- New book examines possible White House role in 9/11 attacks
-
- Three months after Sept. 11, 2001, I was substitute teaching
a high school political science course. Because the students had finished
the day's lesson plan, we began talking about current events. When the
talk turned to Sept. 11, a young girl in the class said that she thought
that President Bush knew what was going to happen and let it happen anyway.
I instantly responded that I thought it was far-fetched to think Bush had
been somehow complicit in the events of Sept. 11. Steal an election? Maybe.
But my mind was simply unable to ponder such a gruesome possibility. Yet
it is just this possibility that Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed considers in The
War on Freedom: How and Why America Was Attacked.
-
- Despite the fact that Ahmed is the executive director
of the Institute for Policy Research and Development in Brighton, UK, and
despite the fact that his scholarship has been recommended as a resource
by Harvard University, I was prepared for a presentation fit for the pages
of some wacko Web site named something like www.santakilledjfk.org. But
my skepticism was soon reigned in.
-
- Ahmed presents information within the pages of his book
cited from respected sources including The New York Times, The Boston Globe,
the San Francisco Chronicle and the Wall Street Journal. But while the
mainstream media has supplied pieces of the puzzle, it's left to Ahmed
to piece together the big picture. The information presented in this book
is shocking, terrifying and severely under-reported. The War on Freedom
is so ominous that I felt dirty reading it, and yet I was fascinated at
the same time, like a young boy holding a magnifying glass up to an ant,
enthralled with the burning creature struggling on the pavement.
-
- One of the key points that Ahmed focuses on is alleged
high-level "blocks" on suspected terrorists that the FBI was
investigating prior to Sept. 11. One of the most particularly disturbing
findings was reported in The Washington Times, stating that local FBI investigators
in Minneapolis "had immediately viewed Zacarias [Moussaoui] as a terrorist
suspect and sought authorization for a special counterintelligence surveillance
warrant in order to search the hard drive of his computer." The Times
reported that this request was denied by the Justice Department and top
FBI officials. Rather than simply reporting this fact, Ahmed puts it into
focus by presenting government reports that show "...the special court
that reviews [these] requests has approved more than 12,000 Justice Department
applications for covert search warrants and wiretaps and rejected only
one since the act was passed in 1978."
-
- The question, then: Why reject a search warrant request
on Moussaoui? Particularly after, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported,
"An instructor at a Minnesota flight school warned the FBI in August
of his suspicion that a studentmight be planning to use a commercial plane
as a weaponwarn[ing] the FBI in urgent tones about the terrorist threat
posed by the student, Zacarias Moussaoui." Ahmed also brings to light
the testimony of U.S. attorney David Phillip Schippers, former Chief Investigative
Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Schippers states that he
made numerous and urgent attempts to warn Attorney General John Ashcroft
of terror attacks planned for lower Manhattan weeks before Sept. 11.
-
- Schippers says his warnings were based on information
from U.S. intelligence sources, including FBI agents, but that FBI command
killed investigations based upon his information and then threatened agents
with prosecution under the National Security Act if they published any
information regarding their investigations.
-
- Currently, Schippers is representing an FBI agent in
a suit against the U.S. government aimed at allowing the agent to legally
speak about the alleged blocked investigations on public record. As with
much of the information in The War on Freedom, you'd be hard pressed to
find details of this lawsuit elsewhere.
-
- Ahmed writes that Schippers wasn't the only one who knew
"something was up" prior to Sept. 11. According to the San Francisco
Chronicle, Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call from what he described
as "airport security" advising him not to travel by air. The
London Times reported that novelist Salman Rushdie received a similar warning.
The Times went on to state that Rushdie testified that his warning came
directly from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Similarly,
Ahmed points to a Newsweek report stating that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a
group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the
next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Here, Ahmed
doesn't even have to ask the question. It asks itself: "If Rushdie,
Brown and a group of Pentagon officials were warned, why wasn't everyone
else?"
-
- Particularly notable in The War on Freedom is a chapter
titled "The Collapse of Standard Operating Procedure on 9-11."
One incredibly striking detail is the change in the official story of Air
Force procedures. Ahmed details how, on Sept. 13, Joint Chief of Staff
Richard Myers stated that no planes were scrambled (i.e., sent up into
the air to intercept the hijacked planes) until after the Pentagon was
hit. Tim Russert, Ahmed notes, also made this same statement on "Meet
the Press" with VP Dick Cheney, and Cheney did not dispute it. Ahmed
leads his reader into an examination of FAA flight procedures, which state
that the moment a plane deviates from its flight path, the air traffic
controllers must attempt to make contact. If no contact can be made, planes
are to be scrambled.
-
- Ahmed deduces that, if no planes were scrambled until
after the Pentagon was hit, this leaves approximately 95 minutes between
the time the first United Airlines flight deviated from flight path and
the time planes were scrambled, which would be a blatant violation of protocol.
The author describes how, on Sept. 14, this official story changed. Air
Force and government officials reneged on their own testimonies, Ahmed
writes, telling CBS that a scramble was launched from Otis Air National
Guard Base on Cape Cod and that planes were headed to New York by 8:56
a.m. Ahmed takes this official testimony to task with these words: "This
storyraises more questions than it answersF-16s can travel at 1500 mph.
If it took the F-16s half an hour to cover 150 miles, they could not have
been traveling at more than 300 mph-at 20 percent capacity. Boeing 767s
and 757s have cruising speeds of 530 mph. Talk about a lack of urgency!"
Ahmed also questions why planes were sent to protect D.C. from
Langley Air Force Base, 129 miles from Washington, when,
according to The San Diego Union-Tribune and the "authoritative"
U.S. military information Web site, demilitary.com,
fighters could have been sent from Andrews Air Force Base, only 15 miles
from Washington. From this, Ahmed draws the inference that these peculiarities
make the Sept. 13 explanation more believable than the Sept. 14 statement.
However, Ahmed notes, even in the case of the second explanation, there
would still be 24 minutes to account for between the time the first plane
deviated from flight path without contact and the time a scramble was issued.
According to the author, FAA manuals would note this as a violation of
standard operating procedure.
-
- Ahmed goes after the White House with tenacity. He uses
a Dick Cheney press conference in which Tim Russert asks Cheney what the
most important decision President Bush had to make on Sept. 11 was. Cheney
responded, "I suppose the toughest decision was the question of whether
or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraftWe decided to do
it." Ahmed pins Cheney down in an uncomfortable position here. Citing
FAA regulations, Ahmed notes that hijacked planes are automatically to
be intercepted by scramblers if they deviate from flight path and contact
can't be made. Thus, Ahmed writes, the decision to intercept aircraft shouldn't
have had anything to do with the White House, nor should it have been a
"decision." Ahmed concludes that Cheney's statement indicates
that the White House, not the FAA, was in control regarding scrambling
on Sept. 11, making the White House responsible for standard operating
procedure failure. Eerily then, Ahmed pieces together an argument that
the White House took the authority to call the shots on Sept. 11 and then
didn't actually call any until well after the FAA was required to scramble
planes.
-
- And on and on he goes, examining business connections
between the Bush and bin Laden families through the Carlyle Group, questioning
why it is that the new Afghani Prime Minister is a former paid UNOCAL oil
consultant, asking the all-important, yet stomach-turning question, "Who
benefited from Sept. 11?" even noting suspicious stock trading in
the days leading up to Sept. 11 involving United Airlines and several WTC
companies. Ultimately, however, Ahmed does not attempt to argue that his
book proves that the White House and the intelligence community are accomplices
in the attacks. Rather, Ahmed merely concludes that a full-scale investigation
is needed.
-
- As Senator Tom Daschle has agreed to Bush's request of
a more "limited" Congressional investigation, The War on Freedom
becomes more significant. If nothing else, this book makes me wish for
a time machine. If I had one, I would go back to that high school classroom
where a young girl said she thought Bush was involved. This time, I wouldn't
be so hasty and closed-minded as to dismiss any possibility without thoroughly
considering it first.
-
-
-
- Comment
By Joseph Ehrlich
- Senderberl@aol.com
- SenderBerl & Sons
- 12-6-2
-
- Is Barbara Olson Still Alive?
- President Bush Will Not Win In 2004
-
- SenderBerl: A new posting on the Rense.com website lead
us to the book War on Freedom. What we believe distinguishes our analysis
from any other one we are aware of is that all the others rely on platforms
which the President can escape. However, our focus is on the President's
own behavior recorded for one purpose and used by us for another. From
this type of videotaped recorded behavior he cannot escape. Of course,
our involvement does not involve selling books or commercializing what
we analyzed and presented: our purpose is to argue that this country cannot
allow a war and other consequences that are part and parcel of the poisonous
fruits of improper presidential behavior.
-
- Moreover, we have looked further into Operation Northwoods
and simply put after our review of it, Barbara Olson may be alive with
others on her plane. There was a lot of skullduggery involved in 9-11,
consistent with an agenda which contravenes what this country historically
opposes. We have posted the material at www.senderberl.com/operation.pdf.
It appears that the split in the NWO has resulted in a concrete movement
to reveal the President's complicity. Thus, Kissinger may undermine Bush
not protect him since we believe he is with the divided group. In any event,
Bush again may be intent to move against Iraq to accomplish his mission
(entire NWO leadership would not complain) before he is blown apart. For
sure, he is destined to be a one term President (unless he declares himself
formally to be Caesar, which can unravel in one or more formats). These
days nothing surprises us, which is evidence by itself why we are upon
a treacherous course and destiny.
-
- Excerpt from:http://www.missoulanews.com/AE/News.asp?no=2858
-
- Particularly notable in The War on Freedom is a chapter
titled "The Collapse of Standard Operating Procedure on 9-11."
One incredibly striking detail is the change in the official story of Air
Force procedures. Ahmed details how, on Sept. 13, Joint Chief of Staff
Richard Myers stated that no planes were scrambled (i.e., sent up into
the air to intercept the hijacked planes) until after the Pentagon was
hit. Tim Russert, Ahmed notes, also made this same statement on "Meet
the Press" with VP Dick Cheney, and Cheney did not dispute it.
-
- Ahmed leads his reader into an examination of FAA flight
procedures, which state that the moment a plane deviates from its flight
path, the air traffic controllers must attempt to make contact. If no contact
can be made, planes are to be scrambled.
-
- Ahmed deduces that, if no planes were scrambled until
after the Pentagon was hit, this leaves approximately 95 minutes between
the time the first United Airlines flight deviated from flight path and
the time planes were scrambled, which would be a blatant violation of protocol.
-
- The author describes how, on Sept. 14, this official
story changed. Air Force and government officials reneged on their own
testimonies, Ahmed writes, telling CBS that a scramble was launched from
Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod and that planes were headed to
New York by 8:56 a.m.
-
- Ahmed takes this official testimony to task with these
words: "This storyraises more questions than it answersF-16s can travel
at 1500 mph. If it took the F-16s half an hour to cover 150 miles, they
could not have been traveling at more than 300 mph-at 20 percent capacity.
Boeing 767s and 757s have cruising speeds of 530 mph. Talk about a lack
of urgency!"
-
- Ahmed also questions why planes were sent to protect
D.C. from Langley Air Force Base, 129 miles from Washington, when, according
to The San Diego Union-Tribune and the "authoritative" U.S. military
information Web site, demilitary.com, fighters could have been sent from
Andrews Air Force Base, only 15 miles from Washington.
-
- >From this, Ahmed draws the inference that these peculiarities
make the Sept. 13 explanation more believable than the Sept. 14 statement.
However, Ahmed notes, even in the case of the second explanation, there
would still be 24 minutes to account for between the time the first plane
deviated from flight path without contact and the time a scramble was issued.
-
- According to the author, FAA manuals would note this
as a violation of standard operating procedure. Ahmed goes after the White
House with tenacity. He uses a Dick Cheney press conference in which Tim
Russert asks Cheney what the most important decision President Bush had
to make on Sept. 11 was. Cheney responded, "I suppose the toughest
decision was the question of whether or not we would intercept incoming
commercial aircraftWe decided to do it."
-
- Ahmed pins Cheney down in an uncomfortable position here.
Citing FAA regulations, Ahmed notes that hijacked planes are automatically
to be intercepted by scramblers if they deviate from flight path and contact
can't be made.
-
- Thus, Ahmed writes, the decision to intercept aircraft
shouldn't have had anything to do with the White House, nor should it have
been a "decision."
-
- Ahmed concludes that Cheney's statement indicates that
the White House, not the FAA, was in control regarding scrambling on Sept.
11, making the White House responsible for standard operating procedure
failure.
-
- Eerily then, Ahmed pieces together an argument that the
White House took the authority to call the shots on Sept. 11 and then didn't
actually call any until well after the FAA was required to scramble planes.
-
- SenderBerl: We noted the failure to scramble immediately
as well but again the President can escape, saying he left the decision
to intercept commercial airliners to others since he was ill situated to
proceed on the issue. However, there is no escape of the violation of Secret
Service protocol under Card's confirmed by Bush declaration that America
is under attack; his staying seated with second graders after the second
strike on the WTC towers, and remaining there till 9:30AM to give a presidential
statement. Let us see if our contribution is picked up and pursued by Kissinger
or any of the books seemingly coming to forefront now on the issue.
-
- CNN
-
- Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from
plane
-
- September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)
-
- WASHINGTON -- Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator
and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the
plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.
A short time later the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Barbara Olson is
presumed to have died in the crash. Her husband said she called him twice
on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from
Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles.
-
- SenderBerl: Only she, a publicly known figure, called,
and called twice? When you read Operations Northwoods you are going to
think twice about it and when you read the excerpt below and check into
the Internet page we extracted it from, you are going to wonder whether
Bush is going succeed in something which will go down in history as the
great divide whether this country will survive as a nation or not.
-
- Excerpt: Without the "eminent" Barbara Olson
and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof
that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft
that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16
about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important
to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September
11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial "seed" that
started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
-
- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm
-
- This piece is worth reading and touches further on a
perception we had: Ted Olson we thought didn't love his wife from the way
he spoke and reacted to the loss. However, when we now rethink it, he acted
in accord with the hidden reality that his wife did not perish at all.
-
- If we were professionally on this issue, we would track
all of Ted Olson's movements since 9-11 (perhaps they will also find Brenda
Wells).
|
