So, what really happened?

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have some questions regarding the events of September 11, 2001, and the months prior, that these two articles below have raised in my mind.

Could someone help me answer them?

My question is: What really happened?

Quote:

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

That article above,excerpted from the UK newspaper The Guardian, was written by Michael Meacher, MP, who was also environment minister in Tony Blair's cabinet from May 1997 to June 2003.

There's also this from author William Rivers Pitt:

Quote:

The professional golfer Payne Steward died aboard his chartered jet when the cabin suffered explosive decompression. The plane continued to fly on auto-pilot. It took the ground controllers 21 minutes to summon an F-16 fighter to come in behind the doomed jet to investigate. On September 11, there was a squadron of F-16s and a squadron of FA-18s laagered up at Andrew's Air Force Base, which sits just 12 miles from the White House. The hijacked commercial planes were in the air, and were crashing into buildings, for almost two hours before one single fighter turned a wheel and took to the sky. Payne Stewart rated a fighter in 21 minutes. Hundreds of kidnapped civilians did not rate a fighter for almost 120 minutes, until the horror was already over. The mantra for this says, "Incompetence," yet no one has been fired or even reprimanded.

My question regarding the last sentence is: why not?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,880 • Replies: 78

No top replies

I think the people who know the answers are not going to provide them. At least not willingly. I'm sad that I'm not shocked.

0 Replies

As more people with "names" come out on this, we might finally get some action. Bush has been anxious to gag the 9/11 Commission. Let's see if there's an inquiry....

Listening to the news from Israel just now, I'd have to agree with many Palestinians that Bush seems to set up situations that fail... on purpose. The point is, precisely what is the purpose?

0 Replies

I have serious questions about the Payne Steward accusation. I can not recall any plane being scrambled to chase his private jet (I may be wrong) and if I recall correctly two National Guard F16's were scrambled out of Cape Cod Massachusetts after the first World Trade Center crash and two out of an air base around Washington after the Pentagon crash. These charges would be more solid if there were some documentation attached to them. As they stand now they imply a conspiracy on the part of the Bush administration without providing any information to back up that implication.

0 Replies

Coupla fighter jets, Aqui...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/pga/news/1999/10/25/stewart_plane_ap/

0 Replies

Weell, that's what I'd like to know, Acqui.

This link contains details of the 9/11 Independent Commission's hearings on the matter. For starters, while Condi Rice, and Norm Mineta, and FAA Administrator Jane Garvey all say, in some form, "No one could've predicted that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons," well, they're either stupid or they're lying.

Airplanes were used as bombs in WWII (Kamikazes). In 1994 a lone pilot crashed a small plane on the White House grounds, just missing the President's bedroom. And there are many more examples, including foreknowledge in 1995 that terrorists would strike exactly as they did:

Quote:

According to a US intelligence analysis shortly after the plot was uncovered, "The World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon, the Transamerican Tower, and the Sears Tower were among the prominent structures that had been identified in the plans that we had decoded."

(from the link above)

Here is another link, the policy directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, detailing procedures to be followed in the event of aircraft piracy.

It certainly isn't obtuse.

Why wasn't it followed on the morning of 9/11/01?

0 Replies

I remember the Payne Stewart thing from when it happened - and we followed it. Trying to remember where we were at the time.

0 Replies

What was it dyslexia said about incompetence vs. conspiracy?

0 Replies

Ok plans were scrambled for the Payne Steward's jet, but the context might be noted. This plane took off from Florida and the US as a long standing paranoia about Cuba. As a result the military keeps a lot of ready aircraft in that area. I can recall flying out of Savanna Ga. In the early 90's and seeing about a dozen F16's lined up on the tarmac. Until 9/11 there was a very different attitude about the northeast. As far as I know the closest ready aircraft to NYC on 9/11 were on Cape Cod.

The DOD memo you post sets up a cumbersome system in which a controller informs an FAA administrator, who informs a DOD administrator who then asks the Sec. of Defense for permission to extend aid. This is all designed to keep domestic air space under civilian not military control. A goal which, in my opinion, is appropriate as the reverse is a danger to our liberties,

We seem to want it both ways. The Bush administration is bitterly and rightly criticized for the abrogation of our liberties with the Patriot Act. But the lack of just such a mind set, and the confusion and bumbling that resulted, is used to imply a conspiracy on the part of the government to allow 9/11 to occur. You yourself Pdiddle have posted many examples of the arrogance and incompetence of this administration. That same arrogance and incompetence more easily explains the government's response on the morning of 9/11, then implying a deviousness that in my opinion the administration is incapable of.

0 Replies

Aqui -- I've been told that the planes scramble automatically in such a case, and that they have to be stopped from on high (not sure how high, but high) to prevent a scramble when there are violations.

0 Replies

Before 9/11 the FAA was responsible for domestic air space and the only scrambling that could occur was for off shore events as the military was responsible for defence of the nation. Also the Air National Guard was responsible for domestic air security. This was a long standing policy to prevent the military from having undue influence in domestic affairs, which I think was a good idea.

0 Replies

I remember watching interviews of the two pilots, who were in the air with orders to shoot down the plane that crashed in PA.

Acquiunk makes very valid points. The bulk of intel we recieve is daunting. I'm sure we get wind of general threats around the clock. What should have been done with a general threat about planes? If people are screaming foul over civil liberties after 911, imagine what the public outcry would have been if such restrictions were put in place pre-911.

I do think egregious errors were made by the CIA and FBI, thanks to the whistleblower--Colleen? But, larger, more ominous suspicions, IMO, are unfounded.

0 Replies

Aqui -- These doubts and questions have been raised over and over again by credible people in credible periodicals. Can you think of any reason why the administration has not responded with the rationale?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

What was it dyslexia said about incompetence vs. conspiracy?

I don't know, what...?

I'm just asking the questions.

How much do we know?

We know that most of the records associated with the findings of the Independent Commission are classified; why is that?

We know that the original chair of the Commission, Henry Kissinger, withdrew his name after deciding that he would suffer too great a conflict of business interest.

Either that, or because the previous scandals he's been a part of raised such howls of global protest that he decided his business interests would not be well-served; which is it, again?

We know that Attorney General Ashcroft took the threats seriously enough to fly chartered several weeks prior to 9/11; why were the rest of America's flying passengers left to fend for themselves?

In this case, I don't know whether they are incompetent or arrogant.

Is either acceptable?

0 Replies

Considering recent actions taken by the administration, I would not be at all surprised to someday learn that the Bush administration knew the aircraft would be hijacked.

0 Replies

I think many believe that -- I'm close to believing it.

0 Replies

French intel/Moussaoui blunders.

Could It Have Been Stopped?
May 8, 2002

(CBS) One of the unanswered questions of September 11th is whether there was anything U.S. intelligence could have done to stop the attacks. New information suggests a key to the conspiracy could have been discovered before the attack - if it hadn't been for what appears to be a communication breakdown between the FBI and French intelligence.

A month before September 11th, the FBI hauled in a French citizen, Zacarias Moussaoui. He's now in jail-- the only person charged in the attacks. Prosecutors call him "the 20th hijacker."

We now know that, back in August, Moussaoui's possessions contained evidence that would expose key elements of the September 11th conspiracy. The FBI didn't search Moussaoui's things because it says it didn't have enough evidence for a search warrant. Critical evidence was in the hands of French intelligence. The FBI says that if that evidence exists, the Bureau never received it.

If there was a golden opportunity to stop the attacks, Moussaoui was it. Prosecutors say he was following the same path as the other 19 hijackers. But there was a difference; Moussaoui couldn't keep his mouth shut. That got him in trouble in August when he was taking flight simulator training at a school in Minnesota. He was a strange student with strange questions. He was interested in flight patterns around New York City. He asked whether the doors of a 747 could be opened in flight. And there was more.

He paid for his flight lessons, nearly $7,000, in cash and he told his instructors that he urgently needed to learn how to fly big jets, even though at the time he didn't have so much as the license to fly a Cessna. Within two days some of the instructors were openly talking about whether Moussaoui might be a hijacking suspect, so they decided to call the FBI.

That was August 15th and the next day, FBI and immigration agents staked out Moussaoui's hotel. Sources familiar with the investigation tells us when Moussaoui stepped out, the agents asked him about his flight training and how he was paying for it.

Moussaoui told them that he always wanted to learn how to fly and he was a successful salesman. The FBI asked him what company he worked for and Moussaoui told the agents that he couldn't remember. It was all downhill from there. Moussaoui became belligerent - he told the agents that they wouldn't be harassing him if he wasn't an Arab. The agents asked to see his personal belongings and Moussaoui said no. The FBI didn't have any reason to arrest him at that point, but Moussaoui had overstayed the 90 days that he was supposed to be in the United States, so the immigration officer took him in.

They took him to the Sherburne County jail in Minnesota. The FBI was sure Moussaoui was up to something. They actually discussed whether he was plotting to crash a plane into a building in New York City. It was a hunch and a brilliant one. They wanted to search Moussaoui's laptop and belongings. But they couldn't without a warrant. So the agents asked FBI headquarters in Washington to try to get a special search warrant under a law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ?- or FISA for short.
-----------------

0 Replies

http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/AAflight93.html

A very skeptical, very thorough timeline. Some of the questions are ridiculously stringent to me (Why did the scrambled pilots not travel as fast as their planes allowed?), but maybe some of them are valid questions.

Anyway, thought some may want to see it all laid out.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

I think the adminsitration has not responded because it is politically unwise to do so. Certain peopel will use it to make political hay.

They have responded in a way, but not in one that is acceptable to many.

PDiddie,

I think dys said something like that what many blame conspiracy for is actually the result of incompetence.

I do not think either acceptable.

Hobitbob,

I can unserstand the reasoning behind suspicions that the Bush administration had some form of complicity in 9/11.

When I had those thoughts they were from the realization of how much 9/11 helped Bush.

It made an unpopular president popular in a way that only that can do.

But even more compelling was the fact that it gave Bush a mandate to do things that he and his associates have long wanted to do and that they'd never have been able to pull off.

War with Iraq is an example. Back when the drums started beating I was not the least bit skeptical about my claims that Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the US.

But because of 9/11many people (both stupid and smart) did not want to be so sure.

They were more willing to take the most remote possibility of danger and allow it to be used to base decisions on.

The "mushroom" cloud threat was laughable but it worked.

So it's easy to see how 9/11 helped the militarism that this administration craved.

But please consider what you are implying. consider the evidence you ahve (not the suspicions of others but real evidence) and consider the logic of the theory.

Think about how you might have criticized Bush's post 9/11 flee routine. If you have ever criticized him for panicking then you yourself have posted an argument against his complicity.

Think about the dynamite that is this accusation. If it can be painted as believeable it's not just political suicide. It's real suicide. Complicity would be rewarded by death.

Think about how many people would have to be involved. Since the intel from terrorists goes through many hands a coverup from above would be problematic at best and fatally flawed IMO.

Who wouldn't wnat to blow the whistle? Heck blowing teh whistle would bring fame and fortune.

One thing consiracy theorists often neglect to consider is the difficulty that there is in keeping secrets like this. The more fantastic the conspiracy (and the reall attractive ones are usually the most exotic) the more unrealistic it's secrecy becomes.

There was a lot of confounding incompetence behind 9/11. But being counfounded about incompetence is a big step from implying complicity.

Yes 9/11 could ahve been stopped. There were many chances to stop this and in hindsight this is glaring.

Let's not let the glare translate into conspiracy theories unless they are founded.

0 Replies

Why did the pilots not travel as fast as their planes allowed? Those planes break the sound barrier which, I think, is illegal over densely inhabited areas. At least I know the Concord is not allowed to fly at those speeds over the northeast and it flys over Connecticut daily.

0 Replies

So, what really happened?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know