portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

America Through The Looking Glass

The truth is gaining ground every day, and the criminals will no longer be able to dictate what the truth is for us.
David McGowan



AMERICA THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS


by David McGowan ---

If there has ever been a more bizarre presidential team in place at the White House at any other time in U.S. history, it doesn't immediately come to mind.
Consider, if you will, that we have a vice-president (and I use that term rather loosely) who has all but disappeared from public view without any kind of credible explanation having been given to the American people. It appeared at first as though Cheney's vanishing act was a temporary and cynical ploy that would allow George the Younger to appear as though he were actually running the show.
But six months have now passed and Dick has only been whipped out for a few passing photo-ops (and to do some arm-twisting in the Middle-East). Never before, even during times of World or Civil War, has such secrecy and security ever been deemed necessary. What possible explanation can there be for this? What credible threats is the vice-president facing?
The only possible danger that Cheney could find himself in would be facing impeachment proceedings for, among other things, his involvement in the Enron scandal and his questionable dealings with Iraq (1). But that of course could only happen if we had a Congress that wasn't as fully corrupt as the White House team that they are supposed to provide checks and balances on.
Consider also that we have a president (and I use that term even more loosely) who is so intellectually challenged that before even losing the election he had already issued enough verbal gaffes to fill a book or two. He seemingly cannot open his mouth to utter an unscripted response without lapsing into almost complete incoherence, as though he received his English instruction via home-schooling by his dad.
On top of that, he has appeared in public no fewer than three times now with noticeably large bruises/contusions on his face. First there was the enormous bandage he sported in the dark days of the 'hanging chads.' Then there were the obvious contusions late in the year that would have gone without mention were it not for a reporter's question; only then did the White House hurriedly issue a claim that Bush had had lesions removed from his face.
And then we were treated to the sublimely comical story that our fearless leader lost consciousness while snacking on a pretzel and fell face-first into a coffee table (I could make a cheap joke here about the 'leader of the free world' being unable to watch TV and chew pretzels at the same time, but will refrain from doing so). And we were told that this is actually a very common occurrence.
Say what? In what parallel universe is this a common occurrence? What exactly is going on behind closed doors on Pennsylvania Avenue?
Is Poppy Bush trying to slap some sense into his brain-addled youngster? Is George hitting the bottle a little too hard ... just before hitting the floor? Is Stepford-wife Laura a closet dominatrix who sometimes gets a little carried away ("Goddamnit, Laura! How many times do I have to tell you? ... stay away from the face!")? Something is obviously not quite right here.
The media though doesn't seem to find anything unusual about the George and Dick Show. Nary a question has been raised about what exactly Cheney is doing in his 'secure' location. Bush's incoherent mumblings, brain-deadening jingoism, and stunning lack of knowledge about any issue of any significance are somehow presented as though the man has magically assumed presidential stature unequaled in U.S. history.
What the hell is going on here?
For the most part, just business-as-usual as the media performs its time-honored role of covering-up for the inadequacies and crimes of our 'elected' leaders. Yet it has become bizarrely surreal as the press struggles mightily to continue performing that function even while faced with an administration both arrogant and criminal almost beyond human comprehension.
How are we to digest the events of the last year? ˆ the wholesale theft of a presidential election, the massive give-aways to the largest and most corrupt corporations in the country, the largely unexplained and completely uninvestigated September 11 attacks, the declaration of open-ended war on much of the world, the rapidly escalating attacks on civil liberties and privacy rights ....
Millions are surely struggling to make sense of their world as the full extent of the corruption of the American political, economic and legal systems is increasingly laid bare. Denial is a fierce weapon, but it does have its limits ˆ even when aided and abetted by a 'mental health' community that hands out MK-ULTRA-derived anti-anxiety and anti-depressant drugs like Halloween candy.
How are we to make sense of a vast sea of media outlets all shouting the same lies and all failing to ask the most obvious of questions? How are we to account for an allegedly thriving 'alternative' press that takes at face value the official version of the events of September 11 ˆ pretending not to notice the gaping holes in the story? And how are we to make sense of the fact that the leading voices of the supposed 'left' have questioned the events of 9-11 only in terms of so-called 'blowback,' carefully avoiding questioning the underlying assumption that "Osama did it"?
And how long can we cling to the futile hope that the Democratic Party is somehow going to ride to the rescue and get us out of this mess? The party whose two standard-bearers, "Animatronic Al" Gore and Joe "Jews for Fascism" Lieberman, have openly cheered the 'War on Terrorism,' all but demanded its expansion into Iraq, endorsed the preposterous notion of an 'Axis of Evil,' and given favorable reviews to America's new nuclear 'Posture'? The party whose congressional members, in both houses, have embraced nearly every reactionary appointment by the Bush regime, signed on to every openly fascistic 'security' measure that has come their way, given a huge thumbs-up to virtually unlimited military spending, and failed completely to voice even the tiniest protest over the flagrant theft of the election or to launch any sort of an investigation into the events of September 11?
And those are just a few of the Democratic Party's recent sins.
Of course, our learned opinion-shapers insist that the Democrats' hands are tied ˆ hampered by the massive public support behind the Bush agenda. Opinion polls, brought to you by the very same media to whom lying is an art form, keep insisting that to be the case. And I have a couple of towers in New York that I can let you have for a real good price ....
The truth is that the Democratic Party, quite frankly, offers no resistance to the Bush juggernaut because they differ from their Republican counterparts only in that they give slightly more lip-service to social issues. And that, of course, is only posturing for public consumption.
Changing the party in charge of the White House and/or Congress isn't going to significantly alter the agenda. Everyone of any importance in Washington is on-board the war train for the long haul. And the notion that the war is being prolonged just to gain a Republican advantage in the 2002 and 2004 elections, propagated by many a pseudo-dissident journalist, is pure fantasy.
As has been made quite clear by a steady stream of official statements, this is a 'war' without end ˆ a war with the goal of wiping out any and all pockets of resistance throughout the world, including here on the home front, to the corporate and military elite's vision of a system of global fascism, and with the parallel goal of identifying false enemies to keep the American people too frightened, disoriented and disjointed to fight back against the encroaching police state. Doesn't anybody read Orwell anymore?
But I know how comforting it is to believe in the American ship of state. To believe in the two-party system. To believe in the Democratic Party as the party of the people. To believe that things will be OK again just as soon as the next election rolls around and we can get 'our' party back in charge. To believe that our obviously free press isn't really lying to us. To believe that 'this too shall pass,' and that we'll be back to 'normal' soon.
It wasn't that long ago that I was a believer.
But that was before I joined the ranks of those who inhabit a strange, hallucinatory world that is roughly akin to waking up every morning finding yourself trapped in a cheesy sci-fi film. Clicking on the TV, you find that the same lies that you just heard the day before are still spewing out. Turning the channel, you discover that everyone is telling the same lies, in the same way, using the same catch-phrases as though if everyone repeats them they somehow acquire some kind of inherent meaning.
No matter how many times you change the channel, all you hear is "war on terrorism ... axis of evil .... rule of law ... evil-doers ... weapons of mass destruction ... enduring freedom ... 9-11 ... 9-11 ... 9-11 ... "
You briefly ponder whether you might be a victim of some kind of practical joke ˆ an unwitting participant in some kind of new 'reality show.' But then you find that everyone else seems to believe the lies, or at least they pretend to. Could they all be in on the joke? And if this isn't a joke, then how come you seem to be the only one who can see so clearly that the emperor has no clothes?
You hear on the news that the key witness in the biggest financial scandal in the nation's history has been found shot to death in his car not long before he is to begin delivering his testimony. "Holy #####!" you say, "they're killing off witnesses in broad daylight." But no, the somber newscasters all intone, it was an unfortunate suicide.
"Ha!" you say, "nobody's going to believe that one. The ##### is really going to fly now." You remember back to when Vince Foster supposedly committed suicide, and how the 'liberal' media had a field day with the story. "Payback's a #####," you say to yourself. "The Dumbocrats are going to get some mileage out of this one."
But nobody says a word. No one on Capitol Hill, no one in the press corps. You mention to some co-workers that the suicide story sounds a little suspect, and they look at you as though you are wearing an "I Love Osama" button on your lapel as they robotically ask you if you've been to see Black Hawk Down yet. Realizing that you've blown your cover, you start nervously watching out of the corner of your eye for the goon squad to arrive and send you happily on your way to Guantanamo.
The Enron scandal, you quickly realize, is not going to be seriously investigated ˆ just as the coup-like nature of the election wasn't investigated, and just as the 'terrorist' attacks on Washington and New York aren't being investigated, and just like the anthrax attacks, so obviously timed to ratchet up the level of fear and outrage among the American people, aren't being investigated.
You absent-mindedly take note of the 'terrorist alert' warning color for the day as you ponder when this extended acid trip began and if and when it is going to end. What will it take to wake the American people up to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with this picture?
The mounting of a coup d'etat in that diseased appendage known as Florida didn't do it (2). Nor did the Supreme Court arrogantly ruling that the American people have no right to have their votes counted in a presidential election (3). Nor the revelation that the Bush regime - itself a shamelessly illegal, unconstitutionally-assembled government - has established an even more illegal, secret and unaccountable 'shadow' government. And neither did the fact that military tribunals have been proscribed that have the authority to hand down anonymous death sentences based on secret evidence presented by government-appointed lawyers.
The indefinite detention of 'suspects,' held without charges in undisclosed locations and largely deprived of legal counsel, didn't do it. Nor the open talk of torturing these same 'suspects.' Nor the open admissions of an emerging surveillance infrastructure that goes far beyond anything Orwell ever envisioned. Nor even the deliberate leaking of the country's sociopathic 'Nuclear Posture Review.' And, as we have seen repeatedly in the past, mercilessly bombing yet another civilian population in yet another oil-driven military venture certainly didn't do it.
Is the control too complete ˆ control not just of information, but of thought? Are we so blinded by propaganda, and so desperately clinging to the basic human desire to view ourselves as the good guys, that we are fundamentally incapable of taking an objective look at the world we live in? Can the government get away with literally any lie, no matter how brazen? Is there no hope?
Or is the script of this particular Roger Corman flick somewhat different than what it appears to be?
What if you're not the only sane person left in a world gone mad? What if there are millions of others out there, all harboring serious doubts about the increasingly unpalatable servings of 'news' we are being dished-up? And what if the number of such individuals is growing every day?
What if the constant touting of Bush's alleged popularity is all part of a well-orchestrated psy-war campaign aimed at stifling dissent by intimidating doubters in the crowd into keeping their opinions to themselves, lest they be viewed as clinically insane for failing to interpret reality in the same way that everyone else purportedly does?
A campaign designed to make you feel, in other words, precisely as you now do: alone, isolated, frustrated, powerless, frightened and confused. A part of that campaign seems to involve, amazingly enough, efforts to taunt you ˆ to rub in your face your utter powerlessness - by dropping tantalizing hints along the way, as though you are being dared to do something about it.
Wasn't it, after all, France's Le Figaro that dropped that little bombshell about bin Laden meeting a CIA operative in a Dubai hospital room shortly before September 11? And isn't Le Figaro owned by the Carlyle Group, whose investors and principals include the Bushes, the bin Ladens, and various ranking members of the national security infrastructure?
And wasn't it that mouthpiece of the far-right, the Wall Street Journal, that dropped the story about the stock market manipulations that occurred in the days immediately preceding the September 11 attacks?
And wasn't it a vice-president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, itself a fully-integrated part of the military/intelligence complex, who initially identified the collapse of the World Trade Center towers as controlled implosions?
And wasn't it James Bamford (a man with uncomfortably close connections to numerous NSA operatives), working with Doubleday (a publisher not known for bringing the work of dissident authors to light), whose book - released just five months before 9-11 - revealed the details of 'Operation Northwoods' ˆ a purported anti-Cuban operation involving a staged provocation with marked similarities to the events of September 11?
And what of the obviously deliberate, and curiously well-publicized, leaks of the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, of the existence of Dick's 'shadow' government, and of the proposed Ministry of Propaganda* <#FN1> ? Why leave all these crumbs scattered along the evidence trail?
It's a little something the spooks like to call 'Mind War' ˆ more commonly known on the streets as '#####ing with your head.' They want you to feel as though you are stuck in the Twilight Zone. I believe Mr. Orwell referred to it as a state of "controlled insanity."
But even with the endless blizzard of propaganda - coming straight at you from all directions, including from virtually every avenue of the media, 'news' and 'entertainment' alike - there are clear indications emerging that there is considerably more dissent out there, considerably more questions being raised, than we are being led to believe.
As just one indication, several commentators have noted that Michael Moore's new book, Stupid White Men, is selling like hotcakes, despite the fact that conventional wisdom holds that there is currently no market for what is reportedly a fairly harsh assessment of America under a Bush.
Perhaps a more significant measure of the level of discontent and frustration among the American people was reflected in the shockingly low turnout for the recent California gubernatorial primary. As the Los Angeles Times reported:
"After the terrorists struck and the buildings fell, Americans united in a surge of patriotism not seen in a generation. On Tuesday in California, citizens were asked to join in what may be the most patriotic ritual of all, the celebration of democracy known as voting. Two out of three registered voters were no-shows." (4)
The article also noted that many eligible voters didn't even bother to register. The net result was that nearly four out of five eligible California voters opted not to cast a vote in the March primary. The Times further noted that the California election was a continuation of a post-September 11 trend:
"In Washington, for instance, turnout for the November general election - which featured two ballot initiatives on taxes - was 13 percentage points below the 1999 figure. Virginia and New Jersey elected governors in November, and turnout was down about 3% and 7%, respectively, from the previous governor's races in 1997.
"In Georgia, meanwhile, a special election to fill a state Senate seat was decided by just 3% of the electorate: 'It's always low in specials, but we usually get 15%,' lamented Georgia's director of elections, Linda Beazley. 'This is dismal. What's wrong with our voters?'" (4)
A concerted effort is made by the Times reporter to offer up any number of excuses for the dismal voter turnout. But three words in the article, uttered by a small-business owner in Fresno, pretty much said it all: "Politics are crooked." Or, to elaborate just a bit ˆ a large majority of citizens recognize that voting - when presented with hand-picked, interchangeable candidates - is not a true exercise of democracy, but rather an exercise in futility.
Perhaps one of the clearest indications that large sectors of the American electorate aren't buying the mainstream-media line is the fact that the decades-long effort to discredit and marginalize those dissidents derisively referred to as 'conspiracy theorists' has been stepped-up dramatically in recent months, by both the corporate media and the self-proclaimed 'alternative' press.
Prominent among those heaping derision on 'conspiracy theories' is The Nation's David Corn. Among other inanities, a piece penned by Corn makes the rather remarkable claim that: "Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation ... Such an operation -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence." (5)
No ... an operation of that sort would clearly require a loosely-organized band of poorly-equipped cave-dwellers.
There's no way that the largest and most well-funded intelligence network the world has ever seen could pull off something like that. They may be capable of rigging foreign elections, routinely plotting and carrying out assassinations and coups, and 'destabilizing' the economies and political structures of various hapless nations, but it clearly strains credulity to posit that they could hijack a few planes.
They may have an enormous, secret and unaccountable budget, 'front' companies and organizations set up in every corner of the globe, and prominent mouthpieces installed throughout academia, the media, the legal community, the mental health community, the entertainment community, the medical community, and pretty much every other community that is in a position to influence public opinion; and they may control proxy armies and fascist (though certainly not 'terrorist') cells around the world, and they may have their very own private air force, but certainly no one would ever seriously suggest that such a vast intelligence network could pull off something of the magnitude of what the world saw on September 11.
As yet another reason why alternative explanations of 9-11 are, in Corn's words, "absurd," "tripe," and "crap," he makes the bold claim that: "in the spy-world some things [are] beyond the pale." One of those things, insists Corn, is "kill[ing] an American citizen." (5) That would certainly take the wind out of the sails of many a 'conspiracy theory' ˆ if it weren't a statement totally unsupported by the historical record.
Corn has already been challenged in print by such writers as Stephen Gowans, Alex Constantine, and Michael Ruppert, who is identified in the Corn article as one of those who are promoting conspiracy theories "too silly to address." Corn has also, apparently, been challenged by many of his readers. In an L.A. Times opinion piece, he complains of the response to his missive: "I was besieged by people accusing me of being a CIA disinformation agent." (6) Imagine that.
Corn ends his diatribe on an interesting note: "Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. It's mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing.." (5) There is little doubt that at least some of the conspiracy theories seeking to explain the events of September 11 have been put out as deliberate disinformation to muddy the waters. But when it comes to distracting people from the "real wrongdoing," few allegedly progressive publications do as good a job at that as does the one that Corn is associated with.
The L.A. Times piece, written by Gale Holland a few weeks after the Corn article was posted, is a particularly offensive attack on 'conspiracy theorists.' The article, entitled "Have You Heard About Osama's Cheez-It Stash?," is illustrated with oversized, side-by-side photos of Osama bin Laden and, naturally enough, Elvis Presley. The obvious and rather heavy-handed intent is to equate alternative explanations for the September 11 attacks with Elvis sightings.
Apparently the newspaper didn't have any stock photos of any 'alien grays' to accompany the article.
Holland refers dismissively to what he calls a "conspiracy lobby, a tiny but persistent subgroup spawned by the John F. Kennedy assassination" that is obsessed with "shadowy government agencies with Maxwell Smartish-sounding acronyms." (6)
As for how this "persistent subgroup" views September 11, Holland writes that: "In the misty climes where the far left meets the far right, conspiracy theories have begun to dominate the 9/11 rumor mill. The basic premise is that President Bush/ the CIA/ Big Oil either planned the attacks or let them happen to secure a U.S. oil pipeline/ take over the Middle East/ launch a one-world government." (6)
Well ... let's see now. Is it 'conspiracy theorizing' to posit that Bush, the CIA and "Big Oil" would work together towards a common cause? Is there any political family in the country with closer and more extensive ties to both the CIA and the oil industry than the Bush family? Isn't it only stating the obvious to note that this triumvirate shares common interests and goals ˆ goals that were in fact advanced as a result of the 'terrorist' attacks?
As for the pipeline, it is a well-documented fact that the U.S. has long harbored plans to build both oil and natural gas pipelines through the nation of Afghanistan. (7) It is also an established fact that the oil companies have long coveted having a 'stable regime' (which is to say, a regime under the direct control of the U.S.) in place before committing to constructing those pipelines. (7) And it has already been reported that those pipeline plans, which have languished in recent years, have now been put on the fast track. (8)
As for the Middle East, it certainly appears as though there is a major effort underway to destabilize the entire region ˆ currently being spearheaded by the U.S.-armed proxy known as Israel, but likely soon to be coupled with a U.S. invasion of Iraq, accompanied by general mayhem in the area. It should also be noted that oil-rich Central Asia is quite obviously slated to be brought under the control of the U.S. as well, with troop deployments and the building of military bases in the region accelerating rapidly. (9)
And as for the notion of a one-world government, what exactly does Holland think is the goal of all those "Maxwell Smartish-sounding acronyms" - the IMF, the WTO, the CFR, the TLC - if not to turn the planet into one global marketplace governed only by corporate spreadsheets ˆ a global marketplace that can be exploited and pillaged to consolidate all of the world's wealth into the hands of the few?
Even while dismissing 'conspiracy theories,' Holland obliquely acknowledges the implausibility of the official 9-11 story: "Faced with the inexplicable, we seem to take comfort in irrational pseudo-explanations." (6) Or perhaps, when faced with the irrational pseudo-explanations offered by the state, we take comfort in searching for a more rational, logical explanation. Or, as Gowans has written for Swans: "Where the official conspiracy theory is so bad, other conspiracy theories rush in to fill the void." (10)
Also jumping into the conspiracy-bashing fray, the very same week that the L.A. Times opinion piece was published, was the allegedly progressive L.A. Weekly. A report by Ella Taylor purported to shed light on the KPFK controversy ˆ by declaring the "jewel in [the station's] crown" (11) to be Marc Cooper, the 'left's' leading cheerleader for the 'War on Terror' and an unapologetic supporter of the Warren Report.
Throughout the article, Taylor refers to anyone whose politics fall to the left of hers - which is to say, anyone who is even vaguely progressive - as "hard-line Marxists," the "Marxist left," the "far left" which spouts "vulgar Marxist doctrine," and finally as the "loony left." Exemplifying the "far left," according to Taylor, is "Amy Goodman's popular Democracy Now" ˆ easily the most honest offering the station serves up.
Singled out for derision in Taylor's tirade, as he was by both Corn and Holland, is Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD investigator who runs the From the Wilderness website (www.copvcia.com) and newsletter. In the Weekly piece, he is described as a "defrocked cop" and a "nutball conspiracy theorist." That title is bestowed upon him for the sin of having compiled a timeline of occurrences in the months leading up to September 11, drawn from respectable media sources, that all raise serious questions about the official version of events.
As for Taylor's hero - Marc Cooper, one of Corn's fellow scribes at The Nation - she notes that he "has received hundreds of e-mails insinuating that he survived the coup in Chile because he's a CIA agent who plotted the murder of his boss, Salvador Allende." (11) Imagine that.
The conspiracy debunkers are striking on other fronts as well. A website billing itself as the Urban Legends Reference Pages (www.snopes2.com) has skyrocketed in popularity in the post-9-11 world, largely due to numerous citations in the print and broadcast media (Holland's L.A. Times piece references the site twice). Along with purportedly debunking so-called 'urban legends,' the site has focused its attention of late on various September 11 'conspiracy theories.'
On television, cable's TNN premiered its new Conspiracy Zone in January 2002. The primary purpose of the show appears to be to make 'conspiracy theorists' the butt of jokes by the show's marginally talented host, Kevin Nealon, and by the show's almost entirely untalented celebrity guests, such as Gabe "Welcome Back, Kotter" Kaplan and Adam "The Man Show" Carrolla.
The most recent airing of the show, on March 31, 2002, featured an appearance by, of all people, Mike Ruppert ˆ to discuss the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy. Every effort was made to discredit the facts brought to the table by Ruppert (who came very well prepared), but the ringer brought in for the job, Ann Coulter, was clearly outclassed and reduced to repeatedly making the asinine assertion that "million-to-one coincidences" actually occur millions of times every day, and so we should expect to find numerous oddities and discrepancies littered throughout the RFK evidence.
Coulter is, by the way, the very same reprehensible individual who recently wrote in the National Review that America's response to the perpetrators of September 11 should be to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." More recently, princess Ann has been quoted as saying: "In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors." (12) Talk about your "nutballs" ...
The question that needs to be raised here is: why is all this energy being expended to discredit 'conspiracy theorists'? If we're just talking here about a few "nutballs" preaching to a "tiny subgroup," then why all the fuss? What possible threat to the purportedly rock-solid American system could such a marginalized group pose?
As anyone who has ever published material in this country that falls outside of the boundaries of acceptable dissent can tell you, the first response of the power structure is not to attack the messenger ˆ it is to ignore the messenger. If the publication receives no mention by the media, if it garners no reviews and - as is virtually always the case - the publisher lacks the resources and/or the opportunities to market the work, then for all intents and purposes the published material does not exist.
It is only if and when the information manages to find an audience despite the obstacles erected, despite being ignored in the hopes that it would just go away, that the second line of defense kicks in: destroy, by any means necessary, the credibility of the source.
We can only conclude from this then that 'conspiracy theories' are beginning to reach a much wider, and much more receptive, audience than the boys in Washington are comfortable with. And that which can't be ignored must be destroyed. Coupled with the depressed voter turnouts and the apparent hunger by the American people for books critical of the current agenda, it begins to look as though there may be a considerable amount of dissent bubbling just beneath America's tranquil surface.
That simmering anger and frustration can be gauged in another way as well ˆ by perusing the e-mails that are pouring in to websites that offer alternative 9-11 scenarios. The confusion, anger and fear is palpable in such mailings. They frequently begin something like this: "I have never considered myself to be a conspiracy theorist, but .... "
The desperation evident in such mailings is striking, as respondents struggle mightily to find answers to questions they never thought they would be asking. One such letter, drawn from my own mailbag, captures quite eloquently the spirit of such letter writers. It is reproduced here just as it was received:
"I am 52 years old, an Episcopal nun (formerly a professional musician and, before quitting my day job, a math teacher) and the executive director of a small non-profit organization - an interfaith meditation center. I'm a pretty mainstream sort of person - liberal on most issues and conservative on a few. I'm moderately well educated (master's degree), reasonably well read, and considerably well traveled - having studied some in England and worked for years in both Ireland and South Africa as well as various parts of the United States. Until quite recently I considered "conspiracy theorists" to be, at best, pathetically misguided and, more likely, suffering from paranoid delusions. I don't know what was the wake up call for me after September 11. Maybe it was Dan Rather prostituting himself on the Dave Letterman show. Maybe it was Time Magazine's photograph of Osama Bin Laden in evil red. Maybe it was watching unprecedented war powers handed to the executive branch with only one congressperson daring to utter a lone plea for moderation that hardly qualifies as dissent. Maybe it was that implosion of the towers that looked suspect from the get-go. I'm the only person I know who has actually read huge chunks of that so-called "Patriot's Act" and it makes my blood run cold. I knew then that I was watching a coup inexorably unfold and I'm sick at heart.
"I've only talked about any of this with one trusted colleague who warned me that I was starting to sound like those crackpots who think the moon landings were faked. I don't dare tell him that I'm actually having my serious doubts about that too. (Why haven't we gone back in 30 years? Why has no other nation duplicated the feat?)
"I'm wondering if I'm losing it or finally seeing clearly. The magnitude of it all is devastating. The "cognitive dissonance" is horribly painful. I understand why people turn off their faculties for critical thought and inquiry; they want to be able to sleep in their beds in reasonable peace.
"What do you propose that ordinary people like me actually do? I currently live in a very conservative part of the country where the flag-waving jingoism is nauseating."
E-mails such as this pile up in my in-box day after day, week after week ˆ awaiting answers that are difficult to come by. What, indeed, can ordinary people do to reverse the course we are on? How are we to begin to fight back against a system that few seem to even recognize as an enemy of the people?
The best advice that I can offer at this time to all those who currently inhabit The Twilight Zone is to let your voices be heard. Stop biting your tongues and begging off from engaging in political debates. You just may find that there are other non-believers around you who are just waiting for someone else to break the ice.
As much as appearances may suggest otherwise, you are not alone. There are many other non-believers out there, but they too are intimidated into silence. You will only find them if you have the courage to speak up ˆ if you refuse to be cowed by the propaganda war. Only then can grass-roots organizing begin to take shape.
Alone, you are powerless. But you don't have to be alone.
Gale Holland concluded his L.A. Times opinion piece with the following words: "Getting at the truth is tough, accepting it can be harder still. Paranoia is a lot easier." (6) Getting at the truth is indeed tough. And accepting it may be one of the hardest things that you ever do. But it is not paranoia that is easier; it is complacent acceptance of the inexplicable.
The unfortunate reality though is that there isn't time for complacent acceptance. We don't have the luxury of taking the easy route. And maybe, just maybe, there are enough quiet dissenters out there to make a difference. And maybe, just maybe, our fearless leaders have overstepped this time ˆ overestimated the level of lies and corruption that they can get away with.
Those are, alas, very big 'maybes.' But now is certainly not the time to throw in the towel by standing mute. The stakes are far too high. Our children and grandchildren have to grow up in this world that is being created for them. They deserve far better. For their sake, it is time for all the non-believers to stand up and be counted. And to refuse to sit back down until our voices are heard. The clock is ticking ....
* All of these leaks were, notably, disinformational. The premise of the Nuclear Posture Review, for instance, was that America's eagerness to unleash nuclear weapons came about in response to the September 11 attacks. Earlier documents reveal, however, that the United States has been itching to cross the nuclear threshold since long before last September. The reports of the establishment of a 'shadow' government implied that America hasn't long been run from behind the curtain. And the uproar over the proposed establishment of a disinformation ministry served to cloak the fact that the overwhelming majority of the news we already get is government approved disinformation/propaganda.


David McGowan is the author of Derailing Democracy (Common Courage Press, March 2000) and he is currently working on a new book. He resides in the San Fernando Valley. " http://www.davesweb.cnhost.com/DavesWeb.html"
To invite others to subscribe to Globe-Intel, have them click here:
"mailto: gordonthomas-subscribe@topica.com"
FOR INTERVIEWS WITH GORDON THOMAS, AUTHOR OF SEEDS OF FIRE: CHINA AND THE STORY BEHIND THE ATTACK ON AMERICA:
Contact Publicity Dept., Dandelion Books; 5250 South Hardy Drive - Ste. 3067, Tempe, Arizona 85283; Tel. 480-897-4452; Email: "mailto: cadler@dandelion-books.com",
" http://www.dandelion-books.com/", " http://www.dandelionbooks.net/", " http://www.gordonthomas.ie/" , " http://www.dandelion-books.com/", " http://www.dandelionbooks.net/", " http://www.gordonthomas.ie/" , " link to www.worldnetdaily.com .
Seeds of Fire: China and the Story Behind the Attack on America, published by Dandelion Books, is available in all bookstores, at " http://www.dandelion-books.com/", " http://www.dandelionbooks.net/", " http://www.dandelion-books.com/", " http://www.dandelionbooks.net/", " link to www.gordonthomas.ie

My My 20.Apr.2002 18:21

The Gob

Isn't it interesting that none of these links work? A mere coincidence I'm Sure....

the LINKS . . . 20.Apr.2002 18:48

gobstopper

the reason none of them worked above is because the original poster put quotes around them. Try this (assuming you want to read them):

 http://www.davesweb.cnhost.com/DavesWeb.html

To invite others to subscribe to Globe-Intel, have them click here:

mailto: gordonthomas-subscribe@topica.com

FOR INTERVIEWS WITH GORDON THOMAS, AUTHOR OF SEEDS OF FIRE: CHINA AND THE STORY BEHIND THE ATTACK ON AMERICA:
Contact Publicity Dept., Dandelion Books; 5250 South Hardy Drive - Ste. 3067, Tempe, Arizona 85283; Tel. 480-897-4452; Email: mailto: cadler@dandelion-books.com

 http://www.dandelion-books.com/
 http://www.dandelionbooks.net/
 http://www.gordonthomas.ie/
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
 http://www.newsmax.com/

Seeds of Fire: China and the Story Behind the Attack on America, published by Dandelion Books, is available in all bookstores, at  http://www.dandelion-books.com
 http://www.dandelionbooks.net/
 http://www.gordonthomas.ie/
 http://www.newsmax.com/

Yeah 21.Apr.2002 01:05

sequoia

This rocks - thank you for telling the truth - we don't have time to pretend not to see what's going on. We have enough evidence to impeach Bush on Enron, 9/11, war crimes, whatever - why aren't we using it to really put an end to this bullshit - like, instead of chasing from one fire to the next inevitable fire, why not just get rid of the assholes who are fucking it all up? How come we can look at Venezuela and say, "That's so cool - the CIA tried to stage a coup and the people wouldn't let them!" - but here - people won't even admit (or can't see) that the CIA has staged a coup - in our own country!

Link for Dave's Site 21.Apr.2002 19:25

Avenger

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/

Power to the People!!


makiavelo machinery 04.May.2002 01:21

x

makiavelo machinery
makiavelo machinery

Someone Spliced McGowan's Article! 08.May.2002 13:31

Right Wing Dirty Tricks

This article by David McGowan is a good article.

Unfortunately, the person who posted this article dishonestly spliced McGowan's piece with some Right Wing conspiracy links from a guy name Gordon Thomas and Conservative websites like World Net Daily and Newsmax at the end.

If you read the links from Gordon Thomas, he is trying to pin the blame on China (!) as being behind the 9-11 attacks--as opposed to say the United States which created Bin laden in the first place, and is currently sponsoring Al-Queda linked Islamcist in the Balkans.

If you go to the original McGowan article, you will see that no such links to Gordon Thomas, Newsmax, World Net Daily, or any other Right Wing site is found. Indeed, the McGowan article includes a list of references which have magically disappeared in this posted version.

McGowan's original article can be found at:  http://www.swans.com/library/art8/dmg001.html

This dishonest splicing of McGowan's article seems to be nothing more than another Right Wing disinformation tactic--to hijack questioning about 9-11 and direct blame away the US Government to yet another foreign Bogeyman.

Nice try, but no cigar.

It is also interesting to note the original McGowan article has the specific disclaimer: "Please, DO NOT steal, scavenge or repost this work on the Web without the expressed written authorization of Swans, which will seek permission from the author."

I wonder if the poster of this article got the required permission....


MORAL GROUND ZERO 15.May.2002 09:21

ADRIAN MORE

MORAL GROUND ZERO


by ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



The war on terror is the war on Bush.



MORAL GROUND ZERO / I



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



FUZZY MATH


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

ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist





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 22, 2002 you had reported a total of 2,823 WTC victims, deep down from your September 24 high of nearly 7,000.
- 974 death certificates have been issued, reportedly, by the medical examiner's office: that is, 974 victims have been reportedly identified, having been found whole or fragmented;
- 1,721 death certificates have reportedly been issued without a body, reportedly at the request of victims' families;
- 128 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 22, 20:14 ET:
974 + 1,721 + 128 = 2,823 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 3,056. So far.

But 3,056 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 3,037, not 3,056.

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:
974 identified dead + 1,721 declared dead by a death certificate = 2,695 confirmed WTC dead.

It is NOT correct/logical to add the "128 missing" to the WTC victims total, as campisi does (that's how he gets his total of "2,823": 2,695 confirmed dead + 128 missing = 2,823).

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 over 7 months!) allowing you to classify those "128" as victims.
So why do you keep adding them to the "official count" of WTC victims - if not to artificially inflate that count?

Putting it simply: your "official count" is (at least in part) a lie, campisi. Because it includes "128 missing" of whom you yourself said that a big chunk are mistakes or fakers, and you only "estimate" that the rest did die but you can't prove it.


Again: the (provisory) confirmed WTC total is 2,695. 2,695, NOT "2,823"!

Plus Pentagon + Pennsylvania: 2,695 + 189 + 44 = 2,928 Sept.11 dead.

Minus the 19 hijackers = 2,909 officially confirmed 9-11 victims.


2,909 confirmed Sept.11 victims - NOT 3,056 (the AP-reported "official count" of yours as of April 22, 20:14 ET).

And if and when you'll come up with proof that the "128 missing" are really dead, I'll add them to the total. NOT NOW!


So the PROVISORY confirmed official total is now (April 22, 2002) 2,909 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 as-slowly-as-possible 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 2,909 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? 2,909 (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 22, 2002 edition. I wrote the first version on September 24, 2001.


ADRIAN MORE





MORAL GROUND ZERO / II



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



THE PEARL HARBOR LIE AND SEPTEMBER 11


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

ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist







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.




4 - Just out of curiosity: on September 11, 8:48am you famously happened (?) to be in Florida - safely out of harm's way. Colin Powell happened (?) to be in Peru - safely out of harm's way. But - it escapes me - 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?








April 22, 2002 version; I wrote the first version on October 29, 2001.


ADRIAN MORE






MORAL GROUND ZERO / III



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




ZAC IN THE BUSH


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


ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



According to:

1. La Repubblica, Sept. 13, 2001, p.26: 'Un rapporto Sisde per Genova', by Liana Milella;
2. 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 ;
3. 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;
4. The New York Times, Sept.30, 2001: 'British accuse Algerian of role in Attacks', by Raymond Bonner, online at:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/national/30INQU.html ;
5. International Herald Tribune, October 17,2001,p.9: 'Money Linked To Suspect in Hijackings', by Philip Shenon, New York Times Service;
6. International Herald Tribune, December 12, 2001,p.3: 'Pilot Trainee Is First to Be Indicted in U.S. Attacks', by Brian Knowlton;
7. International Herald Tribune, January 3,2002,p.4: 'Flight School Official Spoke of Hijack Threat', by Dan Eggen, Washington Post Service;
8. International Herald Tribune, February 1, 2002, p.3 : 'Suspect's Silence Baffled Agents Before Sept.11' by Dan Eggen, Washington Post Service;
9. 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 ;
10. 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;
11. 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:
12. International Herald Tribune, May 4, 2002, p.3: 'FBI Agent Had Suspicion About Aviation Students', by the Associated Press; and:
13. International Herald Tribune, May 11, 2002, p.3: 'Web Match on Student Visas is Near', by Cheryl W. Thompson (The Washington Post):



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]."

JANUARY 5, 2001: source nr 1: the U.S. embassy in Rome shuts down for 3 days on "U.S. orders", because of a feared "ATTACK FROM THE SKY, A MISSILE OR SOMETHING ELSE [my translation & 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 2: "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]".

JULY 2001: "Two months before... Sept.11... an FBI agent in Phoenix, Arizona, alerted the bureau's headquarters in Washington that several Middle Eastern men were training at an aviation school and recommended checking with others in the country where Arabs may be studying... Officials said FBI counterterrorism agents in Phoenix were suspicious that several Arab men were seeking airport operations, SECURITY INFORMATION AND PILOT TRAINING [my caps]... The agents were particularly concerned that some were attempting to learn about airport security operations".
Of course, then FBI director Louis Freeh did nothing at all; his worthy successor Robert Mueller had only just begun "discussing conducting a nationwide canvass of flight schools when the hijackings occurred"! Pity that Freeh & Mueller were most arguably under orders from Bush to allow 911 to happen - otherwise they would have acted on Phoenix's tip immediately and, at the very least, they would have had Hani Hanjour arrested.
Hani Hanjour, according to the FBI, piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon. He was training at a Phoenix flight school in July 2001. And although, according to the Associated Press, his name was not in the Phoenix FBI memo, he could have been arrested and deported (had the flight school canvass been conducted) because he was in the U.S. illegally. Just like Moussaoui.

JULY 11, 2001: Italy: the Sisde (Italian intelligence) writes report nr "2001ter0011183", based on "a qualified foreign source": according to that report, islamist extremists in London were plotting to use "PLANES" to kill Bush at the Genova G8 summit.
This prompted Italian interior minister [secretary of state for the interior] Scajola to have "ANTIAIRCRAFT BATTERIES" installed at the Genova airport for the G8; and to close Genova's airspace for 5 days.
The intelligence report said they didn't deem the attack feasible/believable: but Scajola thought otherwise, and had guns in place and closed the airspace.
All of this 2 MONTHS before 911.
AND STILL FREEH AND MUELLER DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON PHOENIX'S TIP! THEIRS WAS A DELIBERATE STAND-DOWN POLICY IF THERE EVER WAS SUCH A THING!

MID-AUGUST 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui "took pilot training" 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 denied 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.

Not enough: the French "say they also alerted authorities in Britain, where Mr. Moussaoui had lived on and off for years".
My source nr 10 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]."


A critical mass of evidence for charging 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. Because of a feared Qaeda attack with planes on Bush at the G8 in Genova, airspace over the city had been closed and antiaircraft guns set up;
5. The Phoenix FBI had warned Washington that Arab students at local flight schools were suspected of being terrorists;
6. 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";
7. 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";
8. "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";
9. 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";
10. "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";
11. "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 ELEVEN 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 Phoenix and Minneapolis FBI is absolutely and urgently necessary.


And, indeed, just as an example, a stateswide 2000/2001 flight-school-canvass (which had been in progress "at several schools" since 1996; and to finish which there was all the time in the world: 2 MONTHS between the Phoenix report and 911; 25 DAYS between the Moussaoui arrest on Aug.16, 2001 and 911) would have led to the arrest of at least 4 more Sept.11 hijackers: Mohammed Atta, the ringleader, who had done everything he could to raise suspicions himself; Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, both of whom the CIA had reportedly linked to Qaeda as early as January 2000; and Hani Hanjour, who was in the country illegally; or at the very least the wider investigation would have led to identifying those 4 or more, starting a massive manhunt, providing their names to all airlines, and placing all airports under maximum alert.
And it was NOT about screening "20,000" flight school students, as Mueller recently lied to the press; it was about cheking the Arab students, as specifically requested by the Phoenix FBI memo: a fraction of the total.


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.





May 15, 2002 edition; I wrote the first version on January 28/29, 2002.



ADRIAN MORE




MORAL GROUND ZERO /IV



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.




IMMORAL TENET & HIS BLIND-EYE SURVEILLANCE



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

ADRIAN MORE
Poet, songwriter/singer, essayist





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



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




THE TWIN COWARDS




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


ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



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;
13. Washingtonpost.com, March 17, 2002, p.A20: 'Hijackers Visa Fiasco Points Up INS Woes', by Dan Eggen and Cheryl W. Thompson, online at:
 link to www.washingtonpost.com ; and, finally:
14. The New York Times, May 9, 2002: 'Mr Atta Goes to Prague', by William Safire, online at:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/opinion/09SAFI.html




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 humanity 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 subsequent 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."

And as for the last attempts at denying the Prague meeting planted in all mainstream media by the CIA (first in Newsweek, end of April, 2002): once more: long live William Safire! I'm so lucky that this old conservative Bushiite is responding for me!
Amazing - and amusing, that my view should be defended - unwittingly - by the least person in the world I could possibly identify with!
See for yourself reader: source nr 14.
Here are some convincing highlights from it:

"A misdirection play is under way in the C.I.A.'s all-out attempt to discredit an account of a suspicious meeting in Prague [... ] They are telling favored journalists: Shoot this troublesome story down [... ] Notice how this parade of pooh-poohing never has an official's name attached to it. Rarely do you see such skillful manipulation by anonymous sources whose policy agenda is never revealed to readers.
[... ] Unreported (except on  http://www.edwardjayepstein.com , the website of my unfazed Angletonian friend) is this week's response to the hidden policy-driven doubters by the Czech interior minister, Stanislav Gross: 'I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists'. Did his agents have new information that would cast doubt on the Atta meeting [... ]? He checked with Jery Ruzek, his intelligence chief: 'The answer was that they did not. Therefore, I consider the matter closed.'
Whom do you believe - a responsible official on the scene speaking on the record, with no ax to grind, or U.S. spooks WHO MAY BE COVERING UP A MISSED SIGNAL FROM PRAGUE ABOUT SEPT.11 [my caps] [... ]?
Hard-liners can play this background game, too. A 'senior Bush administration official' [... ] tells me: 'YOU CANNOT SAY THE CZECH REPORT ABOUT A MEETING IN 2001 BETWEEN ATTA AND THE IRAQI IS DISCREDITED OR DISPROVEN IN ANY WAY. [my caps]'"

Thanks, William! The only difference between William Safire and me on this one is that the former defends Atta's meeting in order to support the war on Saddam - I defend Atta's meeting in order to establish probable cause of Bush's complicity in 911.


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.

SO WHY ON EARTH WASN'T ATTA IN JAIL, OR (AT THE VERY LEAST) BEING SHADOWED BY SEPTEMBER 11?





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 be assumed 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 humanity 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 now - 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 probable cause/circumstantial 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 APRIL 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?

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?





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



ADRIAN MORE




MORAL GROUND ZERO /VI



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




CATCH 9



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


ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



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.14, 2001, p.2: 'U.S. Reopens Its Skies Under Strict New Rules', by John Schimd;
3. International Herald Tribune, Sept.15, 2001: 'An FBI List of the 19 Hijackers Aboard the 4 Doomed Airliners', by the Associated Press;
4. Associated Press. Nov.23, 2001, 07:05 EST: 'Hijackers' Legal Status Had Expired', by Larry Margasak;
5.Washington Post, March 2, 2002, p.A11: 'Airports Screened Nine of Sept.11 Hijackers, Officials Say', by Dan Eggen (Don Phillips contributed);
6. Associated Press, March 3, 2002, 11:55 ET: 'Some Sept.11 Hijackers Were Spotted', by Jonathan D. Salant;
7. 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);
8. 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);
9. 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 3) 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 3: "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? No: source nr 2: "Previously, only knives with blades longer than four inches (10 centimetres) were barred."
Did the screeners find knives belonging to those 9? Exactly how long were the blades of those "knives"? "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 an alibi concocted in order to exonerate the special security screeners: who the hell are now these 'aviations experts'? THE NAMES? Why would it take 'aviation experts' to elaborate about such an issue as how knives got onto the planes? 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 6: "[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 (and suspiciously) 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 22, 2002, 974 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 would have us believe that 5 hijackers with boxcutters and 4-inch (or shorter)-blade knives "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 and short knives.


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 PHONE COMPANY RECORDS), 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.

AND I CALL IT A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY THAT NO CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT'S RESPONSE TO, AND POSSIBLE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF/COMPLICITY IN 911 IS UNDER WAY YET.






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.






May 13, 2002 edition. I wrote the first version on March 19, 2002.



ADRIAN MORE




MORAL GROUND ZERO / VII



The official story of the jet-scrambling in response to the 9/11 hijackings is, most arguably, a cover-up.



AIR FARCE ONE




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


ADRIAN MORE
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist



According to:

1. CBS Evening News (6:30pm ET) - CBS, Sept.14, 2001, online at:
 http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/changes.htm
2. The New York Times, Sept.15, 2001: 'Pentagon Tracked Deadly Jet But Found No Way To Stop It', by Matthew L.Wald, online at:  http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2001/09/15/868107.xml ;
3. Ilarion Bykov and Jared Israel: 'Guilty for 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers', posted Nov. 14, 2001, updated Nov.17, 2001, online at:  http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm ;
4. George Szamuely: '9-11: Ho-Hum, Nothing Urgent', posted Jan. 9, 2002, online at:  http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/urgent.htm ;
5. The Associated Press, March 11, 9:49 ET: 'Timeline of Events on 9/11';
[Warning: the above article is anonymous, but has at the bottom: 'Sources: AP wire reports, North American Aerospace Defense Command'; in other words, this is the official story]
6. VisionTV Insight: transcript of Mon., Feb.18, 2002 Broadcast, online at:  http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/mediafile_feb18.htm :
7. International Herald Tribune, Apr.12, 2002, p.3: 'Bush Approves Sweeping Change at Top of Military', by Thomas E. Ricks (The Washington Post):



SEPTEMBER 11, 2001


"7:59a.m. - 8:14a.m.": all 4 doomed planes leave their airports.

8:20am: source nr 2: "CONTROLLERS IN NEW ENGLAND KNEW ABOUT 8:20am THAT AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11, BOUND FROM BOSTON TO LOS ANGELES, HAD PROBABLY BEEN HIJACKED [my caps]... 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. [caps mine]"

Source nr 5: "BY 8:20, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN OFFICIAL REPORT [my caps] ... the FAA is fully aware".

"8:40a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] notifies the North East Air Defense Sector... (a division of North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD) that Flight 11 may have been hijacked".
Now, Flight 11 reportedly would crash 8 minutes later (8:48am) into the WTC.
It reportedly had been the first of the 4 to leave, at 7:59am.

One first remark:
Since the hijacking of Flight 11 must have started long before 8:40 (the hijackers couldn't possibly have done it all in 8 minutes);
that is, since Flight 11 must have strayed from its course before 8:40; and since, according to source nr 2 quoted above, "controllers... knew about 8:20am that Flight 11... had probably been hijacked":

1 - why did it take the FAA until "8:40" to notify NORAD? That is, WHY DID IT TAKE THE FAA 20 MINUTES TO NOTIFY NORAD? 'Bureaucratic'-delay alibis make no sense at all, because emergency procedures ARE DEVICED PRIMARILY TO BYPASS BUREAUCRACY AND DEAL WITH URGENT PROBLEMS FAST.

This was 2001. But even as early as 1941, army chief of staff G. Marshall had a scrambler phone THAT HE DELIBERATELY CHOSE NOT TO USE IN TIME TO ALERT HAWAII COMMANDERS OF THE UPCOMING (BUT STILL HOURS AWAY) PEARL HARBOR RAID, AS CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES ASCERTAINED.
One would hope the FAA had better and faster means available to alert NORAD in 2001.

Moreover, the looming catastrophe WAS NEITHER UNPRECEDENTED NOR UNEXPECTABLE:
1 - kamikazes using jets as bombs are in the U.S. defense's gene pool ever since WWII;
2 - since the 1995 confession of the Qaida Murad, suicide hijacking using jets as bombs had been taken into account as A VERY REAL THREAT: A KNOWN LOOMING POSSIBILITY SINCE 1995;
3 - January 5, 2001: the U.S. embassy in Rome shuts down for 3 days on U.S. orders because of a feared "attack from the sky, a missile or something else";
4 - Echelon had warned MONTHS before Sept.11 of jets-as-bombs plans;
5 - July 11, 2001: Italian intelligence (Sisde) report nr "2001ter0011183": islamist extremists in London are plotting to use "PLANES" to kill Bush at the Genova G8 summit. Wherefore Italian interior minister Scajola has "antiaircraft batteries" installed at the Genova airport for the G8 and closes Genova's airspace for 5 days;
6 - authorities knew since the Aug.16 arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui (the '20th hijacker') that a plot to use jets as bombs was a very real possibility.
(Please read my essay MORAL GROUND ZERO / III - 'ZAC IN THE BUSH' for sourcing/discussion of the above 4 points).
THEREFORE ONLY LIARS COULD STILL REPEAT THAT 9/11 WAS "UNPRECEDENTED" OR UNEXPECTABLE/UNEXPECTED.
Quite the contrary: the recent Echelon warnings + arrest of Moussaoui should have warranted a state of high alert.

What's missing from my AP source is an exact timeline of known events on Flight 11 between 7:59 and 8:40: FAA boss Jane Garvey, will you please testify, over 7 months later?

2 - Even more importantly: did NORAD really need the FAA "8:40" notification to learn of the hijacking of Flight 11?
In other words: is NORAD unable to monitor/defend U.S. air space without the FAA?
Again: isn't NORAD supposed to have (and use 24 hrs. a day) the best radar system in the world?
And isn't NORAD supposed to routinely, daily send out air patrols, including Awacs (special radar-equipped planes), to monitor/protect U.S. air space from all sorts of dangers?

FAA/NORAD collaboration is welcome but - is NORAD lost without FAA input?
Repeating: if the FAA person in charge of the "8:40" notification had been in the bathroom instead, would NORAD have waited to learn of the hijacking of Flight 11 from CNN?
Once more: IF FLIGHT 11 HAD BEEN A CHINESE BOMBER CARRYING A PAYLOAD OF NUCLEAR BOMBS, WOULD NORAD HAVE SLEPT ON UNTIL 8:40, WAITING FOR THE FAA TO CALL?
WHO THE HELL IS SUPPOSED TO MONITOR/DEFEND U.S. AIR SPACE, NORAD (WITH WELCOME, BUT NOT INDISPENSABLE HELP FROM THE FAA) OR THE FAA?
WHAT WERE FAA AND NORAD'S RADAR OPERATORS DOING BETWEEN 7:59 AND 8:40am ON 9/11?
WILL THEY ALL FINALLY TESTIFY UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS AFTER OVER 7 MONTHS, TOGETHER WITH ALL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AND OTHER STAFF INVOLVED?


Recapping/refocusing:
1 - Flight 11 must have been hijacked well before "8:40am" - so exactly why did it take the FAA so long to notify NORAD? What did the FAA use, a public phone? A carrier-pigeon?
2 - Who the hell cares anyway: isn't NORAD supposed to be monitoring/defending U.S. airspace through round-the-clock radar surveillance, quite independently of the FAA?
NORAD HEAD, GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: TESTIFY!


Back to the AP propaganda parrots:

"8:46am - The North East Defense Sector notifies Otis Air National Guard Base at Falmouth, Mass., on Cape Cod that Flight 11 may have been hijacked."

Another precious 6 minutes reportedly lost by NORAD just to NOTIFY Otis.

Reader please note: a crucial bit of info is missing from the AP report at this point: by "8:46am" FAA/NORAD must have learned of at least a 2nd hijacking in progress: that of Flight 175, departed at 8:14, and which would crash into the WTC at 9:03.
It is logical to assume that Flight 175 too had been hijacked already by 8:46.
But the AP is silent over FAA notification to NORAD of the hijacking of Flight 175.

Anyway: what happens now, reportedly?
"8:52am - Two F-15s are scrambled from Otis."
Repeat, for the astonished: "TWO F-15s".

At (long) last: NORAD/Otis, confronted with the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil ever (Flight 11 reportedly had crashed into the WTC at "8:48", 4 minutes earlier); NORAD/Otis, I say, most arguably knowing by 8:52 that there's another hijacked plane around (United Flight 175) - again, NORAD/Otis, that is, the best air force on the planet, responds by scrambling... ONLY "2" MEAGER F15s; 2 F15s, YOU DIG? WITHOUT EVEN ONE AWACS PLANE FOR BETTER RADAR DETECTION!
ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THE AIR FORCE TO SCRAMBLE WHOLE SQUADRONS OF FIGHTERS TO RESPOND TO THE WORST ATTACK ON THE U.S. IN ITS HISTORY!
WHAT IS THIS, ANDORRA?
"TWO" F-15s!!!

I'M ONLY JUST STARTED, BUT IT SHOULD ALREADY BE SUPERCRYSTAL-CLEAR BY NOW TO ANYONE WHO'S NOT A LIAR-FOR-A-LIVING OR A COMPLETE IDIOT THAT THE "2 - F15s" STORY, IF TRUE, OUGHT TO HAVE GOTTEN THE HEAD OF NORAD RALPH EBERHART FIRED ON THE SPOT!
BECAUSE: EITHER THE HEAD OF NORAD RALPH EBERHART ON 9/11 WAS A RETARD (UNLIKELY);
OR HE WAS A TRAITOR UNDER ORDERS FROM BUSH TO ALLOW 9/11 TO HAPPEN UNTIL ITS MOST VISIBLE/LETHAL CONSEQUENCES (MOST LIKELY).

ONLY THE LATTER OPTION COULD POSSIBLY JUSTIFY THE OTHERWISE ASTONISHING NEWS ITEM REPORTED BY SOURCE NR 7: THAT "GENERAL RALPH EBERHART... HAS BEEN CHOSEN TO RUN THE NEW NORTHERN COMMAND, WHICH IS BEING CREATED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES ITSELF."!
THE FAITHFUL SERVANT TRAITOR REWARDED (FOR ALLOWING 911 TO HAPPEN) BY THE 911 MASTERMIND, CHIEF BUSH: YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE!


Pause.


Once more, let's recap and refocus:

- hey FAA boss jane garvey: when exactly, at what exact time did the FAA learn of the hijacking/changing course of Flight 175? And at what exact time did the FAA notify NORAD of the hijacking of Flight 175?
What was the emergency communication system used for the notifications?
TESTIFY UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS RIGHT NOW, YOU AND ALL FAA FLIGHT CONTROLLERS AND OTHER STAFF INVOLVED, lest we should think that you too, FAA boss jane garvey, were an accomplice in the 9/11 massmurders;

- hey NORAD head on 9/11 Ralph Eberhart: what about NORAD's radar surveillance? And what about the GPS system, and satellites that can trace and monitor far-distant, fast-moving asteroids millions of miles from Earth, but allegedly can't tell us about 4 off-course planes?

And: WHY FOR HEAVENSSAKE DID YOU ALLEGEDLY SCRAMBLE ONLY 2 F-15s WITH NO AWACS AT 8:52am ON 9/11?
And: WHY COULDN'T FAA + NORAD RADARS TRACK DOWN IN TIME FLIGHTS 175 (CRASH TIME: 9:03); FLIGHT 77 (PENTAGON; CRASH TIME: 9:43); AND FLIGHT 93 (PENNSYLVANIA; CRASH TIME: 10:10)?


Let's proceed with the amazing official story.

9:03am: while the 2 F15s from Otis (Cape Cod) reportedly still haven't reached Manhattan, Flight 175 crashes into the 2nd Twin Tower.

At this point (9:03am) you would have expected, as a minimum precautionary measure, the entire U.S. air force on or near U.S. territory to scramble, accompanied by all available Awacs for prompter radar detection - BUT NO! INCREDIBLY, ASTONISHINGLY NO OTHER PLANE IS SCRAMBLED UNTIL "9:30am"!!!
And no Awacs will be scrambled at all, until after the Pentagon crash.

Back to the AP sheep.

"9:24am - FAA notifies the North East Air Defense Sector that controllers have lost contact with Flight 77."

American Flight 77, which would crash into the Pentagon at "9:43am", had left Washington at "8:10am".
Again: the hijacking + changing course of Flight 77 must have started long before 9:24am.

Source nr 2 again: "Flight 77, which took off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington shortly after 8am, stayed aloft until 9:45am. AND WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE ON THE FAA'S RADAR SYSTEM AS IT REVERSED COURSE IN THE MIDWEST AN HOUR LATER [that is, shortly after 9am] TO FLY BACK TO WASHINGTON. THE RADARS WOULD HAVE OBSERVED IT EVEN THOUGH ITS TRACKING BEACON HAD BEEN TURNED OFF [my caps]".

So again, jane garvey of the FAA:
- if you notified NORAD at 9:24 about Flight 77, when exactly had your controllers lost contact/realized things were wrong?
Why did your radar operators waste another 20 minutes before alerting NORAD - and this after TWO suicide crashes had already occurred (8:48 + 9:03, Twin Towers)?

- NORAD's head general Eberhart:
what do FAA + NORAD radar surveillance records tell us about Flight 77 between 8:10 and 9:24 on 9/11? TESTIFY!



On with the show.


"9:30am - Three F16s are scrambled from Langley Air Force base in Hampton, Va.".

[This time around, time lapse between FAA notification (9:24) and scrambling (9:30) is 6 minutes: half of the first time (8:40-8:52: 12 minutes)].

The worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history have just happened at 8:48 and 9:03; at 9:24 the FAA has notified NORAD of a 3rd hijacking in progress;

AND ALL NORAD COMES UP WITH IS 3 F16s AT 9:30, WITHOUT AWACS AND CLEARLY WITHOUT RADAR GUIDANCE FROM THE GROUND - BECAUSE THOSE REPORTED 3 FIGHTERS DON'T FIND/INTERCEPT A DAMN THING, AT LEAST NOT UNTIL AFTER 9:43.

By the way - source nr 1: "[shortly after the 2nd WTC crash at 9:03] the F15s [the two that had been scrambled from Otis at 8:52 according to the AP; or that "WERE AIRBORNE" at 8:52 according to source nr 1] reached Manhattan and began flying air cover missions over the city."
NORAD head Eberhart: why didn't you divert those 2 F15s at 9:24, after receiving FAA notification about Flight 77?
I am being very naοf and pretending you didn't know about Flight 77's hijacking long before 9:24.
But even assuming you learned about Flight 77 at 9:24 from the FAA; and since you knew of NO other upcoming danger for New York; WHY DIDN'T YOU IMMEDIATELY TELL THE 2 F-15s THAT WERE LOITERING OVER N.Y. TO INSTEAD HUNT DOWN FLIGHT 77?


Wherefore...
"9:43am - American Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon."



9:55am: 1 more scrambling - it's Air Force One, whisking off the 911 terrorist mastermind.





Hear? The Bushiite wisecrackers are sayin':
"But - suppose we'd intercepted or even shot down the 4 planes, how were we to know we wouldn't have ended up killing even more people?"

Really not hard:
1 - Bush and his terrorist gang most arguably had foreknowledge of the hijackers' plans (see my essay Moral Ground Zero III, 'ZAC IN THE BUSH');

2 - Even assuming (1) isn't true: IT WAS WORTH INTERCEPTING THE PLANES BECAUSE IF AUTHORITIES REALLY HAD NOT KNOWN BEFOREHAND THAT THIS WAS A SUICIDE HIJACKING WITH JETS-AS-BOMBS, THEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN "NORMAL", NON-SUICIDAL HIJACKINGS, AND THE PLANES COULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED, MONITORED, WARNED OR FORCED DOWN - NOONE COULD HAVE FORETOLD THE HIJACKERS' REACTION TO INTERCEPTION!

3 - ONLY WITH POST-EVENT KNOWLEDGE CAN WE ASSUME (BUT NOT BE CERTAIN!) THAT, SINCE THE HIJACKERS REPORTEDLY WERE ISLAMIST FANATICS, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE IGNORED THE INTERCEPTORS' WARNINGS.

AND - IN THIS LAST, EXTREME EVENT, EXTREME REMEDY: DOWN THE PLANES. CERTAINLY DO SO WHEN THE HIJACKERS ARE FAST APPROCHING THE TWIN TOWERS OR THE PENTAGON AT 500MPH!

AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULD KILL ALL THE PEOPLE ON BOARD - WHO, YOU CAN FORETELL, ARE ABOUT TO DIE ANYWAY. BUT SINCE FIGHTER JETS FIRE MISSILES THAT BLOW UP MOST OF THEIR TARGETS, WHAT WOULD HAVE FALLEN TO THE GROUND WOULD HAVE BEEN SCATTERED DEBRIS, NOT 3 WHOLE PLANES AT 500MPH!

THEREFORE THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS ON THE GROUND COULD HAVE REASONABLY BEEN PROJECTED TO BE WAY INFERIOR TO THE DEATH TOLL CAUSED BY THE INTACT PLANES CRASHING/EXPLODING INTO BUILDINGS - AT 500MPH.

AND: THIS IS NO EASY HINDSIGHT: SOURCE NR 2: "AN F.A.A SPOKESWOMAN SAID... THAT THERE WAS A POLICY FOR SHOOTING DOWN CIVILIAN AIRLINERS BUT WOULD NOT DIVULGE IT."

"A POLICY": WHY FOR CHRISSAKE WAS THIS POLICY VIOLATED? EBERHART! - WHY?

After over 7 months, the shoot-down policy in place BEFORE 911 has still not been divulged.
This has become Stalin's U.S.S.R. A secret government lurking in the dark like a fuckin' roach.


COULD IT BE THAT BUSH HAD ORDERED FAA/NORAD (THAT IS THEIR TOP BRASS) TO DO THEIR DAMNEDEST TO ALLOW SEPT.11 TO HAPPEN?



Shamming the scrambling, you dig?
Air Farce One.







May 12, 2002 edition.

I wrote the first version on April 12-13-14-15, 2002


ADRIAN MORE

Author's Comments 20.May.2002 16:44

David McGowan dave@davesweb.cnchost.com

As the author of this article, I wanted to extend my thanks to those readers who have posted comments aimed at correcting the deceptive way that the posting of this article was handled. Such tactics are one of the primary reasons that Swans, the original publisher of the piece, has a fairly restrictive policy on the re-posting of articles. This poster had disregarded those guidelines to serve their own purposes. To the comments already posted by others, I would add only that the notion that China somehow masterminded the September 11 attacks is exactly the kind of 'theorizing' I had in mind when I wrote the passage in the article that reads: "There is little doubt that at least some of the conspiracy theories seeking to explain the events of September 11 have been put out as deliberate disinformation to muddy the waters."

Best,
Dave