SCOOP EDITORS NOTE: The following detailed analysis of the events of September 11th was submitted to Scoop by its author with a request that it be republished. It also appears at http://www.angelfire.com/retro/malcontentx/ where the embedded references are formatted as hyperlinks. While this analysis follows closely in the footsteps of analysis from The Emperor’s New Clothes (tenc.net) it is considerably more complete and thorough in its scope. Like the TENC.NET analysis of 911 previously published by Scoop (see also...part 2 and part 3) and that of Michael Rowbotham, its implications are deeply disturbing.

Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions
By MalcontentX

CONTENTS

Part 1A:

Introduction
George W. Bush
Flight 77
Air Force One
Notes

Part 1B:

Flight 11
Flight 175
Flight 93

Part 1C:

Summation of Civilian Air Defense, Sept 11
Who is to Blame?

Part 1D:

The FBI Investigation

Part 1E:

"Official" (military) Explanations:
Confusion
"The Pentagon"
"We didn’t know"
"Weren’t Informed"
Contusion
"Official" Explanations: explained

Part 1F:

Military-Media Alliance
A Few Choice Articles
Media Summary
Senate Confirmation Hearings: General Myers
Ignorance and Responsibility
Science of Spin

Part 1G:

Who Benefits?
Afghanistan
bin Laden and the CIA
Spin Summary

Part 1H:

Blaming Bin Laden
Summation
Conclusions
Appeal

**********

Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions (Part 1A)

**********

**********
Introduction
**********

Feb. 2002

Within a few months, the events of Sept. 11th, 2001 became but an echo of the events that followed.

War in Afghanistan, anthrax, unprecedented powers of detention: the public mind moves from one shock to another, appearing to accept the government’s lead.

Now after five months, a new world beacons; or perhaps, the old world, from a different vantage point.

For those of us determined to think for ourselves, (to question government assumptions) the leap to blame Bin Laden, (with little substantial evidence) and the pretext for bombing yet another poor country, was unsatisfactory -right from the start.

Yet this has become a "new reality" which we now have to deal with, taking us further from the events of Sept. 11th with each passing day.

The curtain seems to be descending on the big, unanswered questions that was on virtually everyone’s mind during, (and for weeks after) the attack:

How could Sept. 11th have happened?

How could four planes be hijacked over U.S. skies, within the space of an hour?

How was it that three of them were able to plow into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, in the heart of the most powerful nation on earth -with no planes in the skies to defend them?

Were these just evil geniuses?

Or did these attacks occur alongside the most colossal collapse of airspace security in U.S. history?

In the wake of the devastation, the answer to this last question is: obviously, yes.
Somehow, the terrorists got through.

Even politicians in Washington, (normally staunch defenders of the status quo) were initially compelled to express this:

"The government failed the American people." (Rep. Curt Weldon, on CNN, 12:40, Sept. 11th).

A "stunning failure… of U.S. intelligence." "There must be a thorough inquiry."

Sen. Robert Torricelli, speaking on the Senate floor. (1)

An obvious thing.

This didn’t happen in a vacuum.

"They" got through the protective shield we call government, the military.

To touch on but one example:

two of the four planes commandeered on Sept 11th were in the air, (hijack-confirmed) for almost an hour after the first hijacked plane attack on the World Trade Center had been confirmed -with no jet fighter in sight, as routine procedure demands.

The hijacked planes should not have been able to reach their targets.

There were safeguards in place, and they were not implemented.

As this report will show, a glaring lapse in routine procedure was repeated at virtually every level of civilian air defense, in relation to all four planes.

Alongside the acts of terror, there existed an unprecedented negligence –on the part of those entrusted with the protection of American skies.

Without such an lapse, the attacks of Sept 11th simply would not have been successful.

Whether this negligence was intentional, or coincidental, the sheer scope of it, (as we shall see) cries out for a full public inquiry; yet the government has strictly avoided opening itself to public scrutiny; instead, it has used the tragedy to wrap the protective ring of secrecy around itself, even tighter.

The congressional committee of review,

"does not in any way lay blame to the dedicated men and women of the U.S. intelligence community." "The point is not to point blame or point fingers. The point is to see where the weaknesses are in our system."
Members of committee, NY Times, Oct 3, 2001(2)

The focus of this committee is to "increase the roughly $30 billion intelligence budget," "rescind the 1995 restrictions on the C.I.A.'s use of unsavory covert agents" and so on. (ibid)

In other words, the assumption is,

‘the government and defense apparatus did everything it could.’ ‘We were caught off-guard by fiendishly clever, ruthless, and fanatical foes.’ ‘We simply need more resources to make sure it never happens again.’

As this report will clearly show, (fully-referenced to official documents, statements, and mainstream media reports) this assumption is utterly wrong.

More resources were not required.

What was needed on Sept 11th was for procedures that were already in place to be implemented.

A most profound abandonment of routine air-defense procedures accompanied these attacks.

The attackers, (in this sense) did not act alone.

That this basic reality has been effectively ignored, (in the rush to identify the attackers) is all the more reason that an open, public investigation be initiated.

In our brief moment of grief following this horrific crime, we found it virtually impossible to discuss the scope of internal incompetence which must have accompanied these acts of terror; and our government, media, (and other centers of influence) seem to have found it more convenient to inflame our anger –and thus, divert our attention from the outstanding, obvious questions:

How did this happen?

Who within the state apparatus was asleep at the switch?

How do we ensure that this never happens again?

How do we know that some of those involved in the internal "investigation" of the state won’t simply cover over what they don’t want us to see?

In the immediate aftermath of the terror, the government/media made it seem as if anyone who criticized the government was "for" the "other side."
The sacred role of the citizenry, as the watchdogs of government, was temporarily put on hold.

It’s now clear that our governments want no part of a public investigation.

There will be no blame found, no calling to accounts –simply an increased budget for police surveillance, covert operations, and state power.

It appears that we, the public, must examine the evidence for ourselves; and yet, the passing of time in the weeks and months following, may have made such an inquiry seem impossible to us, passe, perhaps even irrelevant.

So I ask you, dear reader, for but five minutes of your time: to briefly take a step back with me, to a morning and a day when the world seemed to change forever.

I ask you to re-examine, one more time, the events and information which have passed across our view screens so quickly.

Allow me to lay before you the result of five months intense research: carefully referenced, summarized, that the essential points may be grasped with a clarity and ease hitherto elusive.

Consider this contention:

the attacks on Sept. 11 may yet represent
one of the most important events in the last fifty years,
(perhaps all human history, for those who choose to examine it):
a turning point, in our understanding of the most-fundamental relationship between appearance and reality.

Once you’ve taken a few minutes to review this body of evidence, I’m sure you’ll be moved to agree: what a vast scope of discovery may lie within.

**********
Recall then, the morning of Sept 11, 2001
**********

According to The New York Times, (Sept 15)

"controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11. And within a few minutes more, controllers would have known that both United 175 (the second plane to hit the World Trade Center) and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon) had probably been hijacked." (3)

[Note: all the hijacked planes had their tracking beacons turned off at various times, but they were still visible on various radar screens].

**********
George W. Bush
**********

President George W. Bush was told of the first attack within about ten minutes of it occurring.

"He got out of his hotel suite this morning, [on his way to a school] was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later." (ABC's John Cochran, Peter Jennings)

http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm#mybust

Then, (according to CNN) he was informed of the situation at 9am, by National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, (telephone) as he was arriving at the school, (CNN, "Breaking News" White House correspondent, Major Garrett, 9:31, Sept.11).

Then the President was updated a third time.

According to Associated Press, he was

"In Sarasota, Florida.... reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear." ['AP' 12 September 2001, This also appeared on TV] (4)

And what did George W. Bush do when he received the update from Andrew Card, some five minutes later?

Apparently, nothing.

"The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later." ['AP' 12 September, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001 Pg. A 20]. (5)

Further, according to CNN’s Garrett, (on the scene)

"the spectacular, horrific pictures began appearing on television sets here at the elementary school... Shortly before [his] statement [addressing the tragedy] he was actually sitting down with some children here at the elementary school reading them a book.... Reporters asked him if he was aware of the situation in New York. He nodded a bit gravely, and said he would have something to say about that shortly.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html ("Breaking News" 9:25)

To the suggestion, (made by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan) that this "exchange of questions with the president came at... a sensitive time... sitting in front of a bunch of schoolchildren... not wanting to scare [them]," Garrett replies:

"Well, precisely. And the president has a way of letting reporters know that it's either an appropriate... or inappropriate time to take questions. He does that in many different environments, many different situations. Clearly this morning, with a crowd of children, he wanted to keep an even keel, keep the situation under control as best as possible. He just nodded and said -- we'll talk about this later."

Three months later, on nationwide TV, President Bush tells a captive audience,

"I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

[Note: This is an interesting statement, seeing as the first plane, (at that time) was not actually caught on network TV -striking the tower. Only the second one was. At any rate, all of the above clearly shows that the President knew, (and admits that he knew) that an emergency was underway, soon after the first plane struck].

To review thus far:

A hijacked plane crashes into the World Trade Center, and two other planes are hijack-suspected/confirmed. A national emergency is in progress.

George W. Bush is first informed approximately 5 minutes before 9:00, then updated five minutes later, then five minutes later again, (presumably, about the second plane which crashed into the World Trade Center, at 9:02).

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)

Yet he continues sitting in the classroom with the children, (reading a book about goats, apparently); and when reporters dare to ask whether he’s going to do something about it, he appears to suggest that (presumably by some kind of stern expression) ‘now is not an "appropriate" time to talk about it’?

What was he thinking? Was he not told the whole story?

Why did he not immediately excuse himself from the elementary school at 9am, (or before) to deal with the situation?

Why did he continue sitting in the classroom, amongst a chorus of children, for thirty minutes?

We common folk might be forgiven if we think it only natural that a person might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts; but the commander-in-chief is no ordinary person. In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision on his part could cost thousands of lives.

(Or, to put it another way: it's part of a President's job to appear relaxed and informal in front of an audience; yet his every movement is tightly monitored and guided by a whole network of adjuncts and advisors –whose job it is to empower him to act decisively, whenever the situation calls for it).

It is a President’s sworn duty to respond immediately, when American lives are at stake.

The President did confer, apparently, with the vice-president, and was briefed by advisors, sometime around 9:30, (when he made his first address) -but he appeared to be in no hurry.

This inaction is most unsettling, in the light of the following events.

**********
Flight 77
**********

By 9:05, flight number 77 from Washington, (the "third plane") had been severely off-course some twenty minutes before, (beginning at approx. 8:46). It had made a huge northward /westward/southward loop, before resuming its proper course again. (7)

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm

This fact, (based on the actual radar reports from government and private industry) was likely the source of the above statement, that,

"within a few minutes more... [8:50] controllers would have known that... Flight 77 had probably been hijacked." (NY Times, Sept 15)

At the same time,

"controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed [at 8:46] CNN, Sept 16, ibid."

Village Voice, Sept 13 (8)

Thus, when Flight 77 started to go off-course, the Air Traffic Control officials, (ATC) who were watching the plane, were also aware that another plane on the east coast had been hijacked-confirmed.

Around this time, they would also have been informed that Flight 175 had been declared "hijacked," (at 8:43, CNN, Sept 16, ibid, earlier than the NY Times article suggests. This CNN document is based on official government timeline: NORAD).

Thus, two other planes were officially confirmed as hijacked, by the time that Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course.

Within minutes, these officials would be informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center.

They should have been extremely concerned.

Flight 77 managed to return to it's proper westward course, after flying about twenty miles north, then west, then south; yet officials should have still been on a high state of alert.

[NOTE: we don't know what kind of radio communications existed between ATC officials and Flight 77; because, for some reason, the FBI has not publicly released the tapes; so it's possible that, with radio contact, (and a clear sign of "ok" from the pilot) officials were convinced that things were under control, once the plane was back on its original course].

Yet the fact remains that the plane these officials were monitoring had been well off-course around the same time that two other planes in the area had been hijacked; and now, by 9:05 (at the same time that President Bush was updated) a second crash into the World Trade Center had occurred, in what was now confirmed to be two, intentional terrorist attacks.

At the very least, the officials must have had suspicians, (as the NY Times article, cited above clearly suggests).

Then, at approx. 9:00am, Flight 77 ceases its transponder signal.

For a very short period of time, (as they frantically try to regain radar contact through other facilities) ATC officials would have been unaware that Flight 77 had made a 180 degree turn near the Ohio state border, and was heading straight back for Washington.

(NOTE: according to Newsday, (Sept 23rd) this occurred at 8:55,

http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story

calculations based on the above radar map, take-off time, crash time, etc. suggests it was likely about five minutes after that. See note 7).

At any rate, according to the above source,

"9:06, Washington notifies all air traffic facilities nationwide of the suspected hijacking of Flight 11."

This was as clear an expression of a national emergency as these officials had ever known; and yet, although "military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do," (N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, ibid) air traffic control continued to watch Flight 77 on the radar screen without any fighters scrambled to intercept it.

Then, at 9:25, the F.A.A. (the Federal Aviation Authority, oversight body of all ATC centers) notifies NORAD (military air-radar defense) that Flight 77 may have been hijacked. CNN, Sept 16, ibid (9)

That is:

Forty-plus minutes after two other planes had been hijack-confirmed: (Flight 11 at 8:38, Flight 175 at 8:43, CNN Sept 16, ibid.)

Approximately forty minutes after Flight 77 had begun to go dramatically off-course, (radar map, USA Today, ibid)

Almost forty minutes after ATC officials would have known that Flight 11 had struck the World Trade Center; (CNN, ibid)

Thirty-five minutes after ATC officials "would have known that... American 77 had probably been hijacked" (NY Times, ibid)

About twenty-five minutes after Flight 77 had ceased its transponder signal, and made a 180 degree turn over West Virginia, (when it was now just thirteen minutes from the Pentagon,Newsday, ibid);

Over twenty minutes after a second plane had struck the World Trade Centre, (9:02, CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

And finally:

Nineteen minutes after every other air traffic facility in the country knew that Flight 77 was likely hijacked,(Newsday, ibid) the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked?

May have been hijacked?!?

This is an unbelievable lapse of the most elementary, routine procedures of ATC and the FAA, (as we shall now see); yet this appears to be exactly what happened, for it’s only at,

9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept United Airlines flight 77. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid )

Now, let’s be absolutely clear about this.

It is the sworn duty of the FAA to follow certain safety procedures; such as,
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."

--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (ibid)

The reason for this is simple: in busy airspace, an airliner without radio and transponder contact is a collision waiting to happen.

When an airliner goes off course, it is equally, (if not more) dangerous.

Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.]

(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (ibid)

"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you’re deviating from course." It’s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." (MSNBC, Sept 12)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp#BODY

To give an idea of acceptable, routine response times:

"... from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report: 9:19 a.m. [of Payne Stewart's plane]:
The flight departs. 9:24: The Learjet's pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33:
The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot.
For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38:
Having failed, the controller calls in the military.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138

The standing rule of NORAD officals, (at the central U.S. radar facility, Cheyenne Mountain) is to give unknown airplanes which are approaching U.S. airspace, (off any of the coasts of North America) two minutes to make a satisfactory identification.

After two minutes, fighter-intercepts are ordered to scramble, without exception.

On the other side of the world, the head of the (rather antiquated) Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, has this to say, (of the Sept 11 attacks)

"such a scenario is impossible. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents in Russia] too.... as soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)

Let’s also be absolutely clear about what is meant by "interception."

"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."

--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

FAA:

"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."

"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."

This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.

The escort then makes a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."

The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.

(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (ibid)

So, it is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners, in order to regain contact with the pilot.

"Intercept" and "shoot-down" are two entirely different commands.

The question of whether an airliner may have to be shot down, (and who might give the order) is completely irrelevant to the fact that fighter-intercepts should have been ordered into the air, at the first sign of the emergency.

Let's now review the course of events in the light of the above regulations:

Flight 77 was wildly off-course at about 8:46.

The standard procedure, in this case, would be to request a fighter-intercept within a few minutes.

According to our above radar map,

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm

Flight 77 went about fifteen miles off-course, and was off-course for approximately ten minutes.

This would normally have compelled ATC/FAA to at least notify NORAD and/or an appropriate Air National Guard (ANG) base.

The fact that Flight 77 went so far off-course after Flights 11 and 175 had been hijack-confirmed, should have doubly motivated ATC/FAA officials to inform NORAD.

Nothing.

Then, when the ATC officials (watching Flight 77) were informed, (likely by 8:48) that Flight 11 had struck the World trade Center, (8:46) surely NORAD should have been informed that this other plane had been, (or was) off-course/in trouble.

Still nothing was done when transponder contact with Flight 77 was lost, even after Flight 175 had hit the World Trade Center at 9:02.

Flight 77 was visible on various radar screens, heading back towards Washington -for another 23 minutes, before the FAA informed NORAD that the plane may have been hijacked.

Shocking, unbelievable: is it not?

What were these officials doing?

According to the above-mentioned Newsday article,

"After losing [i.e. transponder] track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military."
The most sophisticated air-traffic communications system in the world: regional radar systems, national satellite radar, command centers in the Pentagon: essentially, not responding.

Flight 77 continued to fly towards Washington, unopposed.

When the FAA finally informs NORAD, the plane is little more than thirty miles outside the Capital. (10)

According to CBS News, (transportation correspondent Bob Orr)

"the plane flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. At 9:33, [it] crossed the Capital Beltway... flying at more than 400mph, [which] was too fast and high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijacker had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and ploughed into the Pentagon at 480mph." (10)

The N.Y. Times, (Sept. 15) adds,

"the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

So the question remains:

why weren’t intercept aircraft scrambled in time to intercept Flight 77?

Why did it take the FAA thirty-five minutes after the first hijacked plane struck the World Trade Center –to inform NORAD? –when Flight 77 was already clearly in trouble, (likely hijacked) and another plane (175) had also been hijack-confirmed?

Is this not an incredibly lax response?

But there’s more.

When officials at NORAD issued the order to scramble jets, (at 9:27) they chose Langley Air Force Base, which is one-hundred and thirty miles outside of Washington, (where Flight 77 was at the time). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

Given the time to scramble, (seven minutes) and the fourteen minutes it takes the planes to fly to Washington, ("at 720 knots, breaking the sound barrier," CNN, ibid) the planes could not possibly have gotten there in time to prevent a direct attack on the Pentagon, the White House, or any of the major buildings in the Capital.

And yet, Andrews Air Force base is located right on the outskirts of Washington, (ten miles away) and is home to two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters. (10)
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

The mission of 121 Fighter-Wing reads, in part,

"provide capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." (10)

F-16 Fighters from Andrews Air Force Base were actually put into the air over Washington on Sept 11th, but only after the attack on the Pentagon was completed, (after planes from Langley were on their way).
" Within minutes of the attack ... F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."

--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001

" an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon... Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…

--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."

--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. ‘But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon’..."

--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (ibid)

Is this not astounding?

A few days later, however, another version began to appear in the mainstream press:

"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm

and

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm

"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." (USA Today, Sept 17, ibid))

Also curious, what appears to be the reputable, well-documented website of the American Federation of Scientists lists the top speed of the F-16 fighters as 1500mph; which means that, according to NORAD and CNN, the fighters from Langley flew at well below their top speed.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm

The Pentagon also has surface-to-air missiles surrounding it. Why weren’t they used?

Neither was the Pentagon evacuated, until the plane had struck its target, (CNN, Sept 16, ibid).

Does all this not sound as if nobody was minding the store in regards to Flight 77?

Would the terrorists on Flight 77 have been able to get to Washington, (and the Pentagon) if the air defense had functioned properly?

Do we not deserve some answers?

Clearly, without gross incompetence on the part of ATC, FAA, and/or NORAD officials, Flight 77 would have not got near Washington -without being "intercepted."

Whether or not a pilot would have been authorized to shoot down the airliner is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that no planes were in the air in time –as routine procedure clearly demanded.

Now, at this point, we don’t know exactly where the breakdown in communication occurred.

By the above information, it would appear that ATC and the FAA were more at fault than NORAD, (though not appreciably); and yet, these communication timelines come to us largely from NORAD.

We don’t know, for example, whether or not ATC and the FAA notified NORAD early on, and whether NORAD simply lied about it -and that the military end was largely or solely responsible for the breakdown in communication.

What we do know, however, is that by official NORAD statements, there was at least a thirty-five minute delay between the time when planes should have been ordered to scramble, and when they actually were.

If routine procedures had been followed, Flight 77 would not have made it to Washington.

The fourth hijacked plane, meanwhile, "was being tracked by the Pentagon," (according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) "and could have been shot down." (NY Times, Sept 15, ibid)

That plane, (Flight 93) crashed into rural Pennsylvania at about 10:10.

Wolfowitz says that "any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President George W. Bush." (ibid)

If this is true, and George Bush didn’t immediately excuse himself from the classroom, (at 9:00 am, or 9:05 at the latest) -to assume his role as commander in chief- then we must include his actions in with the above list of organizations: guilty of criminal incompetence.

The fact that his negligence would have made no difference, (i.e. no planes in the air, even if the President was on duty) matters not.

Moral authority begins with admitting one’s own mistakes: only then can one be forgiven them.

**********
Air Force One
**********

Not only did President Bush do nothing for thirty minutes, (during an absolutely critical period of time): but further, when he did try to leave for Washington aboard Airforce One, (as many readers may still recall) his plane was re-routed to Louisiana, then Nebraska, and he didn’t return to Washington until 7pm –ten hours after the first attack!!

According to White House spokespersons, this was because,

"There was real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets"

Records show this appearing in Reuters, Associated Press, and on CNN, (3:10) the next day. (11)

So, while civilian air defense refused to get planes up in the air in time to intercept Flight 77, secret service agents were telling the President that it was "not safe" for the President to fly back to Washington.

Is this because the secret service knew there were insufficient planes in the air to defend Air Force One? (for, routine procedure would normally ensure that there were).

Also appearing on the 12th and 13th, were columns in the N.Y. Times by William Saffire, wherein "a White House source," (later confirmed by Bush’s Political Strategist, Karl Rove) informed him that the secret service believed,

'Air Force One may be next,' and 'they may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of Presidential procedures].'

Saffire thereby raised the question of a possible "mole" in the CIA, FBI, etc.

Over the next week, reporters were busy looking for answers to this shocking possibility.

The White House initially said nothing more on the subject. Within two weeks it was back-peddling on whether this "threat" had ever even existed.

"I'm not going to comment on any particular threats coming toward the White House. . . it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to threaten the government of the United States, regardless of whether it's President Bush or any of his predecessors. And that's why there are security precautions taken at the White House as a matter of routine."

(Ari Fleischer, White House Press Sec. Wash. Post, Sept 27. (12)

No, it’s not an uncommon occurrence for the U.S. or the president to be threatened. It’s extremely uncommon for such a "threat" to be taken so seriously that a U.S. President is barred from Washington for nine and one-half hours during a national emergency.

"But that's not what this is about," Fleischer continued. "This has nothing to do with anything . . . that may or may not have been directed at President Bush. This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)

Translation: ['this is something we want to pretend never happened.']

The Washington Post placed this vacuous absence of a response on page eight.

Does it not sound as if we deserve some answers about,

who gave that warning?

why was it heeded?

why were the skies over Washington not considered safe for the president’s return, for eight hours?

Does it not sound as if civilian defense was on holiday? –or out to lunch?

How can we be so certain of the attack’s perpetrators -when the officials blaming them don’t want to admit that somebody on our own end screwed up so badly, as to allow an attack to occur?

Is an examination of one’s own mistakes (first) -not the foundation of moral leadership?

To sum up thus far,

we have a president who is informed by about 8:55, (as he leaves his hotel) that a hijacked plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, (about ten minutes before) in a terrorist attack, and that a second plane has been hijacked, (confirmed since 8:43); then he's updated again at 9:00; then again at 9:05, (likely to tell him of the second attack at 9:02) and he does absolutely nothing about it for almost thirty minutes.

We have the third plane, Flight 77, which goes off-course at or around the time that two other planes are hijack-confirmed, (8:43) and yet the FAA does not request NORAD to regain contact with the plane, (by fighter intercept) until 9:25 -even after Flights 11 and 175 had struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:02.

NORAD, in turn, orders jets to scramble from a base which is ten times the distance from Washington than the closest active one is.

That same day, (we’re later told) Air Force One and the White House are "threatened"... from the ‘inside.’ Then these claims are later dismissed and ignored by the White House officials who originally made them –even though this "false report" caused the absence of the President from Washington for nine hours.

Fundamental questions, left unanswered.

The government, (and the mainstream media) do not want to discuss a glaring, criminal negligence which occurred under its watch.

When we look at the other hijacked flights, however, (11, 175, and 93) our concern must deepen considerably; for here, we see the same pattern of neglect and incompetence repeated.

For details, see Unanswered Questions, Part 1B.

Then, when we examine the nature of the FBI investigation, Part 1D, the official explanations, the media coverage, we see the same pattern repeated, yet again: critical questions left unanswered, dubious filler material put in place.

There's no need for wacky conspiracy-theories here, or wild assumptions.

We are talking about a system-wide, repeat pattern of negligence and cover-up, operating at a very high level of government: fully documented, from government and mainstream media sources.

This needs to be addressed.

As our governments and media have proved themselves all too willing to gloss over the uncomfortable questions, I sincerely hope that you will take it upon yourself, dear reader, to become fully informed about what may be the most telling event of our time.

Tell others what you know.

**********
Notes
**********

1. CNN, "Breaking News" Sept 11, 12:40 am. See cnn.com/transcripts
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/inv.intelligence.board/index.html

2. While I can attest to having found these two quotes on a www.defense-link website, in my haste to gather information and references, I must confess I neglected to record the specific address. The direct link to the NY Times article is no longer available to non-subscribers, (like myself). Serious researchers who are willing to pay for access to the NY Times archive, should have no trouble verifying the quote. In the meantime, I shall endeavor to track the web-page reference down again.

3. http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm This is an excellent article and site for information on American/NATO foreign policy.
4. Ibid
5. ibid

6. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ CNN, Sept. 16th. This is a very useful article. In comparison to earlier media reports, it appears to be quite accurate. Compare it, for example, with this earlier summary from the Washington Post of Sept 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
The CNN report also follows the "official" NORAD timeline of events –as per the communications between the FAA, NORAD, and Air Defense. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/norad/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
Whether or not NORAD’s version of when the FAA informed NORAD is true or not is still very much open to question; but at least we have the "official" version to work from.

7. http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm
This is a graphic "flash" map which shows the flight-paths of the four planes on Sept 11, and when they deviated from those paths. It appears to be based on direct radar, taken from a reputable source,http://www.flightexplorer.com Another such graphic map, created on a different web site, appears to be from the same source.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,551275,00.html

Because the FBI has revealed almost nothing to the public about the specific timelines, (and the ATC conversations) we can only estimate on the exact time when Flight 77 went off-course, for how long, and when it reversed course near Ohio, (for its assault on Washington).
The plane took off at 8:20, and crashed at 9:38: a 1 hour/eighteen minutes journey, or seventy-eight minutes. This is now universally confirmed in all media reports
At first glance, we would probably look on the map, and see that the distances the plane took to get from Washington to the Ohio border –and back again- are roughly equal. We would thus assume that it took Flight 77 half of the seventy-eight minutes, (39) to reach Ohio, (8:59). This roughly corroborates with the Newsday article of Sept 23rd, (cited above) which says that the plane turned around at 8:55; yet we must also take into account the flight deviation on the path away from Washington, (add ten minutes?); and we also remember that when Flight 77 was nearing Washington, it was flying at over four-hundred miles an hour, (see note 10, below) well over the legal speed limit for airliners, (250 mph? –not sure the exact number).
By the time the plane struck the Pentagon, it was flying at 480mph. We can thus assume that Flight 77 took less time to fly back to Washington than it did to fly towards, (subtract ten minutes?).
By this estimate, we could assume that Flight 77 turned around at the Ohio border at approximately 9:09, and took twenty-six minutes to reach Washington. However, this differs markedly with the Newsday article, by fourteen minutes.
In terms of getting at the truth of the matter, (calculating the amount of time it took civilian air defence to respond, and so on) this is an important fourteen minutes.
In many early reports, the estimated time of events were sometimes wildly inaccurrate; so we may initially be skeptical of the Newsday claim. Yet this report is from the 23rd. of Sept., a full ten days after the tragedy, (when most of the "official" timelines had been established). Furthermore, this article does appear to rely heavily on "official" NORAD, military acounts.
At the same time, this doesn't necessarily make the "official" claim accurate; and our calculations based the radar documentation, (our only other credible source on when Flight 77 turned around) cannot be discounted.
It does not make logical sense to say that Flight 77 went well off-course on the path away from Washington, (for what appears to be at least twenty miles in three different directions =60 miles, which would add about fifteen minutes on, at 250mph) and ended up taking less time to reach the Ohio border, than it did to return, (especially with the documented speed-increase upon its return).
It's possible that Flight 77 slowed down considerably after turning around, before picking up speed. We don't know.
For the moment, we have little recourse but to estimate the time that Flight 77 turned around as being halfway between these two credible, yet differing accounts; that is, (add or subtract seven minutes) at 9:02, just after 9am.
By this account, it took Flight 77 about forty-two minutes to reach its furthest westward point. If we look on the radar map, we can see that it is at the approximate halfway-point on this course, that the plane initially goes off-course; thus, half of 42 minutes, (21) plus take-off time, (8:20) = 8:41 is the approximate time we assume that Flight 77 first went off-course.
Until more-specific data is made available, the above estimates will serve as our timeline.

The reader here may be reasonably aghast at the amount of information and numbers bandied about, in the interest of verifying a few event-times; yet in a situation where very little information is being disclosed, we may sometimes have to rely on complex, logical discourse, before we can be confident -as to our ability to "fill in the gaps."
This cannot be helped: goes with the territory; the real, shocking truth is sometimes only arrived at by those willing and able to ride the rollercoaster of painstaking, meticulous research.

8. Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php

9. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid) At the same time, 9:25 the FAA, in consultation with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country.

10. CBS News, Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr; an excellent article, based on the real radar reports which showed that Flight 77 did not go near the White House as many officials (and then media) first claimed. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml

11. The Reuters report is available in the archives, http://wire.ap.org/ although the original one may have been tampered with, according to Gary North -who offers what he claims is the original version, here:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash437.htm

12. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sept2001/bush-s28.shtml

NOTE: these last two links have gone dead. Researchers may yet be able to locate the original articles by visiting "freeworldalliance," or by doing a "google" search on "Gary North."

*******

Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions (Part 1B):
Flights 11, 175, 93

*******

[Note to Readers: By your intent to read Part 1B, we assume that you have already read Part 1A, (concerning Flight 77); as such, you are to be commended for your willingness to take the time that is necessary to inform yourself, (no small matter). Many are those who have become so burdened with the weight of words, as to give up the search at the first sign of fatigue. This burden is found in the ground of social, economic, and spiritual oppression, where few of us have the time or energy to devote to a serious study of a serious situation. Thus, one of our most powerful means of achieving freedom -the interior light of the mind- is often left to the darkness of easy explanations echoing off a sea of silenced souls. You who choose to persevere shall not long know the light in isolation. Let the wind of change fill your sails, for the faith you feel, in the strength of all.]

**********
Flight 11
**********

Flight 11 took off from Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:59 am.

Approximately twenty minutes into the flight, (8:20) Flight 11 stops transmitting its’ IFF (transponder) beacon. (CNN, Sept 16th, ibid)

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

The Village Voice of Sept 13th adds,

When the flight was 15 to 20 minutes out, the controller gave the pilot the OK to ascend from 29,000 to 31,000 feet. Nothing happened. The controller repeated his permission to go up. Still nothing. He tried to contact the pilot on the emergency frequency. No answer. Then the controllers noticed the plane's transponders, which tells them the aircraft's altitude, had stopped working, no longer sending a radar pulse."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0137/ridgeway6.php

We should remember here that, although Flight 11 was no longer sending a specific transponder signal, it was still giving off a generalized radar; thus,

"an Air Force facility in Rome, N.Y., tracks planes based solely on the radar reflection off the skin of the aircraft. That alone would allow the Air Force to track the flight." (MSNBC, Sept 12)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/627524.asp

The Village Voice article continues,

"At 8:28 the radar showed the jet veer south."

Our graphic radar map,

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm

shows Flight 11 way off course, (thirty miles or more) by the time that it veered south –and that it must have begun to go off-course at around the time that transponder /cockpit contact was first lost.

To review thus far:

at 8:20, Boston ATC loses radio and transponder contact with Flight 11. The plane starts to go dramatically off course, (to the North West) then veers sharply south at 8:28.

The FAA’s Boston Center knew... that Flight 11 had made a dramatic, roughly 100-degree left-hand turn to the south. (MSNBC, ibid)

We can assume that Boston ATC may have had a little difficulty getting an accurate fix of Flight 11’s position for the first few minutes after contact was lost, but that they made, (if necessary) frantic calls to other radar facilities to remedy that, and were quickly able to establish that Flight 11 was well off-course.

Either way, it seemed to be a serious emergency; and so what was standard procedure for a situation like this?

Let’s briefly recall our documentation from Part 1A:

Re: transponder/radio contact

"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."

--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5

Re: flight path

"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." (MSNBC, Sept 12, ibid)

And what do the fighter planes typically do?

"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

"When planes are intercepted... typically handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front... can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or... down it with a missile."

--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 www.tenc.net (ibid)

So what did Boston ATC do, at 8:20, when transponder/cockpit contact with Flight 11 was lost?

It appears they did essentially nothing until 8:38.

Boston ATC notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked at 8:38 (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

eighteen minutes after the transponder signal first went silent!!

Is this not incredible?

Standard FAA procedure, when radar and cockpit contact is lost, (or when the plane goes off-course) is to get a plane up in the air to regain contact with the pilot.

Recalling our record of Payne Stewart's flight, (from Part 1A)

"departs. 9:24... pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33... The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot... For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38.... the controller calls in the military.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138

Eighteen minutes vs. 4 &1/2.

The official NORAD timeline shows that Boston ATC took four times longer to respond to this emergency, than did the officials monitoring a flight on another day.

Again, since the the FBI has released none of the recorded conversations between ATC officials and the pilots, we don't know to what extent contact still existed -and whether this may have marginally eased their concerns; but the fact is that the plane was way off-course within minutes of the initial difficulty, and it continued to fly northwest towards Canada for eight minutes.

Whether or not partial contact is regained, whether or not those intercepts actually get in the air, (or whether they're called-off) the ATC/FAA should have notified civilian air defence immediately... as if

"an aircraft emergency exists."

It is not necessary for ATC to wait until a hijacking is confirmed, in order to contact NORAD or an ANG base

Whether ATC tried to contact local ANG bases, (Air National Guard) or not, we do not know; whether NORAD was contacted earlier and simply did not respond, is still a possibility; but the critical evidence is in the fact that no jets were ordered to scramble until it came through NORAD, eighteen minutes after the emergency existed.

This obvious negligence is exacerbated by the fact that, once NORAD was (apparently) contacted, it took them another six minutes to contact an air base.

--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters to scramble. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

and this, one minute after

--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.

Why would it take six minutes for NORAD to get the hijack-confirmation, choose an appropriate air base, make a phone call -and for that to be translated into an order to scramble?

One, two, three minutes, maybe; but six?

Now we’re up to twenty-four minutes -between the time when officials first lost contact with Flight 11, and when the order to get jets in the air was given.

This is absurd.

Flight 11 was off-course, out of contact for eight minutes, then it turns sharply south at 8:28 (cited above) and NORAD is not notified for another ten minutes?

Who was responsible for that plane?

By 8:28, according to The Christian Science Monitor, (quoted in both the MSNBC and Village Voice articles, cited above,

"The plane turned [south toward New York], and then they heard the transmission with the terrorist in the background....The voice upset [the controller] because he knew right then that he was working a hijack. Several other people heard the voice, and they could tell by the sound of it, intuitively, that this was a bad situation..... the Nashua [New Hampshire] controllers didn't know when the military was contacted, but said it was routine to do so immediately when a hijacking is under way.

‘They’ were not contacted, (according to NORAD) for approximately ten more minutes.

This is criminal negligence, pure and simple; and, as we have documented this same degree of negligence in the case of Flight 77, we can thus see that this was no "fluke," no "isolated accident," no infrequent "bad day at the office."

We don’t yet know where the exact disconnect point is, (ATC? FAA? NORAD?) but we can clearly see a huge gap in credible response time.

By 8:38 Flight 11 was already nearing the outskirts of New York City, eight minutes away from its target.

Now notice what Air Base NORAD chooses to scramble fighters from: Otis Air Force Base, on the eastern-most tip of Massachusetts, (Cape Cod, on the Atlantic coast).

This is about two-hundred miles away from where Flight 11 was.

Wouldn’t it have made sense to order jets to scramble from a closer base?

As it was, it was already too late for Flight 11.

It struck the WTC at 8:46am, (CNN, April 16, ibid). The intercept planes would not be in the air for another six minutes.

--8:52 a.m.: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis ANG Base in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

It had taken civilain air defense thirty-two minutes to get fighter-intercepts into the air, from the first time of lost transponder/radio contact.

It would take those jets another seventeen minutes to get to New York City.

Why wouldn’t NORAD order other planes from other bases to scramble, as well? –far closer to the hijacked plane(s)?

The significance of this non-order becomes huge, when we consider that it came one minute after NORAD was informed that Flight 175 had been hijacked, (8:43/44). (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

*******
Flight 175
*******

In the space of five minutes, officials at NORAD were made aware that two planes had been hijacked, and were presently within about fifty miles from one another, (just outside New York).

We are not told how or why ATC/FAA officials knew that Flight 175 was hijacked; but based on the record of Flights 77 and 11, it may be safe for us to assume that there was another glaring delay -between the time when trouble was first observed, and when NORAD was first notified.

Now, NORAD would also be among the first to know that Flight 11 had struck a building, (at 8:46, ibid).

Was this not an extreme emergency?

By this time, Flight 175 was thirty-one minutes into its doomed forty-eight minute flight-path. This would place it approximately half-way between Albany and New York City, (50 miles north of NYC) two-hundred miles from Otis Air Force Base, and heading in the opposite direction, (towards Baltimore).

It would have only made the most elementary sense for NORAD, (or ATC) to order other jets scrambled, from other bases closer to the plane -and in a position to intercept it.

Outside Philadelphia, for example, at Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, is 111 Fighter wing, whose "Mission Statement" is,

"To maintain highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military forces in order to provide combat-ready A-10 aircraft for wartime requirements. To provide trained personnel to support state and local authorities in time of natural disaster or civil strife at the command of the Governor." 111th FW Home Page

and further,

"the 111th Fighter Wing has a state mission to protect the safety and security of the citizens and property of the state of Pennsylvania."

http://www.ang.state.pa.us

A "battle-ready" squadron of F-16’s were also stationed with the 177 Fighter Wing out of Atlantic City, less than half the distance from New York City, compared to Otis AFB.

Such bases, of course, are not only restricted to defending the air-space within their own state line.

File no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section 2.6

Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.

http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/ search.asp

Now, it is true that escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base near Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia; but this not always the case:

"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."

--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2

Thus, when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:

"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."

'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)

We are told by military officials that,

"The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml

If we take this "official" speed, (just under 10 miles/minute) and calculate the distance, (approx. 190 miles) it would have taken the planes from Otis about twenty minutes to reach Flight 175’s last known position; and judging from Flight 175’s last known speed and direction, (precise speed unknown, let's say 300 mph) in twenty minutes the airliner would still be another one hundred miles away.

So we can see that it would take about thirty minutes for the Otis fighters to reach Flight 175.

If, on the other hand, NORAD ordered jets to scramble from outside Philadelphia, (at say, 8:50, and even allowing for the eight minutes it took the Otis fighters to get into the air) those jets could be expected to make visual contact with Flight 175 in approximately thirteen minutes.

If Atlantic City had been chosen, two planes could have scrambled and flown the less than one-hundred miles (to intercept) in less than twenty minutes.

Neither of these bases received an order to scramble.

Again, we see the same pattern as in the case of Flight 77; in both cases: incredible FAA delays in notifying NORAD, and NORAD choosing bases which are far away.

This picture is further complicated by the fact that, according to the Federation of American Scientists,

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

the top speed of the F-15 is over 1800 mph.

This top speed is rarely achieved, given the weight of weapons and extra fuel; but given the extreme nature of the emergency, would it not be reasonable to assume that the F-15's should have achieved a speed of at least 1,000 or 1,200 mph? about 20 miles/minute?

Apparently, that's not what happened.

According to the NORAD timeline, (CNN, Sept. 16, ibid) the two F-15's left Otis AFB at 8:52. When Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center at 9:02, (ten minutes later) the

"F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away."

If we calculate the distance between OTIS and NYC, (about 190 miles, see note 13) and the time it took the planes to get there, they flew about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph. -hardly what we'd expect.

In total then, it took civilain air defence, (on Sept. 11, 2001) fifty minutes to get two fighters to the interception point, (NY City) after the initial airline emergency had commenced.

Compare this with the "Payne Stewart" incident,

9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military... 9:54 - 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewMediaFile.cfm?REF=138

Even given the discrpencies over the "official" flight speed, we should also remember that, if ATC or NORAD had responded to Flight 11 in a reasonable amount of time, numerous other bases in the area could have been called upon to put jets in the air, such as,

The 104 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Westfield, Massachusetts, (center/west part of the state)

The 174 Fighter Wing, (ANG) out of Syracuse, New York, (which was directly in Flight 11’s flight-path, until it turned south)

Or the 103, or 118 Fighter Wings, (ANG) twenty miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, (100 miles N/E of NYC).

The "state" mission of 174 Fighter Wing, for example, is as follows:

"protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety. State missions, which are funded by the state, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires; search and rescue; protection of vital public services; and support to civil defense."

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/ang/nyang.html

As most American citizens know very well, the primary, stated purpose of the Air National Guard is civil defence.

For some reason, even though this was the most extreme of civil emergencies, no other jets were scrambled on Sept 11 -besides those under the direct control of NORAD, (Otis and Langley, as we shall see).

All the other National Guard bases were left un-activated.

Even given the outrageous twenty-four minute delay in responding to Flight 11, (which irrevocably doomed it to its’ fate) jets still should have been scrambled from Westfield, MA., Hartford CT., Philadelphia, or Atlantic City; and they would have then been in the air in time to intercept Flight 175.

As it was, Flight 175 made a sharp turn south, (towards Atlantic City) which would have brought it into closer range with both 111, and 177 Fighter Wings.

--8:50 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 deviates from its assigned flight path. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

IF NORAD had acted decisively –even after the first confirmed attack on the World Trade Centre- there still would have been a chance to avert the second attack, but the needed order to scramble additional jets never came.

--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower (F-15 fighter jets from Otis ANG Base are still 70 miles away.) (CNN, Sept 16, ibid)

Thus it was unprecedented incompetence and negligence which allowed two hijacked planes to crash into the World trade Center towers -just as had been the case for Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, (see Part 1A).

Thousands of American citizens would not have lost their lives if ATC, FAA, NORAD, and/or Pentagon officials had done their jobs, (though again, we don’t yet know exactly whom, and to what degree).

The same pattern of incompetence remains:

For Flight 11, no effective actions were taken to regain visual contact, (via an escort) once cockpit/transponder contact was lost.

A response only occurred twenty-four minutes after the plane had been off course, was obviously hijacked, and then confirmed.

In the case of both Flight 11 and 175, the base chosen to scramble jets from was a great distance away –relative to numerous other bases- and ultimately proved incapable of defending the citizens and property of New York City.

Was Boston ATC in charge of both flights?

Who was responsible for the ensuing decisions made at NORAD?

By the close proximity of attack-times between the two planes, and the outrageously long response-time/ineptitude of ATC/FAA and/or NORAD, two cargoes of innocents were condemned to an infamous fate.

In this, let us be perfectly clear: the source of our outrage is not for vengeance against those who may have unconciously donned the uniform of criminal negligence on Sept 11; for, even when thousands of lives are lost, the heart of a nation can be very large. We may yet choose to understand that, in the midst of a crisis, some people in positions of high authority may have "lost their heads," "missed their cue" -when their skills and training were most needed.

What we cannot countenance, however, is being lied to; and so long as the government utterly refuses to acknowledge the criminal negligence that the available documentation clearly implies, then the possiblity that there are very good and reasonable explanations for the security failure on Sept 11th remains on very thin ground.

*******
Flight 93
*******

The general timeline for the final voyage of Flight 93 is as follows:

--8:42 a.m.: United Airlines flight 93 takes off from Newark
International Airport, bound for San Francisco.

--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have
been hijacked.

--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and radar
contact is lost.

--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected
near Shanksville, Pennsylvania

CNN, Sept 16. ibid http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

By numerous accounts, Flight 93 is believed to have crashed at 10:06 EST, or a few minutes after. (12)

Many of us will remember, during the first few hours after the crash, hearing reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane.

This was flatly denied by the White House and military officials, and the mention of it was soon dropped in the media coverage.

There is much evidence to suggest that Flight 93 was shot down, (which we shall discuss in a subsequent report); but for the moment, this question is largely irrelevant.

If a military plane had shot down the airliner, (after three other planes had devastated three highly populated buildings) few people would have found fault with the military for carrying out the gruesome task.

In fact, it is far more damning of the U.S. Air Force, and civilian defense, that officials are claiming there were not any fighters in the immediate vicinity.

Let’s take a closer look at the timeline.

According to the above CNN report, (based on NORAD’s own statement) the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16.

The plane crashed at 10:06.

That means it was in the air, hijack-confirmed for almost an hour, (fifty minutes) with no jets intercepting it –after two planes had struck the World Trade Center.

Is this not incredible?

We are told that the FAA informed NORAD that Flight 77, (the third plane) "may have been hijacked" at 9:25; and only then, at 9:27, did NORAD order jets to be scrambled from Langley.

But why, (for God’s sake) did NORAD not order jets to be scrambled from Langley at 9:16, when first informed that Flight 93 had been hijacked?

If they had immediately ordered jets airborne at 9:16, the F-16’s from Langley would have actually made it to Washington before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, (9:38).

If NORAD had responded as it is mandated to do, the F-16’s from Langley would have caught up to Flight 93 soon after it altered its course near Cleveland.

Nor would fighters from Langley have been the most logical squadrons to call upon.

Andrews Air Force base would have been closer.

Near Toledo, Ohio, less than 100 miles west of Cleveland, is 180 Fighter Wing, and about thirty miles west of Columbus Ohio, is 178 Fighter wing.

http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/Military_Install_N_R.html#ohio

http://www.ang.af.mil/directory/ANGDir.html

Also, recall from the earlier reports, (cited above) that F-16/15 Fighters were scrambled from both, Langley AFB and Andrews AFB, for protection over Washington, D.C.

From those reports, which said the Andrew’s planes were in the air "within minutes" of the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, (at 8:38) (Sunday Telegraph) –and the Langley planes which arrived at about 9:49, (CNN. Sept 16, ibid) eleven minutes after the crash- we can reasonably assume there was extra fighter-power over Washington by 9:50.

Furthermore, Flight 93 was widely believed to be headed toward Washington. It had made a 180-degree turn over Cleveland, and was heading in the direction of the capital.

Recall the radar map, previously cited,

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/flash.htm

and,

"As we walked, a voice over a fire truck loud speaker told everyone to move as far away from the Pentagon as possible due to a second plane coming toward the Pentagon. Evidently, this plane was American Flight #93 that crashed east of Pittsburgh."

Lt. Col. Alan Maitland, Pentagon employee

http://www.easttexasnews.com/news/story6_10_21.htm

and further,

At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline. Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning.

"A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "

Tuesday October 16 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller

By MATTHEW L. WALD with KEVIN SACK, The New York Times

When Flight 93 crashed east of Pittsburgh, it was approximately 150 miles away from Washington, (approximately twenty minutes away, by airliner, at 400 mph, or fourteen minutes away, by super-sonic jet).

The FAA had ordered all commercial planes to be grounded at 9:25.

There were very few planes left in the sky. There would have been virtually no other planes on radar that could have threatened Washington, D.C., (even without the extra fighters in the air) –that is, besides the hijacked plane which had reversed course and was barreling towards Washington at a ferocious speed.

If the main priority of those jets was to protect Washington, why were some of them not sent to intercept flight 93? even at 9:50? -well before the crash, some sixteen minutes later?

If there were no fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93 when it crashed, there bloody-well should have been.

Apparently some of these planes were eventually ordered to intercept; but we have not been told when, and how close they were; and again, they appeared to arrive upon the scene about ten minutes after the plane had crashed –in a now familiar pattern.

*******
Notes
*******

13)The distance between Otis AFB and New York City is about 188 miles,

[NOTE: According to the following site,

http://airtravel.about.com/library/misc/blmileageair.htm

the air mile distance between Boston and New York City is 188 miles. A look on a map located through yahoo.com shows that Otis AFB is on the outer edge of Cape Cod, (on the shores of the Atlantic). Thus, it appears as if Otis is as far, (if not further) from New York City as Boston. I include this rather lengthy explanation here, due to the fact that numerous other sources have repeatedly under-estimated the distance by a wide margin.]

If we subtract the 70 miles from the 188, that leaves about 118 miles that the F-15's travelled in ten minutes. That's about twelve miles per minute, or 720 mph.

14)10:06, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Sept 13,

10:10, Washington Post, Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html

15)10: 06 NY Times online, http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/UA93/WTC_Shanksville.html
Note: the reference to this NY Times article is from the site of Holocaust denier David Irving. This simply shows that relevant information can sometimes be gained from sources that are otherwise suppliers of consistent dis-information.

*******

Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions (Part 1C):
Summation of Civilian Air Defense, Sept 11, 2001

*******

WHO IS TO BLAME?

[Dear reader: We now enter into a serious investigation. Thus far, we have only laid down the groundwork for why an investigation is warranted. You are now entering into a much wider, more-complex landscape of facts, times, dates, possibilities, conclusions. I want to encourage you, in the strongest way possible, to trust your own instincts. When you feel that you're being asked to cram too much information into your brain, too quickly; please, turn to something else. Put the page down, close the computer screen, or just take a deep breath. By all means, use this work to feed your own expression: write, sing, paint, draw your journey. My highest hope is that, through these words, you may feel empowered to listen more-deeply, to that voice within you, your unique gift to all; and great would be my sadness, if you found in this mad mound of information, an oppressive weight which you did not cast off, at the first opportunity].

In our review of the events of Sept 11th, (thus far) we have found a consistent pattern, whereby, Air Traffic Control, the FAA, and NORAD consistently failed to do their jobs -in anything approaching a reasonable frame of time.

In the case of Flight 11, Boston ATC took eighteen minutes to notify NORAD, after the plane had ceased its transponder signal, after radio contact with the pilot had been lost, and after the plane had begun going dramatically off-course.

When NORAD was notified, it took six minutes for the call for jets to scramble to go through; and the order was sent to a base which was two hundred miles away, when numerous other "battle-ready" fighter squadrons in Philadelphia, Atlantic City, and Hartford were far closer. (The question of whether any of those planes were on "strip alert" or not we shall look at shortly).

This galling, unprecedented delay, coupled with NORAD’s inept judgement, also doomed Flight 175 to its ignoble destruction, sixteen minutes later.

Flight 77 was clearly in trouble before Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center at 8:46. ATC officials watching Flight 77 were aware that Flight 11 had been hijacked before it crashed; yet it took the FAA until 9:25, over thirty-five minutes later, to inform NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked.

NORAD again responded by ordering planes to scramble from a base (Langley) which was 130 miles away from where Flight 77 was, (just outside Washington) when active fighters were stationed at Andrews AFB, just ten to fifteen miles away.

Flight 93 was hijack-confirmed at 9:16, fifty minutes before it crashed in rural Pennsylvania –with not a single fighter being close to intercepting it.

When the President of the United States, George W. Bush, was first informed that a hijacked plane had crashed into the World trade center, (and another plane hijacked) at about 8:55, he made no change in his plans. After being updated at 9:00 am, then 9:05 (presumably about the second attack) he did nothing for another twenty-five minutes, even though he was supposedly the only one authorized to shoot the planes down.

When the president tried to leave Florida for Washington, his plane, (Air Force One) was re-routed to Louisiana, and then Nebraska, before he limped home –nine hours after the attacks- because of "credible evidence of a threat to Air Force One and the White House" which were later denied and dismissed by the very officials who first mouthed them.

It is now exceedingly clear that, alongside a terrorist attack on Sept 11th, there existed a campaign of gross negligence at practically all levels of American air defense: ATC, FAA, NORAD, and the Executive.

Without this colossal incompetence, the collisions of Flights 11, 175, and 77 -into those buildings- simply could not have occurred.

Within this above group we must also include the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense, which is at the center of all command and control decisions in the case of hijackings, (and other national emergencies).

"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2

"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.

"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)

This gives specific clarification to a previous reference in Part 1A, (New York Times, Sept 15)

"military officials in a command center on the east side of the [Pentagon] were urgently talking to law enforcement officials about what to do,"

All of this is now a confirmation of what everyone (with access to a television) instinctively knew on Sept 11:

something went horribly wrong with American airspace security;

somebody was asleep at the switch.

Now we can see, that it was not just one official, in one department; it was system-wide; and we can further see why the government, and the military, do not want us to ask too many questions about it.

This gross, systematic incompetence points to one of three probable causes:

1) criminal negligence, which miraculously occurred at all five levels of civilian air defense at the same time, (with varying degrees of culpability)

or,

2) criminal negligence, emanating primarily from the highest levels of governmental authority,

or,

3) intentional sabotage, (treason) operating from within the government, (which then may have caused other negligent acts to occur).

The first scenario is not very likely.

It would mean that a long process of decay, apathy, and inefficiency would have set in: a ticking time-bomb, in place, imperceivable, waiting for a terrorist group to eventually take advantage.

While such a degradation of the overall system may have played a part in the Sept 11th breakdown, it seems far more likely that a particular ingrediant set it off: either unintended criminal negligence at a very high level, or intentional negligence, (sabotage) at a middle to high level.

It's also possible that very little negligence existed at the lower levels of the FAA and ATC; and instead, occurred in the upper echelons of the military.

For example: NORAD and the Pentagon are the last leg of communication in civilian air-defence; negligence at this level, means that the planes don't get airborne, no matter what ATC and the FAA do.

While it's also true that the planes don't get airborne if the military is not informed, it's less-likely that such negligence would occur across numerous branches of Air Traffic Control centers, and the FAA, all at the same time. The fact that the President was also utterly incapacitated, points to command and control centers in the military.

We should further remember that much of what we know of as evidence in mainstream publications -timelines, who did what, etc- ultimately comes to us from the military.

In matters of "national-security," the FAA and ATC bow to the military authority -for the final word on what "officially" transpired.

See, for example, the previously cited Newsday article, (Sept 23) wherein we read,

"FAA spokesman William Shumann said the agency would not comment on its actions during the Sept. 11 crisis."

"because the attacks are under investigation, the agency is not discussing the timing of its alerts to the military."

By the "official" documentation gathered thus far, it appears that the FAA and ATC is more at fault -for not informing NORAD in time- than is NORAD, (for not ordering the appropriate bases to respond); yet this documentation comes to us largely from NORAD; and we would not expect to publicly hear from ATC or FAA officials, if their experience differed markedly from the "official" line.

It's possible that the ATC and FAA officials did everything by the book on Sept 11 -and that NORAD simply refused to act, or the Pentagon ordered bases not to respond, (for whatever reason).

The fact that no FAA/ATC officials have been publicly charged with negligence, would suggest that the military, (which holds ultimate authority here) is either covering up for them, (taking heat onto itself) or is not charging anyone to cover up its own culpability.

Anyone familiar with the U.S. military knows that the first option, (the act of a senior authority passing up an opportunity to pin the blame for a disaster on a guilty subordinate) is the far less likely of the two.

If the negligence was intentional, (i.e. sabotage) then it still would have had to occur at a fairly high level -for it to have a critical, causitive affect across so many jurisdictions and levels of authority: ATC, FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and the President.

The infrastructure of civilian air defence is very complex: it may take some time before we are able to pinpoint precisely who was responsible for what, and to what degree of concious intent.

Intentional or not, such gross negligence and incompetence demands a full public hearing –and for those responsible to be brought to trial.

The only way for this to happen is for individual citizens and groups to spread the word, gather together evidence, separate fact from conjecture, cease accepting government pronouncements as gospel, then make our voices heard across the entire body-politic.

The fact that the whole affair has been overlooked by the Bush Administration, Congress, (and the mainstream media, as we shall see) does not bode well for the search for justice -for the thousands of innocents who needlessly died.

Such is the challenge which befalls the sacred duty of citizens -living in a free society.

Now: while we still do not have a conclusive idea of where the criminal negligence of Sept 11th emanated from, we may be able to shed some further light on the subject, by expanding the scope of our investigation.

That is: if the negligence of Sept. 11th emanted from a high level in the military, (and/or executive) then we should also see it reflected in other jurisdictions which are lower than the military authority, but higher than the FAA/ATC.

If it is not, this would make it more plausible for us to assume that the negligence came from the lower ranks.

It is in this regard the the "official" FBI investigation now represents a potentially fertile ground for gathering evidence -as to exactly where the breakdown (and/or collusion) of authority occurred.

It is to this that we now turn our attention.

*******

Sept 11th – Unanswered Questions (Part 1D):
"The Investigation"
FBI, CIA, and other agencies.

*******

First recall that the CIA/FBI claim they had no real warning of the Sept 11th attacks.

This claim is dubious in the extreme.

The CIA has an "official" budget of $30 billion/yr.

While the CIA/FBI claim no advance warning, it took them only a few days to discover the identities of all sixteen hijackers, their backgrounds, where they traveled, trained to fly, etc.

Within the first week after the attack, German intelligence officials are shocked, (and a little angry) to find that U.S. intelligence forces had been monitoring the suspected terrorist cells in Germany for four years, and had massive files of information on them -yet hadn’t told the Germans a thing. (Analyst John Cooley, "Democracy Now" archive, Sept 26, www.webactive.com)

As the question of CIA "advance warning" involves many variables, (and is not as central to our investigation of what happened on the specific day of Sept. 11th) we largely leave that question to a subsequent report.

Here we focus on the investigative work of the FBI.

So, what do we know so far?

Let's start with the "terrorists."

The FBI says that a number of the terrorist/pilots were trained at certain small-engine flight schools in Florida.

The instructors at those schools freely admit that such training would have been of no significant help to someone wanting to fly commercial airliners. They are "completely different systems." (www.tenc.net Interview with Huffman Aviation).

Remember that the hijacker-pilots were near-universally recognized to have "extraordinary skill," (Washington Post, Sept. 12). It would seem to take significant amount of discipline and training to be able to fly a jet airliner, travelling at 480 miles an hour, (apparently, twice the legal speed) into a target not much wider than an airplane. (Not to mention the above-noted acrobatics over the Pentagon, Part 1A).

Here’s how the various instructors described these "pilots,"

Mohammed Atta, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, (Flight 11)

"neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept."

The Washington Post (September 19, 2001)

Nawaq Alhazmi, Khaid Al-Midhar, (Flight 175)

"Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse... like they had hardly even ever driven a car ... in the plane, they were dumb and dumber."

The Washington Post (September 24, 2001)

And how about Hani Hanjour? -the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who was supposed to do the Pentagon air-show?

"... Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors.... three times... [hoping] to rent a plane from the airport.... after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo.... [he] had 600 hours listed in his log book... and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience." (pg. 1.) The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), September 18.

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/valentine.htm#hani_hanjour

Second, while even the most seasoned military strategists were shocked at the sophistication and precision of the Sept 11th operation, the clumsiness of the terrorists -in leaving evidence behind, in hotel rooms, suitcases, and loud public behavior, etc.- was impressive in turn.

There’s the crop dusting manuals, maps, diagrams -that we’ve all heard about.

"In one case, we’re told that two of these super devout Moslems spent the night before their suicidal act drinking in strip bars -a double blasphemy." (whatreallyhappened.com)

"Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks."

"the men in [the] bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards.... They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,'" the owner of the strip bar was quoted as saying."

"Furthermore, [the bar owner] said that he gave the FBI their credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one of the suspects and most amazingly, a copy of a Koran that one of the men had left at the bar."

Associated Press, September 13

Early in the morning of Sept 11th, there was reported to be a "road rage" incident at Boston’s Logan Airport -involving four Arabic-looking people. A witness to this later led police to the vehicle, in the airport parking lot.

They found there: Arabic flight training manuals, and a Koran packed away in a suitcase, (something not done by devout Moslems).

(investigator John Judge, www.astridmm.com/radio/archive.htm)

Then we find out that the FBI doesn’t really have a firm handle on who most of the hijackers were. Of the sixteen originally identified, two are now known to be still alive, (and living in the middle east); at least one has been dead for two years, and the possibility of forged documents has not been ruled out in all but a few cases.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/who.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-warid1021.story?coll=ny%2Dtop%2Dheadlines

This may partly explain why, when we check the list of passengers on the planes which went down,

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

we find that the passenger-count for each plane is short four or five of the listed total; and none of the names listed are Arabic-sounding. We may assume from this that because the identities used by the hijackers may not have been their real ones, the FBI may have asked the airlines to keep those names secret; but it remains a mystery.

Yet the pictures of these various "hijackers" are plastered across every major newspaper in the country -as if it’s a fact- for a month after most of their identities are proven to be uncertain.

There were apparently seven phone calls made from the various hijacked planes; not one of them mentions the hijackers being of middle-eastern origin. This may be particularly significant because one of the callers was Barbara Olsen, the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General, (who argued before the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore). She was, herself, a noted author, journalist. Are we to believe she simply neglected to mention an important identifying characteristic?

Then we find that five of the suspects appeared to have lived at and/or "got some training at American military bases." (Newsweek, Sept 15) Does this mean that the terrorists had inside help? Or that the identities had been stolen?

We are not likely to hear.

There's the "chilling" final letter of instruction to the terrorists which conveniently connects the three different flights: one in the baggage that "accidentally" got left behind, one in an airport parking-lot garbage-can; and one, intact, at the Pennsylvania crash site where "everything [was] all but obliterated."

A veteran Middle East reporter, Robert Fisk, described the authors of the letter as being "surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion" -due to numerous expressions in the letter, foreign to practicing Moslems, (The Independent, Sept 29, 2001)

"The document begins with the words, 'In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate... In the name of God, of myself, and of my family.... The time of fun and waste is gone.'

"The problem is that no Molsem -however ill-taught- would include his family in such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after he mentioned God in the first line. Lebanese and Palestinian suicide bombers have never been known to refer to 'the time of fun and waste' -because a true Muslim would not have 'wasted' his time and would regard pleasure as a reward of the after-life."

"The full Arabic text has not been released by the FBI. The translation, as it stands, suggest an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt -asking to be forgiven for sins, explaing the that fear of death is natural, that 'a believer is always plagued with problems.'"

Yet the effect of this "chilling" disclosure, (mouthed by Attorney General John Ashcroft on national TV) is instrumental in helping to pull the strings of assumed guilt closed around the "terrorists" -in the minds of many.

Then we have the question of the so-called "black boxes": the flight data recorder, and the cockpit voice recorder, designed to withstand a crash of great intensity. Each plane had both, an FDR and CVR.

Only the boxes from the crash in Pennsylvania have been recovered: one unusable, the other blank. All of these occurrences are exceptionally rare.

Yet while none of the eight flight recorders have been found intact, it seems investigators were fortunate enough to find one of the terrorists’ passports in good shape, a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center had been.

Apparently, the passport must have fallen into the air just as the crash occurred, survived the almost 1,000 degree heat of the fire, then come across a strong wind to blow it several blocks away -according to New York Police Commissione Bernard Kerik, and Deputy Chief Barry Mawn.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/

Can you believe this?

The shoddy, convenient, and questionable nature of such "evidence" is so brazen, that it must be obvious to any thinking person that investigators, (at least to some degree) put a "case" together, to re-assure the public -when, in fact, they had no clear idea who was actually involved, responsible, how they did it, etc. (and/or didn’t want to admit what it was they knew).

Obviously, there's a lot more involved to an investigation of this nature, than what we have covered here; but,

pilots who can’t fly the planes?
Hijackers whose actual identities seem irrelevant?
Behavior absolutely inconsistent with devout Muslims?
Eight missing black boxes?
Indestructible passports?

How stupid do they think we are?

The fact that most of this information came out within a week of the attacks, and has been soundly forgotten by the mainstream press, suggests that it was designed to quickly close the books on the case, and move on to other, less-contentious matters.

That few cries of protest have arisen amongst the general public is no vindication that we are stupid -or that there is nothing to protest against: it's simply a reflection of the fact that most citizens are so pre-occupied with trying to earn a living, raise a family, and maintain some sense of normalcy in the wake of a traumatic attack, that the thought of powerful forces in government fabricating evidence was too much to bear.

Nor have we all swallowed the story.

Both President Bush, (at the U.N. General Assembly)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/wackyconspiracy.html

and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, (ABC News, AP, Dec.9)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/t12092001_t1209abc.html

have been compelled to publicly speak about "outrageous conspiracy theories."

This is of no small significance; for men of power know that the best way to discredit something is to ignore it; they only speak of things which threaten to temporarily take the freshed-buffed sheen off their face when they feel they can no longer afford to ignore them.

For many observers, it was the ridiculous nature of the FBI investigation which told them that their initial doubts about American civil air defense on Sept 11th were justified.

This poor excuse for a case clearly implicates the FBI in the cover-up of the criminal negligence which occurred within the ranks of civilian air defence on Sept 11th.

Whether Attorney-General John Ashcroft himself, (nominal head of the FBI) was directly involved in this cover-up, (or whether he was just "fed" -and then blindly delivered- information convenient to closing the case) remains to be seen.

The N.Y. Police commissioner's participation in the passport charade, (noted above) is an indictaion of how the various local police and investigative forces were likely subordinated to the FBI's authority; and, as in the case of civilian air defense, the network of influence within the police services is a complex one: it may take us some time to discover exactly who did what, when, and by what authority.

The significance of this FBI fabrication, for us, is clear: it strongly affirms the probability that the criminal negligence in civilian air-defence must have occurred at a very high level: higher than the FBI; that is, in the Department of Defense/Pentagon, and/or the Executive Branch.

The Executive has already been implicated in the negligence, by the President's refusal to act during a critical thirty minutes of the attack; and if the military was directly involved in an act of intentional treason, it's possible that that this was done under the direction of the White House.

In terms of immediate, concrete fact, however, the decision or inability of the Air Force to put fighter-intercepts into must have come through the military.

In comparison to the absence of fighter-intercepts, the documented negligence of George W. Bush pales. His inaction would only have been recognized by citizens as serious if the fighter-intercepts had been scrambled, (as they were supposed tohave been); then Bush's refusal to leave the children's classroom, (to authorize the shoot-downs) would have clearly been the deciding factor in why the planes "got through."

The military controls daily operations. In terms of a "spontaneous" event, where unintended criminal negligence prevails, the lead agency would have to be the military. The Executive could only be considered as a possible lead agency if a planned, treasonous negligence had been undertaken.

Other areas relevant to airspace/national security still remain to be explored, (airports, the CIA); yet sufficient evidence now lies before us, that we may be justified in attempting to zero in on elements within the Defense Dept. and the Pentagon -as prime suspects in the negligence and/or treason surrounding 9/11.

For such a secretive, tightly-controlled organization as the military, practically the only source of information we have on it's Sept. 11th behavior is through its' "official" explanations of how the tragedy occurred -as revealed in the mainstream media.

So it is there to which we now turn.

*******

Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions, (Part 1E):
"Official" (military) Explanations

*******

"Official" Explanation: explained

As we have already determined, the ultimate authority for the "official" explanation for the air defense failure of Sept. 11th is the U.S. military.

In matters of defense, the military holds the power, authority, and critical information. Even where the media "fills in" certain parts on its own, (which don't directly relate to civilian air defense) we find they do tend to correspond quite tightly to the military line; so our examination of the "official" explanation is also about the behavior of the media.

Whether the "official" explanation is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, (and to what degree) this is where the military stands. By examining the "official" explanation in some detail, we come closer to understanding the military's role in the tragedy.

The "official" military explanation may be summarized as follows:

The delayed response in getting planes into the air was primarily the fault of the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control. [FAA Delay] This made it impossible for Air Defense to intercept the hijacked planes in time. A companion to this component is also looked at here: 'we really tried.'

The reason that the bases, (chosen to scramble jets from) were far away from their targets, was because military cutbacks caused a drastic reduction in the number of bases with planes on "standby" "strip alert." [few planes available]

Officials also raise the question of what fighter pilots would have done if they had been able to intercept the Airliners -suggesting that, this "terrible decision" may have caused some delay in responding. [To Shoot or Not to Shoot Down]

Then there are a number of "smaller" factors, (such as transponder technologies, foreign intelligence, "airline watch lists," communications, etc.) all of which are said to have added to the culture of [confusion] which prevailed on the morning of Sept 11th. Themes here include: 'We're all a little to blame,' and 'we could not have foreseen.'

Let's look at each one of these positions, and see if they hold up to serious scrutiny, and/or whether they provide any insight as to what went wrong on Sept. 11th.

*******
FAA Delay
*******

Readers may recall that the "official" NORAD timeline of events, contained in the Sept. 16th report from CNN,

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ (6)

was the starting point for our discovery that a shocking abandonment of routine procedure, and delays in responding to the hijackings had occurred on Sept 11th. In this, the FAA and/or Air Traffic Control was shown to be directly responsible for ['leaving the Air Force no opportunity to respond in time'].

Although most readers would not have taken the time to add and subtract the various times in this article -to clarify the exact length of the delays- the official figures are there; and the negligence they reveal is truly staggering.

Our Newsday article of the 23rd does not hold back any such punches in clarifying the details,

"after the terrorists turned off [Flight 77's] transponder, ....about 29 minutes went by before the FAA alerted the military to the new threat from the airliner,

and,

"After losing track of Flight 77 for about 10 minutes, the FAA rediscovered the plane heading east over West Virginia, then took about 19 more minutes to alert the military.

and,

"Another response-time question involves American Airlines Flight 11... air controllers first knew at about 8:20 a.m. that there had been a probable hijacking of that plane. But the FAA didn't notify the military until 20 minutes later"

"Did critical information get from the FAA to the military quickly enough? The record suggests that teenagers on instant-message networks communicate faster than some federal officials did during the crisis." (Newsday, 23rd, ibid)

http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story

So an extraordinary negligence on the part of the FAA/ATC is clearly a matter of public record.

The military, we are told, was so handicapped by the delay in being notified, that fighter-intercepts could not be gotten "there" in time.

Thus, we hear the theme

*******
'We Really Tried'
*******

repeated, implied, in numerous forms and guises.

"Fighter jets were only eight minutes away from one of the hijacked airliners when it crashed into......... Two other military jets were 12 minutes away when an airliner hit..."

http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/terrorism/attack/story/84825p-1141645c.html

and

"Air National Guard fighter jets scrambled in a desperate but vain attempt to intercept two of the hijacked airliners..."

"The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.."

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml

And from our CNN article of the 16th, (cited above) we read,

"The fighters broke the sound barrier and travelled supersonic at 720 knots to Washington, making the approximately 130 miles in 14 minutes."

If we recall our previously cited information from the website of the American Federation of Scientists, however,

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm

and,

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

we find that the top speeds of the F-16 is 1500 mph., and the F-15 1875 mph.

While the planes could not be expected to reach their top speeds with a full fuel and weapons load, it seems pretty clear that,

the "official" speeds given were well below what those planes were capable of,

and

the media/military sources described those speeds so as to give a very different impression.

If the F-15's from OTIS AFB, for example, (taking off at 8:52, NORAD/CNN, ibid) had travelled at 1200mph, (20 miles/minute, two thirds their top speed) they would have flown the 190 miles to New York City in 9.5 minutes -in time to intercept Flight 175, before it struck the tower at 9:02.

Given that the pilots (supposedly) 'really tried,' it's rather extraodrinary that:

those supposedly most responsible for forcing those pilots to make "a desperate but vain attempt," (FAA/ATC officials) have not only not been charged with criminal negligence; military officials have not even openly criticised them

Instead, the military has talked about other "factors."

*******
'Few Planes Available'
*******

Speaking before the Senate Confirmation hearings, soon-to-be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers said,

"far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War."

How many fewer, exactly?

It makes sense that there not be as many fighters on alert, as there was during the Cold War; but no more than two? (three?) active bases for the entire eastern seaboard?

Well, that seems to be exactly what top military officials are suggesting.

In the following article,

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml

Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, says,

"During the Cold War, the Air National Guard and Air Force kept planes on ''strip alert'' -- ready to fly within minutes -- at more than 100 bases around the country. But with the decline of the Soviet threat, that number was drastically reduced."

"Since 1997, the Air National Guard has kept two fighter planes on strip alert at only seven bases on the East, South and West coasts of the country to guard against threats coming from outside U.S. borders, Weaver said." (ibid)

This view is repeated in our previously mentioned Newsday article of the 23rd,

"the number of air bases where fighter planes are kept on alert has dwindled sharply in recent years... no longer [including] any bases close to two obvious terrorist targets - Washington, D.C., and New York City...."

Only seven bases? For the entire United States?

This is an extraordinary claim.

First of all, although the Soviet threat has been dramatically reduced, it still is a nuclear power, and an unstable one at that.

Second, the armed forces is not one of those institutions which has a hard time finding a justification to maintain funding in the context of a reduced threat. So while a reduction would be reasonable, from one hundred to seven seems absurd.

Third, since we have documented numerous ANG bases as maintaining full "battle-ready" squadrons, (parts 1B, Flights 11 and 175) and since

"continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard", (above article)

does it not seem reasonable to assume that a few dozen bases, (distributed somewhat evenly across the United States) would have at least two of their "battle-ready" fighters fuelled up and ready to go? -with two pilots on standby?

Does the above "official" statement mean that the internal protection of American skies was entirely abandoned?

If we recall our earlier reference to the Lear Jet of Golf Pro Payne Stewart,

‘First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota.’ --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999" (www.tenc.net ibid)

it certainly doesn't seem as if only seven bases had active jet-fighters on that day.

Fourthly, the fact that four separate reports, (on the scene, Sept 11th) stated that Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington scrambled F-16's, (after the Pentagon was hit) -and that these reports were later denied by the military, (through other media reports)- suggests further room for doubt.

Overall, the claim of "too few planes" stands on shaky ground.

Even if the claim was accurate, however, it would still remain largely irrelevant to the central cause of the Sept 11th failure: the extreme delay in airforce response.

If routine procedures had been carried out, the planes from Otis AFB would have been ordered to scramble within a few minutes of lost transponder/radio contact; they would have intercepted Flights 11 and 175 in time; and the Langley planes would have intercepted Flights 77 and 93. In this latter case, planes could have been routinely scrambled from Montana and they would have still reached the target in time.

So the above claim does not lessen or explain the outrageous delays attributed to the FAA, nor does it explain why the military authorities have said nothing critical about that; it merely attempts to share a small piece of the blame.

*******
To Shoot, or Not To Shoot Down
*******

Continuing on with the article....

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml

"Weaver... acknowledged that if the F-15s and F-16s had caught up with the hijacked passenger planes, their mission might have been futile.

''What does he do when he gets there? You're not going to get an American pilot shooting down an American airliner,'' Weaver said. ''We don't have permission to do that.''

http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm

"the authorities had a terrifying dilemma.... The F16's were in the air with the capability to shoot the second hijacked plane out of the sky."

Meaning what? That we didn't put planes up in the air because we didn't have the presidential authority to shoot them down?

On Sept 16th, Vice-President Dick Cheney was interviewed on the television program "Meet the Press."

Pleading sympathy for the "horrendous decision" that had to be made, (to "shoot it down") he says,

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Although this line was repeated in report after report, this has absolutely nothing to do with why routine, standard procedure was not followed by the FAA/ATC (and others) on Sept 11th.

You and I may expect to experience some hesitation, if we were faced with the decision of authorizing the shoot-down, (just as George W. Bush found a sudden fondness for the third grade); but military personel are trained to follow procedures in emergencies precisely because those procedures put you in the best position to handle unknown contigencies, whenever they come up.

One does not know in advance, -whether the appearance of a fighter-intercept may cause hijackers to turn a plane around, surrender, land, crash, etc. Regardless of the unknowns, you follow routine procedures to the furthest extent possible.

You get the planes in the air.

Truly, the above line of thinking from such top military officials runs contrary to everything the military stands for.

In no way does it help to explain or lessen the FAA delay -nor explain why the FAA is not being openly criticised for having left the Air Force so unable to respond.

It merely deflects attention away.

*******
Confusion
*******

In our attempts (so far) to find within the "official" explanations something to satisfy our grasp of the facts, the reader may, no doubt, be aware of a growing sense of confusion.

This may be, in part, due to the confused or insubstantial nature of the explanations themselves; yet it's also a reflection of something else.

Confusion, it turns out, is one of the central reasons that the media and the military give as the cause of the civilian air defense failures of Sept 11th.

Within this framework, we see two principle components.

*******
'We're All A Little To Blame'
*******

This is where the blame for the failure of civilian air defense on Sept 11th is spread around to many "factors."

Included in amongst the three components discussed above, (the FAA delay, 'too few planes,' and 'to shoot or not to shoot down,') we read of,

transponder technologies, immigration, "airline watch lists," delays in closing airports, evacuation, "faulty communications," "weaknesses in military preparedness," "intelligence."

http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story

In the above article, each one is discussed in some detail, (i.e. a paragraph or two).

Although some of these elements clearly had a role in allowing the initial hijackings to occur, none of them, (as described in the article) would have had any effect on the critical question surrounding Sept. 11th: why routine procedure was not followed in the notification of NORAD by the FAA, such that intercepts were not in the air in time.

The article further informs us,

The nation's sharpest military thinkers simply had never planned for such a massive and well-coordinated assault, one defense official told Newsday.
'I don't think any of us envisioned an internal air threat by big aircraft," he said. "I don't know of anybody that ever thought through that. We're probably all at fault in some way for not thinking through the scope of that.'"

If this "defense official... didn't know anybody" who had thought through the possibility of airliners as weapons, maybe he should try to 'get out' more.

He's certainly not qualified to speak for those in strategic operations.

He is, however, not the only one.

*******
'Could Not Have Forseen'
*******

"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski... Pentagon spokesman: 'I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" (Newsday, ibid)

"despite provisions for close communication between civilian and military traffic officials, and extensive procedures for security control over air traffic during attacks on the United states, it does not appear anyone had contemplated the kind of emergency that was unfolding..... They didn’t have a procedure for handling such an occurrence." (N.Y. Times, Sept 15)

" '...The coordinated assault on the world's financial and political capitals caught the United States completely off guard -- despite a massive intelligence and law enforcement network devoted to detecting and thwarting such attacks...[This was because efforts were] focused largely on guarding against bomb threats to overseas targets... ' ('The Washington Post,' September 12, 2001).

We can certainly see a great sense of confusion here.

Just how real it is, may be a little more-difficult to determine.

It's clearly untrue that "no one" had envisioned the hijacking of American airliners as suicide weapons.

Best-selling books had been written about it.

Yoseff Bodanksy, who is not exactly a fringe figure, wrote about airport training camps dedicated to hijacking and suicide air bombings in detail in a book published in 1993 called "Target America."

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/coast.htm

Military strategists are paid, (top-dollar) to discuss and plan for every contingency; and while there are practical limits to this, it certainly would have included terrorist hijackings and suicide attacks.

Another example, (from way back in 1994)

"During the cold war, when security agents used to play war games involving terrorist threats to the White House, the one unsolvable problem was a commercial airliner loaded with explosives working its way into the landing pattern at Washington National Airport, then veering off for a suicide plunge into the White House."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/941114/941114.presidency.html

"If reading "old" books is too much work, how about this refresher course: Bush, on his trip to Italy just weeks before 9-11, was aware that there was a threat on his life from precisely such an attack when he was in Genoa. The pictures of the surface-to-air batteries set up to defend Genoa were all over the news media at the time:"

" [excerpt from LA Times] 'WASHINGTON -- U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday'

'Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport.'" [tenc.com, /indict/coast, ibid]

Obviously, the military wouldn't have been as "completely caught off-guard" as the media and the public was.

If the unprecedented nature of the attacks did catch some personel off-guard, this still does not explain the abandonment of routine procedure -for an extremely long period of time- whereby, the FAA and/or NORAD did not get the planes in the air, (in anywhere near the time that they should have).

So the culture of "confusion" we have thus far chronicled seems to be expanding further still.

After examining,

the Extreme FAA Delay, (as yet unexplained, no charges laid)
We Really Tried, (after the fact)
Few Planes available, (on shaky ground)
To Shoot or Not Shoot Down, (irrelevant)
‘all share a part of the blame…’
‘could not have foreseen…’

we find the "official" explanation still standing, but on legs faltering; stumbling 'round inconclusive corners: most-relevant questions, remain unanswered.

Confusion reigns. To resolve it, we must continue following its' winding trail to the highest peak: to the successful attack on,

*******
The Pentagon
*******

Nowhere is the confusion surrounding the events of Sept. 11th more clearly expressed than in the attack on the Pentagon; for here is the command centre of the world's most powerful military: unable to defend itself from a hijacked airliner.

Newsday quite rightly says,

"To many Americans, it probably seems inconceivable that an unauthorized aircraft could get that close to the nation's military command center [Pentagon]on any day, let alone one when the nation was under attack." (23rd, ibid)

We are told,

"Although the military's air defense command got word from the FAA about 13 minutes before Flight 77's crash that a hijacked airliner was streaking toward Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides remained unaware of any danger up to the moment of impact, officials said. After learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Rumsfeld remained in his office, and Pentagon security officials took no steps to alert or evacuate the building's 20,000 employees. Neither the White House nor Congress were evacuated, either."

and this,

Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, added: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way."

http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story

and this, from CNN, Sept 16,:

"Officials at the Pentagon also said they were never made aware of the threat from hijacked United Airlines flight 93 until after it crashed in Pennsylvania."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

In other words:

top Pentagon officials "weren't aware" of Flights 77 and 93.

This makes no sense, with what we already know about the Pentagon.

At the risk of repetition, readers may recall ,

"The escort service [fighter intercept] will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2

"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001.

"....When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC [National Military Command Center, in the Pentagon] will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit."

--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2

"Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident: "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (www.tenc.net ibid)

So, it's absolutely clear (to us now) that the Pentagon and the Department of Defense would have been at the very heart of communications during the hijackings.

Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers, (second-highest U.S. general at the time) verified this during his appearance before the Senate Hearings, (confirming his appointment as Chairman to the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

"At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, [8:46] we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately.... And we started talking to the federal agencies.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm

As we shall see, the General’s recollection of events on that day is extremely hazy, so the actual notification may have been ten minutes earlier than that; or, if ATC and the FAA did their jobs properly, another ten minutes before that still. (The first hijacked plane went off-course/broke contact at 8:20).

NORAD claims the FAA informed them that Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:38; by law, the command-center in the Pentagon would have also been informed at that time.

At any rate, the second highest officer in the Pentagon admits that officials were informed by 8:50 about a terrorist attack. This would have surely included information about