While a couple of the statements made in the Rebuilding America’s Defenses report are a bit creepy (when taken out of context) this report is nothing more than a call for America to have better IT experts and updated technology in the military and the only way people would be willing to support the higher funding for military would be in the event of a Pearl Harbor-like event.
While alarmists might freak out at this notion, a realist would merely see this as coincidence, as there is no proof that these people caused this to happen, not to mention it’s a pretty common sense thing to say, when considering this IS one of the only types of events that has led to increases in military spending. While it could be argued that they took advantage of the situation (as politicians throughout history have always done) it still shows no evidence that this administration caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.
Quote:
Fact #2
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the President about it. He denied it of course, and used 9/11 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.
Then why did we blame Afganistan first? He could have gotten so much more support for the Iraq war had he blamed 9/11 on Saddam.
Quote:
Fact #3
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, "while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow." On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.)))))
I’ll always be skeptical of big oil companies and neo conservatives in general. The fact that Cheney was a greedy bastard willing to take advantage of a crisis for profit (as any good capitalist would) is still not proof of anything but greedy bastards…Not treason.
Quote:
Fact #4
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or "Energy Task Force" for short. He prepared for this during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations. The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they denied it before Congress. It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of discussion during these task force meetings was Iraq's oil fields. Five months before 9/11. The Vice President's office fought long and hard to make sure the information from those meetings never saw the light of day.
That’s great…So I ask the question again, why didn’t we blame 9/11 on Iraq…This is damn near proof that even if they
did aid or cause 9/11 to happen in any way, it
wasn’t for oil in Iraq.
Quote:
Fact #5
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings that "Al-Qaeda" was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his "hair on fire," and so many that a lot were not taken seriously "because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings." One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that was initially hidden by the White House. Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an "imminent threat," that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about after it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to ask "does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there's a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I'm really not interested in that information?" Cheney said that his "Democratic friends in Congress... need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11."))))))
The White House had a very vague memo about Bin Laden attacking the US…What they we’re concerned with (especially because of the strings of bombings typically associated with terrorist attacks) that a plane was more vulnerable to being bombed or hijacked with a gun, rather than overrun by razor wielding extremists. The FBI and CIA had a tremendous amount of info on Bin Laden, but we’re unable to communicate their intelligence in a timely manner…In other words (and I never thought I’d say this) If the Patriot Act had been in place on 9/10/2001 they would have never likely made it off the ground, or at the very least, would have been better equipped to reduce the risk.
The White House’s failure to prevent the attacks was a result of incompetence and poor preparedness not conspiracy.
Quote:
(((((Fact #6
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11. On 3/7/2001, the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is "two-pronged and included a crisis warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer-range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate al-Qaeda." ))))
So obviously, al-Qaeda was a serious threat…That’s according to your own “facts”.
(On 3/15/2001, Jane's Intelligence Review reports that the U.S. is working with India, Iran, and Russia "in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime." General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that "the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001." On 6/26/2001, it is reported that "India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime." In late Summer 2001, the Guardian will report that "reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist
on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north." In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that "[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world." The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001. They "outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf." On 7/21/2001, three former American officials, Tom Simons, Karl Inderfurth, and Lee Coldren met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is allegedly told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.")))))
So this merely indicates that the US expected Afganistan to be a serious threat and prepared accordingly…All it really took was a few well placed al-Qaeda spies in our military to move the plan to attack the US ahead, as the US was obviously catching on to their scheme and about to do something about it…All this implies is that 9/11 was a preemptive strike, even the Commission report shows that the 9/11 plans we're executed a bit earlier than the terrorists had planned originally.
Quote:
((((Fact #7
On the day of 9/11, a number of key personnel were "scattered" across the country, and the world. With few exceptions, including Dick Cheney. The President of the United States, at a time when America was "under attack" from kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners, in a highly publicized location, 5 miles away from an international airport, in a classroom full of children, was not whisked away by the Secret Service. His conduct on the morning of 9/11 changed on the first anniversary.))))
This isn’t a fact at all, its more of a paranoid observation. By the time Bush had received info about what was happening, it was pretty clear that the threat was not to his particular location, but to particular monuments in the US. Bush did everything he could to look calm and collected, as any other reaction would have just added to the mass panic.
Quote:
Fact #8
(((((On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day. A lot of different people didn't know whether or not the hijackings were "real-world or exercise." The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these wargames, and in a footnote in the back of the book.))))))
According to that very same footnote in the commission report, which twoofers conveniently left out here:
We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, "it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview.
Quote:
(((((Fact #9
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C. This, according to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. According to Mineta, "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" The 9/11 Report states that Cheney didn't arrive in the PEOC until 9:58. No video conferences from within the PEOC have been made available. No personnel records for who was in the PEOC have been made available. The "young man" Norman Mineta mentioned has never been named, and was never brought before the 9/11 Commission to testify.))))))
According to another interview with Mineta from none other than Bob Woodward (the badass who helped expose the Watergate scandal) :
9:32 a.m.
The Vice President in Washington: Underground, in Touch With Bush Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.
Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order-there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary.
"[Expletive] pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those [expletive] planes down."
Sitting at the other end of the table, Cheney snapped his head up, looked squarely at Mineta and nodded in agreement.
Quote:
(((((Fact #10
On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War. DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld was saying. "Best info fast... judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" [...] "Go massive... Sweep it all up. Things related and not." [...] "Hard to get a good case.")))))
This could be interpreted many ways…Not to mention this was ON THE DAY of 9/11. When everyone, including the people in our government, were speaking out of fear and suggesting tons of strange things. But this still doesn’t indicate a conspiracy, you need evidence for that…
Quote:
(((((((Fact #11
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 9/11/2001, Bush says, "this is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity." He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002. Karl Rove said, "sometimes history sends you things and 9/11 came our way."))))))))
Not a very good way to conspire, letting every single one of the American People in on your plot to murder them and take their freedom? These treasonous masterminds sure are stupid.
Quote:
(((((((Fact #12
In the days and months following the attacks, several people within the administration and elsewhere tried to tie Iraq to 9/11. General Wesley Clark said, "there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11." According to George Tenet, shortly after 9/11, Richard Perle said, "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility." Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, "ntelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks-whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others-were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein," he writes. "As yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Dick Cheney claimed the bogus Atta-Iraqi spy meeting had been, "pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." Since that time, they have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and even Hillary did it.))))))
This merely suggests that Bush had a stiffy for an Iraq war, it still doesn’t prove his involvement in the attacks in any way...Nor does it provide any evidence that he let it happen.
Quote:
(((((Fact #13
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Sen. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged financier of the attacks on the day of 9/11.)))))))
Proof? I’ve seen little to no sources for any of these claims, but It wouldn’t suprize me if they’ve all been taken out off context.
Quote:
((((((((Fact #14
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to "limit the scope" of, released a report with 28 redacted pages. Apparently, those 28 pages talk about "possible Saudi Arabian financial links." In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is covering up Saudi Arabia's possible connection to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, "present a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance." He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI to "to restrain and obfuscate" any investigations into the connection. The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent Steven Butler. The FBI originally tried to prevent Butler from testifying before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their information on the two hijackers. He said, "it would have made a huge difference." [...] "We would have immediately opened... investigations. We would have given them the full court press. We would... have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets."))))))))
This is exactly why we created the patriot act…So that this type of screw up wouldn’t happen again amongst our various intelligence agencies. If you consider this proof, then you should consider the rest of the proof from the same source…Which the truth movement obviously won't do.
Quote:
(((((Fact #15
The Bush Administration was the families' "biggest adversary" when it came to the creation of a so-called Independent 9/11 Commission. The families had to fight "tooth and nail," and lobby to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not want one. Dick Cheney and George Bush refused to testify under oath before select individuals of the 9/11 Commission even though the families wanted them to. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied. They made it difficult for the commission to get funding. They tried to make Henry Kissinger the Chairman of the commission, but he resigned after the families started asking too many questions. Alberto Gonzales "stonewalled" the 9/11 Commission's access to the White House. They appointed Thomas Kean as Chairman, someone "who will be easily controlled by the administration," and Lee Hamilton, a long time friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to be the co-chair. Hamilton participated in two inquiries that resulted in cover-ups. The Iran/Contra Affair inquiry, and the October Surprise inquiry.)))))
Well, it’s been several years now and the twoofers have amassed a pretty good chunk of change, should be enough to start that independent investigation any day now…(sigh) any day now...At least Kissinger listened to the families and bowed out. You guys haven't been listening to the the particular family members that are "demanding a new investigation", because with all the dvd's, books and "lectures" you've charged people for, you should have enough to start your own commission.
Quote:
(((((((((Fact #16
Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry explained, "though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses... In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation." In 1995, Zelikow wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."
They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past....catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously... it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism." They predict the consequences of such an event: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens.....blah blah blah, too long to paste all this crap here...
Sorry…This still shows no evidence of a plan to commit treason…All it shows is an administration afraid of exposing its own incompetence and willing to go to ridiculous lengths to hide it. And this guys ideas on history and how a nation is effected by disaster seems pretty accurate, nothing evil here.
Quote:
(((Fact #17
NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Sen. Mark Dayton slammed the 9/11 Commissioners for what the 9/11 Report said about NORAD. On 8/2/2006, the Washington Post reported that "the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." Later, it was reported that NORAD's mistakes were due to "inadequate forensic capabilities" and "poor record-keeping." William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the Inspector General's office, said that "the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation." To my knowledge, that report has not been released as of this date. On 9/17/2001, NORAD gives a briefing to the White House. 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will say "it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that's different than what actually happened on that day.")))))
Again, It took NORAD little to no time (estimated at 30 seconds) to switch to real world from exercise, but they were not combat ready, which typically takes a long time to fuel up, prep and what-not. Not to mention all of the budget cuts that also contributed to NORAD’s lack of immediate resources. Regardless of how you look at it, NORAD could not have responded any faster than it did...regardless of the consistancy of their story.
Quote:
((((Fact #18
Different pieces of evidence have been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 "by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center. 2.5 terabytes of information regarding Able Danger was destroyed in April/May 2000. The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes.))))
This is corruption worth demanding investigation for, if it is true…But regardless, there’s still no evidence that shows that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, that the intelligence community had any idea how these terrorists would attack us or when…It’s still not evidence of anything other than the intelligence community trying to hide their incompetence…Most credible sources have shown that the Atta from those initial Able Danger reports, wasn’t even the same Atta as the one from 9/11, in fact this “other” Atta had nickname “Mohamed El-Amir” who is a different person than Muhammad Atta.
Quote:
(((((There were a total of four black boxes. We found three." The 9/11 Commission says those black boxes were not found. Most of the steel from the WTC was removed, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Fire Engineering magazine wrote, "We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.")))))
That’s funny, here’s another fact they seem to have ignored:
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[121] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[122] Some conspiracy theorists[who?] do not believe that the black boxes were damaged and that instead there has been a cover up of evidence.
And here’s a picture of that flight data recorder in question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_77_CVR.jpg
Did the government damage this black box? Or do you think the plane exploding might have had something to do with it?
Quote:
Fact #19
Several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks. Most were ignored or censored by the 9/11 Commission. Some of these people are John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA), Sibel Edmonds (Language Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar (Language Specialist-FBI), Melvin A. Goodman (Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA), Gilbert Graham (Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI), Coleen Rowley (Retired Division Counsel- FBI), John Vincent (Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Robert Wright (Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton (Senior Analyst- NSA), Mike German (Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and Scott Philpott. 9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza said "Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify. And part of the problem with testifying, um... as someone who's working for one of the agencies, is that, they have to be careful with state secrets, what they reveal. And, in order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed, cause then their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of, ya know, law, they could be... um... ya know, accused of being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed. So, most whistle-blowers were... did not come forward on the basis of what happened to Sibel Edmonds. Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, "these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed." And, he promised me... to my face that "every whistle-blower would be... indeed heard." And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them... that we had her with us. Um, we met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)... um, but, they had information... and basically, the Government knew... ya know, other than the exact moment... they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. (pauses) And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, "What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation." And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication." Within the last year, Sibel Edmonds agreed to break the gag order that was placed on her, and tell her entire story to the media. The only paper to take the challenge was the Sunday Times. The media in this country did not give her the time of day with one exception that I know of, and it wasn't prominently displayed. Sibel's story mentions the same alleged financier of the 9/11 attacks that Sen. Porter Goss, Sen. Graham, and Sen. Kyl met with on the morning of 9/11.
Sibel Edmonds is yet to testify to ANYTHING that holds water, not to mention there are a tremendous amount of laws on the books to protect Whistleblowers…These people have rights they’ve simply chosen not to exercise. Their not being covered-up, their being unprofessional about their “whistleblower” approach. If they had anythinng worthwhile, there'd be tons of media organizations jumping on this story. Especially any media leaning to the left. Obviously these people had nothing significant to share, or it would have been shared by now.
As far as the rest of these "facts" I'll let the folks here at JREF, (who consistantly hand my ass to me on issues such as these), tear the rest of these to shreds.
To the person who posted this...I believed this inside job crap for five years and I followed the herd of twoof, damn near to my demise. You will find again and again that these people care so much less about justice and more about their own personal financial interest. If they wanted justice, they would have seriously re-investigated 9/11 by now...They are scam artists and the sooner you realise this the better.
Stick around JREF for a while man, you might learn somethin!!!
