a message came over the tannoy, telling us that there was an isolated fire in tower 1, and we did not need to evacuate tower 2. Again, thank god we continued down, others didn’t.
As we reached around floor 38, the second plane hit - the whole building rocked, I guess like a building must shake in an earthquake - although we had no idea what had happened.

We were, in fact blissfully ignorant as to what was going on - and because of that, other than momentarily, no one panicked - if we had known what I later saw on TV, I fear things may have been very different.

'Once out of the building, we ran'
As we eventually reached the lower floors - there was a greater sense of urgency - clearly people at the bottom knew what had happened. People told us to get out of the building. People began to run, the feeling changed, people were clearly more scared, not least because we feared the risk of being hit by further debris falling from above.

Even then, we had no idea that a second plane had hit our tower - (although there was already speculation that the first explosion was a plane - people around me were assuming an accident.)
Once out of the building, we ran - not sure where, but to what we thought was relative safety. We stopped to catch our breath, and after 5 minutes or so, tower 2 collapsed - we heard the noise, saw the smoke and dust, and ran for our lives again.

We escaped - we were very lucky - many many others, I know were not so lucky.
As we ran, the vivid picture of streams and streams of firefighters travelling towards the scene will stick in my mind, I think forever. Even then, we knew that as we were escaping, they were heading straight towards a total disaster area.

I think even then, we realised that many of those men and women would probably not return from the scene alive.

'I am lucky - others are not'
Only when we returned to Manhatten in the evening did we stop to see TV pictures - and only then did it really begin to sink in - the enormity of what had just happened.

We were still high on adrenaline, and trying to be very resolute, but waking up the next day, the real sense of what had happened hit. And the real feeling of sadness - for those who did not get out alive, and for those rescue workers, who basically gave their lives to save many, many people.

I will never forget the 11th September 2001 - the feelings - the mixed emotions of euphoria at being alive, followed by immense sadness for what has happened. And still it is not over.

It is almost impossible to stop replaying the scene - with different scenarios - each time I have a realisation that we were so so lucky - and that things could so easily have been different.
I am also amazed by the calmness of the individuals who evacuated with us, and in awe of the efforts of the emergency services, right from the start.

I am lucky - others are not, and my heart goes out to the families of each and every person who has not made it through this most horrendous experience.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Theorists Share Their Views of 9/11

Theorists Share Their Views of 9/11:
by Josh Richman

SAN FRANCISCO -- Days after current and former government officials testified before the official panel probing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, dozens of activists, independent journalists and others from around the world convened Friday for their own inquiry.

These are people who believe the government is lying on a grand scale, and that the Bush administration at least passively let -- and at most, actively helped -- the attacks happen.

They believe that the independent commission now probing the matter is in no way independent, and that neither it nor the corporate-owned, government-beholden mass media can be trusted to ask the right questions to get at the truth.

"The truth is not going to come out unless we demand it," said Bill Douglas of Kansas, the founder of

New York City activist Nicholas Levis said this weekend's International Inquiry into 9-11 is all about "making the connections that the mainstream media refuse to make," lest any real consideration expose "the complicity of the United States government" in the attacks.

Said attorney Phil Berg, representing 9-11 widow Ellen Mariani of New Hampshire in her racketeering lawsuit against the federal government: "The American citizens don't want to believe that our government would do something like this."

Continuing today and Sunday at the Herbst Theater on Van Ness Avenue, the conference features films, seminars, discussion forums and plenary sessions for advancing any and all ideas about the attacks.

Some attendees believe the manner in which the World Trade Center towers collapsed can be explained only by explosives within the buildings, although architectural engineers have said burning jet fuel weakened the towers' supporting steel, finally letting the towers' floors "pancake" to the ground.

Some dispute government accounts that military jets were scrambled but didn't intercept the hijacked airplanes in time, instead believing the jets were intentionally kept grounded.

Some draw dire conclusions from the fact that Marvin P. Bush, the president's brother, from 1993 to 2000 was on the board of directors of a company that provided some electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines; the same company was backed by a Kuwaiti investment firm with links to the Bush family.

Some note the government let relatives of Osama bin Laden fly out of the United States on a chartered jet in the hours after the attacks, even while all other commercial jets remained grounded. FBI officials have said they had access to those people before they departed that day, and were satisfied they had no information about the attacks.

Some liken the Sept. 11 attacks to Operation Northwoods, a plan developed by U.S. military leaders in the early 1960s -- and reported in 2001 by major media including the Baltimore Sun and ABC News -- to attack U.S. civilian and military targets and blame it on Cuba as a pretext to invade that Communist nation.

Some say it's more like the January 1933 arson of the German Reichstag, which many historians believe was staged by the Nazi Party and blamed upon Communists in order to consolidate Adolf Hitler's power.
Mike Ruppert of Los Angeles, publisher and editor of the newsletter From The Wilderness, said the attacks are "so straightforward in terms of its criminality that even a 6-year-old could understand what happened."

The "systemic shutdown" of air defenses that day; pre-attack insider trading involving airlines, insurers and banks affected by the attacks; a history of business dealings between the Bush and bin Laden families -- all these and other things paint a clear picture of government complicity, he claimed.

This weekend's conference is a sign, Ruppert said, that regardless of what the government, the media, big business and other forces at play in this matter want, "we will not let 9/11 go."

Friday, February 10, 2006

Action Plan: Citizens Counter-Coup

Action Plan: Citizens Counter-Coup
February 9, 2006

This Saturday marks 4 years and 5 months since 9/11/01, the seminal event which changed our reality forever and put this nation and the world under the full frontal assault of the neocon agenda.

For all who have researched and analyzed the events of 9/11 in context of a decades-long pattern of acts of aggression against populations at home and abroad, our sense of urgency is ever present and drives us daily to work towards reclaiming our lives and collective future. In the past month we've seen more record oil profits, this time from Chevron.

Congress has held hearings on the Katrina travesty which revealed much about the criminal absence of governmental response to the killer storm, and further confirmed that foreknowledge of the potential for widespread devastation existed.

Another Bin Laden tape has miraculously surfaced to conveniently redirect public attention from the Abramoff/Delay scandal, which could take down scores of Republican congressmembers and others.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez went before a Congressional hearing to defend the warrantless wiretaps as an integral entitlement of Bush’s war powers. The PATRIOT Act is up for renewal in a few weeks after having the vote postponed just before the holidays and extended again last week.

The Bush administration has presented a budget which strips more money away from social programs that impact the poor and elderly in order to cut spending, yet wants to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent.

This budget also proposes a record $439.3 billion US defense budget for 2007. Homeland Security has contracted with KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, designating $385 million to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities" for illegal immigrants ( This is merely a glimpse of what makes up current reality.

Does anyone see the need for action? Would anyone like to be part of a campaign that has the potential to grow exponentially, create mass awareness and action? Is anyone interested in easing their workload by building a wider movement to distribute the work that must be done? This is what Citizens Counter-Coup is designed to do.

Why should we believe this is worthwhile? Last week's editorial in the Miami Herald, which highlights how the media and public have avoided the hard questions, represents a minor breakthrough in the corporate media challenge. Paul Craig Roberts has publicly stated that there is just no probability the government, which has lied about so much else, has told the truth about 9/11.

John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, has stated on C-SPAN that there are serious questions about 9/11 that need to be asked, and even referred people to An anti-war group called "World Can't Wait" has a chapter in Nyack, NY which requested a 9/11 speaker.

A Peace Action group in Jersey City, NJ holding an anti-war event on Feb. 18th is also requesting a 9/11 speaker. A student in Kansas City is starting a 9/11 group at his university. Overall, momentum is continuing to build in our favor. We have to work now more than ever to build our base -- which can become substantial in a matter of months -- if we focus.

Now we have the tool that can make the difference. Even though the government has been unresponsive in the past and the media has been an obstruction, we need to realize that there is a majority of people in high levels of public service who are aware of the crisis we're in and are just waiting for the American public to get engaged and fulfill their obligation to lead the leaders.

They need us to rise up. Either we set the agenda or the military/industrial/intelligence complex will continue to set it for us. The choice is clear. This month we have received endorsements for Citizens Counter-Coup from David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Carol Brouillet and Donna Marsh O'Connor.

We have some strong new talking points, as well. We urge all to participate by taking 15 minutes this week to do what is prescribed on the Actions page, as well as spread this announcement and add to your emails the signature line below, which includes the site info.

Help us build a movement of 100,000 by May. All it takes is for each one of us committing to get 10 people this month to become part of the 9/11 truth wave!

Towards truth and justice,
The Steering Committee
Become Part of Citizens Counter-Coup, The Formula For Change

Sunday, February 05, 2006

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

9/11 Airport Surveillance Video Discrepancies

The story that the hijackers used box-cutters and plastic knives in the attack on the World Trade Center is a functional fictoid. In this case, the function was diversion. This fictoid serves to divert public attentions from the responsibility, and legal liability, of the government and airlines to prevent major weapons- such as guns, bombs, chemical sprays and hunting knives from being carried aboard airplanes. If such illegal devices had been smuggled aboard the planes, the liability could amount to billions of dollars. If, on the other hand, it could be disseminated that the hijackers had only used plastic knives, such as those provided by the airlines for meals, or box cutters, which were allowed on planes, neither the airlines, the screeners at the airport, or the FAA, which regulates the safety of airports, could be held legally responsible. [Full Details]

The BBC reported a transcript of a phone call made by Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls in which she gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, and these seat numbers did not correspond with those of the men claimed by the FBI to be responsible for the hijacking:

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names. [BBC News]
CNN reported that the men who hijacked the aircraft used phony IDs containing the names of real people living in Arab nations in the middle east.

The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers' "personal details" - including name, place, date of birth and occupation - matched their own. [Telegraph]

The FBI says there is no evidence to link the above men to the 9/11 hijackings.
In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." [Insight]

So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.
A Saudi embassy official said it was difficult to know for certain whether the hijackers used bogus names. "You cannot throw a stone in Saudi Arabia without hitting an Al Ghamdi," he said, referring to the alleged last name of three of the hijackers. [Chicago Tribune]

Now, people who are intending to commit suicide normally don't worry about whether anyone knows their real name, and it is here that some other odd aspects of this case take on a new meaning.
We are told that the group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks were highly trained (possibly by the CIA) experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs, yet at the same time we are being told that these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications.

We are also being told that they spent the night before the attack getting drunk in bars, making noise, screaming insults at the "infidels", and doing everything they could to attract attention to themselves. They used the credit cards issued in their stolen names, allowed their driver's licenses with the stolen names to be photocopied, and used public library computers to send emails back and forth using their stolen names signed to unencrypted messages about their plans to steal aircraft and crash them into buildings, then decorated their apartments with absurdly obvious props such as a crop dusting manual to the point where the whole affair reads like a low budget "B" detective movie from the 1930s.
In short, these men did everything they could to make sure everyone knew who they were, or more to the point, who they were pretending to be.

Because the IDs used by the hijackers were phony, we cannot know who they really were or who they really worked for. But what is apparent is that those who planned the hijackings and the 9/11 attacks went out of their way to leave plenty of clues pointing to citizens of middle eastern Arab nations.
Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase." [The New Yorker]

We don't know who planned 9/11 attacks.
But we do know who they wanted us to think they were.

We do know who they intended America to blame for the attacks.

A 9-11 rescue worker recently came forward to say he was told by FBI agents to “keep my mouth shut” about one of the “black boxes” a fellow firefighter helped locate at ground zero, contradicting the official story that none of the flight and cockpit data recorders were ever recovered in the wreckage of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.

Those close to the 9-11 investigation said the recovery of the “black boxes” is important because they may hold vital clues about what really happened on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The cockpit voice recorder uses a pair of microphones to capture all cockpit sounds for the last 30 minutes of a doomed flight. The flight data recorder is also significant since it records altitude, heading and airspeed. [AFP]

See also:
Tracking All HijackersThe 9/11 Hijackings - Index of What Really Happened

FBI Admits: No Evidence

FBI Admits: No Evidence

FBI Admits: No Evidence Links 'Hijackers' to 9-11
The possibility that 19 Muslim men accused of being the Sept. 11 hijackers were not, in fact, the hijackers, is not so extraordinary an idea as it might seem.

Exclusive To American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper

After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen that there exists solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller has now admitted quite the opposite.

That 19 Muslim men who have apparently disappeared have been named as the hijackers is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.
The amazing possibility remains that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who have been assigned guilt in the tragedy.

In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, “left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly:

In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.

In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that:

Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.

The Times reporters acknowledge that Mueller’s comments “offer the FBI’s most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have.”

The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used “meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.

Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources speciously announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.
Mueller seems to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped “discoveries”—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal belongings of the presumed hijackers which “proved” that they were on a “mission for Allah,” etc etc.

Now Mueller’s comments seem to contradict everything that’s been said. - Report cites warnings before 9/11 - Sep. 18, 2002 - Report cites warnings before 9/11 - Sep. 18, 2002

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday. (they knew)
In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said. duh, unless it was allowed.

"The FBI's New York office took no action on the information," it said. we know
Another alert came just a month before the attacks, the report said, when the CIA sent a message to the FAA warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner." The information was linked to a group of Pakistanis based in South America. (and Pakistani Intelligence was mingling with all of you at the time of the attacks)

That warning did not mention using an airliner as a weapon and, the report said, "there was apparently little, if any, effort by intelligence community analysts to produce any strategic assessments of terrorists using aircraft as weapons."

Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the goal of Wednesday's hearing was "not to point a finger or pin blame" but to correct "systemic problems (that) might have prevented our government from detecting and disrupting al Qaeda's plot."

Nothing found is a "smoking gun," Graham said. "But collectively I think there was enough there that we should have done a better job of seeing what was coming and hopefully, with luck, stopping it."
Graham told CNN "It wouldn't have taken a lot of luck. It would have taken someone who could have asked and gotten answers to the right follow-up questions and then put it together."
The report, which looked at more than a dozen federal intelligence agencies, suggests the United States had more information that might have helped to prevent the terror attacks than the government has previously said.

As early as 1994 the government received information that international terrorists "had seriously considered the use of airplanes as a means of carrying out terrorist attacks," the report says.
In July 2001, the report says, a briefing prepared for senior government officials warned of "a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning."
The joint committee's report discusses information federal intelligence agencies gathered about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

It said that in 1998, officials received reports concerning a "bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, areas." Officials received reports that al Qaeda was trying to establish an operative cell in the United States and that bin Laden was attempting to recruit a group of five to seven young men from the United States to travel to the Middle East for training in conjunction with his plans to strike U.S. domestic targets.

The intelligence reports "generally did not contain specific information as to where, when, and how a terrorist attack might occur," the committee said, and they represented only "a small percentage of the threat information that the Intelligence Community obtained during this period, most of which pointed to the possibility of attacks against U.S. interests overseas."

Nonetheless, the report said, "the totality of the information in this body of reporting clearly reiterated a consistent and critically important theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States."

In fact in December 1998, the report says, the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told his deputies, "We must now enter a new phase in our effort against bin Laden. ... We are at war."
"Relatively few of the FBI agents interviewed by the joint inquiry staff seem to have been aware of Tenet's declaration," the report said.
The report says that in July and August 2001, intelligence reporting "began to decrease" -- even though the al Qaeda threat was growing.

On September 10, 2001, some 35 to 40 personnel were assigned to a unit created by the director of central intelligence with the specific task of tracking bin Laden. Fewer than 20 people were part of a similar unit at the FBI. The report raises "questions about the adequacy of these resources with respect to the magnitude of the threat." You knew where he was.

The report also suggests intelligence officials did not focus enough attention on a critical al Qaeda operative, unnamed in the report, whom officials had known about since 1995 "but did not recognize his growing importance" to the organization or to Osama bin Laden.

The report says the director of central intelligence has refused to declassify two pieces of information: precisely what the White House knew and information about a key al Qaeda operative involved in the attacks.

Government sources told CNN that operative is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom they describe as one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks. He was indicted by the United States for plotting to bomb U.S. airliners in 1995. Officials believe he also plotted to have airplanes hijacked and flown into U.S. buildings.

Listed as one of the government's 22 most wanted terrorists, Mohammed is in hiding. U.S. officials believe he was in Pakistan when last heard from.
Stephen Push, who lost his wife in the World Trade Center, told lawmakers at the hearing, "Our loved ones paid the ultimate price for the worst American intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor."
Push said the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy must be thoroughly restructured. "If it isn't," he said, "the next attack may involve weapons of mass destruction -- and the death toll may be in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands." - Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs - September 21, 2001 - Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs - September 21, 2001

(CNN) -- FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been "relatively easy" based on their level of sophistication.

Chris McGoey is a San Francisco, California-based security consultant who has worked with numerous major retailers on combating identity theft. He's seen hundreds of falsified IDs, and while he hasn't seen the ones used by the alleged September 11 hijackers, he offers some insight into how they could have been obtained.

Fake identities can be created in a couple of different ways, he says; the perpetrators could obtain information about an actual person to get duplicate materials, or they could establish a virtual individual from scratch. The latter would be more difficult, says McGoey, since it would require the creation of documents.

According to McGoey, the key information these hijackers would have needed is Social Security numbers (often the unique identifier for business use), driver's license numbers, and date of birth or birth certificates. From there, they could assemble a new identity. Even a person's address or name would help them get started. A passport or visa would be more difficult to forge, says McGoey, but not impossible.

And since state ID such as a driver's license or birth certificate often vary by state or county, he adds, it's almost impossible for service employees to verify the authenticity.
"If you take an L.A. birth certificate to New York, they're probably not going to have a clue as to whether it's official or not," says McGoey.

"Could a common criminal on the street do this stuff? No. They're not sophisticated enough. These (the hijackers) are people who researched, planned and studied. They likely didn't have to go to a forger to do it."

9/11: 10 Smoking Guns

9/11: 10 Smoking Guns

1) Why didn't NORAD fulfil its standard operating procedure and intercept the planes? Were NORAD intentionally confused by the wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 or were they ordered to stand down?

Flight 77 was known by NORAD to have been hijacked by 8:50am. Yet it is a full 48 minutes until any fighters are scrambled, as two leave Langley AFB just two minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:40am.

2) What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings. The passage is taken from testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

3) What was the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7? The building wasn't hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in the same manner as the twin towers. Why hasn't Larry Silverstein offered a public explanation as to the meaning behind his comments on a September 2002 PBC documentary, America Rebuilds, where he admits the decision was made to "pull" the building. Pulling a building is the industry term for controlled demolition.
The official FEMA report listed fire damage as the reason for the building's collapse, even though photos taken before the collapse indicate minimal fires.

How can the collapse of the building and also the twin towers be justified in light of numerous examples of high story buildings which burned for hours and even days without collapsing, such as the recent Windsor Building fire in Madrid?

4) How did Rudolph Giuliani know that the south tower was about to collapse? Giuliani told ABC's Peter Jennings, "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse."

The World Trade Center was the first steel building to collapse from fire damage in history.
Who told Giuliani the building was going to collapse and how did they know?

5) In the days following September 11th, the FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers.
At least four of these hijackers are still alive. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri ) was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

Other so called 'suicide hijackers' who have come forward to protest their innocence (being alive is a good enough alibi) are Abdulaziz Al Omari , Saeed Alghamdi and Khalid Al Midhar.
How can we take claims of paper passports that miraculously escaped the impact of the plane and the gigantic fireballs and fluttered mostly unscathed down to the ground seriously? At least a third of the victims were never identified and yet a paper passport survives. Was this an attempt to frame the very individuals the FBI would later blame for the attack?

6) Who told a number of public officials not to fly into New York on the morning of 9/11 and why didn't the people on the targeted planes get the same warnings?
Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his 'airport security' late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat.

Newsweek twice reported that top Pentagon officials had got a warning of the impending attack on September 10th, and cancelled their flights for the next day. This confirms that these officials knew both the locations of the imminent attack and the method of using jetliners as bombs.

7) From July 4th-14th 2001, Osama bin Laden was being treated for kidney infection at the American Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. There, on multiple occasions, he met with CIA station Chief Larry Mitchell. Bin Laden gave Mitchell 'precise information' regarding 'an imminent attack' on the US. Bin Laden also met with numerous members of his family, who left the US by chartered flights after September 11th with the full blessings of the US government.

A 2000 Clinton presidential executive order was still in effect and mandated that bin Laden should have been killed on the spot. Bin Laden was allowed to leave of his own free will.

8) A record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'

9) Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls.

The investigation as to which criminals benefited from advance knowledge of the terrorist attack led straight to Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank - chaired up until 1997 by executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.
Why wasn't Krongard taken in for questioning by the FBI and who else was involved in this insider trading?

10) Pakistan ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad instructed Ahmad Umar Sheikh to hotwire $100,000 to the 9/11 lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta.

On September 11th, Ahmad was a guest of former clandestine CIA officer and CFR member Rep. Porter Goss and Skull and Bones/CFR member Senator Bob Graham. Since September 4th, he had met with top brass at the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House, including Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Joseph Biden and George Tenet.

Condoleezza Rice lied in a May 16th 2002 press conference when she claimed ignorance of Ahmad's visit and the $100,000 transfer. Ahmad had already resigned from the ISI and the FBI had confirmed the circumstances behind this. Rice stated "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me."

What was the money man behind the terrorists doing in the halls of the US government before, during and after 9/11?

Putfile - Ask Questions Demand Answers74

Putfile - Ask Questions Demand Answers74

Song by rapper and video of a few brief highlights of the day.
Things we must question. Things we deserve answers to. ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement

to a quick course on the shortest paths to 9/11 truth...


The Two-Step 9/11 Truth Expedition: The demands on brain and heart

The Mission: Where we are going with this and where we are not

Wildlife to be Avoided: Note on some of our zanier friends along the way

Paths to 9/11 Understanding

The Path of Official Absurdity - A black humor course in Coincidence Theory

The Path of News Breaks - The long slow climb of 9/11 questions into media visibility

The Path of Stubborn Questions - Victim family queries that remain unanswered to this day

The Path of Deceit, Distortion & Perjury - The neocon warrior's way

The Path of Past Precedents - How & why these "enabling events" keep happening to us

The Path of Timelines - Where simply aligning times with facts often connects the dots ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement

The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001

Background Issues: The Abiding Truth Deficit

1) The 9/11 Commission Fraud: Conflicts, Collapse and Cover-up

2) The Hundreds of Still Unanswered Questions, the Scores of Documented Lies
Motive Issues: Cui Bono - Who Profits Most?

3) Instant Fulfillment of Neocon Wish List

4) Political Bonanza for Bush/Rove team

5) Scale and Diversity of Profiteering
Means and Opportunity Issues: How to Make it Happen

6) Ignored Foreign Warnings

7) Quashed Domestic Investigations

8) Incapacitated Oversight

9) Disabled Air Defenses

10) The Amazing Disappearing National Chain of Command

11) The Pakistan Intelligence Chief Who Loved Everyone At Once
Aftermath Issues: How to Keep the Lid On

12) The Bitter Fight Against Investigations

13) The Amazing Disappearing Evidence

14) The Amazing Disappearing Demand for Accountability
Wildcard Issues: Just How Stupid They Think We Are?

15) The Ripley Believe It or Not Sideshow of 9/11 Miracles

Epilogue: For the 9/11 Legacy Victims Still Dying in New York

Friday, February 03, 2006

Telegraph | News | Saddam, Osama and me

Telegraph News Saddam, Osama and me

As indicated in another blog; Prince Turki al-Faisal was attending the Jan 31, 2006 State of the Union Address, and the camera panned to him during the speach.

As the controversy over the Saudi government's alleged involvement with Osama bin Laden and 9/11 deepens, Prince Turki al-Faisal grants an exclusive interview to Con Coughlin to defend his reputation and that of his country

Running Saudi Arabia's intelligence service is not a job for the faint-hearted. During the 24 years that Prince Turki al-Faisal ran the organisation he had intimate dealings with the world's two most notorious outlaws, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

"The most glaring similarity between them is that they do not mind shedding innocent blood. In both cases, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden made it an aim of theirs to shed the blood of the innocent."

Prince Turki al-Faisal

Prince Turki, 57, a direct descendant of King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the founder of the Saudi kingdom, is speaking surrounded by the splendour of the Saudi Arabian embassy in London where he has recently taken up residence as ambassador. Given the clandestine nature of his previous profession, the urbane, Cambridge-educated prince is normally reticent about speaking in public.

However the continuing controversy concerning the Saudi government's alleged involvement with bin Laden and the September 11 suicide attacks has prompted him to break cover to defend both the reputation of his country and himself.

The Saudi ambassador is named in a £600 billion law suit that has been launched by the families of those killed in the September 11 attacks against a number of Saudi princes, banks and charities that are alleged to have helped fund the terrorists responsible for the attack.

And the Saudi government, in the form of Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister and Prince Turki's brother, has expressed its extreme displeasure at the American government's decision to withhold 28 pages of a congressional report that has cast suspicion on the kingdom's role in the attacks.
Yesterday the New York Times reported that the classified section says that two Saudi citizens who had indirect links with some of the hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials.

Speaking in his first British newspaper interview since taking up residence in London last January, Prince Turki is diplomatic about the charges that have been levelled against him personally. "When you work in the intelligence business for nearly 30 years you expect to get a lot of flak, especially when you are undertaking intelligence operations," he told The Telegraph.

"I am not saying that I am thick-skinned about it or affected by it; of course I am. But I am here to do a job. Hopefully I will succeed in doing that job regardless of such attention."
But Prince Turki is more forthright when tackled about Washington's decision to classify sections of the congressional report into September 11 that relate to Saudi Arabia. "All of us are very angry," he declares.

"We are accused of something and they will not tell what we are accused of. We're asked to do things and we don't know what we are supposed to do. And those who have seen those 28 pages have come out and issued statements about Saudi Arabia that are vicious and, from our point of view, completely untrue," he says, emphasising his profound sense of indignation by re-arranging his gold-braided Arab head-dress.

One of the main reasons, of course, that Saudi Arabia's conduct is under such intense scrutiny is that bin Laden was in many respects a creation of the Saudi intelligence community when the Saudis were actively supporting Islamic fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s. As the head of Saudi intelligence during that period, Prince Turki had several meetings with bin Laden, although he firmly rejects any suggestion that he has had dealings with the al-Qa'eda leader since he founded the terror group in the early 1990s.

"At that time [during the 1980s] I would describe him as gentle and self-effacing, and hardly talking to anyone. Very shy," says Prince Turki. "There has been a remarkable transformation. Now he is in a self-deluding, maniacal stage where he believes that he is the annointed of God and everybody else is in league with the devil."

The prince also insists that it was wrong to categorise al-Qa'eda as a predominantly Saudi organisation. "al-Qa'eda did not come out of Saudi Arabia, it came out of Afghanistan," he says. "The fact that bin Laden is the leader of al-Qa'eda does not mean to say that it is a Saudi organisation or group."

While Prince Turki's critics concentrate their energies on his relations with bin Laden and al-Qa'eda, relatively little attention is paid to his dealings with Saddam Hussein - even though his previous job required him to play a central role in monitoring the former Iraqi dictator's weapons of mass destruction programme.

As a consequence of Saddam's ill-fated invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Prince Turki spent most of the ensuing decade working closely with British and American intelligence officials trying to find out whether Saddam continued to pose a threat to the region.

Although Prince Turki stepped down as Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief on September 1, 2001, just 10 days before the World Trade Center attacks, he remains deeply sceptical about Saddam's alleged links with both weapons of mass destruction and bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network.

"Having worked closely with the British and American intelligence services on both these issues, we had not by then found any such weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or links between al-Qa'eda and Iraq," he says. "We definitely received lots of information on both these issues and, knowing how Saddam cheated on the efforts of the UN inspectors since 1991 it was not beyond the imagination to think that he was seeking these weapons of mass destruction. But there was never ever any proof."

Prince Turki reassumes his diplomatic persona when I inquire whether the Saudi Arabian intelligence assessment of the threat posed by Saddam was relayed to his British and American counterparts. After all, these were the main justifications given for the war to remove Saddam. "We shared our information with all our friends, not just the British and Americans," he says.

As for the war itself, he refuses to be drawn on whether or not it was justified, stating simply that he is happy that the Iraqi people are now masters of their own destiny.

And what of Saddam himself? Would the Saudis be prepared to offer him refuge, just as they did with Idi Amin, the former Ugandan dictator. Prince Turki, in a reference to Amin's recent ill health, quips: "If Saddam is going to come in a coma, then maybe we will accept him."

5 December 2002: Terror-linked Saudi prince named envoy to Britain
1 December 2002: New Saudi ambassador summonsed over Sept 11
19 October 2002: New Saudi envoy to London has bin Laden links
19 September 2002: Saudi Arabia recalls renegade ambassador

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Final Fraud

The Final Fraud

[The players of the Warren Commission farce of our day have taken their bow. The crew begins to strike the set, the actors are going home, and soon the house is cold and the stage empty. There will be no encores, and the reviews are not good. Behind the scenes, the director is relieved but a little nervous; the producers may or may not be satisfied with the return on their investment. So many pretty microphones, such fine suits and ties! But will it play in Peoria?

In this eyewitness account, Mike Kane looks at the Commission's performance on the day of the really big show - NORAD / FAA day. He finds a chorus of costumed players mouthing their lines to their uniformed counterparts as the cameras roll. The dangerous issue they pretend to confront is nowhere to be seen, and before the harmless script comes off the press and into the bookstores, we recognize the gist: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -JAH

"First of all, there's no scheme here or plot to spin this story to try to cover or take a bullet for anyone."
General Eberhart - testimony to 9/11 Commission on June 17, 2004

When asked who was responsible for coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of September 11, 2001, General Ralph E Eberhart, the man in charge of NORAD on the morning in question replied, "No Comment."

It is extremely suspect that Eberhart was unable to comment when we look at his sworn testimony just moments before this question was posed to him on June 17, 2004, in response to Commissioner Roemer's line of questioning.

Tim Roemer was the only Commissioner to pose a question about military exercises running on the morning of 9/11. He opened by making reference to an 8:38 FAA communication to NEADS regarding a hijacked aircraft headed to New York. The response from NEADS was, "Is this real world or an exercise?" FAA response was, "No, this is not an exercise, not a test." Roemer then asked General Eberhart:

My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, "No, there's no possibility that this is real world; we're engaged in an exercise," and delay things?

Eberhart's response:

Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews - they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.
If the war games helped "because of the focus," why would General Eberhart be reluctant to go on record regarding the issue of just who was the central person coordinating that focus? Was the General himself, the man who headed NORAD that very morning, in charge of coordinating the multiple war games on 9/11?
No Comment.
From Russia with LoveFrom the moment Generals Myers, Eberhart, and Arnold were sworn in to testify, they continually stated that NORAD's "military posture on 9/11, by law, by policy and in practice was focused on responding to external threats, threats originating outside of our borders" (a quotation from General Myers sworn testimony).

But NORAD was not simply running "an exercise against the former Soviet Union" on 9/11, as Commissioner Roemer's question insinuated. That was only one of the multiple war games running that morning, titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE, which was simulating an air attack coming out of Russia.

To insinuate, as Commissioner Roemer did, that this was the only exercise that morning lends credence to the three Generals' false claim that NORAD's only mission was to protect against external threats.
The multiple war games running on 9/11 also included (but were not limited to) VIGILANT GUARDIAN, which involved hijacking scenarios over the continental United States. None of the war games was ever referenced by name at any time during the hearings. The details of these exercises are the Achilles' heel of the "external threat" mantra parroted by all three generals, and these details seem to be classified.

There was one other mention of the war games from Commissioner Lehman, in which he referred to the military exercises as one of the "happy circumstances" on the morning of 9/11.

In response to General Myers' statement regarding NORAD's legal mission, Commissioner Gorelick noted that it includes control of the airspace above the domestic U.S. (the Continental United States, or CONUS).

She read the mandate aloud: "Providing surveillance & control of the airspace of Canada and the United States." Myers actually had the nerve to attempt to use Posse Comitatus as a rationale for absolving the Air Force of responsibility for what happened on 9/11. He claimed that the 1878 Posse Comitatus law (which has, ironically, been seriously undermined by the Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11) made it illegal for the military to be involved in "domestic law enforcement."

Of course, it does. But that has nothing to do with 9/11, since hijack response had been a NORAD responsibility for decades; and for obvious reasons, nobody had ever raised a Posse Comitatus objection to that mandate in the past (because, for instance, the police do not fly F-16's).

Commissioner BenVeniste asked General Richard Myers if he had been made aware of the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui on August 17 as a suspected "suicide hijacker." Myers responded,
"I think I would've but I don't recall."

BenVeniste asked Myers the following question:

Had you received such information tying together the potential reflected in the August 6th PDB memorandum that was titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States together with this additional information (regarding the Moussaoui suicide-hijacking information), might you have followed up on a training scenario, at the least, such as the Positive Force training scenario, where a hijacked plane was presumed to fly into the Pentagon, a proposal that was made and rejected in the year 2000? [emphasis added]

This is skillful deception, the kind to which BenVeniste has grown accustomed during his time on the 9/11 Commission. To pose such a question when it is a matter of public record that such drills were running on the morning of 9/11 is a patently misleading line of questioning.
Myers responded:
I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward.

He reverted to the trusty (but absurd) mantra chanted by all three generals.
While Commissioners BenVeniste and Gorelick appeared to be asking "hard-hitting" questions, they always stopped short of anything that would get to the heart of the matter. They made no mention of the war games running on the morning of 9/11, neither in this round of hearings nor during the previous round, in which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke under oath.

Furthermore, not one of the Commissioners brought up the 67 Air Force interceptions successfully executed during the year prior to 9/11 (AP, 8/13/02). After the hearing Commissioner John Thompson was asked if there had been any discussion by the commissioners regarding the speed at which the fighter jets responded on 9/11. He said that there had not been, but that there would be.
Such concerns were addressed very briefly during the commission's first hearings focusing on NORAD, back in May 2003, but nothing of importance was explored at that time.

"Waste of Time"
The Commissioners were asked about the war games - after the hearings.
When Commissioner BenVeniste was asked why he chose not to ask questions about the war games running on 9/11 he claimed the time allotted was short and that he had done the best he could. When asked if he knew who was in charge of coordinating the multiple war games that morning he replied, "you'd have to check with staff on that."

To this same crucial question Commissioner Gorelick replied, "…we did look at the exercises running on that day. I don't know the answer to that question." When asked why she chose not to question the generals about the war games she replied, "the staff concluded [that the war games] were not an inhibition to the military doing its job and therefore I wasn't going to waste my time with that."
Apparently some members of the audience did not agree.

Immediately before Commissioner Gorelick began her allotted time for questioning the generals, a member of the audience yelled out, "Ask about the war games that were planned for 9/11." Another audience member followed his lead:

"Tell us about the war games."

These audience member comments were published in the Associated Press transcript of the hearings.
At this point, tension filled the room. Shortly into the questioning, one of the audience members who had just bellowed at the commission stood up and shouted; "This is an outrage! My questions are not being answered, and I'm walking out!"

He was carrying an American flag as he was escorted out.

He must have realized the war games were not going to be addressed in any meaningful fashion. This outburst, though clearly audible, was omitted from the Associated Press transcript. It seems that this outburst may have been what prompted Commissioner Tim Roemer to throw the one & only softball question about the exercises at General Eberhart later in the hearings. It's regrettable that the protester didn't shout one or two of his questions before being escorted out, but his passionate gesture was helpful in its own way.

Kyle Hence of 9/11 CitizensWatch asked Commissioner Gorelick why fighter jets weren't scrambled from Andrews Air Force base. Mr. Hence stated that, to his knowledge, at least 3 fighters from Andrews were performing exercises over 200 miles away on that morning. This left Washington DC defenseless on 9/11. When asked how that could possibly be allowed, Commissioner Gorelick would not comment.

When asked if the commission had ever addressed the multiple war games running on 9/11, and who was in charge of coordinating them, Chairman Kean responded, "Yes, we did, it wasn't a coordination, there were a number of them going on as there are periodically but they were not, and they helped in one way because there were people available who wouldn't have been available otherwise."
When following up for clarification on whether there was an individual in charge of coordinating these drills, Chairman Kean replied, "No, I don't think so. You might want to check with staff on that."
Staff Communication director Jonathan Stull, after being asked the same line of questions repeatedly, has stated he is "looking into this." Mr. Stull later stated, "This is an issue that the Commission is looking into and will address in the final report." We shall see how far into this they look.
New Timeline?

The commission staff report presented new times for some critical events on 9/11. Based upon this new information, the military response time has been shortened and the FAA is left as the scapegoat. Least believable is the new time for FAA notification to the military that UA 93 was off course. Here are the new times for events on the morning of 9/11 compared to the original official times.

Original Official timeline
New 9/11 Staff timeline

FAA informs NORAD about AA11
8:40 (NORAD timeline)
UA 175 transponder switches to different signal
FAA informs NORAD about UA 175
Phone bridge FAA (disputed)
Some time after 9:03
FAA informs NORAD about UA 93
10:07 (is this believable?)
FAA informs NORAD about AA77. They claim the old 9:24 scramble order was actually for "Phantom Flight 11"
Cheney shoot-down order for UA 93 (which had been taken over by us citizens- by that time)
10:20 or so
UA 93 'crash' time - still in dispute
**special thanks to Nic Levis for assistance with timeline chart analysis

Visual presentation of Flight 77's path from "radar reconstruction" performed after 9/11
Pentagon "Phantom Flight"One of the most shocking claims coming out of the final public hearing was what the Commission called the "phantom flight." This referred to the plane alleged to have struck the Pentagon. An FAA communication to NORAD stated it was Flight 11 - which had already struck WTC 1 - that was off-course and headed to Washington DC, not Flight 77. The report states it was "unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information."
At 8:54, Flight 77 began deviating from its flight plan, first with a slight turn toward the south. It then "disappeared completely" at 8:56, according to the 9/11 Commission staff report.
The report continues:Shortly after 9:00, Indianapolis Center started notifying other agencies that American 77 was missing and had possibly crashed … At 9:09, they reported the loss of contact to the FAA regional center, which passed this information to FAA headquarters at 9:24 … Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56 a.m. But for eight minutes and thirteen seconds, between 8:56 a.m. and 9:05 a.m., this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.
In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around… American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, DC.
Benedict Sliney, the FAA's National Operations Manager on 9/11 (it was his first day in that position) was questioned by Chairman Kean about the radar & transponder issues of Flight 77. Even after the plane's transponder signal had stopped, Sliney stated, "There are radars that would have seen the target regardless. Would they have known what to be looking for? I do not know."1
Orders were issued from the Mission Crew Commander at NEADS at 9:23:"Okay … scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area."
The order to scramble was given to fighters out of Langley Air Force base in Virginia, leaving the fighters scrambled from Otis over New York. However, the Langley fighters were headed east, not north, because they followed a "generic" scramble order. This sent them over the ocean, out of local airspace, because the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go east was newer guidance that superseded the original scramble order.
Why didn't they follow the scramble order as issued from the Mission Crew Commander at NEADS? A direct order from a Commander most certainly supercedes any "generic" plan.
It is claimed the Langley pilots were never briefed about the reason they were scrambled. As the lead pilot explained, "I reverted to the Russian threat… I'm thinking cruise missile threat from the sea. You know, you look down and see the Pentagon burning and I thought the bastards snuck one by us."
Seeing how the Langley jets were scrambled out to sea, this "generic" scramble plan must have been assuming an external attack coming from across the Atlantic. But how is it conceivable that well after both Twin Towers are struck, fighter pilots were still thinking of a generic "Russian threat"? It is claimed the pilots were never made aware that the threat was from hijacked airliners. Wouldn't that information have been included in the NEADS scramble order at 9:23 or shortly thereafter? Two towers are burning and no one tells the fighter jocks?

The Otis jets were scrambled at 8:46 in response to the hijacking of Flight 11. Because the plane's transponder signal had disappeared, NEADS spent the next several minutes searching their radar for the "elusive primary radar return." The Otis jets were airborne by 8:53, well after Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. But were sent out off the coast of Long Island because, it is claimed, NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft. This allowed Flight 175 to crash into the second World Trade Tower. This is almost exactly what happened to the jets scrambled from Langley, allowing the Pentagon to be struck.

This information is all based on the commission staff report.

NMCC Communication
Also under oath beside the three Generals sat Admiral Charles Leidig.
Leidig was the stand-in Deputy Director for Operations of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) on 9/11 at precisely 0830. This ended up putting him in charge of facilitating the first conference call at the NMCC on 9/11 between multiple agencies including the FAA and NORAD.

Throughout the morning there were difficulties getting the FAA into the conference call, which hampered communication flow for some time. Leidig said the FAA was "intermittently" in the call. He said he understood there were compatibility issues between their secure lines and the FAA's, which caused the FAA to "drop out" of the conference call.

Admiral Leidig stated the NMCC was connected to the White House but not to Air Force One. Why not? "I do not recall." Investigative reporter Tom Flocco has provided a detailed analysis of the strange circumstances surrounding Admiral Leidig's assignment. He was asked by Brigadier General Montague Winfield on September 10th to stand a portion of his duty at 8:30 am on September 11th.

New Osama Tape, Deeper Propaganda Twists

New Osama Tape, Deeper Propaganda Twists

New Osama Tape, DeeperPropaganda Twists
Larry Chin

January 12, 2004, PST 0800 (FTW) -- On December 16, 2004, another new Osama bin Laden video hit the air waves. Like previous productions, the tape was conveniently timed to reinforce and invigorate Washington's expanding war agenda, keep the populations of Western nations fearfully compliant and supportive of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," further provoke anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East, and distract from exploding political and economic fault lines all over the world, from Ukraine and Kuwait, to the financial markets and tension within the Bush administration itself ("wag the dog").

Although the (never to be trusted) CIA has expressed "high confidence" that the voice is that of Bin Laden, the tape was not dated and, according to the Reuters report, "its authenticity could not be verified."

Analysis of previous alleged Osama bin Laden videos, and other loudly-promoted "terror tapes," "arrests," and "trials" have been exposed as propaganda, likely produced by operatives of the Bush administration. We can logically conclude that this work is more of the same.

If the case can be made that the tapes are, in fact, manufactured by US intelligence agencies, it stands to reason that the words out of the mouth of the Osama image have also been conceived, written and planted by these same agencies. It is therefore foolish to "read" the tapes without this likely framework in mind.

What is telling about the new tape, and the previous (October 29, pre-presidential election) Osama product, is the specific content, planted amidst other intentionally deceptive gibberish, that seems to confirm and forecast US/Bush administration policy and geostrategy.

Before getting into these details, it is useful to remind oneself of the perfect Orwellian dynamics that expert propaganda ministries seek to create: Lies become truth. Truths become lies.

One need only look at present conditions to see that this dynamic is in full flower. Western political leaders, and every member of the Bush administration and their agencies, tell lies on a daily basis, in front of cameras and microphones. Americans are conditioned to embrace these repeated lies as truth. At the same time, these same agencies, and the US corporate media, portray (real and manufactured) opponents of US war policy as liars, regardless of what they say (or are made to say).

An "image of evil" is the central element. For propaganda purposes, the US has typically hung out despotic former US allies and intelligence assets who have outlived their usefulness (Noriega, Saddam Hussein) and/or long-time US intelligence assets who, for war purposes, must remain at large (Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, etc. etc.).

With the Osama image, propaganda manufacturers have created a demonic and lurid icon designed to divide and provoke. With repetition, the Osama image has become a universal icon of "evil" in American culture. Indoctrinated, brainwashed and ill-informed individuals in the US, viewing the image, have had their thinking shaped to think: "Whatever this image is saying is evil and untrue. Therefore, I support whatever is the opposite."

So what happens when propaganda ministers broadcast "evil images" that speak factual truths? Targeted populations who "hate" the image, believing that the words are lies, oppose truth and deny facts.

Against this model ("anything that 'Osama' wants, we're against; anything that 'Osama' doesn't want, we're for"), consider what the evil "Osama" image was made to speak, and the response that US propaganda ministers likely want:

1. The Osama image issues a specific comment about oil: "Stop the Americans from getting hold of the oil. Concentrate your operations on the oil, in particular in Iraq and the Gulf."
It is a fact, that the current world war (and the "war on terrorism") has been waged for the purpose of seizing, occupying and controlling key energy and resource regions in preparation for the worldwide depletion crisis known as Peak Oil (see the extensive analysis of Peak Oil at From The Wilderness).

The effect of the Osama image's statement, then, is to make US/Western populations support "American efforts to get the oil in Iraq and the Gulf" as a way to "fight bin Laden and 'terrorists.'"
Gradual manipulation of public opinion that spoon-feeds the idea of Peak Oil has already begun over the past year (evidenced by increasing media acknowledgement of energy depletion in mainstream publications and networks, after years of denial or silence).

This will certainly be followed by the planting of the idea that it is acceptable for the US and the West to control remaining world energy supplies "at any cost" - therefore, making the current Iraq war - and probable future wars in Iran, Saudi Arabia Latin America and elsewhere " acceptable." What better anti-messenger than "Osama"?

2. The Osama image accuses the Saudi regime of forging an alliance with the "infidel" world led by US President George W. Bush, while calling the rulers of the world's largest oil exporter "corrupt and oppressive US agents."

Both statements are true. But because "Osama says so," American and Western populations will be disposed to dismiss the idea of a corrupt alliance between Saudi Arabia and the US, and to rally around "the good guys." This was the case during the first Gulf War (with Saddam Hussein playing the "bad guy," Israel and Saudi Arabia as "good guys"), and it is also true now.

3. The Osama image warns that Saudi rulers should be toppled like the Shah of Iran.
It is a fact, that the Saudi regime (like that of the Shah of Iran) is an outpost of the American empire, one that simmers on the brink of implosion and civil war - ripe for intervention. It is also a fact that

(1) Saudi Arabia holds the world's largest oil reserves;
(2) US efforts to get oil from everywhere else, including Iraq, Central Asia, etc. have so far been unsuccessful, resisted or botched;
(3) the world economy is teetering on the brink of collapse because cheap oil is no longer flowing, and
(4) the Bush administration knows that they need, and must have, Saudi Arabia and its oil. It is not a question of if, but when.

Propaganda ministers are setting up Western public opinion with the idea that the House of Saud will indeed fall - but it must not be allowed to get into the hands of "Osama" and Islamist fanatics (such as those perceived to have toppled the Shah of Iran). This plants the idea in American minds that a US military intervention, an "anti-terror" occupation, will "save" the Saudi regime.

4. The Osama image says: "Muslims are determined to recover their rights, whatever the price. Either you give them back what they entrusted you with (power), by allowing them to choose their rulers, or you refuse to give power back to them."

It is true that these sentiments reflect the dominant opinion of Muslims throughout the Middle East and around the world. Certainly, it is the majority opinion within war-ravaged Iraq, where sham elections are about to be forced upon a nation that the Bush administration continues to try to beat and bomb into submission.

But because "Osama" is saying it, the Western public will reflexively dismiss the words as "radical fundamentalist hatred," and then rally around the opposite: Bush, continuing war and genocide against Muslims, and the absolute denial of power and rights to Muslims in occupied regions.

The lasting effect of Bush administration propaganda has been to fool mass populations around US/Bush administration policies that are based on criminal falsehoods, cover-up, and the absolute denial of political realities. At the very least, they seek to plant the notion that the alternative is even worse.
Going back to a telling piece of the previous propaganda tape of October 29, the Osama image spoke about how George W. Bush sat in a Florida schoolroom on 9/11, and read from a storybook about a pet goat, while the 9/11 atrocity happened.
Another fact.
But the Osama image said it. Therefore, it is "patriotic" to say "it didn't happen"- and fully embrace the lies of 9/11 cover-up operations such as the 9/11 Commission.
In the minds of indoctrinated masses in the United States and the West, whatever the Osama image says is a lie. It is a neat trick.

In Crossing the Rubicon, Mike Ruppert writes:

"I believe that bin Laden was, and remains, a CIA/US government/Wall Street asset.
This would explain why he has never been caught. There are still wars to fight. He can't be caught for a variety of reasons, including his family's enormous and diverse financial connections to the same elites that control the United States financial system, and his close interrelationship with a Saudi ruling class that could pull the plug on the US economy even before Peak Oil does. Osama bin Laden also knows way too much, and without him, the Bush administration would have had no excuse for any of what it has done over the last four years. From a strategic point of view, Osama is Dick Cheney's best friend."
And Osama videos are the CIA's best weapons.

It is not a stretch to expect future bin Laden tapes to issue more specific planted facts about a variety of issues that the Bush administration wants American citizens to oppose.

American pep rally 1/31/06 Observation

I couldn't help notice, since the camera flashed right to Hillary Clinton's reaction during Bush's State of the Union address as he commented about "preventing attacks like 9/11 from happening again"....she shook her head with a cynical smirk, and that made me wonder;

The Insider Trading was absolutely one of the large factors that should NOT have gone without investigation; but heck Martha Stewart was the scapegoat for that...

9/11 Insider Trading

According to Phil Erlanger, a former Senior Technical Analyst with Fidelity , and founder of a Florida firm that tracks short selling and options trading, insiders made off with billions (not mere millions) in profits by betting on the fall of stocks they knew would tumble in the aftermath of the WTC and Pentagon attacks. [ ] Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German Parliament, once responsible for the oversight of the German secret services, estimated that profits by insider traders were $15 billion. CBS offered a far more conservative figure when it reported (Sept 26) that "at least seven countries are dissecting suspicious trades that may have netted more than $100 million in profits."
Regardless of estimates, to Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, the evidence was compelling; "This is the worst case of insider trading ever." [Good Morning Texas, Sept. 20, 2001] The sheer scope, size and the uncanny timing of 9-11 insider trading demanded an aggressive investigation. But the stakes involved, with nearly 3000 dead, have never been higher for financial crimes investigators.