US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
28 Feb 2002
Criminal negligence, on the part of civilian air defence, (including elements of Air Traffic Control, FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon) -and the Bush Admin- existed alongside the attacks of Sept 11th. Without this, the planes would not have reached their targets. Routine procedures were repeatedly, and systematically ignored. This is now proven: thoroughly documented, using official government and mainstream media reports. We have been lied to. It’s time to begin building a serious case before the American people.
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions


Introduction

Feb. 2002


Within a few months, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 became but an
echo of the events that followed.

War in Afghanistan, anthrax, unprecedented powers of detention:
the public mind moves from one shock to another, appearing to
accept the government’s lead.

Now after five months, a new world beacons; or perhaps, the old world,
from a different vantage point.

For those of us determined to think for ourselves, (and question
government assumptions) the leap to blame Bin Laden, (with little
substantial evidence) and the pretext for bombing yet another poor
country, was unsatisfactory -right from the start.

Yet this has become a "new reality" which we now have to deal with,
taking us further from the events of Sept. 11th with each passing day.

The curtain seems to be descending on the big, unanswered questions
that was on virtually everyone’s mind during, (and for weeks after)
the attack:

How could Sept. 11th have happened?

How could four planes be hijacked over U.S. skies, within the
space of an hour?

How was it that three planes were able to plow into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, in
the heart of the most powerful nation on earth -with no planes
in the skies to defend them?

Were the perpetrators simply evil geniuses?

Or did these attacks occur alongside the most colossal collapse
of airspace security in U.S. history?


In the wake of the devastation, the answer to this last question is:
obviously, yes.

Somehow, the terrorists GOT THROUGH.

Even politicians in Washington, (normally staunch defenders of the
security apparatus) were initially compelled to express this:

"The government failed the American people." (Rep. Curt Weldon,
on CNN, 12:40, Sept. 11th).

A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a
thorough inquiry." (Sen. Robert Torricelli, speaking on the
Senate floor. (1))


An obvious thing.

This attack did not occur in a vacuum.

"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the
military.

To touch on but one example:

two of the four planes commandeered on Sept 11th were
in the air, (hijack-confirmed) for almost AN HOUR AFTER
the first hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center
had been confirmed -with no jet fighter in sight, as ROUTINE
procedure demands.

The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.

There were safeguards in place, and they were not implemented.

As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was
repeated at virtually every level of civilian air defense, in
relation to all four planes.

Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented
negligence -on the part of those entrusted with the protection of
American skies.

Without such an lapse, the attacks of Sept 11th simply would not have
been successful.

Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the
sheer scope of it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public
inquiry; yet the government has strictly avoided opening itself
to public scrutiny; instead, it has used the tragedy to wrap the
protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.

The congressional committee of review, for example,

"does not in any way lay blame to the dedicated men and
women of the U.S. intelligence community." "The point
is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is
to see where the weaknesses are in our system."
Members of committee, NY Times, Oct 3, 2001(2)


The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30
billion intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on
the C.I.A.'s use of unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)

In other words, the assumption is,

[‘the government and defense apparatus did everything
it could.’
‘We were caught off-guard by fiendishly clever, ruthless,
and fanatical foes.’
‘We simply need more resources to make sure it never
happens again.’]

As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official
documents, statements, and mainstream media reports) this
assumption is utterly wrong.

More resources were not required.

What was needed on Sept 11th was for procedures that were already
in place to be implemented.

A most profound abandonment of routine air-defense procedures
accompanied these attacks.

In this sense, the attackers did not act alone.

That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush
to identify the attackers) is all the more reason that an open,
public investigation be initiated.

In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we
found it virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal
incompetence which must have accompanied it; and our
government, media, (and other centers of influence) seem to
have found it convenient to inflame our anger -diverting our
attention from the outstanding, obvious questions:

How did this happen?

Who within the state apparatus was asleep at the switch?

How do we ensure that this never happens again?

How do we know that some of those involved in the internal
"investigation" of the state won’t simply cover over what
they don’t want us to see?


In the immediate aftermath of the terror, the government/media made
it seem as if anyone who criticized the government was "for" the
"other side."

The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government,
was temporarily put on hold.

It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public
investigation.

There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts -simply an
increased budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and
state power.

It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for
ourselves; and yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months
following may have made such an inquiry seem impossible to us,
passe, perhaps even irrelevant.

So I ask you, dear reader, for but a few minutes more of your time:
to briefly take a step back with me, unto a morning and a day when
our world seemed to change forever.

I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information
which passed across our view screens so quickly, significance
fading in the absence of meaningful debate.

Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense
research: carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential
points may now be grasped with a clarity and ease, hitherto
elusive.

Consider this contention:

the attacks on Sept. 11 may yet represent one of the most
important events in the last fifty years, (perhaps all
human history, for those who choose to examine it): a turning
point, in our understanding of the most-fundamental
relationship between appearance and reality.

Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence,
I’m sure you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery
may lie within.

______________________________________________________

Recall the morning of Sept 11, 2001


According to The New York Times, (Sept 15)

"controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that
American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles,
had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was
made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World
Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11. And within a
few minutes more, controllers would have known that both
United 175 (the second plane to hit the World Trade Center)
and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon) had probably been
hijacked." (3)

[Note: all the hijacked planes had their tracking beacons turned
off at various times, but they were still visible on various radar
screens].

GEORGE W. BUSH

Within ten minutes of the first plane crash into the World Trade
Center, President Bush was already aware of it.

"He got out of his hotel suite this morning, [on his way to a
school] was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief
of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to
the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said
he did, and he said he will have something about it later."
(ABC's John Cochran, speaking to Peter Jennings)

http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm#mybust


Then, he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National Security
Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school,
(CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31,
Sept.11).

Then the President was updated a third time.

According to Associated Press, he was

"In Sarasota, Florida.... reading to children in a classroom at 9:05
a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear."
['AP' 12 September 2001, This also appeared on TV] (4)


And what did George W. Bush do when he received the update from Andrew
Card, some five minutes later?

Apparently, nothing.

"The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading.
He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later."
['AP' 12 September, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001
Pg. A 20]. (5)

Further, according to CNN’s Garrett, (on the scene)

"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on
television sets here at the elementary school... Shortly
before [his] statement [addressing the tragedy] he was
actually sitting down with some children here at the
elementary school reading them a book.... Reporters asked
him if he was aware of the situation in New York. He nodded
a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say
about that shortly."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
("Breaking News" 9:25)

To the suggestion, (made by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan) that this
"exchange of questions with the president came at... a sensitive
time... sitting in front of a bunch of schoolchildren... not
wanting to scare [them]," Garrett replies:

"Well, precisely. AND THE PRESIDENT HAS A WAY OF LETTING
REPORTERS KNOW that it's either an appropriate... or
inappropriate time to take questions. He does that in many
different environments, many different situations. Clearly
this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an
even keel, keep the situation under control as best as
possible. He just nodded and said -- we'll talk about this
later."

Just after 9:30, the President excused himself from the classroom to
make a statement that a "terrorist attack on America has occurred."
(CNN, "Breaking News, 9:31)

So, for almost thirty minutes after President Bush was officially
updated about this for the the third time, he remained sitting in
a classroom of children, (apparently, reading a book about goats).

Does this not seem rather negligent?

As we shall soon see, officials would repeatedly claim that the
President was the only one who could order a domestic airliner to
be shot down.

Why did he remain sitting in the classroom? Why did he even GO into
the classroom in the first place? -if he had already been informed,
not once but twice?

Was he not told the whole story?

Three months later, on nationwide TV, President Bush tells a
captive audience,

"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that
works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to
go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was
obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's
one terrible pilot."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

This is a very interesting statement for Bush to make, seeing as the
first plane, (at that time) was not actually caught on network
TV -striking the tower. Only the second one was.

Clearly, the Presdient is giving the impression here that he was not
then aware that this plane crash was a terrorist attack; but is this,
in fact, what we would expect from the commander-in-chief?

As supreme commander, the President is tied into civilian air
defense through the secret service.

There is a time-honored, standard procedure whereby the command
center in the Pentagon, NORAD, The National Security Council,
and the President are quickly informed of domestic hijackings.

As Vice-President Cheney says on the Sept. 16th edition of "Meet
the Press,"

"The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They
had open lines after the World Trade Center was... "

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm


Cheney neglects to finish his sentance, but the implications are
clear.

The FAA suspected that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:20, and
confirmed it with NORAD at 8:38, well before the plane struck
the tower at 8:46; thus, the Pentagon, and the secret
service also knew. (See Unanswered Questions, Part 1B, for
full documentation).

By the time that George W. Bush first admits knowing about
the crash, (ten minutes later, about 8:55) he has already
been briefed, for he shows no emotional response to either
his chief of staff, or the reporters question.

Not only the crash of a single, hijacked plane, but two other
planes in close proximity are hijack-suspected/confirmed.

A national emergency is in progress.

All this would have been known by the secret service -and
hence, the President.

After his first public admission of being informed, George W.
Bush is updated five minutes later, (at 9:00) then five
minutes later again, (presumably, about the second plane
which crashed into the World Trade Center, at 9:02).

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)

Yet he continues sitting in the classroom with the children;
and when reporters dare to ask whether he’s going to do
something about it, he appears to suggest that (presumably
by some kind of stern expression) ‘now is not an "appropriate"
time to talk about it’?


We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that
a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but
the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a
national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that he has
a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that he is among
the first to be informed, not the last.

Only at 9:30 did the President finally confirm what the FAA, the
military, and the secret service had already known for fifty
minutes -and what the entire television-watching world had known
for forty.

Tentative conclusion?

Either the President was criminally mis-informed by his own
secret service/staff; or he was deliberately mis-representing
the extent to which he knew that a national emergency was
underway.

His inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following
events.

____________________________________________

Flight 77

By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had
been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at
approx. 8:46). It had made a huge northward /westward/southward loop,
before resuming its proper course again. (7)

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm


This fact, (based on the actual radar reports from government and
private industry) was likely the source of the above statement, that,

"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have
known that... Flight 77 had probably been hijacked."
(NY Times, Sept 15)

At the same time,

"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center
(who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the
Pentagon) knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11
even before it crashed [at 8:46 CNN, Sept 16, ibid]."
Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)


Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic
Control officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also
aware that another plane on the east coast had been
hijacked-confirmed.

Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight
175 had been declared "hijacked," (at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid,
earlier than the NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is
based on the official government (NORAD) timeline).

Thus, two other planes were officially confirmed as hijacked, by
the time that Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course.

Within minutes, these officials would be informed that Flight 11
had crashed into the World Trade Center.

They should have been extremely concerned.

Flight 77 managed to return to it's proper westward course, after
flying about twenty miles north, then west, then south; yet
officials should have still been on a high state of alert.

[NOTE: we don't know what kind of radio communications existed
between ATC officials and Flight 77; because, for some reason,
the FBI has not publicly released the tapes; so it's possible
that, with radio contact, (and a clear sign of "ok" from the
pilot) officials were convinced that things were under control,
once the plane was back on its original course].

Yet the fact remains that the plane these officials were monitoring
had been well off-course around the same time that two other planes
in the area had been hijacked; and now, by 9:05 (at the same time
that President Bush was updated a third time) a second crash into the World
Trade Center had occurred, in what was now confirmed to be two,
intentional terrorist attacks.

At the very least, the officials must have had suspicians, (as the
NY Times article, cited above, clearly suggests).

Then, at approx. 9:00am, Flight 77 ceases its transponder signal.

For a VERY SHORT period of time, (as they frantically try to regain
radar contact through other facilities) ATC officials would have
been unaware that Flight 77 had made a 180 degree turn near the Ohio
state border, and was heading straight back for Washington.

(NOTE: according to Newsday, (Sept 23rd) this occurred at 8:55,
http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story

calculations based on the above radar map, take-off time, crash
time, etc. suggests it was likely about five minutes after that.
See note 7).


At any rate, according to the above source,

"9:06, Washington notifies all air traffic facilities nationwide
of the suspected hijacking of Flight 11."

This was as clear an expression of a national emergency as these
officials had ever known; and yet, although "military officials
in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently
talking to law enforcement officials about what to do," (N.Y. Times,
Sept. 15, ibid) air traffic control continued to watch Flight 77 on
the radar screen without any fighters scrambled to intercept it.

Then, at 9:25, the F.A.A. (the Federal Aviation Authority, oversight
body of all ATC centers) notifies NORAD (military air-radar defense)
that Flight 77 may have been hijacked. CNN, Sept 16, ibid (9)

That is:

Forty-plus minutes after two other planes had been hijack-confirmed:
(Flight 11 at 8:38, Flight 175 at 8:43, CNN Sept 16, ibid.)

Approximately forty minutes after Flight 77 had begun to go
dramatically off-course, (radar map, USA Today, ibid)

Almost forty minutes after ATC officials would have known that
Flight 11 had struck the World Trade Center; (CNN, ibid)

Thirty-five minutes after ATC officials "would have known that...
American 77 had probably been hijacked" (NY Times, ibid)

About twenty-five minutes after Flight 77 had ceased its transponder
signal, then made a 180 degree turn over West Virginia, (when it
was now just thirteen minutes from the Pentagon,Newsday, ibid);

Over twenty minutes after a second plane had struck the World Trade
Centre, (9:02, CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

And finally:

Nineteen minutes after every other air traffic facility in the
country knew that Flight 77 was likely hijacked,(Newsday, ibid)
the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked?

May have been hijacked?!?

This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine
procedures of ATC and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this
appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,

"9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from
Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept United Airlines
flight 77." (CNN, Sept 16, ibid )


Now, let’s be absolutely clear about this.

It is the sworn duty of the FAA to follow certain safety procedures;
such as,

"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when:
...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio
communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an
emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it
were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (ibid)


The reason for this is simple: in busy airspace, an airliner without
radio and transponder contact is a collision waiting to happen.

When an airliner goes off course, it is equally, (if not more)
dangerous.

Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument
Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.]
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (tenc.net, ibid)

"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy.
If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that
course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.
They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re
deviating from course." It’s considered a real emergency,
like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles
an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet
missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to
Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched."
(MSNBC, Sept 12)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY


To give an idea of acceptable, routine response times:

"... from the official National Transportation Safety
Board crash report: 9:19 a.m. [of Payne Stewart's plane]:
The flight departs. 9:24: The Learjet's pilot responds
to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33: The
controller radios another instruction. No response
from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to
establish contact. 9:38: Having failed, the controller
calls in the military."

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138


The standing rule of NORAD officals, (at the central U.S. radar
facility, Cheyenne Mountain) is to give unknown airplanes which
are approaching U.S. airspace, (off any of the coasts of North
America) two minutes to make a satisfactory identification.

After two minutes, fighter-intercepts are ordered to scramble,
without exception.

On the other side of the world, the head of the (rather antiquated)
Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, has this to say, (of the
attacks):

"such a scenario is impossible. "We had such facts
[i.e., events or incidents in Russia] too.... as soon as
something like that happens here, I am reported about that
right away and in a minute we are all up."

"http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)


Let’s also be absolutely clear about what is meant by "interception."

"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman,
said 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."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

FAA:

"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses
by intercepted aircraft."

"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead
of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted
aircraft..."

This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted."
The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings,
indicating it will comply.

The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to
the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."

The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following
the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (tenc.net, ibid)


So, it is a matter of ROUTINE procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept"
commercial airliners, in order to regain contact with the pilot.

"Intercept" and "shoot-down" are two entirely different commands.

The question of whether an airliner may have to be shot down, (and
who might give the order) is completely irrelevant to the fact that
fighter-intercepts should have been ordered into the air, at the first
sign of the emergency.


Let's now review the course of events in the light of the above
regulations:

Flight 77 was wildly off-course at about 8:46.

The standard procedure, in this case, would be to request a fighter-
intercept within a few minutes.

According to our above radar map,

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm

Flight 77 went about fifteen miles off-course, and was off-course
for approximately ten minutes.

This would normally have compelled ATC/FAA to at least notify NORAD
and/or an appropriate Air National Guard (ANG) base.

The fact that Flight 77 went so far off-course after Flights 11 and
175 had been hijack-confirmed, should have doubly motivated ATC/FAA
officials to inform NORAD.

Nothing.

Then, when the ATC officials (watching Flight 77) were informed,
(likely by 8:48) that Flight 11 had struck the World trade Center,
(8:46) surely NORAD should have been informed that this other plane
had been, (or was) off-course/in trouble.

Still nothing was done when transponder contact with Flight 77 was lost,
even after Flight 175 had hit the World Trade Center at 9:02.

Flight 77 was visible on various radar screens, heading back towards
Washington -for another 23 minutes, before the FAA informed NORAD that
the plane may have been hijacked.

Shocking, unbelievable: is it not?

What were these officials doing?

According to the above-mentioned Newsday article,

"After losing [i.e. transponder] track of Flight 77 for about
10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over
West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the
military."

The most sophisticated air-traffic communications system in the world:
regional radar systems, national satellites, command centers in the
Pentagon: essentially, not responding.

Flight 77 continued to fly towards Washington, unopposed.

When the FAA finally informs NORAD, the plane is little more than
thirty miles outside the Capital. (10)

According to CBS News, (transportation correspondent Bob Orr)

"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace
around the White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital
Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast
and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker
pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed
descending turn."

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost
a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a
-half minutes."

"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there
was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver
suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many
investigators first believed."

"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a
minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed
into the Pentagon at 480mph." (10)


The N.Y. Times, (Sept. 15) adds,

"the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits
around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."


So the question remains:

why weren’t aircraft scrambled in time to intercept Flight 77?

Why did it take the FAA thirty-five minutes after the first
hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center to inform NORAD?
-when Flight 77 was already clearly in trouble, (likely hijacked)
and another plane (175) had also been hijack-confirmed?


Is this not an incredibly lax response?

Is this negligence not worth a mention from government officials -
so certain in their knowledge of who's responsible for the attacks,
as to invade another country for it?

But there’s more.

When officials at NORAD issued the order to scramble jets, (at 9:27)
they chose Langley Air Force Base, which is one-hundred and thirty miles
outside of Washington, (where Flight 77 was at the time).
(CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

Given the time to scramble, (seven minutes) and the fourteen minutes
it takes the planes to fly to Washington, ("at 720 knots, breaking the
sound barrier," CNN, ibid) the planes could not possibly have gotten
there in time to prevent a direct attack on the Pentagon, the White House,
or any of the major buildings in the Capital.

And yet, Andrews Air Force base is located right on the outskirts of
Washington, (ten miles away) and is home to two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter
Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;

the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the
49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped
with F/A-18 fighters. (10)

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

The mission of 121 Fighter-Wing reads, in part,

"provide capable and ready response forces for the District
of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil
emergency." (10)


F-16 Fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were actually put into the
air over Washington on Sept 11th, but only after the attack on the
Pentagon was completed, (after planes from Langley were on their way).

"Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air
Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001

"an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience
as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon...
Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base
and other installations and cross-crossed the skies."
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001

"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force
then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard
Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover
over Washington, DC."
-NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter
planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the
District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is
also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes,
a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to
the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack
on the Pentagon’..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (ibid)



Is this not rather astounding?

A few days later, another version began to appear in the mainstream press:

"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."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm

and

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm

"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter
planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!]
from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not
deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17)


Also curious, what appears to be the reputable, well-documented website
of the American Federation of Scientists lists the top speed of the
F-16 fighters as 1500mph; which means that, according to NORAD and
CNN, the fighters from Langley flew at WELL BELOW their top speed.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm

The Pentagon also has surface-to-air missiles surrounding it. Why
weren’t they used?

Neither was the Pentagon evacuated, until the plane had struck its
target, (CNN, Sept 16, ibid).

Does all this not sound as if nobody was minding the store in
regards to Flight 77?

Would the terrorists on Flight 77 have been able to get to Washington,
(and the Pentagon) if the air defense had functioned properly?

Do we not deserve some answers?

Clearly, without gross incompetence on the part of ATC, FAA, and/or
NORAD officials, Flight 77 would have not got near Washington
-without being "intercepted."

Whether or not a pilot would have been authorized to shoot down the
airliner is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that no planes were
in the air in time -as routine procedure clearly demanded.


Now, at this point, we don’t know exactly where the breakdown in
communication occurred.

By the above information, it would appear that ATC and the FAA
were more at fault than NORAD, (though not appreciably); and yet,
these communication timelines come to us largely from NORAD.

We don’t know, for example, whether or not ATC and the FAA notified
NORAD early on, and whether NORAD simply lied about it -and that the
military end was largely or solely responsible for the breakdown in
communication.

What we do know, however, is that by official NORAD statements, there
was at least a thirty-five minute delay between the time when planes
should have been ordered to scramble, and when they actually were.

If routine procedures had been followed, Flight 77 would not have made
it to Washington.

The fourth hijacked plane, meanwhile, "was being tracked by the
Pentagon," (according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz)
"and could have been shot down." (NY Times, Sept 15, ibid)

That plane, (Flight 93) crashed into rural Pennsylvania at about 10:10.

Wolfowitz says that "any military intervention would have ultimately
been the decision of President George W. Bush." (ibid)

If true, and since George Bush didn’t immediately excuse himself
from the classroom, (at 9:00 am, or 9:05 at the latest) -to assume his
role as commander in chief- then we must include his actions in with
the above list of organizations: guilty of criminal negligence.

The fact that his negligence would have made no difference, (i.e. no
planes in the air, even if the President was on duty) matters not.

Moral authority begins with admitting one’s own mistakes: only then
can one be forgiven them.

The fact that the President has completely overlooked his own
ineptitude in this affair, while declaring holy war on nations and
citizens alike, strongly suggests that not only is an incompetent at
the helm of the most-powerful nation on earth, but a morally incompetent
one as well.

__________________________________________

Air Force One


Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during
an absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try
to leave for Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may
still recall) his plane was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska,
and he didn’t return to Washington until 7pm -ten hours after the
first attack!!

According to White House spokespersons, this was because,

"There was real and credible information that the White House
and Air Force One were targets"

Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN,
(3:10) the next day. (11)

So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in
time to intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the
President that it was "not safe" for the President to fly back to
Washington.

Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient
planes in the air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure
would normally ensure that there were).

Also appearing on the 12th and 13th, were columns in the N.Y. Times
by William Saffire, wherein "a White House source," (later confirmed
by Bush’s Political Strategist, Karl Rove) informed him that the
secret service believed,

'Air Force One may be next,' and 'they may have broken the
secret codes [showing a knowledge of Presidential procedures].'

Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA,
FBI, etc.

Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this
shocking possibility.

The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within
two weeks it was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever
even existed.

"I'm not going to comment on any particular threats coming
toward the White House, [says Ari Fleischer, White House
Press Secretary] . . it is not an uncommon occurrence for
people to threaten the government of the United States,
regardless of whether it's President Bush or any of his
predecessors. And that's why there are security precautions
taken at the White House as a matter of routine."
Wash. Post, Sept 27. (12)

True, it’s not an uncommon occurrence for the U.S. or the president
to be threatened. It’s extremely uncommon for such a "threat" to be
taken so seriously that a U.S. President is barred from Washington
for nine and one-half hours during a national emergency.

"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This
has nothing to do with anything . . . that may or may not have
been directed at President Bush. This is about an attack that
took place on our country." (ibid)

Translation?

The Washington Post placed this vacuous absence of a response on page
eight.

Does it not sound as if we deserve some answers about,

who gave that warning?

why was it heeded?

why were the skies over Washington not considered safe for
the president’s return, for over eight hours?



Does it not sound as if civilian defense was on holiday? -or out to lunch?

How can we be so certain of the attack’s perpetrators -when the officials
blaming them don’t want to admit that somebody on our own end screwed up
so badly, as to allow an attack to occur?

Is an examination of one’s own mistakes (first) -not the foundation of
moral leadership?


To sum up thus far,

we have a president who is informed by about 8:55, (as he leaves his
hotel) that a hijacked plane has crashed into the World Trade Center,
(about ten minutes before) in a terrorist attack, and that a second
plane has been hijacked, (confirmed since 8:43); then he's updated
again at 9:00; then again at 9:05, (likely to tell him of the second
attack at 9:02) and he does absolutely nothing about it for almost
thirty minutes.

We have the third plane, Flight 77, which goes off-course at or around
the time that two other planes are hijack-confirmed, (8:43) and yet the
FAA does not request NORAD to regain contact with the plane, (by fighter
intercept) until 9:25 -even after Flights 11 and 175 had struck the
towers at 8:46 and 9:02.

NORAD, in turn, orders jets to scramble from a base which is ten times
the distance from Washington than the closest active one is.

That same day, (we’re later told) Air Force One and the White House
are "threatened"... from the ‘inside.’ Then these claims are later
dismissed and ignored by the White House officials who originally
made them -even though this "false report" caused the absence of the
President from Washington for nine hours.

Fundamental questions, left unanswered.

The government, (and the mainstream media) do not want to discuss a
glaring, criminal negligence which occurred under its watch, (which cost
the lives of thousands).

When we look at the other hijacked flights, however, (11, 175, and 93)
our concern must deepen considerably; for here, we see the same, shocking
pattern of neglect and incompetence.

For details, see Unanswered Questions, Part 1B.

Then, when we examine the nature of the FBI investigation, Part 1D, the
official explanations, the media coverage, we see the same pattern yet
again: critical questions left unanswered, dubious filler material put
in place.

We are talking about a system-wide, repeat pattern of negligence and
cover-up, operating at a very high level of government: fully documented,
from government and mainstream media sources.

There's no need for wacky conspiracy-theories here, or wild assumptions.

This needs to be addressed.

As our governments and media have proved themselves all too willing to
gloss over the uncomfortable questions, I sincerely hope that you will
take it upon yourself, dear reader, to become fully informed about what
may yet be the most telling event of our time.

Tell others what you know.


Visit http://angelfire.lycos.com/retro/malcontentx for a full analysis

Part 1A:
Introduction, George W. Bush, Flight 77,
Air Force One, Notes

Part 1B:
Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 93

Part 1C:
Summation of Civilian Air Defense, Sept 11
Who is to Blame?

Part 1D:
The FBI Investigation

Part 1E:
"Official" (military) Explanations:
Confusion,
"The Pentagon," "We didn’t know" "Weren’t Informed"
Contusion
"Official" Explanations: explained

Part 1F:
Military-Media Alliance
A Few Choice Articles
Media Summary
Senate Confirmation Hearings: General Myers
Ignorance and Responsibility
Science of Spin

Part 1G:
Who Benefits?
Afghanistan, bin Laden and the CIA, Spin Summary

Part 1H:
Blaming Bin Laden

Summation
Conclusions
Appeal


____________________________________________________

Notes
1) CNN, "Breaking News" Sept 11, 12:40 am. See cnn.com/transcripts
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/inv.intelligence.board/index.html

2) While I can attest to having found these two quotes on a www.defense-link
website, in my haste to gather information and references, I must confess
I neglected to record the specific address. The direct link to the NY
Times article is no longer available to non-subscribers, (like myself).
Serious researchers who are willing to pay for access to the NY Times
archive, should have no trouble verifying the quote. In the meantime,
I shall endeavor to track the web-page reference down again.

3) http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm This is an
excellent article and site for information on American/NATO foreign policy.
4) Ibid
5) ibid

6) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ CNN, Sept. 16th.
This is a very useful article. In comparison to earlier media reports,
it appears to be quite accurate. Compare it, for example, with this earlier
summary from the Washington Post of Sept 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
The CNN report also follows the "official" NORAD timeline of events -as per
the communications between the FAA, NORAD, and Air Defense. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
Whether or not NORAD’s version of when the FAA informed NORAD is true or
not is still very much open to question; but at least we have the "official"
version to work from.

7) http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This is a graphic "flash" map which shows the flight-paths of the four
planes on Sept 11, and when they deviated from those paths. It appears
to be based on direct radar, taken from a reputable source,
http://www.flightexplorer.com Another such graphic map, created on a
different web site, appears to be from the same source.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html

Because the FBI has revealed almost nothing to the public about the
specific timelines, (and the ATC conversations) we can only estimate
on the exact time when Flight 77 went off-course, for how long, and when
it reversed course near Ohio, (for its assault on Washington).

The plane took off at 8:20, and crashed at 9:38: a 1 hour/eighteen
minutes journey, or seventy-eight minutes. This is now universally
confirmed in all media reports
At first glance, we would probably look on the map, and see that the
distances the plane took to get from Washington to the Ohio border
-and back again- are roughly equal. We may thus assume that it took
Flight 77 half of the seventy-eight minutes, (39) to reach Ohio, (8:59).
This roughly corroborates with the Newsday article of Sept 23rd,
(cited above) which says that the plane turned around at 8:55; yet we
must also take into account the flight deviation on the path away
from Washington, (add ten minutes?); and we also remember that when
Flight 77 was nearing Washington, it was flying at over four-hundred
miles an hour, (see note 10, below) well over the legal speed limit
for airliners, (250 mph? -not sure the exact number).

By the time the plane struck the Pentagon, it was flying at 480mph.
We can thus assume that Flight 77 took less time to fly back to
Washington than it did to fly towards, (subtract ten minutes?).

By this estimate, we could assume that Flight 77 turned around at
the Ohio border at approximately 9:09, and took twenty-six minutes
to reach Washington. However, this differs markedly with the
Newsday article, by fourteen minutes.
In terms of getting at the truth of the matter, (calculating the
amount of time it took civilian air defence to respond, and so on)
this is an important fourteen minutes.
In many early reports, the estimated time of events were sometimes
wildly inaccurrate; so we may initially be skeptical of the
Newsday claim. Yet this report is from the 23rd. of Sept., a full
ten days after the tragedy, (when most of the "official" timelines
had been established). Furthermore, this article does appear to rely
heavily on "official" NORAD, military accounts.
At the same time, this doesn't necessarily make the "official" claim
accurate; and our calculations based the radar documentation, (our only
other credible source on when Flight 77 turned around) cannot be discounted.

It does not make logical sense to say that Flight 77 went well
off-course on the path away from Washington, (for what appears to be
at least twenty miles in three different directions =60 miles,
which would add about fifteen minutes on, at 250mph) and ended up
taking less time to reach the Ohio border, than it did to return,
(especially with the documented speed-increase upon its return).

It's possible that Flight 77 slowed down considerably after turning
around, before picking up speed. We don't know.

For the moment, we have little recourse but to estimate the time
that Flight 77 turned around as being halfway between these two
credible, yet differing accounts; that is, (add or subtract seven
minutes) at 9:02, just after 9am.

By this account, it took Flight 77 about forty-two minutes to reach
its furthest westward point. If we look on the radar map, we can see
that it is at the approximate halfway-point on this course, that the
plane initially goes off-course; thus, half of 42 minutes, (21) plus
take-off time, (8:20) = 8:41 is the approximate time we assume that
Flight 77 first went off-course.

Until more-specific data is made available, the above estimates will
serve as our timeline.

The reader here may be reasonably aghast at the amount of information
and numbers bandied about, in the interest of verifying a few
event-times; yet in a situation where very little information is
being disclosed, we may sometimes have to rely on complex, logical
discourse, before we can be confident -as to our ability to "fill in
the gaps." This cannot be helped: goes with the territory; the real,
shocking truth is sometimes only arrived at by those willing and able
to ride the rollercoaster of painstaking, meticulous research.

8) Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php

9) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid) At the same time, 9:25 the FAA, in consultation
with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country.

10) CBS News, Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr; an excellent
article, based on the real radar reports which showed that Flight 77
did not go near the White House as many officials (and then media) first
claimed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml


The Reuters report is available in the archives, http://wire.ap.org/
although the original one may have been tampered with, according to
Gary North -who offers what he claims is the original version, here:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash437.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml

NOTE: these last two links have gone dead. Researchers may yet be
able to locate the original articles by visiting "freeworldalliance,"
or by doing a "google" search on "Gary North."



See also:
www.geocities.com/malcontentx
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.