Daily Kos

Shocking 9/11 Revelations

Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:57:01 AM PDT

[I know this touches on verboten conspiracy theories, but this is a front-page NYT article]

According to today's New York Times, a top secret unit of military intelligence identified four of the 9/11 hijackers as Al-Qaeda members in the summer of 2000.

More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.

In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday.

This is a huge story.  It's mind-boggling, and I can't even begin to describe the implications in a diary.  Before I even try, I am going to skip ahead in the article and then give you a segment of my Mohammed Atta timeline, for your consideration.  Pay special attention to the word 'Brooklyn'.

During the interview in Mr. Weldon's office, the former defense intelligence official showed a floor-sized chart depicting Al Qaeda networks around the world that he said was a larger, more detailed version similar to the one prepared by the Able Danger team in the summer of 2000.

He said the original chart, like the new one, had included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, as well as Mr. Mihdhar and Mr. Hazmi, who were identified as members of what was described as an American-based "Brooklyn" cell, as one of five such Al Qaeda cells around the world.

The official said the link to Brooklyn was meant as a term of art rather than to be interpreted literally, saying that the unit had produced no firm evidence linking the men to the borough of New York City but that a computer analysis seeking to establish patterns in links between the four men had found that "the software put them all together in Brooklyn."

Okay.  This top secret Pentagon unit used 'data mining' to establish the presence of all four hijackers in Brooklyn at the same time.  We know this was sometime during, or before, the summer of 2000.  Now, look at my Mohammed Atta timeline.  Scan down to June 6th, 2000.  This is three days after Mohammed Atta officially arrived in the United States for the first time.

1/17/1999    German intelligence hears the names Mohammed Atta, Ramzi and Said on Zammar's phone.  

6/1/1999    finishes thesis

6/15/1999    Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi, plus would-be hijacker Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and associate Mounir El Motassadeq, hold a meeting in Amsterdam, Netherlands


   
9/1/1999    BJ's Wholesale Club, a store in Hollywood, Florida, later tells the FBI that Atta may have held a BJ's membership card since at least this time.

9/21/1999    German intelligence hears Atta's full name on a phone call from Zammar to Al-shehhi

10/12/1999    Gen. Musharraf takes over Pakistan in a coup

11/27/1999    Atta, Marwan Alshehhi and Ziad Jarrah and associates Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Said Bahaji (all members of the same Hamburg, Germany cell) arrive separately in Afghanistan around this time

11/28/1999   

11/29/1999   

11/30/1999    Jordan uncovers plot to bomb Radisson Hotel in Amman

12/14/1999    Millenium bomber is arrested in Washington State

12/15/1999    late Dec. reports passport missing

1/1/2000    AFP, Beliner Zeitung report Atta is under CIA surveillance this year in Germany

1/2/2000   

1/3/2000    failed attack on the USS Sullivans in Yemen

3/1/2000    emails unidentifed flight school in Lakeland, Fl

3/22/2000    e-mails Airman Flight School in Norman, OK

3/23/2000   

3/24/2000   

3/25/2000   

3/26/2000   

3/27/2000   

3/28/2000   

3/29/2000   

3/30/2000   

3/31/2000   

4/1/2000    reportedly seen frequently at Portland Me. Library this spring

4/2/2000   

4/16/2000   

4/17/2000    FBI Agent Ken Williams' memo on Arizona flight schools

4/18/2000   

4/19/2000   

4/20/2000   

4/21/2000   

4/22/2000   

4/23/2000   

4/24/2000   

4/25/2000   

4/26/2000   

4/27/2000    Late April to mid-May Atta reportedly has a very strange meeting with Johnelle Bryant of the US Department of Agriculture

4/28/2000   

4/29/2000   

4/30/2000   

5/1/2000    issued an Egyptian passport in Hamburg for one he claimed he lost

5/2/2000   

5/3/2000   

5/4/2000   

5/5/2000   

5/6/2000   

5/7/2000   

5/8/2000   

5/9/2000   

5/10/2000   

5/11/2000   

5/12/2000   

5/13/2000   

5/14/2000   

5/15/2000   

5/16/2000   

5/17/2000   

5/18/2000    US Berlin Embassy issues him visa

5/19/2000   

5/20/2000   

5/21/2000   

5/22/2000   

5/23/2000   

5/24/2000   

5/25/2000   

5/26/2000   

5/27/2000   

5/28/2000   

5/29/2000   

5/30/2000    flies to Prague, denied entry, flies back to Germany

5/31/2000   

6/1/2000    Atta goes to Czech consulate and obtains proper visa

6/2/2000    arrives in Prague by bus (allegedly meets with Iraqi spy)

6/3/2000    Atta supposedly arrives in the US for the first time, flying from Prague to Newark on a tourist visa issued May 18 in Berlin

6/4/2000    In June, Atta and other hijackers begin to open bank accounts in Florida. At least 35 accounts are opened, 14 of them at SunTrust Bank. All are opened with fake social security numbers (some with randomly made up numbers), yet none of the accounts are checked or questioned by the banks

6/5/2000   

6/6/2000    moves with Al Shehhi to Brooklyn, his rental car gets parking ticket

6/7/2000   

6/8/2000   

6/9/2000   

6/10/2000   

6/11/2000   

6/12/2000   

6/13/2000   

6/14/2000   

6/15/2000   

6/16/2000   

6/17/2000   

6/18/2000   

6/19/2000   

6/20/2000   

6/21/2000   

6/22/2000   

6/23/2000   

6/24/2000   

6/25/2000   

6/26/2000   

6/27/2000   

6/28/2000   

6/29/2000    begins receiving large money transfers from UAE

6/30/2000   

7/1/2000    moves to Venice and starts flight school at Huffman this month...name registed at 4890 Pompano Road on this day in Nexis.

7/2/2000    leaves NYC area, goes to Norman, OK with al-Shehhi.  Flight School pays for hotel but they did not enrol.

7/3/2000    (9/27/01 St. Pete Times) they moves with Voss on this day.

7/4/2000   

7/5/2000   

7/6/2000    flies at Huffman

7/7/2000    flies at Huffman

7/8/2000    flies at Huffman

7/9/2000   

7/10/2000   

7/11/2000    flies at Huffman

7/12/2000    flies at Huffman

7/13/2000    flies at Huffman

7/14/2000    flies at Huffman

7/15/2000    moved (around this day) into Charles Voss' home at 4890 Pompano Road, Venice, Fl.  

7/16/2000   

7/17/2000    flies at Huffman..registers 1989 Pontiac Grand Prix at Voss address, car is left at Logan Airport

7/18/2000    flies at Huffman...between this day and 9/18/00 receives $109,500 in SunTrust Bank joint account with al Shehhi

7/19/2000    flies at Huffman

7/20/2000    flies at Huffman

7/21/2000    flies at Huffman

7/22/2000    flies at Huffman

7/23/2000   

7/24/2000    flies at Huffman

7/25/2000    DEA in Orlando discovered more than 30 pounds of heroin inside a Learjet owned by Wally Hilliard, owner of Huffman Aviation...flies at Huffman

7/26/2000    flies at Huffman

7/27/2000    flies at Huffman

7/28/2000    flies at Huffman

7/29/2000   

7/30/2000    flies at Huffman

7/31/2000    flies at Huffman

8/1/2000    flies at Huffman

8/2/2000    flies at Huffman

8/3/2000    flies at Huffman

8/4/2000   

8/5/2000   

8/6/2000    flies at Huffman

8/7/2000    flies at Huffman

8/8/2000    flies at Huffman

8/9/2000   

8/10/2000   

8/11/2000   

8/12/2000   

8/13/2000    Boston Globe, 8/4/02   
       
8/14/2000    In a wiretapped conversation from this day, suspected Yemeni terrorist Abdulsalam Ali Abdulrahman tells wanted Egyptian terrorist Es Sayed about a massive strike against the enemies of Islam involving aircraft and the sky, a blow that "will be written about in all the newspapers of the world. This will be one of those strikes that will never be forgotten.... This is a terrifying thing. This is a thing that will spread from south to north, from east to west: The person who came up with this program is a madman from a madhouse, a madman but a genius."   
       
8/15/2000   

8/16/2000   

8/17/2000   

8/18/2000   

8/19/2000   

8/20/2000   

8/21/2000   

8/22/2000   

8/23/2000   

8/24/2000   

8/25/2000   

8/26/2000   

8/27/2000   

8/28/2000   

8/29/2000    Huffman put in for student visa

8/30/2000   

8/31/2000   

9/1/2000   

9/2/2000   

9/3/2000   

9/4/2000   

9/5/2000   

9/6/2000   

9/7/2000   

9/8/2000   

9/9/2000   

9/10/2000   

9/11/2000   

9/12/2000   

9/13/2000   

9/14/2000   

9/15/2000   

9/16/2000   

9/17/2000   

9/18/2000    $69,985 is wired from the UAE into the ATTA-AL-SHEHHI joint account.

9/19/2000   

9/20/2000   

9/21/2000   

9/22/2000   

9/23/2000   

9/24/2000    late September Atta and al-Shehhi enrol in Jones Aviation in Sarasota.

9/25/2000   

9/26/2000   

9/27/2000   

9/28/2000   

9/29/2000   

9/30/2000   

10/1/2000   

10/2/2000   

10/3/2000    early October, takes and fails Stage One exam at Jones Aviation, and returns to Huffman

10/4/2000   

10/5/2000   

10/6/2000   

10/7/2000   

10/8/2000   

10/9/2000   

10/10/2000   

10/11/2000   

10/12/2000    USS Cole bombing

10/13/2000   

10/14/2000   

10/15/2000   

10/16/2000   

10/17/2000   

10/18/2000   

10/19/2000   

10/20/2000   

10/21/2000   

10/22/2000   

10/23/2000   

10/24/2000   

10/25/2000   

10/26/2000   

10/27/2000   

10/28/2000    landed and refueled at Glynco-Manning Aviation Inc., buying 28 gallons of fuel for $ 73 for the Warrior, single-engine plane.  (Southern Ga.)

10/29/2000   

10/30/2000   

10/31/2000   

11/1/2000   

11/2/2000   

11/3/2000    Atta bought 29.5 gallons of fuel at 7:40 p.m. for a little more than $ 77, company owner Frank Manning said. (Southern Ga.)

11/4/2000   

11/5/2000    buys flight deck videos from Ohio
store
11/6/2000   

11/7/2000   

11/8/2000   

11/9/2000   

11/10/2000   

11/11/2000   

11/12/2000      

11/13/2000

11/14/2000

11/15/2000

11/16/2000

11/17/2000

11/18/2000

11/19/2000

11/20/2000

11/21/2000

11/22/2000

11/23/2000

11/24/2000

11/25/2000

11/26/2000

11/27/2000

11/28/2000   

11/29/2000   

11/30/2000   

12/1/2000    receives pilot's license

12/2/2000   

12/3/2000    tourist visa expired (Time Mag)

12/4/2000   

12/5/2000   

12/6/2000   

12/7/2000   

12/8/2000   

12/9/2000   

12/10/2000   

12/11/2000   

12/12/2000   

12/13/2000   

12/14/2000   

12/15/2000   

12/16/2000   

12/17/2000    On Dec. 17, Atta bought 53 gallons of fuel for just under $ 120 and charged it on his Visa card, said Keith Thompson, who works in field base operations at the Waycross airport.

12/18/2000    Looking at the airport's records, Thompson knew Atta was in a Seneca, twin-engine plane made by Piper. He knew the tail number on the plane -- 769HA.

12/19/2000   

12/20/2000   

12/21/2000   

12/22/2000   

12/23/2000   

12/24/2000   

12/25/2000   

12/26/2000    stalls Huffman airplane on Miami Intl runway and abandons it.

12/27/2000   

12/28/2000   

12/29/2000    Atta and Al-Shehhi take flight sim lessons at Sim Center and Pan Am International for 3 days.

12/30/2000    sim lessons

12/31/2000    sim lessons

Now, let's continue with the article. The top secret unit informed the Special Operations Command about four of the hijackers and recommended the FBI be informed of their presence in the United States.

The recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, they said, apparently at least in part because Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas. Under American law, United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies. That protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.

This is grasping at straws.  The law did not apply to mere visa holders.  The bottom line is that there is no good reason for such a request to be rejected.  But it goes further than that.  A lot further.  First of all, the 9/11 Commission was given this information and they covered it up.  In fact, it appears the information was concealed from the full panel.

A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program on an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Mr. Felzenberg said the briefers did not mention Mr. Atta's name.

The report produced by the commission last year does not mention the episode.[snip]

The former intelligence official spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly. He said the team had been established by the Special Operations Command in 1999, under a classified directive issued by Gen. Hugh Shelton, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.

"Ultimately, Able Danger was going to give decision makers options for taking out Al Qaeda targets," the former defense intelligence official said.

He said that he delivered the chart in summer 2000 to the Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and said that it had been based on information from unclassified sources and government records, including those of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said. [snip]

Neither Mr. Shehhi nor Mr. Atta was identified by the American intelligence agencies as a potential threat, the commission report said. Mr. Shehhi arrived in Newark on a flight from Brussels on May 29, 2000, and Mr. Atta arrived in Newark from Prague on June 3 that year.

The former intelligence official said the first Able Danger report identified all four men as members of a "Brooklyn" cell, and was produced within two months after Mr. Atta arrived in the United States. The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed Mr. Zelikow and at least three other members of the Sept. 11 commission staff about Able Danger when they visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003.

The official said he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta as a member of a Qaeda cell in the United States. He said the staff encouraged him to call the commission when he returned to Washington at the end of the year. When he did so, the ex-official said, the calls were not returned.

Mr. Felzenberg, the former Sept. 11 commission spokesman, said on Monday that he had talked with some of the former staff members who participated in the briefing.

"They all say that they were not told anything about a Brooklyn cell," Mr. Felzenberg said. "They were told about the Pentagon operation. They were not told about the Brooklyn cell. They said that if the briefers had mentioned anything that startling, it would have gotten their attention."

As a result of the briefing, he said, the commission staff filed document requests with the Pentagon for information about the program. The Pentagon complied, he said, adding that the staff had not hidden anything from the commissioners.

"The commissioners were certainly told of the document requests and what the findings were," Mr. Felzenberg said.

Someone is lying, and I doubt it is the former military intelligence officer.  So, we have a cover-up.  But even more important than the revelation that our Special Operations Command in TAMPA, was aware of al-Qaeda terrorists (living 45 minutes down the road in Venice) during the time of their flight training, and that they refused to inform the FBI about them, is the realization that they had connected the two San Diego hijackers, to the two WTC pilots.  

That's right.  Think back.  Only two of the hijackers were EVER put on a FBI watch list.  Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were wanted for their connection to the Cole Bombing through a planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur.  Even though one of their names was in the San Diego phonebook, and even though they had lived briefly with an FBI informant, the FBI was unable to find them before 9/11.  

Much was made of the CIA's failure to inform the FBI that these men had arrived at Los Angeles Airport after leaving the meeting in Malaysia.  But, it was asserted, these known al-Qaeda terrorists were never connected to the guys from Hamburg by our intelligence services.

Now, we know they were linked up using open-source data-mining and reported AS A CELL, within two months of Atta and al-Shehhi arriving in the country.

This is unbelieveable.

Tags: Mohammed Atta, Able Danger, 9-11 (all tags)

Display:

Permalink | 435 comments

It's no conspiracy theory (4.00 / 31)

Anyone who doesn't think that 9/11 could have possibly been prevented and that there were not people who knew what was going to happen is a deluded idiot.  The fact that a big attack (which was actually supposed to happen in the summer of 2001) was impending was well known throughout the government and military in 2000 and 2001.  There were people who identified some of the hijackers beforehand, as is well documented, but upper levels of the government refused to pay attention to it.  Bush himself may not have been warned "Hey, this Mohammad Atta guy wants to fly an airplane into the WTC on September 11, 2001" but our government had enough information that they could have either completely prevented it, or at least caught some of the hijackers ahead of time, or even at the very least Bush could have continued to fight against terrorism as Clinton did, as Richard Clarke tried to get Bush to do.

by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:05:19 AM PDT

"I don't think anybody could have predicted (4.00 / 9)

that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

Why the hell does that deluded idiot still have a job?

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:04:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

yep... (4.00 / 3)

In this George W. Bizarro administration, that gets you promoted.

TexasDemocrat
Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

by TexasDemocrat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:23:25 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

BooMan.... (4.00 / 4)

Does 9/11 therefore amount to the PNAC's talk about "a new Perle[sic]Harbor?"

Ummm, just asking here, but what "Faustian bargain" did Bush make in this affair?  Guaranteed re-election?  A chance to "top Pop" in Iraq?  All he had to do was go along and allow the act to come down.  Is this where this idea is going?

Which translates to, the WTC would still be standing and this wouldn't have happened if Gore had been allowed to serve in 2000?

This is Bizarro!

"same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

by boilerman10 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:19:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Faustian bargain? (4.00 / 2)

   "Originally developed by Motorola, Iridium LLC was bankrupt in 1999 when the bin Laden group purchased it and renamed it Iridium Satellite LLC.  The company is centered in Leesburg, VA.  Since the bankruptcy takeover, the company has garnered a $72 million DOD contract..."

   "Apparently, 600 Iridium Satellite phones were on route to Florida on September 11 and were redirected to NYC to help with the tragedy enroute. After September 11, there was some talk of Iridium Satellite LLC`s "low-earth orbiting satellites to provide real-time cockpit voice and flight data monitoring of commercial aircraft, replacing the on- board "black boxes."

http://www.rmfdevelopment.com/political/IridiumSatellite.htm

    "With normal communications methods crippled since the attack on the World Trade Center, a previously under-achieving satellite-based phone system linked with Osama bin Laden's family is, ironically, experiencing a boom in business..."

    "Iridium's ability to bypass cell-phone towers and land-based telephone lines came in handy after terrorists rammed planes into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Cellular phone service in lower Manhattan failed when the towers that transmit signals came crashing down along with the World Trade Center buildings. Land lines proved useless after authorities shut off utilities to the area. In Washington, cell-phone circuits were simply overloaded with panicked residents' calls."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24519

   Soooo, whaddaya think? Call that a bargain, or just getting lucky?

...learn something new every day...

by nhwriter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:04:22 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

bidness is bidness: (none / 0)

buy low, sell high.

we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

by 2nd balcony on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:25:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

bidness is bidness: (none / 0)

buy low, sell high.

we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

by 2nd balcony on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:51:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

What if.... (none / 0)

Bin Laden's plot to attack the US on 9/11 is really about making his family more money?  We know about Iridium and that the Bin Laden's are connected to the Carlyle Group.  Could all of this have really been a ruse by Bin Laden to make more money?  Stanger things have happened.

by Democratic Hawk on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:21:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

YES $$$$$ (none / 0)

They made a ton of money on it. There were options on the stock exchange that no one has collected on because of fear. A friend of mine made 40K the day after betting against the dollar with the Euro. and I am sure many otheres did too. Also the gold bugs took profits,you can bet.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:48:16 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Perle Harbor, brilliant (none / 1)

Where is that guy, anyway? He's been out of the limelight, so probably up to no good starting the war with Iran.

Clark '08

by DrReason on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:16:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Perle is busy with his lawyers (4.00 / 2)

He's no longer chairman of the Defense Policy Board, but still a member, I think.  As a director of Hollinger, Inc., he charged with some sort of fiduciary misfeasance for authorizing the transfer of of shareholder profits for the benefit senior executives.  

From Judicial watch.

On March 28, 2003, Judicial Watch filed a complaint to the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of the Defense Department Inspector General, the Office of the Homeland Security Inspector General, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in the matter of Former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard N. Perle, Former President William Jefferson Clinton, Former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing.

Perle has served as a Director of Hollinger International since June 1994 and is the only outside director on the executive committee. He is also Co-Chairman of Hollinger Digital Inc. and a Director of Jerusalem Post, both of which are subsidiaries of the Company. He has served as a director of GeoBiotics. On August 31, 2004, a special committee of the Board of Directors investigating the alleged misconduct of the controlling shareholders of Hollinger International submitted the 512-page Breeden Report to the SEC. In the report, Perle is singled out as having breached his fiduciary responsibilities as a company director by authorizing several controversial transactions which diverted the company's net profit from the shareholders to the accounts of various executives. Perle received over $3 million in bonuses on top of his salary, bringing the total to $5.4 million, and the investigating committee called for him to return the money. Top Hollinger executives dismissed the report and have filed a defamation lawsuit against the head of the investigating committee, former SEC chairman Richard C. Breeden.

by Eiron on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:20:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You got it Booman. (none / 1)

Now go be the Woodward of your generation. But your life will be on the line. You have only touched on the tip of the iceberg.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:35:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Strangely (4.00 / 3)

The scenario that happened on Sept 11th was mentioned in a spy novel and the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen television series.

Pilot Episode Lone Gunmen

So, at least in the realm of fiction, someone was thinking about it.

by hypnyx on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:21:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

It was also a central plot point (none / 0)

in Tom Clancy's 1994 book Debt of Honor.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:30:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

However, that was different (none / 0)

Japanese airliner, crashed into the Capitol.

But yes, the idea was the same. It's not that it's never been thought of.

The problem is that these morons in control never READ and can't put together a 30 piece jigsaw puzzle without instructions.

by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:40:36 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Right. (none / 0)

If I remember the description (I haven't read the book), it was also a radio-controlled plane, not a plane hijacked with (cough sputter) boxcutter-wielding Islamic fanatics.  But the idea of Condi getting up there and telling us with a straight face, "Lawdy mussy, we uns dint nevuh think that no ones gonna run no aeroplane into no buildin" is ridiculous and inexcusable.  "We dint know nuthin about crashin no aeroplanes!"

(As is my Butterfly McQueen dialect for Condi, I guess, but it's meant as a slap at Condi directly, not as anything else.)

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:49:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

nope, it was a suicide attack. (none / 1)

But it was done by an actual pilot.  

and it was a personal act of revenge rather than a terrorist action.

but yes, he did fly an airplane into the house.

by haagmm on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:02:56 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Not hijacked (none / 1)

The pilot was the one who flew it into the Capitol. Payback for WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, IIRC.

But definitely, for her to say that nobody ever thought of flying planes into buildings was totally ridiculous.

I'll bet Tom Clancy immediately sent her a copy of his book... ;-)

by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:02:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Woops. (none / 0)

Wherever I got the info about "radio-controlled" is wrong.  I have to change the notation in my site.  Thanks for the correction, both of you!  4's all around!  Let the champagne flow!

(I need to step away from the keyboard for a moment.)

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:10:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Family honor, not about WW2 (none / 0)

The payback was specifically for his son who was killed during the brief military conflict between the US and Japan chronicled in the book.  

--- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

by sterno on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:47:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Radio controlled (none / 1)

It is also a possible scenario that since many commercial airliners can be controlled from the ground,that the high jackers found themselves in a position where the controls were not in their control and they were the patsys,as Oswald says he was.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:53:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

THAT is exactly (none / 0)

 my favorite theory about 9/11

"Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion." -David Icke
(-6.25 ,-4.51)

by Dr Seuss on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:12:25 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

And it was also the central plot of a 1996 movie (none / 1)

Executive Decision starring Kurt Russell, then-unknown Halle Berry, and now-barely-known Steven Seagal.

Now only was the 747 intended to crash into Washington, DC, but it was carrying WMDs in the form of biological agents - a bit more ambitious than hitting a single building.

by cappy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:07:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

And it was mentioned as a possibility... (4.00 / 4)

...in Gore's FAA review.

And it was drilled for at NORAD often prior to 9/11.

James Dobson beats puppies.

by HollywoodOz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Colombine (4.00 / 2)

The Colombine shooters also had left behind plans showing a Phase II in which they intended to go from the high school to the airport, hijack a plane, fly to New York and crash the plane into the Empire State Building.  I heard this on television and read it in several places.

They could never have executed the plan (and, in the actual event, decided to shoot themselves instead), but it is telling that even morons of that calliber could imagine the possibility.

Clearly, from all of the references listed, the idea of crashing a plane into a building was widely circulated in the popular culture.

What no one could have truly imagined in September 2001 was the degree to which the Executive Branch of "the world's greatest superpower" was occupied by over-matched, lazy, incompetent, corrupt, infantile half-wits.

by Wide Awake on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:40:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Reading "My Pet Goat" (none / 1)

is hard.  It's hard.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." -Mohandas Gandhi

by Bulldawg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:33:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

No they aren't lazy and dumb at all (none / 1)

They didn't allow it to happen which was what I thought the minute I heard about it on 9-11. That they knew and allowed it.

No it is much worse than that.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:12:28 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I've (none / 0)

never understood the reason no planes went up, despite ample time, was Cheney was conducting war games and the planes were too far away. That in his job description?

by annis77 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:30:05 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Completely agree... (none / 1)

It's the worst crime that's ever been pulled on American soil...BY a sitting president and his administration. They HAD to come up with something that would rally the country to war--the wrong war, eventually, of course, as we now know... It had to be done to set The Plan in motion...how else can you explain all of the research and facts about how the towers fell, the lack of evidence at the Pentagon, etc... Talk about wag the dog....sheesh!

by teachergurrl on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:38:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Forewarning (none / 1)

And Ted (last name?) who worked on miniaturizing the atom bombs wrote in The Curve of Binding Energy exactly where a briefcase sized bomb could be place in the World Trade Center to bring it down! And I am reading this in the mid eighties and thinking why are you telling the world this?

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:41:46 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Tom Clancy (none / 1)

Helped cause 9/11. Terrorists read bestsellers too.

"We will go to the moon, and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". President John F. Kennedy, 1962.

by Ed in Montana on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:24:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I think you should change your sig line (none / 1)

To say Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

Feingold for President

by Goldfish on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:52:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yeah, and what (none / 1)

Chris Carter's done since is an X-File.

It's the Stupidity, Stupid!

by Q Dog on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:42:01 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Al Qaeda already thought about it too (4.00 / 4)

In 1995, al Qaeda planned Operation Bojinka to fly 11 airliners into various buildings all over the world (think 9/11 but much bigger) but it was stopped.  Clinton knew about it, as did other members of our government, which is why they took al Qaeda seriously despite some of the Republicans' best efforts to prevent us from adequately addressing terrorism.  Unfortunately, the Republican party said that Clinton's bombing raid in Afghanistan and attempts to put people on the ground were an attempt to distract people from the fact that he got head from a fat chick.

by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:10:54 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

your comment is confusing (none / 0)

two separate parts of the Bojinka scheme

the 11 airliners were to ahve bombs planted on their first legs that would blow up during flight on their 2nd legs  -- in others words, to be exploded in the air, not crashed into buildings.

There was a separate scheme to take a plane and crash it into CIA headquarters.

If you will take the time to read the details in the wikipedia article to which you linked, you will see why your comment is incorrect.

Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

by teacherken on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:39:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

The Plot to Kill Nixon = Airliner into WH (none / 1)

saw this documentary on TV some time ago - freaky, this was really hushed up.  Some real heroics by the pilots (one died), aircrew (stewadesses) and a policemen (another one died)

"Decades before September 11, Samuel Byck plotted to hijack a jet airliner and crash it into the White House--the first time a commercial plane was intended to be used as a weapon."

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=44250

by fiddly bits on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:57:22 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

The threat was an old one. (4.00 / 2)

Plattsburgh (NY) AFB was closed becuase it was a favorite target of Al Quaida (Syrians at that time) in the late 80's early 90's.  I lived there, and there were many times the base was on lockdown due to potential terror threats to local malls and bars where military frequented.  They even put heavy equipment at the gates to prevent truck bombs from storming through.  The heavy equipment barriers were there from about 1987 to when the base was closed in 1994.

The base intel had good connections with Montreal police and those ties were cut off when the base was closed.

I have said it from day one.  NO ONE FARTS WITHOUT INTELLIGIENCE KNOWING ABOUT IT.  Not only CIA, or FBI, but all the branches of military have their own intel, plus you have Secret Service, who keeps an eye on the money, Customs and Border Patrol accumulating relationships, information, the sheer amount of info accumulated is mind-boggling.  

by lilorphant on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:26:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Right you are and it appears (none / 1)

Atta not only farted and was ignored (although watched, which is really the kernal of the diary above), but that he basically ran around the country farting.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:32:47 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Why the hell does that deluded idiot... (4.00 / 7)

...still have a job?

Because millions of delude idiots voted for him!

I blame the American people almost as much as I blame Bush & Co. He didn't get the job by osmosis. He got it because too many Americans are easily maniputlated and seem to celebrate ignorance (I blame the media for facilitating and exploiting that). And election tampering cannot be blamed entirely, because if it wasn't close, the tampering couldn't have put him over the top.

Even today, look at all the Americans that support this jerk (nearly half), even after all we know now. It's shameful and depressing.

For Immediate Relief...
 The George Bush Voodoo Doll©

by KingOneEye on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:34:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

What about the press? (4.00 / 6)

I don't want to let the Bush voters completely off the hook, but where the hell was the muckraking press post 9-11, or during the whole 2000 election for that matter.  I know corporate control and bias toward the wealthy and white is often mentioned, but I think their biggest problem is that they only operate in NARRATIVES.  They don't seek out all the facts and try to find out what really happened, they create a popular narrative "White Bride-to-Be, Abuducted by Mad Minority" and stay with it at all costs.  The snark below has succumbed to this as well- Bush couldn't possibly have allowed the attacks because it doesn't fit the narrative.  If journalists were more concerned with the facts (the how) rather than constructing narratives through the motive (the why), we'd all be better off.  Or if they were at least concerned with breaking stories rather than coddling their adminstration sources.  From the moment NORAD released their first timetable of the day, then changed it, we knew something didn't fit.  The facts didn't fit the narrative, so they must be ignored.

Wojo

by jasonwhat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:34:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Some of them tried (none / 0)

Time Magazine ran a really good article that set my research on 9/11 into motion.  It was something to the effect of "Could 9/11 have been prevented?" and while they came to the conclusion that it could not have been, it was a good starting point for information on the topic.

by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:24:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Absolutely it could have been (none / 1)

We had warning from our own intelligence,from the intelligence of Germany,France and Israel for starters on it even down to the date. Which was symbolic.

We had exercises scheduled for that day on just such an occurence. And our code was broken and we knew it. Shades of Pearl and the Japanese broken code.

The Lus8itania was a sitting duck with passengers on it for the Germans so we could get in WWI. The Maine was blown up in Havana so we could go to war with Spain over their colonies in the Americas.

And Lincoln was guarded by a flat footed drunkard,who was the most incompetent of all his guards, on the night shift when he was most vulnerable because he went to the theatre a lot.

And no one has any illusions about JFK and RFK anymore,do they?

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:00:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Chomsky on the media (none / 1)

Read his book on the subject and you will know why. A very readable expert analysis.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:45:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Where Are the Democratic Leaders (none / 0)

as well, since we're talking about responsibility.

I mean really!

Look at this new revelation, for instance.

A REPUBLICAN aired the issue, for chrissakes.

I want our leaders to LEAD.

I want our reporters to REPORT.

I want our representatives to REPRESENT.

Start telling the truth.

by Patricia Taylor on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:56:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Airplanes into buildings? (none / 0)

I guess she never saw Arnold's movie where they did just that.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:15:05 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You know (4.00 / 20)

your argument would hold a lot more water if you had any evidence that the Bush administration exploited the attacks for political and financial gain...

"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly there is no possible way we can remain free" - Frank Burns

by Central Scrutinizer on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:34:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

best snark ever

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:37:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

heh heh (none / 1)

and there's the teeny fact that the results of the Florida Ballot Project, sponsored and run by a consortium of the country's leading newspapers, was due to publish the results of their recount of 175,000 uncounted Florida ballots in September 2001.  As one would imagine, 9/11 completely "waylaid" the analysis of the results, and delayed the release of any media reporting on the project's findings.  

When the results were finally released in November 2001, the results were treated very gingerly by the very papers involved in the consortium. e.g.

The yearlong review of the Florida election reveals that even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a recount of ballots, there is no clear indication that Democrat Al Gore would have gained enough votes to triumph over Republican George W. Bush.

A close examination of the ballots also suggests that more Floridians attempted to choose Gore over Bush. But more Gore supporters improperly marked their ballots, leaving Bush with more valid votes.

And here's the NYT noting that a close examination of broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in court decisions shows Gore might have won if courts ordered full statewide recount of all rejected ballots, and if he pursued in court action he publicly advocated of calling on state to count all votes.) (from the archive abstract)  

Imagine the headlines that might have been if 9/11 hadn't happened.  Turd Blossom would not have been pleased. . .  

Oh and before anyone tries to BAN me - I'm not screamin' "conspiracy!".  Just contributing some facts to the record, maybe needlessly so as I bet this was all amply blogged back in 11/01.

 

Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

by writeout on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:32:39 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

A snark with surgical precision... (none / 0)

Worthy of a four.

And also your handle, Zappa references are always appreciated. The white zone is for loading and unloading only...

Misled Into War: A Timeline/DowningStreetMemo.com

by highacidity on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:10:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Books about this (none / 1)

The War On Freedom details the entire operation minute by minute. They knew just like Roosevelt knew.

You're Not Stupid takes it into even more nitty gritty detail. That book says they not only knew they orchestrated it. and then goes on to say how.

When Payne Stewart's plane lost contact with radio the intercept was there in 18 minutes.

90 minutes for the first intercept on 9-11? I have heard that Rummy got auto control over NORAD for intercepts in the spring of 2001. Someone very high up diliberately delayed the response. In Fahrenheit 9-11 isn't Cheney saying that the president needed to give the order to shoot the planes down? No. It is auto for NORAD to do this if they don't follow the commands of the intercept.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:22:47 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

This is news, 3 words (4.00 / 2)

the military knew

Looks like the CIA/FBI are fighting back on multi-fronts.

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:38:56 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Also the military (none / 0)

they're pissed off too. Bush has destroyed them, and they'll stay destroyed for years.

by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:42:32 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The strange thing is (none / 1)

My contacts in the military say the officer corps is still 90-95% behind Bush and that his administration has done more for the military and its morale than any recent president. I find this MINDBOGGLING but that's what they're telling me.

Family values are for everyone

by LynnS on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:05:23 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

they are the military and he is the commander-in-chief.  For there to be less than 90% official support would be tantamount to a coup.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

by georg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:02:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

We are ripe FOR A COUP... (4.00 / 5)

if revelations like this keep coming.

As far as I am concerned, I've always figured that they let 9/11 happen so that they could expand and continue their game plan.  

Which shows how expendable human life is to these people.  Nearly 3,000 people die in the towers, while thousands of Iraqis and Afghans die in the wars of revenge and payback, and our men and women die for lies.

I am going to say again: we are ripe for a coup.  Some people are taking a dimmer and dimmer view of these proceedings, because in comparison to that wanker Tony Blair rounding up some suspects, we haven't gotten any of these guys--bin Laden, Zawahiri--yet.  In fact, we let them escape.

And what does this all add up to?

An untypical Negro...since 1954.

by blksista on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:14:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bin Laden (none / 1)

is the very convenient scapegoat. They don't want to catch him i8f he 8is alive that is. In July 01 he was in the American hospital in Dubai and visited by many people includeing the ranking CIA man there. So we knew where he was and he was wanted at that time.;

Bernard Henri-Levy in Who Killed Daniel Pearl has evidence he was in the religious fortress in Karachi(a number of times) after 9-11 which was known by the Pakistani Security forces.

As to the coup,Gore Vidal wrote that there was a silent military coup in this country with the assination of JFK. Now who wants to take them on? Understand that the military is in control and they give the orders. Now do you get that utterly confused face on Dubya in Fahrenheit 9-11. He is scared shitless. Because now he knows what lengths they will go to.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:32:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

deep throat politics (none / 0)

Not to mention that Tora Bora was a stand down. Wave bye-bye boys, we're gonna let the Pakis airlift the motherfuckers out.

As to the other coup, some say that's the real Watergate story.  Nixon and Kissinger consolidated the NSC and cut the military out during the Vietnam war. The Joint Chief of Staff got busted spying on the administration. Making nice with China and troop withdrawl from Vietnam during the cold war didn't sit well with the military brass or the commie fevered at the CIA.

As for Kennedy, BushCo. didn't learn all of the lessons about what happens when you fuck with the CIA. And, if Bush's pet goat face is fear, it's fear of getting caught.  He already knows what lengths they'll go to - just look at who raised him.

by debraz on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:42:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm not talking about official support (none / 0)

I'm talking about political support--the average officer's private views on the matter.

Family values are for everyone

by LynnS on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:38:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Why did it take (none / 0)

so long for us to find this out?  Damn the 9-11 commission.

by Farlfoto on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:55:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

9/11 report was a WHITEWASH (none / 1)

It studiously avoided answering the question,
Could the 9/11 attacks been prevented?

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:00:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The 0/11 commission report was a whitewash (none / 1)

that would have made Tom Saywer proud.  The commission started from the premise that the official story was true, and then set about the business of exonerating everyone involved, ignoring rampant evidence of gross incompetence at the very least.  The other possibilities are even more chilling.  Read David Ray Griffin's books with an open mind.

by Vagabond57 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:17:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bob Kerrey says (4.00 / 3)

that the 9/11 Commission could not come out and accuse Bush/Cheney of lying.

One big lie that the commission did prove was Cheney saying he notified Bush before giving the order to shoot down a civilian airplane. There is no record of such a call. According to the phone records, Cheney, who had no constitutional authority to give such an order, called Bush after he gave the order.

The commission set out to prove that 9/11 could not have been prevented. We know now that is not true.

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

On shooting it down (none / 1)

The intercept for a plane losing radio contact was automatic. I have posted here elsewhere about this. On 9-11 it did not require either Cheney or the president to give any orders. Any plane was to be shot by the intercept if it failed to obey orders.

90 fucking minutes for an intercept that day!  18 for Payne Stewart's plane.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:05:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bushes Lies to the Commission (none / 0)

I have posted about this above or below.

No they couldn't accuse him without bringing the government down.

Read Harper's Nov 04 issue on an analysis of the commission report. Not so different from the Warren report about JFK.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:25:44 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Vanity Fair, Harpers, New York Review of Bks (none / 0)

they all called the report a whitewash and gave very
convincing reasons for it.

Warren Report: President Johnson said to Warren after he read the report, "You are not your father's son." It was something that Johnson regretted in his late years. It was another seriously flawed report.

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:38:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

There's a typo in your subject (none / 0)

where you wrote "0/11", I think you meant to write "Warren".  

Oh, I guess it works if you insert "9/11" as well.

by sharkbite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bush Made No Effort to Prevent 9/11 (4.00 / 2)

Glad to see someone addressing this topic & not being accused of "tin-foil" thinking.

Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11 from happening.

Read the truth.

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."--Plato

by Ranting Roland on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:39:35 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Me too (none / 1)

I got kicked off in December for tryibng to discuss it. I usually am too soon with things. This is common knowledge in a lot of places but I think kos was afraid. Now it's too big. Now if he can just take it and run with it we will have those bastards down.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:08:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

The only commisioning being done (none / 0)

by government groups like the 9/11 Commission and Warren Commission is the commission of a crime.

I mean really.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

by Charleslives on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:05:54 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

November 04 issue of Harper's (none / 1)

on the Commission report. Just before the election too. A great analysis of it. When he gets to the part where they are interviewing Bush in the Oval Office and he lies,and they know he is lying because they have already had testimony from others that prove he is lying,they don't know what to do at that point. They are faced with whitewashing it or bringing the whole government down and they are in a state of terror about it. A footnote separated by some forty pages more or less addresses it slightly because they have to explain the discrepancy of the different testimonies.

This is a brave article. Is he still alive?

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:22:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Is it this? (none / 0)

Whitewash as Public Service

From Europe? Join the fun at the European Tribune!

by hesk on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:33:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Here's where Bush lied to the Commission (none / 0)

THE NOBODY TOLD ME SCAM
From the article:

There's little mystery about why the Commission is tongue-tied. It can't call a liar a liar.

The most momentous subject before the 9/11 Commission was: What did President Bush know about the Al Qaeda threat to the United States, when did he know it, and if he knew little, why so? The Commission reports that on several occasions in the spring and summer of 2001 the President had "asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States." The Commission further reports the President saying that "if his advisers had told him there was a [terrorist] cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it." Facing his questioners in April 2004, the President said he had not been informed that terrorists were in this country.

by leveymg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:26:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

US Generals Warned Not to Fly (4.00 / 8)

According to a Newsweek report on September 13, "[t]he state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/01]  Far from becoming a hot topic, the only additional media mention of this story is in the next issue of Newsweek: "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/17/01]

Read the whole source timeline.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:11:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Don't fly (none / 0)

Willie Brown of San Francisco was told to cancel his ticket for that morning. He did.

And what about the fact that all planes were no more than 75% full. A lot of people were warned,I think.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:17:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I could have told you that already (none / 1)

A friend of mine who was in the Navy in 2000 was told that he should reenlist because he would get to see some action after the impending terrorist attack of 2001.  I'm really suprised that this type of thing hasn't been reported widely, but if regular NCOs were getting told about this, I'd say it was pretty well known.

by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:50:50 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

WTC 7 (4.00 / 5)

I used to dismiss the idea of any dirty dealings
wrt to 9/11.

Certainly facts like these worked to change my mind, but the lynch pin for me was WTC 7. WTC 7 is the third building that came down in the late afternoon of 9/11. No one knows exactly why it came down. To me it looks like an implosion.

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.

Here are some other implosions for reference:

http ://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

I wrote a diary about this a few months ago:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/162145/172

etrans.blogspot.com

Tracking energy and transportation news.

by joel3000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:41:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (none / 0)

I know this breaches the "forbidden conspiracy theory" ban, but fuck that.

I don't really have a professional understanding of the issues involved, but a siginficant portion of the incident really confuses me.

First off: i am positively convinced (though the reason why is very drawn out) that the actual hijacking and crashing of the planes was done by religious extremists set on terrorism through suicidal tactics. But things gets pretty fuzzy after that. (IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:25:44 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

"Significant", of course... (none / 0)

Way to mis-spell a word you intentionally emphasized, Shapeshifter...

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:28:17 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Easy There! (none / 0)

I'm quoting you here:

(IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)

Surely, you don't mean to say what you did.  (Or is it possible I misunderstood your intent?)  The WTC towers were built to withstand collapse if certain parts failed, say a beam here or there, due to their egg-crate-like construction.  No building is built to withstand the impact AND explosion of tons of hurtling incendiary bomb.  The WTC towers were also built to withstand wind load hitting them from the side -- that's why they, and other skyscrapers sway in the wind.  They're built to bend, rather than break.

The wonder is that the towers stood as long as they did in the face of the intense heat produced by the fires.

To aid in informing yourself and avoiding unnecessary reliance on conspiracy theories regarding their collapse, visit the PBS Nova site "Why the Towers Fell".

The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse.

And for joel3000 who implies a conspiracy for the implosion of Bldg. 7, I'm quoting your here:

Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.

I suggest you take note of the following from that program:
Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

Be careful in leaping to conclusions and then to conspiracy theories.  You often land in a "claptrap."

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:10:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Heard it before... (none / 0)

There are some substantial, but complex, objections. I was writing them up, but the post became so intricate and long that i just scrapped it. I don't expect else anyone to treat that seriously, but i do not feel this is a compelling explanation.

However, the person at your link (though, i think, somewhat specious in reasoning) proposes the one explanation that i think is most reasonable: the WTC simply was not capable of withstanding a fire its own sprinklers could not put out. This person hides that assertion behind a bunch of random things but that's what i'm reading.

Secondly, the WTC towers were designed to withstand precisely the event: an aircraft crashing into them and any subsequent fires. The specific scenario was a plane lost in a fog and looking to land, but there is no reason an intentional collision would be different. Another note: there was no explosion anywhere (that i'm aware of), the fireball seen on impact is precisely that. A rapid burn developing the characteristic "fireball" shape, not an explosion.

Other points: WTC7 was not struck by an airplane. And the question, barring foolish claims along the lines of "If an airliner had really struck a skyscraper it would have knocked it over right there!", is not "topple" versus "implode" but rather "collapse" versus "implode". I don't, however, give a damn about how the main WTC towers fell apart but only why. (WTC7 is a little different because it's more of a known quantity.)

Finally, before assuming i'm spouting this conspiracy theory or that: please understand that i am not proposing any particular theory for what happened. Rather, as i stated above, i have questions and want answers.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 02:18:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Something key to remember with the tower collapses (none / 0)

Is that the official concludes that the towers would have held had the fireproofing not been dislodged:


he NIST report concludes that a combination of factors caused both buildings to collapse shortly after terrorists flew hijacked commercial airliners into them on 11 September 2001. Computer simulations have been used to help piece together the chain of events that unfolded between impact and the collapse of each structure.

The report says the initial collisions severely damaged several of the columns at the core of each building. Critically, they are also thought to have dislodged fireproofing on both the columns and the floors - the floors linked the inner columns to the supports on the outer structure.

 "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts," says Sunder, who led the NIST investigation. "This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and [became] buckled."

"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse.

It's also worth noting that the conclusion that the fireproofing was dislodged was due primarily to computer simulations because they mysteriously hauled off all the steel from ground zero and had it melted down in China:


Fire Engineering Magazine, January 2002

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION

BY BILL MANNING

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
...

So yeah, this info is crucial when discussing the towers' collapses.  

by glooperoo on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 03:42:49 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Easy There! (none / 0)

I'm quoting you here:

(IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)

Surely, you don't mean to say what you did.  (Or is it possible I misunderstood your intent?)  The WTC towers were built to withstand collapse if certain parts failed, say a beam here or there, due to their egg-crate-like construction.  No building is built to withstand the impact AND explosion of tons of hurtling incendiary bomb.  The WTC towers were also built to withstand wind load hitting them from the side -- that's why they, and other skyscrapers sway in the wind.  They're built to bend, rather than break.

The wonder is that the towers stood as long as they did in the face of the intense heat produced by the fires.

To aid in informing yourself and avoiding unnecessary reliance on conspiracy theories regarding their collapse, visit the credible site of PBS Nova program, "Why the Towers Fell."

The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse.

And for joel3000 who implies a conspiracy for the implosion of Bldg. 7, I'm quoting your here:

Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.

I suggest you take note of the following from that program:
Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

Be careful in leaping to conclusions and then to conspiracy theories.  You often land in a "claptrap."

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:14:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

been here (none / 0)

We've had this thrash before. I'm going to skip it.

etrans.blogspot.com

Tracking energy and transportation news.

by joel3000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:38:06 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

WT