Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Commentaries about the events of September 11th




ourIslamOnline.net     |     home
Canadian TV Breaks 9-11 / CIA Complicity Story   |   Commentaries about the events of September 11th.
Commentaries about the events of September 11th.
As you've heard in the panel discussion, a common explanation as to why no
U.S. military interceptors took to the skies on September 11th until it was
too late, is that it was "simple incompetence."

Well, let me deal with the "incompetence theory." By first taking you back
to October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer
Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the official National
Transportation Safety Board crash report:Ý 9:19 a.m.: 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 * minutes the controller tries to establish contact.Ý 9:38:
Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not
seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United
States, or indeed anyone. It's standard procedure, followed routinely, to
call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is
lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those
lines occurs. 9:54 ñ 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at
46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time: 21
minutes.

So what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for
dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All
personnel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines,
which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident
illustrates.
For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart
extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the
military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one
is speeding toward Washington, D.C.

It flies over the White House, turns sharply and heads toward the Pentagon.
Everyone ñ and I mean everyone ñ now knows these planes are very bad news.
It's been reported on all TV networks for more than half an hour that this
is a terrorist attack.

Now, Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It's home to Air Force
One, the President's plane. It's home base for two combat-ready squadrons of
jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews
is only 12 miles from the White House.

On September 11th the squadrons there were: The 121st Fighter Squadron of
the 113th Fighter Wing, equipped with F-16s The 321st Marine Fighter Attack
Squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A, equipped F/A-18s

This information was on the website of the base on September 11th. [POSSIBLE
(cuts)] On September 12th, Andrews chose to update its website. I find it
odd that after the update there's no mention of the F-16 and F-18 fighters.
The base becomes, according to the website, home to a transport squadron
only.
Yet at 6:30 the evening of September 11th NBC Nightly News, along with many
outlets, reported: "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 - a protective cover over Washington, D.C."Ý
Throughout the northeastern United States are many air bases. But that
morning no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert
situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which have the longest lead
time and are 12 miles from the White house.

Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports,
to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence
Theory." Incompetence usually earns reprimands.
This causes me to ask ñ and other media need to ask ñ if there were "stand
down" orders.
Next week, bin Laden was a longtime close ally of the CIA, according to the
CIA itself. Why did he suddenly turn against them? Or did he?

PART-II

Keeping in mind the Canadian TV story on 9/11 raising numerous curious
question, now read the story of the President asking Senate not to probe
deep into the affair of shortcomings etc.
Fishy, fishy!

The Truth will have to come out one day, sooner or later!
Why doesn't the World take the words of Osama Bin Laden seriously that he
had nothing to do with the 9/11 affair.

From: Candace Gillhoolley
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:59 AM
Subject: [International-Forum] Bush Asks Daschle to Limit 911 Probe


Now why would Bush want to limit the 911 investigation?  Why would Cheney
refuse to release the Energy Meeting records if there was not something to
hide?  Is something really huge about to blow up in their faces?

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes
January 29, 2002 Posted: 9:26 PM EST (0226 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader
Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events
of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.
The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday
morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.

He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into
the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the
terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some
lawmakers have proposed, the sources said

Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President
Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.
"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on
September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the
war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.
But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation.
"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the
Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the
scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South
Dakota.
"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened
and why," he said.

Cheney met last week in the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and
Senate intelligence committees and, according to a spokesman for Senate
Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, "agreed to cooperate with their
effort."

The heads of both intelligence committees have been meeting to map out a way
to hold a bipartisan House-Senate investigation and hearings.
They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be
made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be.

Graham's spokesman said the committees will review intelligence matters
only.
"How ill prepared were we and why? We are looking towards the possibility of
addressing systemic problems through legislation," said spokesman Paul
Anderson.

Some Democrats, such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Robert
Torricelli of New Jersey, have been calling for a broad inquiry looking at
various federal government agencies beyond the intelligence community.
"We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not
take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and
let the country know what went wrong," Torricelli said.
"The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United
States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's
to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an
explanation owed to the American people," he said.

Although the president and vice president told Daschle they were worried a
wide-reaching inquiry could distract from the government's war on terrorism,
privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader
investigation to determine possible culpability.

"We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal
agents -- where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were
missed?" a Democratic senator told CNN.