The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush
By Cheryl Seal
Also published - 02 June 2002
The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense
At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge
intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and
their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie – that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen...they
could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams...they had no specific warnings...there was nothing unusual about
the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany
is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense".
To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take
a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at
the well-documented facts:
First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had
sunk to just 49% – this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and
impeachment may soon loom on the horizon.
Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always
chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most
Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime
in pursuit of power.
Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil
terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of
the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up.
So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from
Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush
would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen.
Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon
national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with
other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through
John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to
keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an
opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power
will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months.
Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world,
this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat
is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay,
the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush
were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to
make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's
who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?
Therefore, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell, who knows that someone
has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a preemptive strike while he still
has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus, we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on
Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right –both
interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1
million. In fact, on the same program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the
air on his new "It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest
press. Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask you so
you can spin them in just the way you want.
Russert asked Cheney how he responded to charges that the information existed in several reports which showed that a
WTC-type attack was a possibility. Cheney responded –incredibly!– that reading all those reports weren't his concern.
There's just too darn many of them. Russert let this ridiculous response go totally unchallenged and unqualified.
Here are the questions that are missing –the questions a real journalist would have asked: "So then, Mr. Cheney, just
what are your criteria for a report that is important enough for you to read? How do you prioritize what you read or
what those under you are directed to call to your attention? What reports on this matter DID you read?"
It is insulting to America's intelligence that such questions are not being asked. It's like a grand jury that refuses
to ask a murder suspect questions like "Where were you on the night of such and such? What was your relationship to the
victim?" but instead says, "Well, here's what we heard from the police that someone thinks you may have killed someone.
Go ahead and explain yourself. Don't worry –we won't interrupt you or ask you any uncomfortable questions. And, by the
way, your good pal who lives down the block volunteered to serve as jury foreman!"
Here's one last FACT to consider. The GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately merit-less case against Clinton that
involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals. Since Bush took office, not one dime has been spent
by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings, Bush's stolen election, Tom Delay's boiler room scams
that have bilked doctors out of millions, the mysterious wild trading of American and United Airlines stock the week
before 9/11 or any of the other crimes that were far more serious than Clinton's offenses. Meanwhile, the GOP –so eager
to spend millions to investigate an office romance– has worked overtime to block the initiation of any serious
investigation into the biggest crime to have ever been perpetrated on American soil that claimed nearly 3,000 lives.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!
"Vague Warning" or Blueprint for Disaster?
The story Bush wants the world to buy is that the warnings he received were vague, routine, too general to act upon.
Condi Rice wants us to believe that no one in the administration could have dreamed the hijackers would fly into a
landmark building. But, as they say in show biz, this is "lies, lies, and damn lies."
Since 1993, scores of people, collectively, in the White House, Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and CIA have know that
an attack like 9/11 was not only a possibility –but an increasingly likely probability. Because I am not writing a book
here, I will confine myself to summarizing the most obvious pieces of evidence that Bush and his team had to work with.
However, they are enough to convict him in any court of opinion.
Terrorism 2000 Report
Don't confuse this 1993 study with the report turned out by the Bush administration in April 2001 under the same title.
The 2001 release, a summary of terrorist activity in 2000, lifted the title of the original document, no doubt as a
smokescreen to confuse anyone who might be seeking the 1993 document through a search engine or library archives.
In 1993, the Pentagon commissioned, via the Department of Defense's office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict, a think tank-style study of the ways terrorists could execute large-scale acts of terrorism on the US.
Participants in the $150,000 study consisted of a panel of 41 intelligence/security experts that included former ranking
CIA, FBI, State Department and Rand Corporation officials, as well as an ex-KGB general and Israeli intelligence agent.
One of the problems the team brainstormed over was the various ways an airplane could be used to destroy national
landmarks –in fact, the WTC was most certainly on the panel's list of possible targets. One conclusion reached by the
team as a future trend in terrorist activity was that extremists would seek to maximize their impact by escalating their
attacks from one-at-a-time truck bomb/suicide bomber events to multiple, simultaneous targeting, thereby touting their
power and stretching the victim governments' ability to respond.
The possible terrorist scenarios the team outlined scared the socks off folks in the government. One high-level official
described it as "too outrageous." As a result, the team's report, Terrorism 2000 (a reference to terrorism in the new
millennia) was blocked from public release. Even a toned down version that had been proposed as a way to raise public
awareness and improve national preparedness was killed! A draft of the report was nonetheless passed on through the
Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is absolutely no doubt that this
information was available to everyone in the Bush Administration, including Ms. Rice. It should have been required
reading –especially since many of the predictions made by the report had already come true before 9/11.
Four instances of planes used as weapons before 2001
1994: A Federal Express Flight engineer was apprehended as he tried to storm the cockpit of a DC-10. The engineer,
despondent over his impending firing, had planned to crash the plane into a Fed Ex building in Memphis.
1994: A pilot stole a Cessna and tried to crash it into the White House. He instead hit a tree on the White House
grounds, not far from Clinton's bedroom.
1995: An Islamic fundamentalist group hijacked an Air France flight and loaded the plane with 27 tons of fuel in
Marseilles as a way to turn it into an incendiary bomb when they crashed it into the Eiffel tower. This plan was
thwarted when Special Forces stormed the craft before it could leave Marseilles.
1995: Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to planting timed explosive devices on eleven US airline flights in an attempt to
create a "multiple attack" event (as outlined in the "too outrageous" Terrorism 2000 report). The same terrorist group
also planned to crash on airplane into CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and another into the Pentagon (but Condi
didn't dream anyone would ever try such a thing in 2001?). This scheme was not a wild and fevered plot. It was in the
advanced planning stages –to the point where specific flights had already been selected. Murad himself was going to be
the suicide pilot who hit the CIA headquarters. Where did he get his pilot training? In a US flight school.
The specifics of the "vague warning"
The most glaring lie Bush is using in his current spin is his claim that the warnings he received were too vague to act
upon. However, the facts all by themselves scream "liar!"
From April, 2001 right up to the day the WTC and Pentagon were slammed, urgent warnings of impending large-scale attacks
by terrorists had been issued to the Bush administration from multiple sources. Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel all
delivered alerts that accurately foretold the scale of the attack and that it would involve a prominent landmark of some
type. This would automatically put the WTC and Pentagon on the short list, especially as both landmarks had been
targeted before (as mentioned above, the Pentagon attack was averted).
The German intelligence agency BND warned the US and Israel both in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning
to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." This is
hardly vague, and hardly refers to an "overseas danger" to Americans (which of our prominent landmarks is in Europe or
Asia, pray tell?).
On June 13, Egypt sent an urgent warning that a plane stuffed with explosives could be used as a weapon against George
Bush. It was assumed, incorrectly at that time that the target could be the G-8 summit in Genoa, held in June 2001.
Vladimir Putin was so certain of the information he received in the summer of 2001 of an impending attack that he
personally instructed Russian intelligence to tell Bush "in the strongest possible terms" (his own words on September.
15, 2001) of an impending attack involving airports and government. The Russians told the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots
had been specially trained to execute suicide missions. It was around the same time that the FBI was receiving tips
about suspicious Arabic men in US flight schools.
In August, 2001, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad warned the CIA and FBI that as many as 200 al Qaeda members were
infiltrating the US and planning "a major assault on the US" against "a large-scale target" in a setting where Americans
would be "very vulnerable."
The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001
Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more
specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National
Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken
because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother
two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for
a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush
administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning.
The CIA knew of suspicious airline stock trades by September 7
Last but not least, the CIA knew a week before the attack WHICH airlines were most likely to be hijacked. The Agency
maintains an advanced program called Promis, which monitors unusual stock market activity, SPECIFICALLY as a way to
anticipate potential terrorist attacks. Promis provides 24-hour continuous real-time data on stock market activity and
the FBI and Justice Department have both admitted that Promis was up and running all through the summer and fall of
2001. So there is no doubt whatsoever that as early as September. 7, the CIA knew that something was going down and knew
which airlines were being targeted. Even a third-grader could have put this information together with the long litany of
warnings above from foreign sources and come up with the conclusion that an American or United Airlines craft was going
to be hijacked in the near future and most likely used to crash into a landmark, quite possibly the World Trade Center.
More smoking facts
According to the official government web site of the Military District of Washington the Pentagon ITSELF planned in
detail how it would respond to just such a scenario from October 24-26 2000. And this was no low-level exercise, since
it took place in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. This story was run in Unknown News and picked
up the same day by Democrats.com which fortunately, kept a copy because within 24 hours, the story –along with the
entire Military District website– was scrubbed by the White House!
The model used in this simulation and the response plan was developed by Don Abbott, who is the founder of FieldSoft, a
company that makes emergency-response software programs and systems, including FdonScene. This program, according to the
FieldSoft site, "is the first –and only– fire service, software application specifically designed for incident
commanders and their staff in-the-field. The commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) product is designed to support in
field operations for any type of emergency response. Basically, FDonScene is an automated COTS tool that actively
facilitates control and coordination of people, procedures, events, and other resources with the touch of a finger.The
application is specifically designed for fast, simple and easy use by the incident commander, as well as members of the
Bush was without doubt very familiar with FdonScene because it was first endorsed by the Texas Fire Chiefs Association
while he was governor (1998). And, as the FieldSoft brochure mentions, "FieldSoft has engineered software necessary to
integrate FDonScene with a consequence management system under development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA)." So this is definitely a program well known to and used by the military.
Now, in light of this, consider this fact: By a "miracle" of coincidence, the FdonScene program had been set up and made
ready to go for use by the emergency response teams at the WTC disaster just a few days before the disaster, as if in
anticipation. The brochure boasts: "Over 700 victims passed through the Atlantic Highlands Ferry Port in New Jersey
following the September 11, 2001 WTC attack. Two fire departments, three local police departments, as well as
representatives from county, state, and federal agencies were on hand to assess and assist the victims as they embarked.
Emergency units on the scene included 40 ambulances, an FD communications unit, a decontamination unit, and 10 pieces of
fire apparatus. A communications unit member on scene at the Port, who had seen a ninety minute demonstration of the
software a few days earlier, brought a trial copy of FDonScene on line and used it to track people, resources, and
events. A second person watched how the software was being used, and took over operation of it a few hours later.
Overall, the software was operated successfully for 14 hours." Nowhere can any reference to WHO the "unit member" was,
or who the "second person" was.
In another FieldSoft "success story" for a different product, the same ominous vagueness is found: "The Organization of
American States (OAS) planned a major meeting in a North American city. Intelligence gathering operations revealed that
anarchists planned to disrupt the meeting. The local police service evaluated a number of software systems that could be
used to help manage law enforcement activities from the joint operations center (JOC). PDonScene was elected 3 weeks
prior to the opening ceremonies." The software was configured and in place at the JOC as delegates commenced OAS
activities. PDonScene was used throughout the 4 day event to manage hundreds of local, provincial, and federal law
enforcement officers. The software helped law enforcement managers successfully manage peaceful labor –and not so
peaceful anarchist– demonstrations by thousands of people, at several different venues throughout the community. "We
[the agency] purchased the software because operation of it looked simple," stated a JOC Staff Sergeant. That Sergeant
went on to say that "we found it [PDonScene] exceptional in that it showed the situation in real time with both
[officer] names and call signs".
July: Shortly after the Bay of Pigs crisis, the Kennedy administration allowed the FAA to pass a rule that permitted
commercial airline pilots to be armed. The rule was passed to protect flights from possible hijacking by Cubans.
Although no airline ever availed themselves of this right, it seems very strange that the rule was rescinded in July
2001, right at the HEIGHT of the most serious terrorist warnings to be issued by intelligence sources in decades. It
seems, instead, that this should have been the time for the Bush administration to insist that pilots be armed! Just
like the timing of everything that happened in the second half of 2001, we sniff something a lot more foul than politics
Mid-August: A flight school in Minnesota flight reported Zacharias Missouri to the local FBI office after Missouri
requested training in how to fly a jet, but not in how to land or take off. Although Moussaoui was arrested, agents did
not search his computer and thus missed vital clues.
Early September: (from a letter from a reader): I was listening to "The Connection" on PBS this morning. The subject was
terrorism (of course). During the show, a man called in who said his wife was a VP at an all-girls college. Just before
9/11, a Saudi prince called up and said to cancel his daughter's registration for the fall and send him a refund. On
9/11, at 9:30, Saudi security was there to pick up 3 princesses from the school. The man said his wife called the FBI,
but they didn't pay any heed to her. Hopefully, you will hear that from this link.
This incident most certainly was reported to the FBI after September 11 and most clearly indicated there could be a
Saudi connection. Yet the Bush administration has refused to pursue an active investigation of Saudi ties to September
11 and instead focused entirely on Afghanistan –though NONE of those responsible for September 11 came from Afghanistan,
and, as it turns out, none trained there, they all trained in Europe or the US. However, there was nothing in it for
Bush to bomb Saudi Arabia –we already get their oil!
Bin Laden's hunter O'Neill was killed at WTC: Was he also a casualty of the Bush administration?
Until he resigned, in August of 2001, John O'Neill was the director of antiterrorism for the FBI's New York office.
O'Neill had worked on the investigations of the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the attacks on the American embassies in
Africa in 1998. He became one of the world's top experts on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. O'Neill believed that "All the
answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia." Yet the Bush
administration blocked O'Neill's efforts to investigate the Saudi ties to bin Laden. The main obstacles to investigating
Islamic terrorism, asserted O'Neill, were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.
For example, Bush blocked an FBI investigation of the bin Laden family and kept his family's business ties to the bin
Ladens as secret as possible. Among these business dealings were bin Laden investments in the Carlyle Group and
connections between bin Laden and George W. Bush's first oil companies. It must have truly enraged O'Neill if he knew
that Osama bin Laden had flown to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by
local CIA agent Larry Mitchell on July 12.
O'Neill was very well aware of the warnings that came out in the summer of 2001. But it was obvious that he was
considered more of a liability than an asset to the oil-obsessed Bush administration. Back in 2000, O'Neill had been
investigating the bombing of the SS Cole, for which he was sure bin Laden was responsible. However, the US ambassador to
Yemen, one Barbara Bodine, hamstrung FBI efforts at every turn, publicly calling O'Neill a liar, refusing to allow his
men to be armed with more than small handguns and, in general, crippling the investigation. Although Bodine claims she
was trying to keep diplomatic relations running smoothly, her history shows otherwise:
Barbara Bodine has served primarily under rightwing old boys and in areas where their oil interests are being served.
Under Reagan she served as Deputy Principle Officer in Baghdad, Iraq. Under Bush, Sr., she served as Deputy Chief of
Mission in Kuwait and was there during the Gulf War. She has also worked for Bob Dole, and far more ominously, for Henry
Kissinger. Now, under Bush, Jr., she is in Yemen impeding an FBI investigation that focused on the son of a Bush family
What makes Bodine's actions toward O'Neill particularly despicable is that she was said to be in part to blame for the
Cole disaster. Even though she had been warned that the risk of attacks on Americans in the Yemen area were extremely
high at that time, the Cole entered port under the lowest grade of security permitted in the Middle East with no warning
to the destroyer. A top military analyst for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency quit in protest the day after
the bombing because of Bodine and General Anthony Zinn's decision to allow the Cole to come into the port.
In July, Bodine had O'Neill and the FBI barred from Yemen. About that time, O'Neill's name had been proposed by Richard
Clarke as Clarke's successor as terrorism czar at the National Security Council. But a very mysterious incident that had
happened nearly a year before was dredged up and used to blow that possibility out of the water. In November of 2000, at
a retirement seminar in Tampa, O'Neill left his briefcase for a few moments in the convention room to go around the
corner to use the phone. When he returned in a few minutes, the brief case, containing some papers considered
classified, was gone. It soon turned up, but the incident was seized upon as an excuse to guarantee O'Neill would not
get promoted. Was it a real theft? Or a set up to squeeze out the man who asked too many questions about Saudis and oil?
O'Neill had finally had enough and quit.
Meanwhile, from February through August, the entire time that the danger from bin Laden was the greatest, Bush was
focusing most of his efforts on persuading the Taliban to allow him and his oil pals put a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Bush wanted to swipe the oil-rich Caspian region from Russian control. Back when Bush thought he could cut a deal with
the Taliban, he did not consider them "evil." In fact, back when he smelled an easy deal in the wind, Bush described the
Taliban's repressive regime as "a source of stability in Central Asia" that would enable the construction of an oil
pipeline. So, in Spring of 2001, in Texas oil wheeling-dealing style, Bush handed $43 million in taxpayer dollars over
to the Taliban to sweeten the pot. Still, however, there was no deal.
Laila Helms, the niece of former CIA director Richard Helms, worked as a public relations coordinator for the Taliban at
this time. According to Helms, the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden or provide the coordinates of his whereabouts.
However, apparently under Bush's orders, the State Department refused this deal –a deal that would have removed Bush's
best trump terrorist card from his stacked deck. Instead, on August 2, State Department officials met with Taliban reps
in Islamabad and there delivered this ultimatum: give us what we want for the oil companies and we will "carpet your
with gold." If you don't, "we will bury you beneath a carpet of bombs." The Taliban still held out.
Four days later, Bush was given the warning that could have, if acted upon, saved 3,000 American lives and the thousands
of civilian lives lost in Afghanistan since October. Instead, he chose to ignore it.
In early September, O'Neill took a job at the WTC as head of security there. Right before the disaster, he told friends
he felt sure an attack was imminent and that he feared that terrorists would try to finish the job they had begun in
1993 to destroy the WTC. John O'Neill was in the first tower when it was hit. He was on his way into the second tower to
help evacuate people when he was killed.
O'Neill must have sensed –the best detectives have that uncanny "sixth sense"– that something very big, very horrendous
might go down and that he might not survive. In June and July, 2001 he met with French intelligence analyst Jean-Charles
Brisard (in June in Paris and in July in New York City). O'Neill confided much of what he knew about the bin Laden
situation and Bush to Brisard –a fellow intelligence officer, but one who was not under the Bush administration's thumb.
Brisard and his associate Guillaume Dasquié, an intelligence analyst and the editor of Intelligence Online, dedicated
their book "Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth" (released in France in November 2001) to O'Neill. The book has been
vigorously avoided by US publishers and everyone in the mainstream US press except Paula Zahn, who has presented
excerpts of it.
History will be kind to John O'Neill. It will not be kind to George W. Bush.
The Pentagon Tragedy: A Plot that Keeps on Thickening
One of the things that has bothered me since the morning of 9/11 is how little attention the Pentagon tragedy received.
All you could hear screamed from the media and White House for months was WTC! WTC! WTC! Heroes of Flight 93! Heroes of
Flight 93! It was an endless litany –education through repetition. In fact, 9/11 became synonymous, almost forcibly,
with the WTC. Yet, over 200 people died at the Pentagon, including the ill-fated passengers on Flight 77, right at the
heart of the city. Why so little focus on this tragedy? I believe that of all the events of 9/11, the crash of Flight 77
into the Pentagon was the most telling, it was the hottest, smokiest of the smoking guns. The key to the whole mystery
may well lie in this five-sided building built by FDR's administration. First, here's a little long-overdue background
on the Pentagon.
The history of the Pentagon
When war broke out in Europe in 1939, even before the US entered the conflict, our War Department was gearing up for the
possibility. However, there was no real home for the Department of Defense –it was scattered across DC in 17 different
buildings. Back then, there wasn't a whole lot of red tape to cut through –when the green light was given to come up
with a place to put the DOD, by God, they came up with a plan in four days! In this relative blink of an eye, Brigadier
General Brehon B. Somervell developed a scheme for a three-story humongous complex capable of housing 40,000 workers (it
later grew to five floors after WWII broke out). But, Somervell's plan for a five-sided structure was not, as one might
expect, symbolic, or an effort to create a stylized giant chevron. Instead, it was the most practical idea that
suggested itself: the 67-acre site chosen (a former Deptartment of Agriculture Farm on the Potomac) was bound on five
sides by five existing roads. Voila! The Pentagon. Cost estimates for the original project was $35 million –about what a
couple of out buildings for storing old munitions might cost now! Believe it or not, the project was considered highly
controversial. Some complained that it took up land intended for the expansion of Arlington Cemetery. Others said the
DOD shouldn't be housed outside the District of Columbia, while some (we jaded 21st centurians would have to laugh at
this) complained that the cost was too high.
One problem Congress wrangled over was what to do with the building once WWII was over. Although some wanted to turn it
into a warehouse, most people assumed that the building would become a veterans' hospital. It is very telling that no
one believed there would be a need for 40,000 defense department workers after the War. That was because no one foresaw
that war was soon to become a way of life –in one form or the other– for Americans. This shift to an all-war (ours or
someone else's we supply weapons for) all the time focus can be traced to the Cold War mentality that many in high
places locked into during the 1950s and never left (and has never allowed the rest of us to leave).
In any case, the classic monster of a building (over 5 million square feet!) that we call the Pentagon was begun in 1941
a few months before Pearl Harbor (the appropriations bill was signed by FDR in August 1941). Spurred to heroic efforts
by the declaration of war in December, the construction crews –13,000 men at one point– completed the building in an
astounding 16 months. As with all government projects, the final cost was nearly three times higher than first estimates
(it came in at $83 million). Because a war was on, reinforced concrete was used instead of steel in most of the
building's structure (in contrast to the WTC, which was a mass of steel beams). There were no elevators –instead,
concrete ramps go between levels. The finished building consists of five nested concentric pentagons (called rings),
with a 5-acre courtyard at the heart. The building is really a small town –with its own shopping concourse, banks, and
even its own subway station. In 1993, the Clinton administration decided to upgrade the Pentagon, for many reasons, not
least of which was the growing concern over terrorist attacks. In addition to new plumbing, the upgrade included putting
in heavy duty fireproofing in the walls, reinforcing the walls, and improving security in general. The final
reconstruction strategy called for the work to be divided into five "wedges," each wedge encompassing a corner and a
rectangle of the Building. The first wedge to be tackled was the one facing west, covering 1.2 million square feet. By
September 2000, work on this wedge was about 70% complete. The wedge was supposed to have been completely done by July
2001, but, as with rebuilding any old "house," more problems kept being uncovered. For example, all sorts of interesting
goodies were found in the walls: a secure vault no one knew about, old whiskey bottles (hmm, wonder who went to such
lengths to hide their booze!), and other items. Then of course, there were supports that needed more reinforcement,
asbestos to be removed, etc. Among the improvements made to Wedge One: Blast resistant windows and brick backup walls
behind the building's limestone outer facade. These inner walls contain a metal fabric mesh similar to the mesh used in
vehicle air bags. This mesh was designed specifically to CONTAIN DEBRIS FRAGMENTS in the event of a blast.
The bloody morning of September 11.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, about 20,000 people were at work in the Pentagon. Almost no one was in Wedge one,
except workers who were moving furniture in –the last step before the wedge was reopened for business. When the news of
the planes hitting the WTC came, Pentagon personnel were horrified and clustered round radios and television sets to
follow the coverage. One man remembered remarking to another worker that he feared the Pentagon was vulnerable to all
types of terrorist assaults. Then, at 9:43, there was a huge explosion and fire and smoke rose from wedge one. By
evening, it would be known that at least 180 people had been killed, including the 64 passengers on Flight 77.
So, what is wrong with the whole Pentagon disaster picture? For starters, here are a few interesting facts:
As mentioned earlier, the Bush administration had PLENTY of information that would lead them to believe the Pentagon and
other major national landmarks were at high risk of a terrorist attack, especially in the summer and fall of 2001. Many
warnings had come over the previous 8 years that the Pentagon could be a target of a terrorist attack, not only that but
part of a multiple-strike terrorist attack. In fact, this possibility seemed so plausible that in November 2000 a
disaster response exercise was held by the Military District of DC that simulated a plane hitting the Pentagon. So,
September 11 finds Bush and several other key administrators safely removed from DC –Bush, at a Florida elementary
school, is strategically NOWHERE NEAR a national landmark that morning. John Ashcroft has stopped flying on commercial
airliners and is in the wilds of Missouri, via private jet, fishing. Cheney is at an "undisclosed location" (his bunker,
probably). Jeb Bush, from September 7, has the Florida National Guard on standby. A collection of top CEOs of companies
based at the WTC are attending a charity event at Offutt Air Base in Omaha at 8:00 AM on 9/11 (rather odd time, doncha
think?) –the same base to which Bush flees later in the same day. Rumsfeld is at the Pentagon –but in the wedge FURTHEST
from what will be the point of impact.
So, while the Bush administration and its pals were maneuvering into the safest possible positions, the folks at the
Pentagon (and the workers and "expendable" CEOs at the WTC, of course) were left to their fate, no warning given to them
at all. Given the above info on the administration's awareness of the threat to the Pentagon, it seems reasonable to
expect that the MINUTE the news was heard about the WTC being hit that the Pentagon should have been evacuated
IMMEDIATELY as a precaution until further notice. At the very least, after the SECOND TOWER was hit! At that point, the
multiple-strike scenario should have been so hideously obvious. Yet the workers were left at their posts like sitting
ducks. Was this incompetence, intent to kill, or was it something else?
Let's try applying a different hypothesis and see how the pieces fit. HYPOTHESIS: That person or persons unknown in the
Bush administration were involved in planning the attack on the Pentagon. Let's examine the likely objectives of the
Perpetrator(s) and their objectives according to this hypothesis compared to actual events.
A. Minimize loss of life while creating a terrorist event of frightening proportions
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Published reports following 9/11 say the number of passengers on all four hijacked flights was
remarkably light –under half capacity. There were just 64 people on Flight 77. (Possible modus operandi: One writer has
theorized that a computer hacker could have manipulated the bookings for these flights in such a way that they would
appear to have been full after a reasonable number of people and thus no more passengers could be accepted.)
2. The plane struck the almost empty, but newly reinforced, fire resistant wedge. In fact, the plane underwent an
elaborate maneuver to be able to line its trajectory up with Wedge One –not only that, but to strike the newly
reinforced, collapse-resistant WALL in wedge one. A suicide pilot would likely have made a beeline for the building and
done a nosedive into the top, which would have caused more damage.
3. No one in the Pentagon had been put on alert –from the time of the Bush's receipt of the August 6 memo to the morning
of 9/11, when, for over 40 minutes, it was known that a hijacked plane-turned-bomb was in the air.
CONCLUSION: In their own sick way, the perpetrators tried to keep the loss of life minimized. They kept the number of
passengers on the planes to a minimum, then made sure the plane would hit Wedge One, a well-reinforced fire-resistant
area where few people would be that day. In addition, they did not issue alerts because they assumed emergency
evacuation might place workers in greater danger– many may actually have sought shelter, ironically, in the newly
reinforced Wedge. (In an interesting side note, it has been pointed out by some observers that the planes that hit the
WTC seemed to aim for the top 1/4 of the towers, as if to avoid destroying the towers and, again, in a bizarre,
perverted way, to minimize loss of life).
B. Eliminate any trace of the plane –a challenge because of the special mesh in the new wall designed to capture any
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, an aircraft that is about 60 feet long, with a wingspan of 125 feet. Yet,
it appears to have left essentially not a trace of material inside the building. Brigadier General Arthur F. Diehl III,
Air Force, gave this first hand account of the crash site: "No one could believe the catastrophic damage –it was
horrible. A whole wedge had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five rings of the building. There
wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere".
2. Several accounts and filmed shots of the event suggest an explosion OUTSIDE the wedge. Construction foreman Joe
Harrington, standing in parking lot near the impact point said: "It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It
was like a Hollywood movie or something."
3. Although there was seismic activity associated with the WTC event and Flight 93, both of which involved direct
impacts with a solid object, no significant seismic activity was recorded for the Pentagon explosion.
CONCLUSION: The plane exploded and was essentially vaporized the split second before actual impact with the wall. What
actually struck and penetrated the Wedge was not the solid body of the plane but a fireball from the explosion –moving
forward with the combined momentum of the moving plane and the explosion. Because the actual explosion occurred in the
air and the destruction in the building was due to the fireball and to implosive forces and not a solid-solid impact,
there was no seismic activity.
C. You do not want this airplane intercepted or shot down, because your plot would be revealed if too much evidence
becomes accessible (even in the form of plane fragments).
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. The transponder in this plane was turned off –a move seen by investigators as a highly sophisticated
action on the part of the hijackers. This renders the plane untraceable by ground control. (I believe there was another
reason for this –see below).
2. Even though it was known by about 08:55 that Flight 77 had been hijacked and that the Pentagon could be a target, no
defensive moves were made to protect the Pentagon. F-16s were finally scrambled into the air, but too late. These
planes, by the way, were scrambled out of Langley Airforce base. While Langley is about 130 miles southwest of the
Pentagon, Bolling AFB just across the Potomac from the Pentagon, is at most 5 miles southeast while Andrews is 10 miles.
The Langley F-16 left the ground two minutes before the Pentagon was hit. In any case, I find it extremely hard to
believe that the most important military command structure in the US is not defended by surface to air missiles! I mean,
we are supposed to believe that there are antiaircraft weapons atop the White House but NOT deployed anywhere near the
Pentagon? Give us a break!
D. You want to make absolutely sure that this is a precision hit –nothing left to chance.
ACTUAL EVENTS: 1. Eyewitness observers say that Flight 77 performed a 180-degree "G" turn before diving for the center
of the long wall of Wedge One. The plane was estimated to be rocketing at an estimated speed of 400 mph. Several
experienced pilots have claimed that the final maneuver of the 757 could not have been performed by a human pilot
because of the tremendous G-forces that would have been exerted, rending even the simplest movements exceedingly
difficult (picture your arms each suddenly weighing about 100 pounds and each finger about 10).
2. Eyewitnesses and the evidence of a security camera show a fiery explosion OUTSIDE the wall.
3. The transponder was OFF.
CONCLUSION: The plane was remotely controlled by a command transmitter system at least in the final minutes. There was
an explosive device on board, which was detonated immediately before impact, probably remotely controlled as well. The
timing, trajectory, etc, may have been generated by a software program of some sort that could work this out to the
millisecond. The plane's own transponder would have had to have been turned off so that it's operation would not
interfere with a second transponder placed aboard by the perpetrators –a transponder designed to pick up the signal of a
command system transmitter operated somewhere in the area. Or, of course, the plane's own transponder was not actually
off –it was just changed to a new setting. In any case, turning the transponder off would not have helped the hijackers
to hide from the battery of sophisticated radars encircling DC, so this motivation (hiding from radars) does not make
any sense. Here is a description of an advanced, "fully mobile" CTS built Systems Planning Corp, the CEO of whih is
Bush's undersecretary of defense and long time Texas pal Dov Zakheim.
More Disturbing 9/11 facts
While the workers in the Pentagon who were to die on 9/11 were putting in their last week, serving their country at the
nation's military nerve center, one of the co-perpetrators of WTC was walking the same halls, escorted as the special
guest of the Bush administration.
September 4: Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, former director of the ISI (the Pakistani version of the CIA), arrives in DC In
the days leading up to 9/11. Ahmad spent time in the State Department, at CIA headquarters, and at the Pentagon. Not
long before arriving in D.C., Ahmad had overseen the wiring of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the hijackers aboard
one of the planes striking the WTC. This revelation was made in October, after 9/11 by Indian intelligence sources and
reported in the Times of India. The news was not reported by US officials or American journalists.
What does India know?
September 9: While Ahmad was in DC, Commander Ahmad Shah Masood, leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance, was
assassinated by persons connected to the ISI. The 47-year old Masood was a wildly popular, charismatic leader known to
Afghans as the "Lion of Panjsher." His biggest goal: the true freedom and independence of Afghans. Fiercely independent
and anti-interventionist, he would most certainly have opposed the Bush administration's war plans and would not have
played ball with any oil pipeline scheme. The Cold War Clan (as I call the Bushes, Kissinger, Rumsfeld and the rest of
the power-hungry old fossils in charge) have never had a use for charismatic leaders –look what happened to Allende...or
Kennedy, for that matter.
From all of the accumulated evidence, there is little doubt in my mind that Indian intelligence has the goods on the
Bush administration. It was Indian intelligence that "discovered" the links between ISI's Mahmoud Ahmad and the WTC
attacks. We suspect this connection was, of course, already known to the Bush administration, which, for all anyone
knows, supplied the $100,000. But, according to several sources, Indian intelligence knows far more than this. One Dehli
government source told a reporter with Agence France Press last October: "The evidence we have supplied to the US [re:
the ISI-WTC connection] is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some
misplaced act of terrorism." So, if India is the potential source of Bush's downfall, then what better way to silence
India than to threaten her, via our now totally dependent "ally" Pakistan (complete with its fraudulently elected
president), with nuclear annihilation? Alternatively, is this latest "global world crisis" merely yet another
Bush-engineered ploy designed to divert attention away from the real danger –THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION? By inducing
Musharraf to trump up a "confrontation" with India and convincing the world that nuclear war may be impending, Rumsfeld
and Bush can appear to "ride" to the rescue...it also affords them a slick way to get US troops out of the area. In
short, whatever this latest scenario is, you can be sure it isn't what it appears to be. Like everything else about this
FINAL TIMELINE: The Events, Planes and Players of September 11. Putting It All Together
Psychologists say during the Vietnam war, soldiers were more prone to PTSD than their WWII counterparts in large part
because of the way post-action reentry was handled. Vietnam vets were shuffled from the front right back to the states
-usually alone, and expected to jump right into life, but often in an atmosphere of tension where they were viewed with
suspicion and contempt. There was no time for real healing. The nation was in turmoil; home was not a peaceful place.
I believe that since 9/11, Americans have been suffering from a case of collective PTSD. After 9/11, Bush immediately
seized on America's fears - instead of helping the nation to heal, to be TRULY united, he whipped up anger, fanned
paranoia, created a much deeper divide while forcing people to feel they must give lip service to the new "brand" of
patriotism. We were wounded casualties with nowhere to go to lick our wounds, no atmosphere of hope and security to help
soothe our minds and spirits. Instead, we were under constant attack - just like Vietnam vets on those endless missions
in the jungle that never seemed to gain any real ground. There was one vague threat after the other; one basic right
after the other stripped away leaving us to feel chronically uneasy.
Then there was the war against Afghanistan. This frenzy of revenge forced us to mobilize and to push aside any
misgivings or (for some of us), to suffer sleepless nights worrying about the consequences of a war we felt was wrong.
The weeks, then months, following 9/11 were, in short, a period of relentless stress for all Americans. As a result,
many people now say they can't really remember what the specific events were surrounding 9/11 -some can't even remember
seeing the time line, though timelines were run in nearly every newspaper and magazine right after the tragedy.
I think this stress-amnesia syndrome may very well be why George Bush has had such a cakewalk until recently. He took
advantage of an entire nation that was numbed by shock and grief and unable to defend itself as it might otherwise have
done. In short, we couldn't see the sleight of hand through the blur of tears.
Now we are coming to, shaking off the fog that has confused us and seeing the facts clearly -for the first time, really,
Here, presented as clearly as possible for Americans ready to look with cooler heads and drier eyes are the events,
players and planes of 9/11.
Who Was Responsible for What on the Day of September 11, 2001?
The responsibility for protecting America's skies from terrorist attack falls upon the North American Aerospace Defense
Command (NORAD, also simply called the "Space Command."). Established in 1958, NORAD is a US-Canadian command that
provides warning of missile and air attack against both member nations, according to the organization's Web site. In the
Eastern US, NORAD has at its disposal, several Air Force Bases from which F-16s and F-15s can be scrambled at a moment's
notice. Among these bases are Otis AFB in Cape Cod, Mass, Griffis AFB in Rome, NY, Andrews AFB just outside DC, and
Langley AFB in Eastern Virginia. NORAD's mission statement on its website states:
"The Northeast Air Defense Air Sector's area of responsibility covers more than one-half million square miles of
airspace including that over New York City; Washington, D.C.; Chicago and other major metropolitan areas."
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND DURING A TERRORIST ATTACK:
A: The FAA reports hijackings and other threats to NORAD's First Air Force Commander, who is based in Tyndall, FLA. On
Sept. 11, this was Gen. Larry K. Arnold.
B: The First Air Force Commander then relays this info to The Commander in Chief (CINC) of NORAD. On 9/11, this was Gen.
Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt
C: In a grave situation where force seems warranted, the CINC reports to the Commander in Chief......George Bush. Also
notified are Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard B. Myers
The fact that NORAD was well aware that a major attack was a possibility is made obvious by the command's planning, well
before Sept. 11, for a major exercise, slated for June 4, 2002. This is from a NORAD announcement:
"On June 4, 2002, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) will sponsor a multi-agency, bi-national
exercise, Amalgam Virgo 02, involving an airborne terrorism scenario over the United States and Canada. The exercise,
which was planned prior to the events of Sept. 11, is designed to allow many US and Canadian agencies to test, improve
and validate their coordination and operational procedures."
Regardless of what warnings Bush may have received, NORAD was well aware of the threat to American skies.
The Planes and Players of 9/11
F-16: (Fighting Falcon) From USAF Fact Sheet: "The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is
highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack his highly maneuverable
aircraft." The craft can go from zero to 500 mph in about 2 minutes. It's top speed is about 1,500 mph, while its
typical cruising speed is nearly 600 mph. In other words, if a plane had been scrambled from Andrews, just 10 miles away
as the crow (or F-16) flies, it would have been able to engage Flight 77 within 15 minutes from the time the call came
in. To decide to scramble a plane out of Langley seems to indicate just one thing: help was intentionally delayed by 10
F-15 (Eagle): (from Air Force Fact Sheet): "The F-15 Eagle is an all- weather, extremely maneuverable, tactical fighter
designed to permit the Air Force to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat." This plane can reach a maximum
astounding speed of 1,875 mph.
The time required from the notification to scramble to one of these planes being airborne and at top speed is about
The Bush administration had in place, on Sept. 11 in the top five posts relevant to the terrorist attack, men who
totally support the administration's vision for a "Star Wars" style military, for the militarization of space and the
merging of the military with domestic law enforcement agencies into one big "Homeland Security" entity. The five top
players were: Larry K. Arnold, First Air Force Commander of NORAD, Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt, Commander-in-Chief of NORAD,
Richard B. Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, and George W. Bush.
George W. Bush: Guess we don't need to add much here, except to say that Bush did not make it plain to the public at any time since
9/11 that HE was the person that, according to the established chain of command, called the final shots on 9/11.
Donald Rumsfeld: Of course, we know all about Mr. Rumsfeld's lust for power. He is a good pal of Ralph Eberhardt and, in fact, in May of
2001, said Eberhardt was his first choice for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld is one of the architects
of the military-police complex.
Larry K. Arnold: Has, since 9/11, helped in the push toward the militarization of America. On February 20, 2002, gave a talk on
"Homeland Defense" at the SpaceComm 2002 conference in Colorado that had as its topic: "Shaping Information Operations
and Space Leadership" i.e. -the extension of the military not just into the "Homeland," but into space.
Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt: Eberhardt is a fanatical supporter of the Missile defense scheme and the militarization of space. In fact, in May,
2001, Eberhardt said in a speech that he believed control of space was America's "destiny"! Eberhardt is also an
enthusiastic supporter of the merging of law enforcement and the military and making technology such as military spy
satellites available to police.
Richard B. Myers: Less than three weeks after Bush received the now- famous memo of August 6, Myers was named by Bush to the top post in
the US military: Chairman of Joints Chief of Staff. This is what a non-American (and thus less spun) news source
(Pravda) had to say about that appointment: "Gen. Myers was chosen for the job precisely because his views are shared by
both of his bosses, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He is considered an active
advocate of deploying the National Missile Defense program. He told a news conference that he would be working on the
materialization of the idea "relentlessly" and "with his sleeves rolled up." Right after 9/11, Myers was caught in a lie
when he claimed that no orders were given re: launching aircraft until AFTER the Pentagon was hit, "We did scramble
fighter aircraft, AWACs, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed
up in the FAA system that were hijacked. That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck."
However, Marine Corps Maj. Mike Snyder of NORAD told a Boston Globe reporter that the command had been told about the
hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane hit the first World Trade Center tower. Snyder said the fighters remained on
the ground until after the Pentagon was hit, even though "fighters routinely intercept aircraft."
7:59: American airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767 takes off from Logan Airport in Boston with 92 people, headed for Los
8:01: United Airline Flight 93, a Boeing 757, bound for San Francisco, is delayed for 40 minutes on run way, with 45
people on Board.
8:13: Boston Ground control loses contact with Flight 11 First red flag for Flight 11.
8:14: United Flight 175, a Boeing 767, takes off from Logan for Los Angeles with 65 passengers.
8:17: American Airlines Flight 77 (Boeing 757) leaves Dulles in D.C. headed for Los Angeles with 64 passengers.
8:20: Flight 11 reaches the Hudson River in NY and stops transmitting its IFF signal. Second Red flag for flight 11. Had
Bush put the airlines on high alert after August 6 when he received the warning, there is no doubt at all that these
warnings would have evoked at very different response...if, indeed, the hijackers had even gotten that far (under a high
alert, they very well may have been apprehended at the airports).
8:24: Hijackers on Flight 11 accidentally broadcasts warning to the passengers over its radio: "Everything will be OK.
If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Third Red Flag for flight 11.
8:25: Boston air traffic controllers notify other air traffic control centers of hijacking. Why wasn't NORAD (North
American Aerospace Defense Command) notified at this time?
8:27: Flight 11 heads south toward Manhattan; flight attendant Betty Ong calls American Airlines reservations and
reports that two flight attendants had been stabbed and a passenger had had his throat slashed. She identifies the seat
numbers of the hijackers. Fourth red flag for flight 11 - this one a BLOODY RED and wildly waving, yet it will be about
10 minutes AFTER THIS before NORAD is notified.
8:33: Last transmission from Flight 11: Hijacker is heard telling passengers not to move.
8:38: Boston Air Traffic control notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked.
8:42: Flight 175 is hijacked. It begins to make a U-turn over New Jersey, reading for its northward assault on
8:42: Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, headed for San Francisco.
8:43: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 175 has been hijacked.
8:44: Two F-15 eagles are ordered scrambled out of Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod. If NORAD had been notified
(or was it??) at 8:27, when the plane was obviously hijacked and heading to NYC, an F-16 from Otis or Griffis would have
been about 10 minutes from Manhattan at this point. In addition, since the WTC was high on the list of known targets,
and since some of the warnings to Bush indicated airplanes could be used as "bombs," the WTC should have been given an
alert and the building evacuated. If evacuation had started at 8:30, there would have been no one in the upper floors
when the first plane hit and the loss of life would have been minimized.
8:45: Flight 11 strikes WTC's north tower at the 80th floor.
8:46: Flight 175 stops transmitting beacon signal.
8:52: Two F-15 eagles take off from Otis. If F-15s had been scrambled from Otis at 8:27, they would now be in a position
to engage the hijacked flight 175 headed for the WTC.
8:56: Flight 77's transponder is cut. If F-15s had been scrambled from Otis at 8:27, they would now be in a position to
engage the hijacked flight 175 headed for the WTC.
9:00: United Airlines learns that Flight 93 flying over western PA may be in process of being hijacked.
9:00: Flight 77 makes U turn and heads back for Washington. This is when the FAA should have notified NORAD, and NORAD
should have ordered F-16s into the air FROM ANDREWS. If they had, by 9:15, F-16s may have been in a position to deflect
Flight 77 AWAY from DC altogether.
9:02: Flight 175 strikes the WTC at the 60th floor.
9:16: FAA informs NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked.
9:17: Federal Aviation Administration closes all airports.
9:24: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 is hijacked.
9:24: NORAD orders three F-16s scrambled from Langley. The timing here is absolutely diabolical. It is EXACTLY not
enough time for either a jet from Langley, which will be 10 minutes too late, or one from Andrews, which would have had
just about 3 minutes between reaching the airspace over D.C. and dealing with the incoming Boeing 757. That Langley was
chosen indicates a FEAR that in that 3 minutes a good pilot from Andrews just might have succeeded in aborting the
disaster, despite the split second time frame.
9:25: Air traffic controllers notify Secret Service as Flight 77 makes dramatic maneuver just south of the Pentagon.
9:29: Bush, at Booker Elementary school says an "apparent terrorist attack" under way. No orders are give to evacuate
any buildings in D.C., or to even urge residents and workers to seek shelter.
9: 40: Three F-16 fighting falcons take off from Langley. They reach Washington by 9:55, moving at least 550 mph. - the
trip takes 14 minutes. The time from Andrews to D.C.: under 2 minutes. The time from Bolling: almost instantaneous Not
only is this a tragedy for the victims of the Pentagon, it was unspeakably cruel to those pilots, who, thanks to their
delayed orders, have to live with the crushing feeling of having been 15 minutes too late. Here is a description of
Andrews from its website: "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." Yet Bush chooses Langley.
9:43: Plane crashes into Pentagon - a full 40 minutes after being reported hijacked and the likelihood of its being used
as a weapon of mass destruction obvious. You will notice that now, everything seems to start happening - it seems as if
everything were put on hold until the Pentagon was struck.
9:45: White House Evacuates.
9:57: Bush leaves Florida.
10:05: South Tower of World Trade Center collapses.
10:08: Armed agents deployed around White House.
10:10: Penn plane crashes, part of Pentagon collapses.
10:13-10:45: federal buildings in D.C. evacuated.
10:28: WTC north tower collapses.
10:46: Colin Powell heads for D.C. from Latin America. Again, notice that Powell is in Latin America, Bush is in
Florida, Ashcroft in Missouri, and Rumsfeld in the part of the Pentagon most remote from the impact point.
1:04: Bush speaks from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
1:27: State of emergency declared in D.C.
1:44: warships from VA are deployed to protect coastline.
2:00: Bush at Offutt AFB in Omaha NE. - this is not revealed until almost 4:00 pm. Also at Offutt that day from 8:00 am
on, are several CEOs -at a "charity event" that just happens to be held at a SECURE AIR FORCE BASE? And it just happens
that several of the CEOs WOULD HAVE BEEN at the WTC had they not been at Offutt.
6:54: Bush back in White House.
8:30: Bush addresses nation.
ADDITIONAL TIMELINE NOTES
Oct. 1: Richard B. Myers Officially Becomes the Number One Man in the US Military.
April 2002: Ralph Eberhardt is proposed as "supreme commander" of Northcom, the mega-military entity pushed for by the
Putting It All Together:
Putting It All Together With the hotlines that exist between these offices, the time that it would take from the moment
the FAA put in its call to Arnold for Bush to respond (allowing 2 minutes tops per communication) would have been
roughly 6 minutes, plus or minus as minute or two. The FAA called NORAD at 8:38 am about the first hijacking. It was 6
minutes later - right within the above timing estimates made above -that two F-15s were ordered - by Bush - to be
scrambled from Otis AFB. The evidence clearly shows that Bush had decided AHEAD OF TIME how to handle Flight 77. The FAA
call to NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked was made at 9:24 -it was at 9:24 that the order to scramble planes from
LANGLEY was given.
This means this move had already been authorized by BUSH. How could he have pre-authorized such a response unless he had
1) been told about the plane some minutes before when it was obvious to NORAD's radar system that the plane was headed
for DC (NORAD did not require an active transponder on Flight 77 to track the plane), or 2) Bush knew before 9/11 that a
plane would be hitting the Pentagon at around 9:45 am. Bush also had the authority, at all times after 8:44 (when he
obviously gave his first orders re: Otis) to call for an evacuation of the WTC and, at the LATEST, by 9:24 to order
federal buildings and landmarks in D.C. to be evacuated. Had he made these orders, hundreds of lives would have been
saved. Even if the order to evacuate the second tower of the WTC had been made by 8:50, that precious 12 minutes would
have made all the difference to hundreds of WTC workers. The Pentagon workers would have had nearly 15 minutes to
evacuate if a call had come in by even 9:30.
Because he had seen the warnings throughout the summer, and the last, strongest one on August 6, he should have been
completely prepared for every scenario he had been briefed on and read to take decisive, urgent action to save lives.
But he didn't. Instead, as Pentagon workers sat at their desks or moved down the halls, oblivious to the impending
danger, at 9:29, Bush had just finished reading the Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar and was getting ready to announce that an
"apparent" terrorist attack was underway. Apparent?
But let's take a look for a moment at the bigger picture: From the first, the plan of the Bush administration has been
to extend military power into space while creating a domestic police state in the name of "Homeland Security. In this
scheme, the line between military and police would be blurred. Elements of the CIA, which has traditionally worked more
with the military, have now been folded into the FBI, while yet more restrictions on the power of the agencies over
ordinary citizens have been removed. For a grim picture of where Bush et al were trying to take America as of August,
2001, see "The Next Battlefield," by Jack Hitt. Here's an excerpt fromthat article:
"The political attention devoted to national missile defense, which is an updated version of President Reagan's
Strategic Defensive Initiative, has obscured its larger purpose. According to the Strategic Master Plan, N.M.D. is but
one part of a triad of technologies -along with improved space surveillance and anti-satellite offensive weaponry- that,
the Air Force hopes, will lead to total "space control." George Friedman, an intelligence consultant and the author of
"The Future of War," calls the national missile defense plan a "Trojan horse" for the real issue: the coming
weaponization of space. The cost of expanding our space assets is only now beginning to show itself. Many of the
specific systems for space have had their budgets increased in President (G.W.) Bush's first defense-spending."
The three major proponents of this "new military": Richard B. Myers, Ralph Eberhardt, and Donald Rumsfeld.
However, in the summer of 2001, the American public's support for the Bush administration's schemes, in general, was
weak and waning fast. In August, 2001 Bush's approval rating had slumped to under 50%. However, within just a few weeks
of 9/11, with virtually no opposition from Congress, Myers had been confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
By Nov. 2001, Homeland Security had been established, and the Patriot Act been passed. By April 2002 - Rumsfeld, Myers
and Eberhardt had announced the formation of NORTHCOM, the mega military complex that consolidated their power Here's an
excerpt from an April 18, 2002 article in the Boston Globe:
"Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was responsible for drafting the new
command plan -and who calls the establishment of the new command the most significant structural change in his 37 years
in uniform- said yesterday that the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) 'takes the various homeland security missions being
performed by various combatant commanders and some agencies and puts them under one commander [to] bring unity and focus
to the mission.' Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhardt is slated to head the new command, which will also include
oversight of NORAD and the territorial defense missions of the JFCOM."
In short, 9/11 was used as a springboard for the pre-9/11 Bush scheme. The steps taken in the name of Homeland security
that were done in the name of 9/11 were actually already planned well before that event. It was the event that made it
possible to implement them. If you want to get an idea of where this merger between the military and law enforcement is
headed, how about this statement made by Ralph Eberhardt at the Space Symposium held in Colorado Springs in early 2002:
"Over time we can leverage our space assets to support homeland security and law enforcement. " So, for example, does
this mean the use of military satellites to spy on citizens?
Now ponder this point: Since Bush took office, he has richly rewarded every single person who helped him substantially,
usually with top posts or the legislation they wanted. After 9/11, we see Myers and Eberhardt moving up into top posts
of incredible power. What were they being rewarded for?
Now, back to 9/11. The simple fact is, if Bush had not ignored the August 6 (and earlier) warnings of terrorist strikes,
and had instead acted decisively and responsibly, the scenario that unfolded on 9/11 would have been very different.
First of all, on high alert, the airports may have screened passengers more carefully - some or all of the hijackers may
have failed to get aboard their target aircraft. Secondly, if they had succeeded in boarding the craft, the FAA would
have been in a state of readiness for a serious event. At 8:25 AM, Boston FAA would have immediately called NORAD, who
would have been in readiness, perhaps even with preauthorized orders from Bush. The WTC would have been on high alert
from Aug 6 on and an evacuation could have been undertaken as early as 8:30 - time enough to save countless lives.
But instead, Bush did not warn the public. When called by NORAD, he failed to respond in a way designed to save lives.
In short, the trail of smoke from the smoking gun leads ultimately...and unavoidably, back to G. W. Bush.
Copyright © 2002 by the News Insider and Cheryl Seal. Republished with the permission of the Author.