portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

9.11 investigation

Shame on indymedia (except pdx) for ignoring the 9.11 cover-up!

The big news throughout the European and Canadian press is a recent declaration by Michael Meacher, former Minister of the Environment in the UK, that Bush and his administration not only had foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, but allowed it to happen in order to pursue world domination. And yet the U.S. press, including the center-column feature editors of every U.S. indymedia site, has ignored the story so far, despite many posts. pdx indymedia gets a temporary dispensation for having an entire section on the 9.11 investigation, though i hope they put up something soon! The other indymedias will likely ignore it, though, as they are run by liberals who take their cues from The Nation, Mother Jones, Z magazine, CommonDreams, and other institutions of the head-in-the-sand left, and are afraid to take on the issue for fear of losing "credibility" or being called "conspiracy theorists". With Meacher's declaration, however, this topic has moved out of the fringes, and deserves full front page play. Will indymedia do it?
Discuss...
You say discuss? Okay...... 08.Sep.2003 23:21

Mariposa

I read that article very carefully. Meacher did not report anything NEW except revealing that the number of saudis that were escorted out of the country and information from FBI officials that the sauds were not interrogated. I also had not ever seen reported that the number of saudis was so high and that private planes scurried all over this nation (10 diff cities) to get all the sauds.

The story itself was an incredible and wonderful light shed on the tendency that the USA govt could have stopped 911 at the least or was complicit for 911 happening at the very most. And thank God a high ranking official from either the US or the UK came forward.

Of course the Bush Admin protected the Saudis. And look how they repay bush. I am laughing my ass off about the Saud/Russia cooperative oil agreement signed last week, only because I know it makes Cheney's ticker tocker!

This whole thing makes me think back to Watergate. Nixon stepped down after one thing that seems sooooooooo minor compared to the stuff that America has accepted from the mutated and rebirthed Nixon/Reagan people that have seized this country once again. What, I wonder, don't we know about watergate? It must have been really evil. Just look what the non-prosecution of all those players has wrought for this country 30 years later.

As for Indymedias not seizing on the Meacher article.............his ultimate conclusion is not PROVEN. Millions of people have been yelling about all the same stuff since the beginning. When this goes to an actual prosecutorial agency --- that's when it should be published on the front and center of every press release on earth. May God see that it happen and the culprits brought forward to pay for it.

Wow 08.Sep.2003 23:23

Gecko

This issue has been out of the fringes for a long time. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney raised the question about what Bush knew and when last year! Still, to have a recent high level British official (equal to a member of Bush's cabinet) come right out and say it is amazing. The fallacy of the official 9/11 story has been ignored by leftist media including the nation, and other press all along. In fact, they have actually gone out of their way to support Bush and the official story! Shows that when it comes right down to it, the so called opposition defends the status quo.

Well, wait a second ,........ 08.Sep.2003 23:26

Mariposa

I just clicked open The Cheshire Story (published a few stories down).

F'ing A.........Is the Meacher story turning the world upside down?

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!

Will go read it.

The way to get the media in this country to pay attn to it, though, is for 1000s of people to take to the streets and DEMAND an independent inquiry (NO CLASSIFIED BULLCORN this time!). But that isn't going to happen in the USA. I don't know if it's disorganization or apathy......but we sure do bitch a lot and do VERY LITTLE in terms of making our voices heard. I have all but stopped writing begging, pleading letters with our reps. They could give a Big F what any ONE person thinks.

Until we hit the Wash Mall and our state capitols -- and NOT LEAVE ..... nothing will be looked into; nothing will be changed...........

Mariposa 08.Sep.2003 23:49

deva

The way to get it heard is through Indymedia

Indymedia should not go along with the complete media blackout on this story by the U.S. corporate media. Indymedia should not remain silent and thus help insure that hardly any U.S. citizens learn that one of the highest ranking officials of this countries stuanchest ally is coming out and saying that the U.S. knew 9/11 was going to happen and purposefully let it happen in order to further its own imperial aims.

The so called war on terrorism is the basis for the attack on Afghanistan, on Iraq and on our civil liberties and a high level British official is saying it is all a fraud. Particularly in the light of the corporate media blackout, it is Indymedias responsibility and duty to trumpet this story. This is one of the most important stories of our time!

Flight records from Langley 09.Sep.2003 01:22

James

BTW -- I got a response to my Freedom of Information Act request to Langley seeking all takeoff and landing logs from Langley on September 11th, if anyone is interested.

It basically confirms everything previously posted by NORAD previously, with other scattered takeoffs.

Lots of small passenger Lear Jets and Cessnas prior to 8:45, then 2 F/16's around 9:40. Nothing new. I can scan if anyone wants...

Langley takeoff records 09.Sep.2003 01:33

Big C

James, it would be great if you shared the takeoff records for the airforce base, but will you write an explanation that goes with it... what time the plane hit the Pentagon, what normal protocol is when commercial flights are off course/hijacked... for those of us with poor memories and no military background, like me.
Thank you.

Scanned images 09.Sep.2003 01:55

James

K, here they are.

All times are in GMT I believe, which is EST +4. (It doesn't say so, but that fits). The first two F/16s on Page 1 took-off at 11PM Sept 10th, but landed at 1:31am, which is why they are included. The first fighters scrambled on the September 11th are the 2 F/16s at 9:25 EST. NORAD previously posted the following information about these two jets:

"American Flight 77 -Dulles enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0924
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924
Fighters Airborne 0930
Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles"

According to the NORAD timeline, and the flight/takeoff logs, the F16s didn't have time to intercept Flight 77. These same two jets were re-routed to Flight 93 after the impact of Flight 77 however, and did have time to intercept Flight 93.

Make of it what you will. I don't know what to believe.
First page
First page
Second page
Second page

Thanks, James 09.Sep.2003 02:22

Big C

Woh, written in Aviation Language.
In a time when people believe whatever they prefer , we few curious and and truthful folks are charged with preserving history.
We'll have to hide our scrolls telling the 9-11 story in jars and bury them in the desert for posterity to discover.

can someone break down the timeline(s) in greater detail? 09.Sep.2003 03:10

g

So, Mike Ruppert says " For 50 minutes, from 8:15 AM until 9:05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9:30 that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred. [Source: CNN; ABC; MSNBC; Los Angeles Times; The New York Times...]" ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html)

It seems the question remains, was there an unreasonable delay in scrambling the Air Force planes? Anyone care to analyze this timeline in more excruciating detail?

indymedia is you 09.Sep.2003 12:02

workerbee

9.11 investigator: indymedia is you... "though i hope they put up something soon". There is no "they", it is only you. Please post more information about 9.11.

excruciating detail anyone? 09.Sep.2003 12:13

concerned

 http://www.911timeline.net/

Notice that the first plane stops it's IFF Beacon at 8:20 over an hour before the first F-16 launches. The first F-16 launches also came over 20 mintues after the first WTC building wast hit.

But this neglects one of the much larger issues. Since it's inception (I think) protecting the airspace over Washington, DC has been the chief responsibility of Andrews AFB. Yet no planes were scrambled from there at all on 9/11.

Here's some data taken from the andrews website (which was subsequently removed):

"Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency."

Copy of the now removed page here:  http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr.htm

Langley Vs. Andrews 09.Sep.2003 12:21

James

"Officially, there were only two air force bases in the Northeast region that were formally part of NORAD's defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard Base on Massachusetts' Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington. [BBC, 8/29/02] During the Cold War, the US had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14 fighters in the continental US by 9/11."

 http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

Why did it take so long? I don't know. But that's a fair explanation of why the planes launched from Langley and Otis as opposed to Andrews.

no, it's not a fair explanation 09.Sep.2003 13:14

concerned

For anyone that has lived in DC it is well known that fighters are scrambled on an infrequent, but regular basis to intercept flights over and around DC. Next time I'm at the library I'll try to get some stories (searching online at this point is beyond worthless). Although, perhaps a FOIA request might be a better way to go. In any case, not only was Andrews always used to scramble fighters prior to 9/11 (and since), there is also no reason fighters should have been scrambled when:

at 8:59 when Flight 77 starts toward DC (having already lost radio communication)
at 9:30 when fighters were launched from Langley
at 9:35 when Flight 93 changed course toward Washington DC and when allegedly it issued a new flight plan
at 9:37 when Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon (or whenever the time actually was)
at 9:40 when Flight 93's transponder signal stops (remember at this point it's still heading toward DC)
at 9:45 when the White House and Capitol were evacuated.
at 9:47 when the Rumsfeld raised the defense conditions to DefCon-3
at 10:01 when F-16 fighters are scrambled from Toledo, OH (like Andrews, not a part of the NORAD network)
at 10:41 when Cheney tells Bush "There's still a threat to Washington."

Note, that the official story is that there were no combat ready planes at Andrews. Read the debunking in "SECTION 1: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.?" (about a third of the way down the page) here:  http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

Furthermore, the skies over DC were patrolled for the next several weeks by F-16's from Andrews. The official story would have you believe that their happened to be no planes on 9/11, just before and immediately after. Massive incompetence or complicity, which do you think is more likely?

fuel for the fire 09.Sep.2003 16:04

concerned

So, the memory hole posted the medialab map showing the routes of the planes overlaid against US military bases. I have to admit, I've never given all that much thought to some of the theories out there, like the remote controlled planes. But, assuming this map is accurate it is rather eerie. Well, just more to think about I suppose...

Map: Hijacked 9/11 Flights and Military Bases
Map: Hijacked 9/11 Flights and Military Bases

Mariposa RE: Watergate 10.Sep.2003 00:48

kilroy

there is a quote from former Attorney General John Mitchell, around the time of Watergate, could be anywhere between 1970 and 1973--not sure what reference source/book it's from, maybe someone can confirm--

anyway, this might have been '73 when the Congressional hearings were in full swing and the popular tide was turning sharply against Nixon's entire administration and cronies, because John Mitchell was quoted as saying something in reference to Nixon, Vietnam/Cambodia policy, cracking down on domestic dissenters, and all of the secrecy surrounding the White House:

[HEAVILY PARAPHRASED, inaccurate]

"you think this is [we represent??] a wave of conservatism or right-wing action? Just you wait, the next political generation [of the following decades?] will see a resurgence of the right wing that will make your head spin."

and sure enough, along came Reagan/Bu$h in 1980 . . . October Surprise, Iran/Contra . . . Noriega . . . Gulf War 1, etc.

finally, let me say that this particular thread exhibits healthy curiosity, investigation and information sharing by all, especially James. I am glad to see this kind of outlook on PDX imc after personally having closely followed and investigated the 9-11 questions since Day 1.

let's keep our minds and investigations open.