portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

write a supportive letter to mckinney

please write supportive letters to her office since she is performing a courageous action of questioning our government during election year.
go to  http://www.house.gov/writerep/
enter the state 'georgia' and zip code '30021'

Washington Office:
124 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515
ph 202 225 1605
fax 202 226 0691

District Office:
One South DeKalb Center
2853 Candler Road
Suite 9
Decatur, GA 30334
ph 404 377 6900
fax 404 377 6909

 http://www.house.gov/mckinney/guest.htm

money too, if possible 14.Apr.2002 13:40

lilypad

please also send her some money, if you can - even just $20 - we need to show our support in concrete ways, and this is a good one. think of all the shit she's getting - we need to set the example of elected officials being financially rewarded for doing their jobs and really serving the public (instead of the corporations)

YOU'LL NOTICE 14.Apr.2002 23:48

Jordan Thornton pilgrim112@hotmail.com

That none of her detractors even mention the issues she puts forth - like most right-wingers, they resort to personal attacks, and questions her credibility.

I predict that none of them will even attempt to answer the questions she brought up.

If her statements were so outrageous, and they believed them to be untrue, they would take issue with the information, not with her as a person.

Please point this out to people, as it is a tactic that works for the right way too often. We must get people THINKING and TALKING.

Believe me, we've got 'em on the ropes. Keep at it.

I fear that another "event" will take place if this starts getting press.

MORAL GROUND ZERO 15.Apr.2002 10:00

ADRIAN MORE

MORAL GROUND ZERO / I


FUZZY MATH

a T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by

ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



I argue that the U.S. establishment has been wildly inflating the 9-11 death toll for warmongering purposes.



charles v. campisi, chief of the New York police department's internal affairs bureau:
you've raised more dead in 7 months than Jesus ever did in 3 years.

By April 11, 2002 you had reported a total of 2,826 WTC victims, deep down from your September 24 high of nearly 7,000.
- 948 death certificates have been issued, reportedly, by the medical examiner's office: that is, 948 victims have been reportedly identified, having been found whole or fragmented;
- 1,746 death certificates have reportedly been issued without a body, reportedly at the request of victims' families;
- 132 people are reportedly missing.
(See the Associated Press web site for figure updates. They make it hard to find data, as their special contribution to the general obfuscation/falsification, but if one seeks hard enough one will find.)

Summing up: according to you, campisi, as reported by the Associated Press on April 11, 21:12 ET:
948 + 1,746 + 132 = 2,826 people died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Adding the 189 reported Pentagon dead + the 44 reported Pennsylvania dead, the Sept.11 victims total would be 3,059. So far.

But 3,059 is by no means the final death toll. First, it must be noted that your figure includes the 19 hijackers, who ought to be separated from their victims. Therefore the reported VICTIMS are 3,040, not 3,059.

Second: according to the AP, Feb.8, 2002, 18:12 ET, "The toll is likely to drop slightly as investigators make changes." That's because your cops, campisi, are oh-so-meticulous. That's why you still haven't brought the matter to closure after 7 MONTHS!

Third, "seven foreign countries still need to confirm their missing-persons lists, which could cause the death toll to drop." Who are those seven "snails"? You're in no hurry to push them, right campisi?

According to your own data, campisi:
948 identified dead + 1,746 declared dead by a death certificate = 2,694 confirmed WTC dead.

It is NOT correct/logical to add any of the "132 missing" to the WTC victims total, as campisi does (that's how he gets his total of "2,826": 2,694 confirmed dead + 132 missing = 2,826).

It is not correct because you yourself, campisi, have said, as reported by the Associated Press, March 7, 20:33 ET, that:
- of the "158" (by then) allegedly still missing, only "SOME ... [ARE] ALMOST CERTAINLY DEAD [my caps]";
but: "SOME [ARE] PERHAPS MISTAKENLY ON THE LIST [ my caps]";
and: "SOME [ARE] POSSIBLY TRYING TO FAKE THEIR DEATHS [my caps]".
Moreover:
"The police department ESTIMATES AT LEAST 60 PERCENT OF THE 158 STILL CLASSIFIED AS MISSING DID DIE... WHILE THE REST REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION [caps mine]."

That's to say, you campisi have no proof yet (after 7 months!) allowing you to classify those "132" as victims.
So why do you keep adding them to the "official count" of WTC victims - if not to artificially inflate that count?

To put it simply: your "official count" is (at least in part) bullshit, campisi. Because it includes "132 missing" of whom you yourself said that a big chunk are mistakes or fakers.

Again: the (provisory) confirmed WTC total is 2,694. 2,694, NOT "2,826"!

Plus Pentagon + Pennsylvania: 2,694 + 189 + 44 = 2,927 Sept.11 dead.

Minus the 19 hijackers = 2,908 officially confirmed 9/11 victims.

2,908 confirmed Sept.11 victims - NOT 3,059 (the AP-reported "official count" of yours as of April 11, 21:12 ET).

And if and when you'll come up with proof that the "132 missing" are really dead, I'll add them to the total. NOT NOW!

So the PROVISORY confirmed official total is now (April 11, 2002) 2,908 without the 19 hijackers. That is, unless even the identified-victims and certified-dead-without-a-body totals have been tampered with/falsified/inflated. Ain't nothing one should NOT be skeptical about with professional smugs the likes of you.



As early as late October, everyone else who conducted an independent count of WTC victims, from USA Today to the New York Times to the Red Cross and the Associated Press, had come up with victims totals under 3,000 (International Herald Tribune, October 26,2001, p.3), while you were still touting close to 4,800 dead.
Your WTC totals, campisi, which are the only ones most people have been fed by the mass media, have oh-so-slowly slimmed down from a sensational 'nearly 7,000' in late September (full-blown headlines) to the much less than 3,000 of today (no headlines).
Sloppy work at best. Yet most effective in brainwashing worldwide TV-fed public opinion into believing the lie of 5 or 6 thousand Sept.11 dead.

Once more: according to you, campisi, the total confirmed death toll of September 11 at all three sites (New York, Pentagon, Pennsylvania) would be 2,908 by now.
Why haven't you released a list of names for all victims?
And why haven't you given news organizations access to your full list of victims?
Just how reliable is your list?
Just how reliable are you?

At least you've been faintly whispering (though not always, not nearly enough) from the beginning that your figures were in a state of flux due to "duplications"/"errors" and were/are likely to drop further.
But the following liars are more than a match for you, as shown by a Nov.21,2001 New York Times report:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/nyregion/21NUMB.html
colin powell had the straightface to repeat the 5,000-dead lie in a Nov.19 Louisville speech, although you, campisi, had made officially known WEEKS earlier that the Sept.11 toll had dropped well below 5,000. Actually, by Nov.19 it stood at little over 4,000. You're busted colin, you spouter of lies.
The 2nd certified liar is general richard b. myers , chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who during November briefings repeatedly bleated the "5,000" myth.
The 3rd certified liar is don imus, the radio talk show host, who topped everyone else by inventing "6,000" WTC dead on larry king live, saturday Nov.17.
The list is long. Too long. Longer than anyone can bear.




See, campisi, these are not trivialities, or morbid curiosity. How can Bush possibly be waging a "proportionate" war (as he and Blair driveled all over the media after Sept.11: see for example International Herald Tribune, Oct.6, 2001,p.1: "Blair... Calls for 'Proportionate' Strikes"), if the death toll is still uncertain? How many people does Bush have the right to murder back? 2,908 (your PROVISORY confirmed total)?

This "proportionate" war has long since become savagely disproportionate: in only 10 days in November, 6,000 Talibans and Qaidas were killed, according to U.S. and French experts (International Herald Tribune, November 19, 2001, p.8). If this is true, then the total death toll of over 6 months of war since Oct.7 is much higher than 6,000, considering:
- the fighters killed outside those 10 days;
- the refugees who starved and froze to death;
- the "unintended victims" (who amount to "certainly hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Afghans", according to the International Herald Tribune, Feb.11, 2002,p.1, continued on p.8; who amount to "at least 3,767 civilian casualties from Oct.7 to Dec.6", according to Marc Herold of New Hampshire University, as reported ibid.; who amount to "1,000 to 1,300 deaths" according to Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, as reported ibid.: that is, only until Feb.10).



Maybe it's time to declassify your victims list, campisi - lest more and more unpatriots should start thinking you are a liar who's been fabricating inflated figures all along to whip Americans up into a war frenzy.


War ought to be the first casualty of the Truth.






April 15, 2002 edition. I wrote the first version on September 24, 2001.


ADRIAN MORE




MORAL GROUND ZERO / II


THE PEARL HARBOR LIE AND SEPTEMBER 11


a T.I.P. (Text in Progress) by
ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist


The author argues that President Bush may have known in advance of the planned September-11 attacks but may have allowed them to happen, and why.


president,

the arguable likelihood (especially after Robert B. Stinnett's wonderful 'Day of Deceit', The Free Press, 2000) that FDR had foreknowledge of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor, but didn't tell to whip Americans up into a war frenzy, prompts me to ask a few analogical questions about September 11:


1 - Is it true that the local CIA station chief met Osama Bin Laden at the American hospital in Dubai in July 2001, as reported by Le Figaro and by Radio France Internationale on Oct.31,2001?
If it isn't true, then:
- why wouldn't Doctor Terry Callaway, reported to have treated Bin Laden, HIMSELF PUBLICLY comment on the reports? Is it out of fear you would have him harmed if he himself went public and confirmed the Figaro story? According to Le Figaro as translated into English in:
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0111/S00018.htm
Dr Callaway "reached by telephone, several times... did not want to answer our questions."
- why did you reportedly recall the CIA station chief on July 15, the day after the reported departure of Bin Laden from Dubai?
- why did Emirates officials make no comment on the reports?


2 - Is it true that by mid-July 2001 you had already planned the war on Afghanistan and its October timing, and that you had already stationed military advisers in Tajikistan, and that senior US officials told Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, in mid-July (BBC World News, September 18,2001,11:27 GMT 12:27 UK)?
The BBC story did indeed describe an already planned war, as anyone can verify in my above source on the net:
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

Here are some excerpts [I capped all-important details]:
"Pakistani official claims US PLANNED INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN PRIOR TO WTC EVENTS...Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that MILITARY ACTION AGAINST AFGHANISTAN WOULD GO AHEAD BY THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER... Mr Naik told the BBC that...the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden...and Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to TOPPLE THE TALIBAN REGIME AND INSTALL A TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT OF MODERATE AFGHANS IN ITS PLACE...Mr Naik was told that WASHINGTON WOULD LAUNCH ITS OPERATION FROM BASES IN TAJIKISTAN, WHERE AMERICAN ADVISERS WERE ALREADY IN PLACE. He was told that UZBEKISTAN WOULD ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPERATION... Mr Naik was told that IF THE MILITARY ACTION WENT AHEAD IT WOULD TAKE PLACE... BY THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER AT THE LATEST...And he said he was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered...by the Taliban".

QUITE AN ACCURATE PROPHECY, ISN'T IT? WERE ALL HIS DEAD-ON-TARGET DETAILS OF THE FUTURE REVEALED TO NAIK IN A DREAM? HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING AS EARLY AS SEPT.18, 2001 (OR EVEN EARLIER, IF HIS STATEMENT'S DATE DOESN'T COINCIDE WITH THE BBC REPORT'S DATE), HAD NOBODY TOLD HIM?

Furthermore, president, you knew all too well, just like FDR back then, that YOUR PLANNED WAR WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY ENOUGH AMERICANS WITHOUT A COLLECTIVE SHOCK OF SEPT.11 (PEARL-HARBOR) MAGNITUDE. Neither would most of the rest of the world have greenlighted your war so easily, without Sept.11. That's why you badly needed Sept.11, right? That's why you may have allowed it to happen, thus co-massmurdering so many of your fellow citizens.

Given the plausibility of Naik's story, it would at this point make perfect sense if, around the same time (July 2001), you, president, had both geared up for your Afghan war and had Osama treated at the American hospital in Dubai: Osama had to live - until Sept.11. Had Osama died of kidney failure, there would have been NO SEPTEMBER 11 - NO MASS CONSENSUS FOR WAR IN THE U.S. - NO WAR - NO U.S. MILITARY/BUSINESS EXPANSION IN CENTRAL ASIA. Bin Laden, unwittingly or not, has been your and your oil regime's best friend - thus far.

3 - It is known that:
a) renewable-energy lobbies don't have the kind of soft money the oil industry has;
b) U.S. oil reserves are dwindling fast;
c) the U.S. can't depend on Gulf oil alone - it's too dangerous;
d) Caspian oil seems at present a very significant alternative;
e) radical, anti-american Islam has been threatening to seize power in the Caspian area;
f) the best (for the U.S.) Caspian oil- and gas-pipeline route would have to cross Afghanistan and Pakistan, to avoid Russia and Iran;
g) Russia needs the Taliban to go or be curbed because they are the rear base of Chechen rebels; therefore weak Russia must come to terms with U.S. military presence in central Asia, and give up a chunk of oil/gas business to U.S. companies;
h) Chinese influence in Central Asia is contrary to American interests;
i) imperial wars are best served in 'self-defense' sauce (1).


4 - Just out of curiosity: on September 11, 8:48am you famously happened (?) to be in Florida - safely out of harm's way. But - it escapes me - where was Colin Powell? Rice? Norton? where exactly was Rudy the Hero? Tenet, Mueller?



To sum it all up: you are not yet another U.S. President who will live in infamy - are you, mr Bush?







(1) Anyone still doubting that the Afghanistan war is a war-for-oil (and gas) had better read:
a - "Petrolio", book by Leonardo Maugeri, Sperling & Kupfer, Milan 2001;
b - "U.S. Forces Dig In To Keep Presence In Central Asia For Years To Come" by Eric Schmitt and James Dao, New York Times Service, in: International Herald Tribune, Jan.10, 2002, p.1 (continued on p.4);
c - "Eine dauerhafte Präsenz", by Uwe Klussman, in: Der Spiegel nr.7, Feb.9, 2002, pp.132 ff.;
d - "The Future of Central Asia", by anonymous (it says "the Washington Post", a crediting that usually indicates a bigwig like a chief editor/director or something), in International Herald Tribune, Feb. 19, 2002, p.8, and:
e - "Beijing feeling surrounded/Now American bases to the west, too", by Bruce Elleman and Sarah Paine, in: International Herald Tribune, Feb.19, 2002, p.8.




March 8, 2002 version; I wrote the first version on October 29, 2001.

ADRIAN MORE





MORAL GROUND ZERO / III


ZAC IN THE BUSH


a T.I.P. (Text in Progress) by

ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



I explain why, arguably, FBI director Robert Mueller and his predecessor Louis Freeh ought to be shackled and goggled and flown to Guantanamo.



According to:

1 - Washingtonpost.com, Newsbytes, September 13, 2001, 1:16pm EST: 'Newspaper: Echelon Gave Authorities Warning Of Attacks', by Ned Stafford, (based on a report in Germany's daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) online at:
 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170072.html
2 - International Herald Tribune, September 25, 2001, p.3: 'Attacks Found the FBI Ill-Equipped and Unprepared', by Joby Warrick, Joe Stephens, Mary Pat Flaherty and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post Service;
3 - International Herald Tribune, October 17,2001,p.9: 'Money Linked To Suspect in Hijackings', by Philip Shenon, New York Times Service;
4 - International Herald Tribune, December 12, 2001,p.3: 'Pilot Trainee Is First to Be Indicted in U.S. Attacks', by Brian Knowlton;
5 - International Herald Tribune, January 3,2002,p.4: 'Flight School Official Spoke of Hijack Threat', by Dan Eggen, Washington Post Service;
6 - International Herald Tribune, February 1, 2002, p.3 : 'Suspect's Silence Baffled Agents Before Sept.11' by Dan Eggen, Washington Post Service;
7 - Los Angeles Times, Feb.7, 2002: 'Indonesia Cleric Tied to '95 Anti-U.S. Plot', by Mark Fineman and Richard C. Paddock, online at:  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-020702hambali.story ;
8 - International Herald Tribune, February 9, 2002, p.3: 'A 'Joyrider' at Airliner School Soon Raised Suspicions of Terrorism' by Jim Yardley, New York Times service;
9 - International Herald Tribune, March 29, 2002, p.1 (continued on p.4): 'U.S. Seeks Death Penalty For Sept.11 Terror Suspect', by Brian Knowlton:


SINCE 1996: "The FBI had been developing evidence that international terrorists were using U.S. flight schools to learn to fly jumbo jets. A foiled plot in Manila to blow up U.S. airliners and later court testimony by an associate of Mr. Bin Laden's had touched off FBI INQUIRIES AT SEVERAL SCHOOLS, OFFICIALS SAY [my caps]."

EARLY 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui (indicted on suspicion to have been the 20th planned hijacker for September 11) trained as a pilot for three months at Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma. The very same school where the Al-Qaida operative Abdul Hakim Murad had trained for a suicide hijacking/jet-bomb attack, Sept.11-style, as he told Philippine authorities after his arrest in 1995: "their [Murad's and his accomplices'] ultimate goal was TO HIJACK A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER AND CRASH IT... INTO EITHER CIA HEADQUARTERS OR THE PENTAGON [my caps]."

MARCH 2001 - JUNE 2001: source nr 1: "U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals... that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to HIJACK COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT TO USE AS WEAPONS TO ATTACK IMPORTANT SYMBOLS OF AMERICAN AND ISRAELI CULTURE [my caps]... the Echelon spy network was being used to collect information about the terrorist threat, and ...U.K. INTELLIGENCE SERVICES APPARENTLY ALSO HAD ADVANCE WARNING [caps mine]".

MID-AUGUST 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui "took PILOT training [my caps]" (source C) in Eagan, Minnesota, at the Pan Am International Flight school. "The instructor wondered why someone who was not a pilot and had so little experience was trying to pack so much training INTO SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME [my caps]." "He wanted to learn FAST [my caps]."

MID-AUGUST 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui alarmed flight school instructors "by his request to learn how to fly large jet aircraft - BUT NOT HOW TO TAKE OFF OR LAND" [my caps].
"There was discussion [among flight school employees] ABOUT HOW MUCH FUEL WAS ON BOARD OF A 747-400 AND HOW MUCH DAMAGE THAT COULD CAUSE IF IT HIT ANYTHING" [my caps].

AUGUST 15, 2001: The "Minnesota flight school reported to the FBI that Mr. Moussaoui had been acting suspiciously". "The manager was concerned that Mr. Moussaoui might be planning a hijacking." "... instructors... told the FBI that they were suspicious of his demands to learn to use a Boeing 747 simulator even though he had flunked out of another school's course for beginning pilots."

MID-AUGUST 2001: "A Pan Am vice president told two lawmakers that it took four to six telephone calls to find an agent who would help. The caller finally warned an FBI agent that a Boeing 747-400, which Mr. Moussaoui was seeking to learn how to fly, COULD BE USED AS A BOMB [my capitalization]". FBI director Robert Mueller denies ever having heard of the jet-bomb possibility. Even if this were true, it didn't take Einstein to connect a guy who wants to learn how to control a flight but not take off or land with a jet-as-bomb concept. If Mueller isn't lying, he's stupid and should be fired. If he's lying, he should be fired and prosecuted for treason. In either case he must be investigated, along with his predecessor Louis Freeh (Mueller reportedly took office on Sept.4, 2001).

AUGUST 15, 2001: "An FBI agent and a Minnesota flight school official discussed the possibility that Zacarias Moussaoui was part of a hijacking PLOT BEFORE THE SEPT. 11 ATTACKS [my capitalization]... The official with the Pan Am Flight Academy in Eagan... talked about the threat... with a Minneapolis FBI agent on Aug. 15".

AUGUST 16, 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested on an immigration violation by an "FBI special agent, Dave Rapp, and an immigration agent". Also a friend of Moussaoui's, Hussein Attas, who had driven "Mr. Moussaoui from Oklahoma to the Minnesota flight school", is arrested on a visa violation, "but was freed on bond" - only to be rearrested after Sept.11. He is now "being held in New York as a material witness".
But before being freed (that is BEFORE SEPT.11) Hussein Attas, unlike Moussaoui, "talked at length with investigators, DESCRIBING MR. MOUSSAOUI AS A HOTHEADED RADICAL WHO FREQUENTLY SPOKE OF MUSLIMS BEING KILLED AROUND THE WORLD" [my caps] wherefore Moussaoui was "suspicious" to him too.

MID-AUGUST 2001: "But according to documents and senior U.S. officials, investigators in Minneapolis immediately viewed Mr. Moussaoui as a terrorist suspect BUT WERE FRUSTRATED IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO LEARN MORE [my capitalization]": what, who frustrated them?

AUGUST 17, 2001: "THE FBI IN MINNEAPOLIS ALERTED COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON [my caps]".

AUGUST 17 - SEPTEMBER 10, 2001: "Among the new details that have emerged ABOUT THE EARLY MOUSSAOUI INVESTIGATION... IS THAT CONCERN ABOUT MR. MOUSSAOUI REACHED THE TOP ECHELONS OF THE FBI [my caps]" (source E): FREEH KNEW, MUELLER KNEW.

AUGUST 17 - SEPTEMBER 10, 2001: "FBI HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON TWICE REJECTED REQUESTS FROM AGENTS IN MINNEAPOLIS FOR A WIDER INVESTIGATION [my capitalization]".

LATE AUGUST 2001: "A classified cable IN AUGUST [my capitalization] from the French intelligence service said Mr. Moussaoui had radical Islamic beliefs and identified a friend as having fought in Chechnya with an Algerian Muslim group that included a known Bin Laden associate, U.S. officials said".
And though this French cable "did not tie Mr. Moussaoui directly to Qaida or to any other terrorist group", it should have rung the alarm, coupled with the report that Moussaoui wanted to pilot but not take off or land. If the French cable and the flight school reports, not to mention the Oklahoma/Murad connection, weren't grounds enough for a Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Act search warrant, they certainly were for the wider investigation requested by the Minneapolis FBI.

All the more so for the following reasons.

FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, 2001: Again, "French law-enforcement officials... say that they TWICE ALERTED THEIR U.S. COUNTERPARTS, IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, TO HIS [MOUSSAOUI'S] SUSPECTED LINKS TO QAEDA [capitalization by me], the daily Le Monde reported". And that makes 3 warnings from the French alone, with the August cable. Warnings such as these are typically sent to Washington [=Freeh/Mueller] not Minneapolis.
My source nr 8 confirms one of the September warnings with new details: "France is reported to have an extensive dossier linking Moussaoui to Al Qaeda. THE FRENCH POLICE, WHO REPORTEDLY BEGAN INVESTIGATING HIM AS A POSSIBLE TERRORIST IN 1999, TOLD THEIR U.S. COUNTERPARTS ON SEPT.1 [2001] THAT HE HAD TIES TO AL QAEDA [my caps]."
Not enough: the French "say they also alerted authorities in Britain, where Mr. Moussaoui had lived on and off for years".

A critical mass of evidence to charge Moussaoui with planning terrorism was therefore available BEFORE SEPT.11. Let's put it all together:
1. "Since 1996, the FBI had been developing evidence that international terrorists were using U.S. flight schools to learn to fly jumbo jets."
2. Zacarias Moussaoui had trained at the same Oklahoma flight school as Qaeda operative Murad whose goal had been a suicide hijacking/jet-bomb attack;
3. U.S. intelligence had received warnings of terrorist plans to use jets as bombs; that FBI directors Freeh & Mueller wouldn't have been told just isn't plausible;
4. Zacarias Moussaoui alarmed flight school instructors in Minnesota "by his request to learn how to fly large jet aircraft - but not how to take off or land";
5. therefore, the flight school "manager was concerned that Mr. Moussaoui might be planning a hijacking", and reported so to the FBI; "an FBI agent and a Minnesota flight school official discussed the possibility that Zacarias Moussaoui was part of a hijacking plot before the Sept.11 attacks";
6. "a Pan Am [the Minnesota flight school] vice president told two lawmakers [democratic representatives Martin Sabo and James Oberstar, both from Minnesota]... that [he] finally warned an FBI agent that a Boeing 747-400, which Mr. Moussaoui was seeking to learn how to fly, could be used as a bomb";
7. Moussaoui's friend Hussein Attas "talked at length with investigators, describing Mr. Moussaoui as a hotheaded radical who frequently spoke of Muslims being killed around the world";
8. "A classified cable in August from the French intelligence service said Mr. Moussaoui had radical Islamic beliefs and identified a friend as having fought in Chechnya with an Algerian Muslim group that included a known Bin Laden associate, U.S. official said";
9. "French law-enforcement officials... say that they twice alerted their U.S. counterparts, in the first week of September, to his [Moussaoui's] suspected link to Qaeda";

Now: the above NINE reported facts should have been "probable cause that a crime had been committed" (the crime of planning terror attacks) and should have warranted a wider investigation for any FBI director who wasn't Robert Mueller or his predecessor Louis Freeh - because Robert Mueller and his predecessor Louis Freeh were arguably under orders from Bush to allow September 11 to happen.
And although it's too late now to prevent Sept.11, it is NOT too late to fire Robert Mueller and arrest him and his predecessor Louis Freeh on suspicion of co-conspiring to massmurder thousands of Americans and other people on Sept.11.

For if the FBI directors had been honest FBI directors and not traitors, they would have thought:
- wait a minute, maybe Moussaoui was planning a suicide hijacking with a jet as bomb: that's why he didn't need to learn how to take off or land;
- let's remember the Qaida Murad owning up to planning suicide hijacking in 1995;
- and maybe there's Moussaoui's planned co-pilot training somewhere else now; someone, that is, who could replace Moussaoui if he failed to control the plane;
- and maybe Moussaoui or his masterminds have planned for more than one pilot in case one gets arrested;
- and maybe there's a plot for a whole bunch of jets-as-bombs: after all that's what Japanese kamikazes did so often in World War 2;
- so, to start with, let's have a thorough screening of all U.S. flight school students real fast: the wider investigation requested by the Minneapolis FBI is absolutely and urgently necessary.

And, indeed, just as an example, a stateswide 2000/2001-flight-school-students screening (for which there was all the time in the world: 25 DAYS between Aug.17, 2001 and Sept.10, 2001) would have led to the arrest of at least 3 more Sept.11 hijackers: Mohammed Atta, the ringleader, who had done everything he could to raise suspicions himself; plus Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, both of whom the CIA had reportedly linked to Qaeda as early as January 2000; or at the very least the wider investigation would have led to identifying those 3 or more, starting a massive manhunt, providing their names to all airlines, and placing all airports under maximum alert.


The only difference between Zacarias Moussaoui and FBI directors Freeh and Mueller appears to be that Zac may have tried to make September 11 happen but failed - FBI directors Freeh and Mueller (and the rest of the Bush gang) may have tried and succeeded.


April 11, 2002 edition; I wrote the first version on January 28/29, 2002.


Adrian More





MORAL GROUND ZERO /IV


IMMORAL TENET & HIS BLIND-EYE SURVEILLANCE


by ADRIAN MORE
Poet, songwriter/singer, essayist


The CIA placed two Sept. 11 skyjackers under surveillance as early as January 2000 - arguably only to allow them to ram themselves into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.



Hey CIA director Tenet!

Is it true that two of the September 11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were under surveillance in January 2000 on a trip of theirs to Malaysia? Source: Los Angeles Times, Feb2, 2002, "Indonesian Cleric Had Role In Skyjackings, Officials Say", by Mark Fineman and Bob Drogin; Eric Bailey contributed; online at :
 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-020202malay.story
Here's what I read - and what blew me away.

"Local officials said U.S. authorities had asked Malaysian intelligence to watch for a group of SUSPECTED ARAB TERRORISTS [my caps] who might be entering the country in 2000. The CIA asked the authorities to only record and watch their movements, NOT TO ARREST THEM [my caps]."

Now, wait a minute. WHY DID THE CIA TELL THE MALAYSIANS "NOT TO ARREST THEM"? WERE OR WEREN'T THEY "SUSPECTED ARAB TERRORISTS"?

My above quoted source continues, somewhat oddly, stating that "those suspects [that is, the group of suspected Arab terrorists], AS WELL AS ALMIHDHAR AND ALHAZMI, arrived in Kuala Lumpur on JAN.5, 2000 [my caps], and Malaysian agents tracked them to... a... condominium complex called Evergreen Park."

Now, the oddity is in the words "those suspects, AS WELL AS Almihdhar and Alhazmi": does this mean that Almihdhar/Alhazmi were not part of the suspects? Why did the reporters write "AS WELL AS" instead of "including"? Anyway, "those suspects" AND Almihdhar/Alhazmi, whether the latter two were already suspects or not, ALL went to Evergreen Park, the article appears to say, and were ALL tracked by Malaysian agents. That's to say, Almihdhar/Alhazmi should have become "suspects" too from this point on, whether they were already suspects from earlier or not: because they joined the "group of suspected Arab terrorists".

Let's read on:
"Malaysian officials said they immediately gave SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS of the group to U.S. intelligence."
Now, the reporters do not say if photos of Almihdhar/Alhazmi specifically were provided.
But even if the CIA didn't get the individual pictures of the two, they certainly had their names as provided to Kuala Lumpur airport customs on Jan.5, 2002.
It is not to be ruled out though that the Malaysian agents did a good job and shot good pictures of all in the group. Did the CIA get photos of Almihdhar/Alhazmi, mr Tenet? And/or, maybe, even video footage?

Summing up so far:
1. CIA director Tenet may have known Almihdhar + Alhazmi were suspected Arab terrorists as early as 1999, because "U.S. authorities... asked Malaysian intelligence to watch for... suspected Arab terrorists who might be entering the country in 2000."
2. God knows why, "the CIA asked the [Malaysian] authorities... NOT TO ARREST THEM".
3. CIA director Tenet IMMEDIATELY GOT "SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS" of the group.
4. Therefore, at least AS EARLY AS JANUARY 2000, CIA director Tenet knew that Almihdhar/Alhazmi were suspected Arab terrorists, probably had their photos - and let them go - to the U.S.!
Where CIA director Tenet allegedly lost track of them - until Sept.11, 2001.

Now, wait another minute. Since Almihdhar/Alhazmi had been linked to a group of suspected Arab terrorists in Kuala Lumpur, and even assuming for a moment that the reason why CIA director Tenet didn't want them arrested there and then was to learn more about them; THEN WHY FOR GOD'S SAKE WAS THEIR SURVEILLANCE APPARENTLY DROPPED WHEN THEY LEFT MALAYSIA - AND FLEW TO THE U.S.?
AND IF THE CIA SURVEILLANCE OF ALMIHDHAR/ALHAZMI WAS NOT DROPPED BUT CONTINUED IN THE U.S., WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONLY LOGICAL THING TO DO, THEN WHY WEREN'T THEY STOPPED BEFORE SEPT.11? TESTIFY UNDER OATH, TENET!

In theory there is a third possibility: that the surveillance of Almihdhar/Alhazmi failed for other reasons.
If so, exactly WHY and exactly WHEN did the surveillance program collapse?
It's implausible that the two Qaedas would have eluded surveillance after Kuala Lumpur, because to elude something you first have to become aware of it. And if Almihdhar/Alhazmi had become aware of being under surveillance, the last thing in the world they would have done was fly right into the country where the surveillance was most likely to be coming from.
And: once in the U.S., the two didn't hide or go underground - they underwent flight training.

But let's read on, for now comes the (weak) alibi for Tenet:
"CIA officials have said they determined only last summer [2001] that the [Kuala Lumpur] meeting was important, when they identified one person in the photos as a possible suspect in the bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole... As a result, they warned the FBI and U.S. immigration officials to watch for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, but it was then determined that they already had entered the United States."

Now - I don't get it, Tenet. Here were two guys who had been linked to "suspected Arab terrorists" since January 2000. So even assuming you want to continue their surveillance to learn more, YOU CONTINUE SHADOWING THEM. AND YOU TELL FBI + IMMIGRATION TO WATCH FOR THEM RIGHT AWAY - IN JANUARY 2000, NOT SUMMER 2001!
WHETHER THE KUALA LUMPUR MEETING WAS ABOUT TERRORISM OF GOLF IS BESIDE THE POINT, THE POINT BEING: ALMIHDHAR AND ALHAZMI WERE SUSPECTED ARAB TERRORISTS, SO WHY ON EARTH DID THE CIA DROP THE SURVEILLANCE AND NOT INFORM FBI + IMMIGRATION IMMEDIATELY, TENET?!

In the best-case scenario, you are an idiot so why hasn't Bush fired you yet.

In the worst (and more likely) scenario, the surveillance of Almihdhar/Alhazmi was NOT dropped at all, and you are a traitor who, under orders from the White House to allow September 11 to happen, turned a blind eye to whatever Almihdhar/Alhazmi did between January 2000 and September 11, 2001, although you were closely monitoring them all along.

In either case, you ought to be fired and placed under investigation on suspicion of co-conspiring in at least one of the Sept.11 terror attacks.



Almihdhar and Alhazmi went on to ram themselves into the Pentagon, reportedly killing 189 people who would be alive without your blind-eye surveillance. Immoral Tenet, you'll get yours yet.


March 8, 2002 edition; I wrote the first version on February 6, 2002.

Adrian More




MORAL GROUND ZERO /V


THE TWIN COWARDS


A T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by
ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



Clinton & Bush may have ordered a stand-aside policy allowing Mohamed Atta to make 9-11 happen.



According to:

1. International Herald Tribune, September 14, 2001, p.8: 'Investigators Looking at Florida School for Jet Pilots', by Jim Yardley, New York Times Service;
2. International Herald Tribune, Sept. 15, 2001: 'An FBI List of the 19 Hijackers Aboard the 4 Doomed Airliners', by the Associated Press;
3. International Herald Tribune, Sept.15, 2001, p.1, continued on p.3: 'Suspects Lived Openly, Hiding a Deadly Secret', by Kevin Sack and Jim Yardley;
4. International Herald Tribune, Sept.25, 2001, p.3: 'Attacks Found the FBI Ill-Equipped and Unprepared', by Joby Warrick and others, Washington Post Service;
5. International Herald Tribune, Oct.6, 2001, p.1, continued on p.7: 'Hijacker Reportedly Met Iraqi Official', by Peter Finn, Washington Post Service;
6. International Herald Tribune, Oct.17, 2001, p.9: 'Misstep by Hijackers Failed to Draw Careful Scrutiny', by Jim Yardley, New York Times Service;
7. International Herald Tribune, November 13, 2001: 'The Prague Connection: Saddam and Bin Laden', by William Safire (originally a New York Times article);
8. International Herald Tribune, November 19, 2001, p.6: 'Spain Links 8 to Hijackings', by Peter Finn and Pamela Rolfe, Washington Post Service;
9. International Herald Tribune, November 21, 2001, p.1, continued on p.7: 'Qaida and Sept.11: The Spanish Connection', by Sam Dillon, New York Times Service;
10. Associated Press, December 9, 2001, 08:54 ET: 'Investigator: Atta Visited New York', by Pat Milton;
11. International Herald Tribune, January 31, 2002, p.6: 'A Single National Security Database', by Larry Ellison;
12. International Herald Tribune, February 6, 2002, p.1: 'Iraqi Terror Hasn't Hit U.S. in Years, CIA Says', by James Risen, New York Times Service; and, finally:
13. Washingtonpost.com, March 17, 2002, p.A20: 'Hijackers Visa Fiasco Points Up INS Woes', by Dan Eggen and Cheryl W. Thompson:
 link to www.washingtonpost.com :



SINCE 1996: "The FBI had been developing evidence that international terrorists were using U.S. flight schools to learn to fly jumbo jets. A foiled plot in Manila to blow up U.S. airliners and later court testimony by an associate of Mr. Bin Laden's HAD TOUCHED OFF FBI INQUIRIES AT SEVERAL SCHOOLS, OFFICIALS SAY."



1998 - 2000: in this time frame, whether continuously or not I don't know, Mohamed Atta (the reported ringleader of the Sept.11 hijackers) lives in Hamburg, Germany, and while living there he gets involved with Al Qaida - according to Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon. I do not know if Atta was a Qaida before 1998.
What connects Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon with Atta? The reported facts that:
- Garzon had 8 Qaidas arrested in Spain in November 2001 for playing "a direct role in the preparation of the Sept.11 attacks";
- Atta "twice visited Spain, in January and July 2001... It is now believed that on those trips he met with some of the... members of a Qaida cell";
- Judge Garzon's account is based in part ON YEARS OF TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS [my caps]. The document [judge Garzon's detention order] makes clear that Spanish intelligence has been WATCHING MR. YARKAS [Qaida leader in Spain] AND LISTENING TO HIM IN HIS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SUSPECTED QAIDA OPERATIVES AROUND EUROPE AND ASIA SINCE AT LEAST 1997 [my caps]."


Now, Clinton/Bush, here's my first set of questions for you on this story:
- Since Spain is a U.S. ally, HAD SPANISH INTELLIGENCE TOLD YOU, AS WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY NATURAL, THAT THEY HAD BEEN WATCHING/EAVESDROPPING ON THE QAIDA YARKAS SINCE 1997?
- As "Spanish intelligence had been watching Mr. Yarkas... since at least 1997"; and as Atta, now believed to have been a ringleader, logically would have wanted to meet his counterpart in Spain, Yarkas; was Spanish intelligence watching Yarkas, and therefore Atta too, when Atta met Qaidas in Spain in January and July 2001?
Spanish judge mr Garzon, will you finally tell the world if, as it is logical to assume, Yarkas was among the Qaidas that Mohamed Atta met in January and July 2001?
If so, was the meeting shadowed and eavesdropped on, as you had been shadowing and eavesdropping on Yarkas since 1997?
And will you tell us, judge Garzon, if Spanish intelligence flagged the meeting, and Atta's name, to U.S. authorities in January and July 2001?
CLINTON/BUSH: TESTIFY UNDER OATH ON THESE VERY SAME POINTS!

It is utterly implausible, it is utterly unreasonable to think that Spain, a Western U.S. ally, wouldn't have informed the U.S. about a meeting of Qaidas.


Furthermore:
let's focus on the "telephone intercepts". On the "YEARS OF TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS BY THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES [my caps]". Let us focus on the all-important detail that "the document [judge Garzon's detention order for the Qaidas of Spain] makes clear that Spanish intelligence had been watching Mr. Yarkas [the Spain Qaida ringleader] AND LISTENING TO HIS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SUSPECTED QAIDA OPERATIVES AROUND EUROPE... SINCE AT LEAST 1997 [my caps]". This means that Spanish intelligence was listening to whatever Yarkas AND THOSE HE SPOKE WITH OVER THE PHONE said between "at least 1997" and Sept.10, 2001. And this is reported to be part of the evidence linking Spanish Qaida (with Yarkas) to "THE PREPARATION OF THE SEPT.11 ATTACKS [my caps]".
Let's read on: "The revelation marks the first direct connection made between the Sept.11 plotters, including a Hamburg-based group led by a key-figure in the hijackings, MOHAMED ATTA [my caps] and a string of Islamic terrorist cells in Europe".
"Spanish officials also said that the NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE ALLEGED LEADER OF THE QAIDA NETWORK IN SPAIN,... YARBAS [sic, = Yarkas as my other related source shows], APPEARED IN A DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OF AN APARTMENT OF A SUSPECTED BIN LADEN ASSOCIATE IN HAMBURG AFTER SEPT.11 [my caps]." "MR. YARKAS'S PHONE NUMBER WAS FOUND BY THE GERMAN POLICE IN THE HAMBURG APARTMENT BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN USED BY TWO OF THE HIJACKERS AND SEVERAL OTHER ISLAMIC TERORISTS TO PLOT THE SEPT.11 ATTACKS, JUDGE GARZON'S [detention] ORDER SAYS. IT [Garzon's order] LISTS AMONG MR. YARKAS'S EUROPEAN 'CONTACTS' FOUR OF THE HAMBURG APARTMENT OCCUPANTS, INCLUDING MR. ATTA, WHO PILOTED THE PLANE THAT HIT THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWER [my caps]."


Now, let's sum up and draw some probable conclusions:

1. Spanish intelligence had been tapping Yarkas's phone line since 1997;
2. Yarkas was in touch with a Hamburg Islamist cell that included Atta;
3. German police confirmed this when they searched the Hamburg apartment reportedly AFTER Sept.11;
4. but Spanish intelligence knew of the Madrid/Hamburg Qaida link BEFORE Sept.11, from eavesdropping on and shadowing Yarkas;
5. let's add the 2 Atta trips to Madrid in January and July 2001.


I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT EVEN A 5-YEAR-OLD WOULD LEGITIMATELY ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. SPANISH PRIME MINISTER MR AZNAR, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T YOU INFORM GERMAN POLICE AND THE U.S. ABOUT THE MADRID/HAMBURG QAIDA NETWORK BEFORE SEPT.11?
2. OR DID YOU, MR AZNAR?
3. GERMAN CHANCELOR MR SCHROEDER, WILL YOU PROCEED TO TESTIFY? DID OR DIDN'T AZNAR INFORM YOU? AND IF HE DID, AS IT WAS THE ONLY LOGICAL OPTION BETWEEN ALLIES, WHY DIDN'T YOU PLACE ALL THE HAMBURG APARTMENT OCCUPANTS INCLUDING ATTA UNDER SURVEILLANCE THERE AND THEN? OR DID YOU?
4. MR CLINTON/MR BUSH, WHAT DID YOU TWO KNOW ABOUT THE YARKAS PHONE TAPS BETWEEN 1997 AND SEPT.10, 2001? TESTIFY UNDER OATH!


Hot on Atta's trail around the globe, next stop Prague.


JUNE 2, 2000: "Atta, an Egyptian with ties to Islamic fundamentalists in Germany, flew to Newark, N.J., on June 2, 2000 from Prague in the Czech Republic, Czech authorities have said."
Why would Mohamed Atta want to go to Prague first? Why didn't he fly to the U.S. directly from Hamburg, Germany? My source nr 4 (of Oct.6, 2001) says: in order to meet "with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague... sources in the Czech government said".
My source nr 6 (of Nov.13, 2001) says that the Atta/Iraqi spy meeting in Prague happened on April 8, 2001, not June 2000. Were there 2 meetings? Anyway, that's totally beside my point. What really interests me about the meeting is what my source nr 11 (of FEB.6,2002) says:
"NOW SENIOR U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE MEETING BETWEEN MR. ATTA AND THE IRAQI OFFICER, AHMED KHALIL SAMIR AL-ANI, DID OCCUR".
So: the last stand of the matter, according to U.S. intelligence, as of FEB.6, 2002, is that Atta met Ani in Prague.

- I couldn't care less, in this context, whether U.S. intelligence know or not what was discussed;
- I couldn't care less, in this context, whether the 2 met once or twice and exactly when;
- I couldn't care less, in my context, if U.S. intelligence say Al-Ani was "a mid-level intelligence officer" or if he was a spymaster;
- I couldn't care less, in my context, if Atta/Ani discussed blowing up Radio Free Europe in Prague or the WTC or maybe how to pick up girls.

What I DO care for, is that "now" (FEB.6, 2002) "U.S. intelligence have concluded that the meeting did occur".

Next: how do they know? According to my sources, it was the Czechs who announced it first. For example, "the Czech prime minister , Milos Zeman, confirmed to CNN that Mr Ani and Mr Atta met in Prague". Czech intelligence had shadowed the meeting. And then they "shadowed Mr Atta to the airport for his flight to the United States."

Now, one can't help but ask the same question William Safire (a conservative!) asks in my source nr 6: "Why didn't the BIS [the Czech secret service] inform the United States about Mr Atta at that time?" Whatever Atta and Ani had discussed, here was a guy who'd just met a rogue-nation spy and was flying to the U.S.! Reason enough to tell the CIA + U.S. customs + FBI right away, especially since the Czechs are U.S. allies and since Czech president Havel is a decades-old friend of the Bushes'.

But one should also wonder, again with Safire: "WERE THE CIA AND FBI KEPT IN THE DARK... OR WERE U.S. COUNTERSPIES INFORMED BUT DID NOTHING?".

As for the recent allegations denying the Atta/Ani Prague meeting (Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov on "Meet the Press", March 17, 2002; columnist David Ignatius in the Washington Post, republished in International Herald Tribune, March 16, 2002): I need not respond - old William Safire (the same conservative hawk) did it for me in IHT, March 19, 2002, p.8: "No, it isn't 'wrong information'" (originally a New York Times article):
"On solid evidence: The Czech intelligence agency, BIS, had the Iraqi Embassy spy in Prague under constant visual and wiretap surveillance... Three months ago... Interior Minister Stanislav Gross issued a statement that 'BIS guarantees the information, so we stick by that information'... On corroboration of the evidence that Atta flew 7,000 miles, from Virginia Beach to Prague and back to Florida... : The FBI has car-rental and other records that Atta left for Prague on April 8, 2001, and returned on April 11. The BIS report of the meeting that Saddam's case officer had with the suicide hijacker fell precisely within those dates... On CIA assessment of evidence: James Risen reported in the New York Times last month that... 'senior American intelligence officials have concluded that the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, did take place'. Congressional intelligence committees could confirm that."


Recapping so far:
IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY/PLAUSIBLE/LOGICAL THAN NOT THAT THE U.S. ESTABLISHMENT WAS INFORMED BEFORE SEPT.11 ABOUT MOHAMED ATTA'S LINKS WITH SPAIN'S QAIDA AND WITH IRAQ IN PRAGUE.



Back in the U.S.A. now, from Prague.


JULY 2000-NOVEMBER 2000: Venice, Florida, Huffman Aviation School: Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi train here (the latter reportedly would die hitting the WTC's South Tower on Sept.11).
By the way, Clinton/Bush: was Huffman one of the "several schools" under FBI inquiry since 1996?

DECEMBER 26, 2000: Miami International Airport. "Mr Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, another hijacker-in-training, taxied a small private plane toward a runway when, unexpectedly, it stalled. Unable to restart the engine, the two men shut the plane down, FLIPPED OFF THE LIGHTS AND BY ONE ACCOUNT, WALKED OFF... THE STRANGE INCIDENT, WHICH HAPPENED ON A BUSY TRAVEL DAY [THE DAY AFTER XMAS] AT THE NINTH-BUSIEST PASSENGER AIRPORT IN THE COUNTRY, IS ESPECIALLY NOTABLE BECAUSE OF HOW CLOSE IT BROUGHT THE TWO MEN TO OFFICIAL SCRUTINY.
ACCORDING TO ONE FORMER FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR, A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL PLACED AN ANGRY CALL THE MORNING AFTER THE DEC. 26 INCIDENT [i.e. on Dec. 27, 2000], THREATENING TO INVESTIGATE THE MAINTENANCE RECORD OF THE PLANE AS WELL AS THE TWO PILOTS... A SPOKESMAN FOR THE AVIATION AGENCY REFUSED TO COMMENT ON WHETHER ANY OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST THE TWO TERRORISTS, citing the ongoing... investigation into the hijackings."
BUT:
"A CURRENT EMPLOYEE AT HUFFMAN CONFIRMED THAT THE FLIGHT SCHOOL DID FORWARD THE AGENCY THE PLANE'S MAINTENANCE RECORDS."

Therefore, it is to assume that the Federal Aviation Agency DID INDEED follow through on its threat of launching an investigation: the maintenance-record part was looked into but - WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PILOTS?

They had angered the FAA with reckless behavior that had endangered airport safety on Dec.26, 2000:
- they had flipped off the lights at "5:45pm" (not exactly broad daylight anymore);
- they had abandoned the plane in the middle of a runway "without radioing the tower and were walking across the airfield", as an "irritated official in the flight tower" explained over the phone to Dale Kraus, then the general manager at Huffman Aviation.
It is therefore logical to assume that the FAA followed through on its "angry" threat to investigate maintenance - and the two pilots.

Clinton/Bush, can the public finally, over 7 months after Sept.11, be told if the FAA placed Atta/Al-Shehhi under investigation over the Dec.26, 2000 incident?
And if the FAA did investigate them, DID IT INFORM THE FBI (which would have been only natural, feds-to-feds crosschecking)?



APRIL 2001: Broward County, Florida: Mohamed Atta is "ticketed for driving without a license. He failed to show up for court, AND A BENCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR HIS ARREST [my caps]; [a 'bench warrant' is "a warrant issued by a judge for the arrest of a person who is in contempt of court", according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law]. But with more than 200,000 warrants pending on minor offenses in Broward County, he was never picked up".

What a convenient explanation. Yet, even if true, the "200,000" pending warrants fail to explain why Atta wasn't arrested.

First, quick recap/refocusing.

By April 2001, Mohamed Atta had already screwed up so much that the claim he went undetected as a suspicious person until Sept.11 is utterly ridiculous:
1. on December 26, 2000 he had so blatantly endangered Miami airport safety that by April he may have been under FAA investigation, though FAA won't comment;
2. if indeed he had been under FAA scrutiny, crosschecking with the FBI would have been routine;
3. the FBI had "several" U.S. flight schools under terrorism-related inquiry since 1996;
4. Atta had flown to Spain in January 2001 to meet Qaidas at least one of whom was being shadowed by Spanish intelligence - that the Spanish wouldn't flag Atta to the U.S. after this isn't plausible;
5. Atta had met Iraqi spy Samir Al-Ani in Prague, monitored by Czech intelligence - that the Czechs wouldn't flag Atta to the U.S. then isn't plausible.


And - one more thing: had the Florida arrest warrant been entered in the "INTERAGENCY WATCH LIST DATABASES CALLED NAILS AND IBIS"? Obviously Immigration don't check all local databases; but do they check NAILS and IBIS when passengers are entering the U.S. from abroad?

Clinton/Bush, testify again under oath:
WAS ATTA'S APRIL 2001 ARREST WARRANT DETECTABLE BY CHECKING NAILS/IBIS? IF SO, WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED WHEN HE REENTERED THE U.S. IN JULY 2001 AFTER HIS 2nd QAIDA-RELATED TRIP TO MADRID?
AND IF NOT, WHY WASN'T ATTA'S ARREST WARRANT ENTERED INTO THE NAILS/IBIS INTERAGENCY WATCH LIST DATABASES?
The author of source nr 11 says that "once you're in the country" it's easy to escape NAILS/IBIS detection because "the watch list is very rarely cross-checked".
BUT ATTA IN JULY 2001 WAS FLYING BACK INTO THE U.S. FROM SPAIN. SO EVEN IN THE UNLIKELY CASE THAT SPANISH INTELLIGENCE HADN'T BLOWN THE WHISTLE, WHY DIDN'T IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS DETECT ATTA'S WARRANT ON NAILS/IBIS?
Is NAILS/IBIS a routine check for passengers from abroad or not? I do not know, so please - TESTIFY!



Mohamed Atta "mostly used his own name and vital statistics as he traveled the country in the months before the hijackings."
Things were made as easy as it gets for him.
As if there weren't plenty enough evidence already that the U.S. establishment allowed Atta to plot & perform Sept.11, here's one last breadcrumb on his trail.
MOHAMED ATTA WAS ALLOWED TO TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH FROM AND INTO THE U.S. WITHOUT A VALID VISA FROM JANUARY THROUGH JULY 2001.

Source nr 6: "In January 2001, after flying from Miami to Madrid, HE WAS ALLOWED TO RE-ENTER THE COUNTRY DESPITE OVERSTAYING HIS PREVIOUS VISA [the visa on which he'd entered the U.S. on June 2, 2000, see above]; [caps mine]".

But the point is not so much that Atta wasn't held accountable for overstaying his previous visa - THE REAL POINT IS: ATTA DID NOT HAVE A NEW VISA until July 17, 2001 (source nr 13), when the INS reportedly approved a student visa for Atta; a visa which was reportedly sent to him 'last summer [2001]'. But there is no proof of all this because "INS officials have declined to provide copies of the actual approval notices they say were sent to the men [Atta and his cohort Al-Shehhi] last summer."

Anyway, even assuming that Atta received his new visa shortly after INS approval of it on July 17, 2001: WHY FOR GODSSAKE WAS HE ALLOWED BACK THROUGH CUSTOMS:
- IN JANUARY 2001, BACK FROM MADRID, WITHOUT A VISA;
- ON APRIL 11, 2001, BACK FROM PRAGUE, WITHOUT A VISA;
- IN JULY 2001, AGAIN BACK FROM MADRID, WITHOUT A VISA (if the returned from Madrid happened before July 17,2001 when the INS approved his new visa; but so far I haven't found the exact return date anywhere) AND WITH A PENDING ARREST WARRANT ON HIS HEAD?
HE VIRTUALLY ENJOYED DIPLOMATIC STATUS - THANKS TO YOU BOTH, CLINTON/BUSH? TESTIFY!
FBI, CIA: TESTIFY!

Reader please note that Atta was reportedly an Egyptian, and Egyptians unlike Westerners need a visa even for tourism in the U.S.







TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, 8:48am:
Bush happens (?) to be in Florida.
Clinton happens (?) to be in Australia.
Mohamed Atta, "now" believed to have been the ringleader of the Sept.11 hijackers, proceeds to massmurder scores of people at the WTC.
BUT IF HE WAS AN EVIL TERRORIST, WHAT ABOUT THE TWIN COWARDS WHO ARGUABLY HAD THE POWER AND FOREKNOWLEDGE TO STOP HIM - AND CHOSE NOT TO DO SO?


April 15, 2002 edition; I wrote the first version on February 20, 2002.



ADRIAN MORE



MORAL GROUND ZERO /VI


CATCH 9

A T.I.P. (Text in Progress) by
ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



Nine Sept.11 hijackers went through special security screenings that morning... "stand-aside" security screenings.




According to:

1. The Economist, Sept. 14, 2001: 'The pursuit' (anonymous), online at:
 http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=786197
2. International Herald Tribune, Sept.15, 2001: 'An FBI List of the 19 Hijackers Aboard the 4 Doomed Airliners', by the Associated Press;
3. Associated Press. Nov.23, 2001, 07:05 EST: 'Hijackers' Legal Status Had Expired', by Larry Margasak;
4.Washington Post, March 2, 2002, p.A11: 'Airports Screened Nine of Sept.11 Hijackers, Officials Say', by Dan Eggen (Don Phillips contributed);
5. Associated Press, March 3, 2002, 11:55 ET: 'Some Sept.11 Hijackers Were Spotted', by Jonathan D. Salant;
6. International Herald Tribune, March 14, 2002, p.2: 'Flight School Gets Visa Approval for Sept.11 Hijackers', by Dan Eggen and Mary Beth Sheridan (originally in The Washington Post);
7. International Herald Tribune, March 21, 2002, p.1: '30-day Limit Considered for Millions Visiting U.S.', by Cheryl W. Thompson (originally in The Washington Post);
8. Associated Press, April 10,2002, 15:25 ET: 'Feds Working on Airline Staff IDs', by Jonathan D. Salant:



"Nine of the hijackers who commandeered jetliners on Sept.11 were selected for special security screenings that morning, INCLUDING TWO WHO WERE SINGLED OUT BECAUSE OF IRREGULARITIES IN THEIR IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS [my caps], U.S. officials said".


Wait a second man.
If those two had irregular documents, EXACTLY WHY ON EARTH WERE THEY ALLOWED TO BOARD THEIR FLIGHT(S)?
EXACTLY WHO WERE THE SECURITY SCREENERS WHO SCREENED THOSE TWO, AND WHY ARE THEY NOT TESTIFYING UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS YET?


Again: "Nine of the hijackers... were selected for special security screenings that morning": exactly WHICH HIJACKERS? THE NAMES! WHY ARE FBI + FAA WITHHOLDING THE NAMES OF THOSE 9?
Those 9 names are an all-important detail, especially if among them were Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, both of whom had been on an FBI watch list of potential terrorists reportedly since Aug.23. Moreover, Alhazmi's visa had expired.

Now, that "airline security officials did not know on Sept.11 that two of the hijackers were on an FBI watch list" (source nr 2) is UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE/UNREASONABLE/ILLOGICAL: it simply stretches belief.

Because, in theory, the FBI had been looking for those 2 in the U.S. since Aug.23, so first thing in the morning the FBI would have told airlines and FAA to watch for Almihdhar/Alhazmi.

And if instead the 2 FBI directors involved in this umpteenth 9/11 "failure" (Louis Freeh from Aug.23 through Sept.3; Robert S. Mueller from Sept.4 through Sept.10) had failed to do their jobs and tell airlines + FAA about Almihdhar/Alhazmi, then WHY HASN'T MUELLER BEEN FIRED YET? IT ONLY INCREASES SUSPICION THAT BUSH WOULD STILL BE BACKING SUCH A RETARD!
OR MAYBE IS IT THAT MUELLER & BUSH ALLOWED SEPT.11 TO HAPPEN?
WERE THEY ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT?

Next.
- Was hijacker Satam M.A. Al Suqami (Flight 11, WTC) among the 9 singled out for the special security screenings? I ask because his visa had expired by Sept.11, therefore he should have been arrested. Was he one of the "two" with irregular documents? More on Suqami below.
- Was hijacker Hani S.H. Hanjour (Flight 77, Pentagon) among the 9? Same story: he was in the country illegally on Sept.11. Was he one of the "two" with irregular documents?
- Was hijacker Mohammed Atta (Flight 11, WTC) one of the 9 singled out? I ask because, among many other things (see my essay MORAL GROUND ZERO / V, "The Twin Cowards"), Atta had an outstanding arrest warrant in Florida, which a 'special security screening' should not have failed to turn up.
MUELLER, WAS OR WASN'T ATTA ONE OF THE 9?
TESTIFY!

Let's recap:
We want the names of those 9 hijackers singled out for "special security screenings" on Sept.11 - AND WE WANT THOSE NAMES NOW BECAUSE WE WANT TO KNOW:
- IF THE 3 HIJACKERS WHO WERE IN THE U.S. ILLEGALLY ON SEPT.11 (SUQAMI, ALHAZMI, HANJOUR) WERE AMONG THE 9;
- IF SO, WHY THEY WEREN'T ARRESTED BANG DEAD ON RIGHTS;
- MOREOVER, WE WANT TO KNOW IF ALMIHDHAR AND ALHAZMI WERE SCREENED BECAUSE THEY WERE ON AN FBI WATCH LIST; AND IF ATTA WAS ONE OF THE 9, BECAUSE HE HAD AN OUTSTANDING ARREST WARRANT.

Let's carry on.
Source nr 2: "The hijackers used box cutters AND KNIVES [my caps] to take over the airplanes, but those items were allowed... on board before the attacks".
Pause.
"AND KNIVES"?
Was one allowed to carry knives of any length on board until Sept.11?
Exactly how long were the blades of those "knives"? Did the screeners find knives belonging to those 9? "Authorities... said... they could not say": WHY CAN'T THEY SAY? THEY MUST BE SUPOENAED TO SAY, BEFORE CONGRESS THAT IS, AND UNDER OATH!

Source nr 8 reports a convenient, yet suspicious story: "Some aviation experts believe that the KNIVES AND BOX CUTTERS [again distinct; caps mine]... were hidden on the planes while they were parked".
Sounds like a concocted alibi to exonerate the special security screeners: who the hell are now these 'aviations experts'? THE NAMES? What's their evidence/arguments prompting them to 'believe' that knives + boxcutters had been hidden on the parked planes? Who and how could possibly have done that?
FBI director Mueller, what's your take on all this? Will you finally elaborate, possibly UNDER OATH AND BEFORE CONGRESS, AND LIVE ON PRIME TIME CNN?


Let's go on.
Source nr 5: "[the terrorists] bought knives AND CANS OF MACE FOR SUBDUING THEIR FELLOW PASSENGERS".

"CANS OF MACE"???!!!

Were cans of mace allowed on board before Sept.11, FAA boss Jane Garvey?
Hey FBI director Mueller: did the special security screeners find "cans of mace" belonging to any of the 9 that morning? WHY AREN'T YOU TESTIFYING UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS RIGHT NOW, YOU AND ALL THE 'SPECIAL SECURITY SCREENERS' INVOLVED!


WHY WERE WE TOLD ALL THIS ONLY AFTER NEARLY 6 MONTHS (WASHINGTON POST OF MARCH 2, 2002)- AND ON PAGE A11, NOT ON PAGE 1 IN BANNER HEADLINES?


And now - the smoking gun.
"One group, Families of September 11, has called for a congressional investigation of possible security lapses that day, INCLUDING A DISPUTED REPORT THAT ONE OF THE TERRORISTS FIRED A GUN ON ONE OF THE JETLINERS."[my caps]
That report "says a flight attendant on board Flight 11 [American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north Twin Tower] 'INFORMED THAT A PASSENGER LOCATED IN SEAT 10B SHOT AND KILLED A PASSENGER IN SEAT 9B [my caps] at 9:20am... 'ONE BULLET WAS REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FIRED' BY HIJACKER SATAM M.A. AL SUQAMI [my caps], and that the victim was passenger Daniel C. Lewin... FORMER ISRAELI SPECIAL FORCES OFFICER [caps mine]".

Now, it goes without saying that "FAA and FBI officials... have... said the gun reference was a mistake... American Airlines spokesman John Hotard... said no such report was made to the FAA by an American official".

But the FAA memo with the gun reference cites "a report to the FAA BY AN AMERICAN AIRLINES CORPORATE SECURITY OFFICER [my caps]": who's lying, Hotard or the FAA?
Or maybe both - Hotard in denying it was an American Airlines officer who reported the gun to the FAA; the FAA in denying that the gun reference was true?

In any case, Stephen Push, of Families of September 11, perfectly logically said "At the very least, there has not been a thorough investigation of this memo, because no one seems to have solid information on how this got in the [FAA] file" [Stephen Push is the treasurer for Families of September 11; his wife Lisa J.Raines was killed on American Airlines Flight 77].

Now here's my own next set of questions for FBI director Robert S. Mueller, for FAA boss Jane Garvey and for American Airlines spokesman John Hotard:
1. Was hijacker Satam M.A. Al Suqami, reported to have fired the gun, one of the 9 hijackers flagged for "special security screenings"?
2. Was it or wasn't it an American Airlines security officer who reported to the FAA about the shooting? FAA says yes, Hotard/American Airlines says no - TESTIFY UNDER OATH, THE 3 OF YOU PLUS THE AMERICAN OFFICER IN QUESTION - BY THE WAY, WHAT'S HIS NAME?
3. The "9:20am" reference for the shooting is clearly wrong because the airplane crashed at 8:48am. But:
a. if one or more details are wrong, it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL DETAILS ARE WRONG;
b. the report may have been tampered with by authorities - only biased dogmatics would rule out doubt;
THEREFORE:
LET THE ORIGINAL FAA MEMORANDUM AND ORIGINAL GUN REPORT BE PRODUCED, INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED AND MADE PUBLIC!
4. Since, according to the AP, as of April 11, 2002, 948 WTC victims had been identified: is passenger Daniel C. Lewin among them? Has the medical examiner found any traces of a bullet wound on him?
5. "FAA and FBI officials... said ... the evidence [WHAT evidence?] indicates that Lewin ... was probably stabbed to death along with the two pilots on Flight 11": really?
FAA and FBI want us to believe that 5 hijackers with boxcutters "stabbed to death" a former Special Forces officer and two trained pilots while another 84 passengers + crew on board just sat watching, frozen up, all of them. How old were the 2 pilots? Lewin was 31, according to the Associated Press victims database.
Trained as the 5 may have been for the kill, they may have pulled it off with boxcutters and bare hands - but I wouldn't recommend anyone try to confront a 31-year-old Israeli Special Forces officer & two U.S. pilots, plus 84 passengers + crew, with boxcutters.
The scenario becomes somewhat more plausible taking into account the "knives" mentioned by the AP. But then again - were the 9 flagged for special screenings found to have knives (and boxcutters) - and let go?


American Airlines Flight 11 was by far the most crowded of the 4 doomed planes, with 92 people on board - the most difficult for the hijackers.
And with 2 pilots and a former Special Forces, a gun would explain the hijackers' tragic success much better than ... boxcutters.
Of course, if the gun report was true, and if Suqami who reportedly fired it was one of the 9 - how did the gun make it through the "special security screenings"?

I HEREBY REQUEST THAT ALL CELL PHONE CALLS MADE FROM FLIGHT 11, "INCLUDING A RECORDED CALL MADE BY A FLIGHT ATTENDANT" IMMEDIATELY BE MADE PUBLIC (TRANSCRIPTS, RECEIVERS' TESTIMONY, ORIGINAL RECORDINGS), AND THAT ALL THOSE WHO RECEIVED CALLS FROM FLIGHT 11 TESTIFY.

HOW CONVENIENT ISN'T IT MUELLER, THAT NONE OF THE 4 BLACK BOXES OF THE 2 PLANES THAT HIT THE TWIN TOWERS HAVE BEEN RECOVERED - THAT IS, REPORTEDLY.


I HEREBY PREEMPTIVELY DISMISS AS A SHAM ANY CONGRESSIONAL (OR OTHER) INVESTIGATION NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINING ALL POINTS RAISED HERE AND NOT INCLUDING INTERROGATION OF ALL WITNESSES MENTIONED.




Catch 9 , baby.
Alright boys, spread-eagle & let's see.
Irregular documents? Forgiven this time.
Expired visas? We're not the INS.
Knives? Sure.
Cans of mace? Ya never know.
A gun? This is the U.S. after all.



American Airlines, the FAA, FBI, George Walker Bush and Al Qaeda wish you a pleasant flight.






April 15, 2002 edition. I wrote the first version on March 19, 2002.



ADRIAN MORE

No rights reserved. This material MAY and OUGHT TO be published, broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is credited as author.

Cheers for McKinney ! 15.Apr.2002 15:41

Lancaster

Thank you for having the courage to speak out!!!!

There is not one good reason that these events should not be investigated.

If there's nothing to hide, then what's the problem?

The world has a right to know!!