Long, boring
I read the ENTIRE piece. Here's my take on it:
Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort [Sarasota Herald-Tribune,
9/10/02], and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead.
[Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon,
10/02, p. 25] It's not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or
whether security was increased because of possible threats.
Of course, doing a little research to FIND OUT if this type of protection was standard would
be out of the question...
At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several
Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony's guard station. The men said they were a
television news crew with a scheduled "poolside" interview with the president. They asked for
a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent
inside the resort, who hadn't heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He
told the men to contact the president's public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the
van turned away.
I would imagine that such wacko attempts to get close to the President are pretty common.
That's why they have Secret Service.
If this were part of the terror plot, it would have been a pretty stupid move. An
assassination would have put the entire country on heightened security alert a day before the
hijackings were planned. The element of surprise would have been lost.
Nearly three hours after the incident at the Colony, another Longboat Key resident
reported a run-in with possibly the same men. At about 8:50 (when reports of the first World
Trade Center crash were first broadcast), while standing on the Sarasota bay front waiting for
the presidential motorcade to pass by, this man saw two Middle Eastern men in a dilapidated
van "screaming out the windows 'Down with Bush' and raising their fists in the air." The FBI
questioned the man, but it's not known if this was the same van that had visited the
Colony.
The first rule of terrorism: Keep a low profile!
The plane did not obey the order and its transponder was turned off. Air traffic
control manager Glenn Michael said, "we considered it at that time to be a possible
hijacking." [AP, 8/12/02, emphasis added] According to FAA regulations, that was the correct
decision: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when ... there is unexpected loss of
radar contact and radio communications with any ... aircraft."
Of course, it's a possible hijacking. It's also a possible equipment failure, a possible
communication problem, or any number of other possibilities. The odds were, based on what was
known then, that it wasn't anything serious. After all, it had been a very, very long time
since a plane had been hijacked in the US.
If air traffic controllers believed Flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:13, NORAD should
have been informed immediately, so military planes could be scrambled to investigate. However,
NORAD and the FAA both claimed NORAD was not informed until 8:40 - 27 minutes later.
If only they'd been scrambled sooner! They might have been a few miles closer when the attack
occured! Still wouldn't have changed anything.
If they had intercepted the plane, would they have shot it down? Based on the knowledge that
they had then? I don't think so. Remember how the Soviet Union was condemned after they shot
down a KLA airliner that strayed into their airspace.
Is NORAD's claim credible? If so, the air traffic controllers (including Mr. Michael)
should have been fired and subject to possible criminal charges for their inaction. To date,
however, there has been no word of any person being disciplined at any institution at any
level for what happened on 9/11.
Again, based on what was known at the time, how could anyone have predicted what was going to
happen? Even in a relaxed work environment, it can take some time to figure out what is going
on when things don't go as planned. Saying someone SHOULD have done something, after the
fact, is 20/20 hindsight.
If NORAD's claim is false, and it was indeed informed within the time frame outlined in
FAA regulations that Flight 11 may have been hijacked, that would mean NORAD did absolutely
nothing for almost thirty minutes while a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through
some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very
serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished.
Unless I'm mistaken, NORAD's job is to track nuclear missiles, not regulate domestic flights.
Once again, BASED ON WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, there was no reason to believe that a hijacked
airliner posed a threat to national security. And, of course, there was no rock-solid
evidence at the time that any plane HAD be hijacked.
Around the same time the Flight 11 hijackers were stabbing passenger Daniel Lewin - at
8:20 a.m. - Bush's briefing ended and he said good-bye to the Colony's general
manager.
I'm sure this was in Bush's day planner:
8:20 AM -- End briefing. Stand idly by while hijackers stab airline passenger hundreds of
miles away.
Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is
the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official
accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening
in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However,
this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was
told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.
So Bush may or may not have been told about a plane crash. Rarely does a plane crash require
the immediate attention of the President. Only after the second WTC crash was it apparent
that this was an attack, and it was then that Bush's full attention was placed on the
situation.
Claims of Bush's ignorance become harder to believe when one learns that others in his
motorcade were immediately told of the attack.
Yes, but it wasn't KNOWN to be an attack at that time.
A reporter who was standing nearby later said, "From the demeanor of the President,
grinning at the children, it appeared that the enormity of what he had been told was taking a
while to sink in."
These were children, and Bush is a politician. What did he expect the President to do?
Scream, "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"?
Bush was asked: "How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?" Bush
replied, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the
tower " ...
There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush
didn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later...
Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked - not even once - to explain these statements. His
memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that
evening.
Bush misremembered several trivial details, such as how he first heard of the attacks. So?
We all do that. Human memory is very unreliable.
Military pilots must have "permission from the White House because only the president
has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down." [CNN, 10/26/99] But if retaliatory
strikes needed to the authorized, Bush was not available. If one of the planes had to be shot
down to save more lives on the ground, Bush was not available. Although several fighters had
been dispatched to defend New York City, the pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight
175 later noted that it wouldn't have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush
could order a shootdown, and Bush could not be reached in the classroom.
WHAT!?! He couldn't be reached in the classroom?! Where was it, in the Himalayas? Did he have
to travel there by camel? Did the Secret Service just drop him off at the school and say,
"Pick you up in a few hours"?
Just a few paragraphs earlier, the page said:
Given all this, how could Bush have remained ignorant? Could he have been out of the
loop because he was in a car? No. The previous night, Colony Resort manager Katie Klauber
Moulon toured the presidential limousine and marveled "at all the phones and electronic
equipment." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Karl Rove, Bush's "chief political strategist," who
presumably was riding with Bush, used a wireless e-mail device on 9/11 as well. [Newsweek,
10/14/02] There seems to have been ample opportunity and the means to alert Bush.
...So what, again, is the basis for the claim that he could not be reached in a classroom...?
Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom after being
told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B),
Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to
seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in the classroom suggests he stayed longer
than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room, so it also
doesn't tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained "for eight or
nine minutes" - sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card's arrival is uncertain. [Tampa
Tribune, 9/1/02]
Yep, things would have been different if he had left five minutes earlier!
Once he was out of the classroom, did Bush immediately leave Booker? No. He stayed in
the adjacent room with his staff, calling Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor
Rice, and preparing a speech. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Incredibly,
even as uncertain information began to surface, suggesting that more planes had been hijacked
(eventually 11 planes would be suspected) [CBS, 9/11/02], Bush was allowed to make his remarks
at 9:30 - exactly the time and place stated on his advance schedule. [Federal News Service,
9/10/01, see the transcript of his speech here]
One more time...with WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME, the attack seemed to have been focused on the
World Trade center. It was unthinkable, even at that point, that this could be a coordinated
attack carried out at multiple geographic locations. Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon was
attacked, and, for the first time, the possibility that the President was in danger arose.
Why hasn't Bush's security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable
decision to stay at the school?
Isn't that your job?
And why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest
of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?
...? So if Bush had left immediately, the school would not have been targeted? Did the
terrorists have some sort of homing beacon placed on Bush so they could target him wherever he
was?
No media report has suggested that the possible shooting down of hijacked airplanes was
discussed at this time, however. It appears the discussion was not broached until after 9:55.
[Washington Post, 1/27/02, CBS, 9/11/02]
Obviously. Before 9/11, such a thing was unthinkable.
At about 9:26, it was either FAA head Jane Garvey or FAA administrator Ben Sliney (and
not Bush) who decided to halt all airplane takeoffs in the US. [Time, 9/14/01, USA Today,
8/13/02] Additionally, no evidence has appeared suggesting Bush had a role in ordering any
fighters into the skies.
If the President had to make ALL decisions regarding the different federal agencies, we would
run into problems very quickly. The FAA had the authority to act, so it acted. It was an
extraordinary action, one that had never been taken before, but one which was probably a
planned contingency within the FAA. It is not the sort of thing the President would order.
But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This
defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush's security people said, "We're
out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long
before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get
fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air
Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground
from terrorist attack even before he left the school.
After criticizing the President for hanging around the school too long, he now expects him to
wait around for a military escort. Think about this. While Air Force One is one the ground,
it is a sitting duck. When it takes off, what are the terrorists going to do? How would they
find it? If they found it, what would they do with it? It's one thing to crash into a
building, but another thing entirely to overtake and crash into a 747 with an experienced
pilot behind the wheel.
If we assume the fighters flew at a speed of 1,100 mph, the same speed Major Gen.
Arnold said fighters used to reach New York City earlier in the day when traveling a
comparable distance [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02], the fighters should have reached
Sarasota in about 10 minutes. Yet they took around two hours to reach Air Force One from when
they were likely first needed, shortly after 9:00.
...And what would they do when they got there? The decision to get Air Force One airborne had
not been made yet. Jets flying at 1100 mph run out of fuel very fast. Trying to coordinate a
rendezvous like this is more complicated than it might seem. With spur-of-the-moment
decisions being made, it would be extremely difficult for the fighters to arrive at just the
right moment to escort Air Force One on takeoff. If the fighters don't know how long they
might be aloft, they might sacrifice speed for fuel efficiency. After all, at the time it was
not known that the President's plane could be in danger.
Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told
the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left.
"He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was
wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew
something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson."
[Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow
along after being told of the second plane.
So a second-grade teacher is in on the conspiracy? I think faulty memory, again.
Bush himself took part in the historical revisionism. In an extensive video interview
shown on CBS's "60 Minutes," he again repeated his bizarre belief that he was watching
television when the first crash took place. CBS also revived the false story that terrorists
had broken Air Force One's secret codes, even though it was CBS who debunked that same story
nearly a year earlier.
So? Does it make the SLIGHTEST BIT OF DIFFERENCE how Bush learned of the first crash?
How is this historical revisionism? Does he really think that one day history books will read:
"The President was watching television when it happened"?
It's doubtful that the Independent Commission investigation will look critically at
what Bush did on 9/11 and why he did it. Despite the contradictory reports, no one in the
mainstream media has yet demanded clarification of the many obvious inconsistencies and
problems of the official version. Anyone even asking questions has been quickly insulted as
anti-American, accused of bashing the president in a time of war, or branded a conspiracy nut.
Why do we need clarification of a hodge-podge of mundane details? I don't think it's
anti-American, I just think it's a waste of time.
The ridiculous thing about this whole article is that it make the presumption that a huge,
unweildy organization such as the executive branch of the US government can be expected to
react with great precision and speed to an completely unforseen disaster. Even when
large-scale operations involving the military and numerous other agencies are PLANNED, it is
still almost impossible to get everything just right. 9/11 was a chaotic time, and it is
unreasonable to expect a robotic, synchronized response.
, just a comment on your data, not you.