Now that we have examined the events of Sept. 11th, and found, (in the realm of civilian air defence) a glaring, criminal negligence existing alongside the acts of terror...
now that we have moved through an examination of the FAA, the executive, the FBI, the epicentre of misconduct moving towards the upper reaches of the Pentagon...
now that we have thoroughly examined the "official" explanations, (for which the military is ultimately responsible) and found there a clear, convincing affirmation of a deceptive, negligent command...
the reader may be moved to consider the nature of the military-media alliance by which such deception is allowed to carry on.
Though we long ago deduced that the negligence of Sept. 11th emanated from many quarters, we can no longer assume that the epicentre of that negligence emanates from within the government alone; for without the negligence of the mainstream media, (failing to persist with fundamental questions of accountability) the deceptions in the Department of Defense simply would not have taken hold.
Thus, as we move forward in our investigation, we must now approach the roots of negligence as if they are emanating from two, distinct camps: one supposedly public, the other clearly private.
The two appear to feed off of and reflect upon the other, serving some kind of common interest. Likewise should we continue to examine the one in the light of the other, so as to reveal what that interest is.
Two main tasks now appear before us: uncover the character of the command decisions which occurred within the military on Sept. 11th; and consider the behaviour of the media, as a reflection of the cultural context in which these decisions continue to operate.
An examination of the media in relation to this tragedy is worthy of its own, extensive investigation; for now, we begin modestly enough: with a review of,
Beginning with our oft-cited, MSNBC article,
"Clearly, the Air Force had the capability and the training to intercept the American and United flights that hit the World Trade Center."
"Once it is apparent that [a plane] is not following directions, it might be forced over the ocean or to a remote airport - or even shot down. The intent with Stewartís plane was to shoot it down if it was going to crash into a major populated area."
"Why didnít Atlantic City fighter planes respond? One answer is that Atlantic City is a National Guard base,
(Otis Air Force Base is both, an Air National Guard Base, and a NORAD intercept base).
and it may not have had planes on alert.
"Flying time to the World Trade Center is 24 minutes at high speed from Albany. Flight time from Atlantic City, the nearest F-16 fighter base, to the World Trade Center is just 18 minutes. That leaves just six minutes to launch fighter jets to intercept the hijacked plane."
Meaning: the planes would not have made it on time; so we can ignore the question!
"The nearest air intercept base, Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Mass., was reported to have launched two F-15s, but they could not get to the World Trade Center in time."
Having satisfied that question, the author suggests that,
"Once a hijacker had the twin towers in sight, only modest flight training would be necessary to manoeuvre the plane toward them."
Hmmmm... When is the last time, (one may ask) did you fly a 767-class airliner, not a simulator, into a building at 480 miles/hr? -twice the legal speed?
He closes with,
"Our nation has a long history of reacting to "credible threats" and body counts rather than planning for unrealized but highly probable threats. The thought of shooting down a commercial airliner may have been too horrifying to contemplate, but it is something for which aviation authorities must now plan."
Now doesnít that sound nice?
I mean, how reasonable-sounding can you get?
The author begins smartly enough:
He notes that systems are in place to handle hijackings, (even to shoot the planes down).
He does acknowledge the existence of fighter-squadrons near Atlantic-City, (though he doesn't mention that this is just one of many such "battle-ready" squadrons in the region, including Philadelphia, Syracuse, Westfield, Hartford) and he does ask the question, "why weren't fighters launched?"
A lame "maybe" they weren't on alert.
Maybe the above author would have done his readers a big service by using his mainstream journalistic resources to actually find out.
As it is, itís very hard for an ordinary citizen to find out anything about the Air National Guard these days -on the internet, or otherwise.
From here, the author jumps to:
why the Atlantic City Fighter's difficulty in getting there in time somehow explains why they were not launched.
He neglects to mention we didnít know where the plane was intending to strike, (if at all) -and that another hijacked plane was already within fifty miles of the first- (heading towards Philadelphia/ Atlantic City).
The author, supposedly a part-time pilot, also seems to have forgotten that the top speed of an F-16 is well over 1000 mph, (at least 17mile/minute). Atlantic City is a little over 100 miles from New York City. We're talking about six minutes travel time, not eighteen.
From critical engagement, to selective omissions, to a comfortable conclusion: all in one nice, neat flowing package.
"Our nation has a long history of reacting to "credible threats" and body counts rather than planning for unrealized but highly probable threats. The thought of shooting down a commercial airliner...."
This totally ignores the fact that the U.S. already has the most sophisticated, far-reaching, and pre-emptive military force in the world. All told, we're talking over a $300 billion yearly budget. Within that realm, there is far more emphasis given to guarding against unwarranted threats, making them up, and justifying defenses, than there is to overlooking them.
The article ignores the crucial question entirely: the unprecedented delays in getting the intercepts into in the air.
Damage-control = engage, frame, pacify.
Offering doubt-afflicted citizens a quaff of controlled comfort, 'stead of calling us to ask the necessary questions, only adds to the campaign of criminal confusion.
We next briefly examine our oft-cited CNN article of Sept 16,
we find that it leads with,
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Following Tuesday's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and for at least 12 minutes after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned the military's air defense command that a hijacked airliner appeared to be headed toward Washington, the federal government failed to make any move to evacuate the White House, Capitol, State Department or the Pentagon...
This, of course, utterly avoids the real delay-issue of Sept 11th, (not getting planes in the air in time); and it shifts the burden of the blame, (for defense) from the military onto the federal government.
We're talking about the Pentagon, right? The Pentagon got hit, right? -the headquarters of the guys in hats and helmets who are supposed to defend against such things?
What does "the Federal Government" have to do with the Pentagon being clueless and unable to warn anyone else?
Having taken the military out of the picture, the framework proceeds with this deft/daft diversion, at a pace.
Officials at the Pentagon said that no mechanism existed within the U.S. government to notify various departments and agencies [to evacuate] under such circumstances.
If the Pentagon knew that a suicide plane was on the way, they could just pick up the phone and start calling people, or walk through the hallways, telling people to make an orderly evacuation, or take defensive measures, (the ever-popular, "duck and cover"); but nothing was done; and the ones doing that nothing were the Pentagonites, not "the federal government."
So CNN ignores the central question of why the Pentagon didn't defend itself: why there were no fighters in the air, why the central command center claims it didn't even know what was happening; and it even has the galls to blame the "federal government" for not having the facilities to evacuate.
It has to be quite clear here that "no mechanisms" exist at CNN for an arms-length policy towards the military, if this is what passes for criticism during an obvious catastrophe.
Officials also told CNN that President George W. Bush had not given authorization to the Defense Department to shoot down a passenger airliner until after the Pentagon had been struck.
So this explains why the Pentagon's surface-to-air missilies weren't used?
Ohhhh... I seeeee....
It's a pity that this article fails to mention that that the great General ("oscar") Myers himself had already said, (three days earlier) that the Command Center in the Pentagon "was up" soon after the first plane attack, (8:46).
This would mean that the reason George W. Bush wasn't able to give the shoot-down order was because the Pentagon neglected to get Georgy out of Grade three: for over forty minutes, the necessary hiatus interruptus message never came, (and we've still received no satisfaction from CNN).
The above comment, at least, does clearly show that once again, George W. Bush's timing on Sept 11 was perfectly in line with every other vestige of American Air Space authority: phonecalls delayed, warnings ignored, planes that "couldn't quite get there in time" -every time.
We've already pointed out the nonsensical,
The amusing point here may be that the spin and the evidence against it, (when the FAA informed NORAD that the plane was hijcked, at 9:16, almost an hour earlier) is in the same article, (though only visible, perhaps, to those who have the time and instinct to find it).
We close this brief sampling of the Sept 11th press coverage, with an example of how easily early reports can be extremely inaccurate.
The author of the"terrifying dilemma" article says,
"The four doomed airliners took off within 15 minutes of each other. Just before 8 flight AA 11 left Boston. heading for Los Angeles Two minutes later UA 93 left New York for San Francisco."
Actually, Flight 93 took off at 8:42, forty minutes later. It was supposed to take off at 8:02. (CNN, Sept 16, ibid, MSNBC.com Sept 22)
ĎAt 8.10 flight double A 77 left Washington for San Francisco. Four minutes after that a second Boston flight headed for LA."
"The first visible sign of anything untoward came at 8.28 when flight AA11 out of Boston inexplicably took a 50 degree turn South as it flew over New York state."
As the documents cited have already clearly shown, (Part 1B, Flight 11) the "first visible sign" was the loss of transponder and radio contact with the cockpit, which occurred eight minutes earlier. Flight 11 was well off-course by the time it veered sharply south.
"Fifteen minutes later and two more planes suddenly change course. United Airlines flight A93 reaches Cleveland and turned back on itself heading towards Washington or possibly the Presidential retreat Camp David."
Actually, at 8:43, Flight 93 had just taken off a minute or two before. It would still not be over Cleveland for almost an hour.
Here again we see the previously cited story about the White House as target.
"A few minutes later flight AA77 altered course over Kentucky also heading towards Washington. Air Traffic Controllers at Reagan National Airport immediately alerted the Pentagon that an airliner was headed for the restricted airspace over Washington... heading straight for the White House...."
Now, of course, in the midst of a chaotic situation, a reporter cannot be blamed for not getting all the facts right, first time around; yet it goes to show how easy it is for inaccuracies and confusion to dis-credit the discourse.
Once a falsehood is printed, its effect has already been felt -in the extra effort needed by already-hard-working readers, just to come up with a basic picture with which to begin a serious inquiry.
Inaccuracy fatigues the inquiring mind; and along with sensationalism, rarely burdens the bottom-line.
Two more interesting quotations,
"By the time employees inside the Pentagon realized.....
There had been no warning broadcast inside the [Pentagon].....
Even the clear sign of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil... barely elevated the state of readiness inside the nation's military headquarters...
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. Yet U.S. continental air defenses, slashed dramatically since the Cold War ended and never designed to thwart an internal threat, were helpless to stop the attacks, leaving the nation's capital and its most populated city exposed. (Newsday 9/23, ibid)
Dost thou see the slippery syntax?
The authors here are using a fact which is related to why the Pentagon was not defended, to explain why the Pentagon was not "informed." The (supposed) fact that fewer planes were available has absolutley nothing to do with why the Pentagon was (supposedly) "unaware."
This article specifically speaks to the obvious question of how the "command center" was caught unawares -then deflects it to something which is totally unrelated to the question of command.
Pretty blatant, no?
Classic damage control: seek out the obvious point of contention, frame it, give an answer which sounds close enough to the truth, (before readers come to their own conclusions). Leave them/us to think that the sense of dis-connection we're feeling, (from this answer) is because we're too stupid to put two-and-two together; so they/we let it pass.
To what degree each of the authors were aware of this obvious distortion,we cannot say.
Far more important: now we're aware of it.
Here's an interesting line,
"No regular Air Force planes were scrambled during the terrorist attacks because continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard, an Air Force spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
Now, since when does a "spokesman" speak on condition of anonymity? Either youíre a "spokesman" with a name, representing an organisation, or your a "nameless official," a "source," etc. This sounds more like someone from a private corporation, (than a public servant): doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow with our tepid, intrepid reporter.
In our review of the Sept 11 events, we have recalled and/or uncovered some incredible facts,
a President who is allowed to sit amongst a classroom of children for thirty minutes during a confirmed national emergency,
a supposed "inside" threat to Air Force One which keeps the President away from Washington for 9 & 1/2 hours, later cast aside as 'irrelevant' by the same officials who initially made the threat public,
top officials in the Pentagon, (including the Secretary of Defense) claim they were "unaware" of the plane that was coming towards them, (and of another plane which crashed in Pennsylvania, an hour after radar defense was "officially" notified).
an FBI investigation of dissappearing black-boxes and indestructible terrorist passports, Islamic "confessions" in biblical tongue, "pilots" who can't fly, hang out in strip-clubs, whose real identities seem irrelevant.Such glaring contradictions to the concept of competent leadership -in the wake of a tragedy which cost the lives of thousands of civilians- demand that pointed and sustained questions be asked by the media; yet, as we have seen, the mainstream has consistently avoided this; rather, the emphasis has been to try and patch up the tattered image of the government/military authority, accepting "official" pronouncements as fact.
We have examined a whole web of these "official" pronouncements, which are supposed to explain why civilian air defense failed on Sept. 11th -yet only leave us with more-troubling realizations:
the supposed FAA delays -criminal in scope- which are explained as "transponder," "communications," and other minor, technical issues,stories, the prime purpose of which appears to be to distract from other, more essential questions,
propogation of false radar reports to justify Pentagon inaction,the soft-peddling of emotional "buttons" which only serve to shroud the harsh reality of what went down,
the denial of planes used at Andrews Air Force base,the intentional diffusion of blame so as to distract from the command responsibility at the core of the military,
all this, the mainstream media has met without a sustained protest, criticism, or insight.
There are numerous reasons for this.
Chief among these must be the stunning degree of media concentration in America -where four or five massive conglomerates control the vast majority of the newspapers, radio, and television stations: through outright ownership, control of media services, news-wires, dependence on advertising, etc.
These voices, (CNN/Time-Warner, MSNBC, CBS, etc.) thoroughly dominate the exchange of ideas -and by their vast corporate holdings/partnerships/parent-companies, are as equally committed to the preservation of elite interests in government, business, and the military.
Reporters who think for themselves never even get a chance to rise up in ranks such as these, (though in the midst of a national crisis, critically important reports may still come through).
There are still editors and reporters who struggle to report the honest truth; yet it takes time and money to do investigative reporting, (much more cost-effective to "manage" the news than to dig for it); and all are under great pressure to "go along" with the "mass distress" in times of national shock.
Like many of us, most reporters would like to believe that their government is, on the whole, redeemable.
It's a truly frightening concept for anyone to consider that the government upon which we depend for so much may be lying to us at every turn. Only a much greater love for self and others can enable us to embrace that dark possibility -to which the demands of working for a living do not easily surrender.
Such esteemed observers are quickly weeded out of the mainstream journalistic pool. Seasoned reporters who think for themselves are ever on the verge of being replaced with young "greenhorns," eager to please their editors.
At some points, the idiocy and irrelevance of the media -in not asking the obvious questions, (and/or sticking to them until they get a decent answer)- might appear as comical, absurd theatre, if it didn't have the reality of a cluster bomb and "tribunals-for-all" attached to it.
Such an echo of
"Officials at the Pentagon also said that they were never made aware" (CNN 9/16 ibid)was not informed prior to the.....
were "simply not aware" (Newsday, ibid)
may remind us of a rather stark, but essentially true assessment of modern media from Hitlerís propaganda minister, Joseph Goebels:
The central command, of the most powerful military force in the world
claiming a cranial vapour-lock of
"we weren't informed"
during a national emergency
must instinctively raise the eyebrows of any thinking human being.
The virtual absence of air-intercepts on Sept 11 must truly stun anyone remotely familiar with routine air-defense procedure.
Yet the vast majority of reporters and editors have put their nagging doubts aside, in order to preserve and protect what they think is essential; and in the process, (whether by not knowing or not caring to know) they have moved themselves and their viewers further away from the ability to face reality, the next time it comes crashing in.
We now return to the other pillar of our analysis, the military. Let's see if we can get a closer look at the command-structure on Sept. 11th, by examining the
This "Confirmation Hearing" is where a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (the highest ranking commander in the land, after the President and Defense Secretary) is to be confirmed by the Senate.
The existing Chairman, (in this case, General Shelton) was stepping down.
Usually, this is a bit of a rubber-stamp affair. Senators in various military-liason committees are already intimately involved with the workings of the Defense Department, and rarely take serious issue with whomever the President proposes.
Yet this was an extraordinary time: two days after the Sept 11th attacks.
If ever there was a time when one of the top military officials would be called to speak on the civilian defense failures of Sept 11, you would think this would be it; and the results, (or absence thereof) are quite telling.
The transcript is long, boring, and rather pathetic; in the midst of Senator after Senator falling over themselves to praise and thank the new "commander," (sharing jokes about whose Alma Mater the general belongs to, like some "old Boys Club") some of them actually ask a direct and relevant question about what was on everyone's mind, yet in such a way that.... well.... you can see for yourself.
The timing of the hearing itself is significant.
The "old" leader, (who had technically been in command during the worst security failure in U.S. history) was stepping down, and a new commander was taking his place.
What that means is: say goodbye to the "old" leader, (Shelton) being called to hold himself and his staff accountable for what he did or didn't do.
As it was, the "new" chairman, General Myers, was in a good position to represent the "outgoing command," since he had been its second-in-command, as Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ("at times acting as chairman in General Shelton's absence"). He also refers to himself here as "the commander-in-chief of North American Aerospace Defense Command," (NORAD).
Technically-speaking, he had still been second-in command during the crisis; and for this reason, the Senate may not have felt as obligated to press for solid answers, (though common sense would surely suggest otherwise).
Now, as America was only two days into recovering from the shock and confusion of Sept 11, you'd think the Senators would have been inclined to postpone the confirmation hearing for a few days, or a week, (at least) to give themselves some time to identify where any security breaches may have occurred -so that they could ask the general meaningful questions about it.
This would have also given General Myers some time to prepare the data he would need to give the Senate a competent explanation for what had just happened.
They just had to push right on through.
Even under such constraints, the General has an enormous staff of people at his disposal. He knew this hearing was scheduled; and he could have ordered his subordinates to put every timeline, memo, spread sheet, and briefing he needed right in front of him -to make sure the Senate is fully informed.
Yet ad naseum, the General says, "I'll get back to you," "I'll check on that," "I can get that for you," (as we shall see).
(Note: The sequence of speakers has been altered so as to make the presentation of the material more... digestible. Some of these comments have already been discussed in previous sections of Unanswered Questions).
Near the beginning of the session, Myers makes a rather startling statement, (to those of us who are now aware of FAA and Pentagon regulations).
LEVIN: General, in your personal view, are there capabilities or equipment that the armed forces need today to respond to the terrorist attacks that they do not currently have? Or are they able to respond today, should that decision be made, to those attacks?
MYERS: Sir, I think we are able to respond today.... [there are always improvements] but let me re-iterate...we have what we need today to do what we need to do.
So, two days after the attacks, the top military commander says with confidence "we have what we need" [to stop another terrorist attack]. We don't need more planes or bases, no more covert ops funding, sophisticated technologies. "We have what we need."
It's possible that Myers was just saying this to re-assure the public, (when he really wasn't sure); but his assertion dovetails exactly with what the evidence has been saying all along: procedures, personel, and airplanes were in place on Sept. 11th, to insure that the terrorist attacks would not be successful; the problem was not their non-existence, but that they were not implemented.
I was with Senator Cleland [in the senate] when [the attack] happened and went back to the Pentagon.... they were evacuating, of course, And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening.
So, the vice-chairman, (second in command of all U.S. forces) gets to his "battle-station" after the attack on the Pentagon, (9:40) over fifty minutes after the first attack on the World Trade Center had occurred.
This raises a few questions:
General Myers was not "at" his "battle-station" until 9:40; was he at least informed of the situation before that? That is: even though he was not "at" his "battle station" was he already acting in consort with it? At what point was this commander involved in the command decisions of his "battle station"?
Who else was there? Was the top commander? -the chairman, General Henry Shelton?
No, he was not.
According to the Department of Defense, General Shelton was,
"'somewhere over the Atlantic en route to Europe when the attacks occurred..."
General Myers continues,
MYERS: "At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately."
Yet according to "Defense Link," (cited above) General Shelton was not a part of this "crisis action team," when it was "stood up."
Myers said he was on Capitol Hill that morning in the offices of Georgia Sen. Max Cleland to discuss his confirmation hearing to become chairman. While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.
"They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.
Meanwhile, the second World Trade Center tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."
Somebody thrust a cell phone in Myers's hand. Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of U.S. Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, was on the other end of the line "talking about what was happening and the actions he was going to take."
"Nobody informed us of that, [the second attack on the World Trade Center]... then somebody said the Pentagon was hit."
In speaking of the "crisis-action team," General Myers uses the word "we"; when, in fact, he was not even notified of the emergency until fifty minutes after "we" were "up"!!
Is this not unbelievable? The top two commanders are away from their "battle-stations" during a national emergency, and the second in command is not even notified for at least fifty minutes! (NORAD was aware that Flight 11 had been hijacked at least ten minutes earlier, by 8:38).
The General saw the television report almost a full hour before he heard about it from his subordinates.
Can you spell criminal negligence, General?
Why were you not notified? And whose job was it to notify you? Who bears responsibility for the decisions (not) made in the command center?
Perhaps it's not unusual for the two top commanders to be absent from their "battle-station" at the same time; but surely the nearby second-in-command should have been informed?
The Defense Link article adds that, because General Shelton was "somewhere over the Atlantic")
"it was critical for Myers to get back to the Pentagon."
[Oh yes sir. Absolutely critical.... so critical that... well, ya see... the "crisis-action team" had been "up" for over fifty minutes now... sweating it out... they would surely have been getting hungry by now... and General Myers... why, he knows all the best take-out places in town!!!]
"Make no mistake," (as George W. says).
The General continues,
"So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time."
So Myers "doesn't know" when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft...
Hey General, how about: 'Order it immediately!?!'
What other possible fact could be more important for you to know?
This is the military, right? And... it's the military's job to do what?
And when the military responded is what everyone wants to know, General... so we can all either heave a little sigh of relief, or heave the ones who should be relieved of duty out the door!!!
Could someone please explain why the General didn't just say, 'The planes were ordered up, as soon as "we," (the crisis-action team) were "up"'(?)
That's the law; and if the General wasn't sure enough -as to whether the law was carried out by his subordinate commanders- then he should have bloody-well made it his business to find out, immediately!!
['Oh well... what with the confirmation hearing coming up... appointment at the hairdressers, the manicurist at 9, speech writer at 9:15... who has the time?']
He said conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the Command Center.
Oh. Confusion huh? Maybe this is why the "confirmed" one wasn't notified for fifty minutes?
OK, General, let's go back to boot camp basic.
What's the first thing you learn in the military, when confusion reigns in an emergency? Those in command act to eradicate the confusion, and take responsibility for what does or doesn't happen.
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency,
handle it as though it were an emergency."
No weanie excuses.
No passing the hot potato off to some one else's "conflicting reports."
The buck stops here.
Is there anything else you've forgotten about, General? Got your underwear on straight? Got your NORAD timelines in front of you? ['Oh yeah, the confirmation hearing'].
LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?
MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record.
another odd thing for Myers to say.
Obviously, the Defense Dept. (NMCC) had been contacted by somebody, (after the first attack). Why didn't he say, ['I'm not sure exactly when the FAA contacted us, but I'm sure they did early on -because that's what they are mandated to do.'](?)
Why leave the question hanging? Why not give a vote of confidence for the FAA? -and make everybody feel a little more comfortable?
As we now know, it's because uncertainty around the FAA holds aloft its supposed negligence, covering up the real gooey center.
LEVIN: [did] the FAA or FBI notify you that other planes had turned direction from their path, their scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards Washington, [was] there.. any notice from any of them, because that's such an obvious shortfall if there wasn't.
LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that information.
MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at that time, so that part of it is a little hazy. After that, we started getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other flights that we were worried about.
And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . .
LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don' t know them.
MYERS: But we'll get them.
"It probably happened"(??)
"We know you don't know"(??)
Sounds like the Senator here is reading from a script called, "let's blame the FAA, lob an easy one to the general, then brush it aside when he hits a foul."
All Myers has to do is say, ['yeah, I guess so] -and he gets away with it!.
The candidate for the most powerful soldier in the most-powerful country in the world didn't even bother to bring a NORAD timeline with him.
It's up to Senator NELSON to say,
Even with little preparation time, the general has a huge staff of people at his disposal to collect the relevant timelines, and have all his own movements listed on a sheet of paper in front of him. Yet he simply flies by the "ah... uhm... ah..." seat of his pants.
Acting like a schoolboy at his first exam: he sees no need to hold himself and the military command accountable for the catastrophe that just occurred.
MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact timelines.
BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session. But my question is an obvious one for not only this committee, but for the executive branch and the military establishment.
If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question.
MYERS: ... after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft.
Do you see what's happening here?
The General is making mistakes...
According the Senator, Myers had earlier said, "we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit."
He had also said he "didn't know" when the order to launch intercepts was given.
Now he's saying he and Eberhart gave the decision to launch after the second tower was hit; but he's already on the public record as stating he didn't speak to Eberhart, (and wasn't even informed of the disaster) until after the Pentagon was hit, almost forty minutes later!! (see Defense-Link pg).
He's lying so often, he's forgetting them as fast as he's making them up.
Now, the Senator here may be asking the General a perfectly reasonable question: 'why the delay?'
It's also possible that he's coming to the General's rescue -giving him a chance to correct himself in public.
Can you catch the clue?
"Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session,"
(behind closed doors, right after the public one).
That may be code-word for: ['Hey, stupid, do we have to go over it again? Get it straight, or you'll see an executive session that you'll never forget.']
What other reason could the Senator possibly have for indicating a closed-door "executive session"?
So that the General can explain when planes were scrambled?
Is there any question of "national security" or "sensitivity" here?
You and I wouldn't think so.
So now we've gone from: 'planes launched after the attack on the Pentagon'; to 'planes launched after second attack on the WTC'; within a day or two we'll learn that planes were launched just after the first attack.
Catch the General's decisive command capabilities:
"I think[???] the decision was at that point"???
He thinks? Doesn't he know when a serious decision is made? Didn't he insist on knowing it?
And why did the top Pentagon Commanders wait for fifteen minutes -after they were informed of the first attack- to (supposedly) launch fighters anyway?
Flight 175, (the second plane) was already declared hijacked, and was just outside New York.
Coffee break, anyone?
The General's performance here is so sloppy, that it's obvious it can't be held up to any serious scrutiny.
Within a few days, a nice, neat package of timelines will emanate down from on high, making this farce of a command-performance seem irrelevant to all but a few.
The General is unprepared; there has been no time for Senators to prepare questions which they can insist on an answer for. And this seems to be just what's intended: ['make a show of it, get through it and move on.']
The General pits the blame for the air defense "lapse" on a lack of air bases on ready alert,
"we've got just a few bases around the perimeter of the United States.... "it's not just a question of launching aircraft, it's launching to do what? You have to have a specific threat"
(repeating one or two of the same feeble spins we've already discussed).
To be more specific, he says,
In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out.
I do not recall if that was the case for the one that had taken off from Dulles. But part of it is just where we are positioned around this country to do that kind of work because that was never -- it goes back to Senator Collins' issue. Is this one of the things that we'll worry about. You know, what's next?
BILL NELSON: Well, that one is one that we need to talk about together as we get prepared for the future.
MYERS: Yes, sir.
"I'll have to get back to you"???? -for the record? Isn't this exactly what the confirmation hearing is for?: to lay the general's competency out for the public record? Isn't he supposed to be showing an ability to be in command of the given situation?
The top commander in the U.S. military: "..if my memory serves me... I'll have to check that out... I'd have to go back and review..." [We'd have to go back and review how many times he says this, to get an exact sense of how inept he is].
Naturally, he avoids the question altogether, of why it took almost an hour for Air Force command to respond, (on two occasions): meaning, the planes could have flown in from Montana in time, if routine response times had been honored.
General Myers prefers the classic damage-control combo: sounding smart, acting dumb; and the Senator appears to give him a passing grade, with a 'you'll-do-better-next-time' nod -just for showing up!
CLELAND what lessons, over the last 72 hours, [have you] ...learned... that you can share with this committee.
MYERS: Well, I think you've hit on some of them... what is the department's role... and how all the agencies of this government collaborate and cooperate... intelligence... the absolute essential nature of our communications. And they worked fine in this crisis. But you could envision other scenarios..
Myers, of course, completely avoids the issue of intercept-response-time, (someone else's department) in order to emphasize "communications, [which] worked fine in this crisis... but you could envision..."
Well excuse me, but must we countenance the gall of a commander talking about vague, future threats -while still in the aftershock of the most colossal domestic defense failure in living memory?
Can you envision calling it "fine communications" when the top commander is not even informed of a national emergency for fifty minutes?
Ooops, sorry: forgot about CNN.
CLELAND Thank you very much for your service and God bless you.
[Thank you, tiny Tim].
REED:it seems to me, in a very narrow point of force protection, that in terms of the Pentagon, a major military facility, you had absolutely no advance warning that such an attack was being contemplated, prepared, planned or executed. Is that correct?
MYERS: There was no strategic warning that this was contemplated or planned, to the best of my knowledge.
The general is carefully avoiding the part of this question which speaks to the Pentagon being unaware of an attack, as it was being executed, (underway, in-motion, comin' down the pipe, 'round the mountain, in through the window).
REED: And I presume, based on your discussion with Senator Cleland, that this has been a source of almost immediate examination and review by the Department of Defense, as to what can be done in the future to avoid this situation?
MYERS: Absolutely. And it's not just the Department of Defense, but all the civil agencies as well that have intel apparatus, given that this, you know, that they may have knowledge as well.
['I agree. Now let me deflect your attention from the incompetence of the Department of Defence one more time.']
REED: Thank you very much.
BUNNING: what action would you take to ensure the security of our nation, of our armed forces, from terrorist attacks?
MYERS: I think we need to look really closely at our intelligence capabilities, our ability to analyze the information we get.... I think we need to look at our communications as well. And again, I go back to the other issue, and that is the issue of homeland security, homeland defense. There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area that we've just got to wrestle to the ground. And we can't keep putting these off or we'll not be prepared in the future.
The General seems to be doing a very good job of "putting off" answering the relevant questions.
Here he blames the defenceless skies on "intelligence capabilities," "our ability to analyse information," and again on "communications" ["which," as he said earlier, "worked fine in this crisis"].
COLLINS: I'm struck by the fact that the attacks that we experienced this week are being treated more as a matter of law enforcement, that the Department of Justice, for example, is the lead agency, rather than as an act of war, where the Department of Defense would be, I would assume, the lead agency.
Do you have any comments on how we better define the role of the Department of Defense?
MYERS: Well, as I indicated earlier... Is this a civil law enforcement issue? Or is it one of national security? Because, however you decide that question, then will decide who has got primary responsibility.
we need to define our roles and responsibilities, probably in ways that we haven't yet today.
I will tell you though, that the cooperation among all the departments and agencies of this government has been absolutely superb. And yes, this was a terrorist act and the FBI and the Department of Justice are working the evidentiary piece of this. And that's appropriate.
I must tell you though, General Myers is quite consistent with his insistent refusal to deal with any contentious issues in a straightforward manner.
The Senator is asking him why the debate around the attacks is centered on law enforcement? Why is justice the lead agency, when we were struck by a military attack?
We're not talking about policy here. We're talking about the power to act, (or not).
Could this avoidance of authority, (in appearance only) be related to the fact that the Pentagon was struck, supposedly "unawares"?
General Myers spins this off into a question of "unclear" roles and responsiblities -until the clarity of the original question is lost.
It may be worthwhile noting that the Senators were going to have a closed-door session with General Myers immediately following this one, (at which Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz was also going to be present) .
Numerous comments to this effect appear throughout the transcript.
ROBERTS: We're going to have to talk about that later. I won't go into it right now.
SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have some other . . .
MYERS: I can tell you in closed session what I do know.
SMITH: I'll wait for that.
BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session.
Most of the confirmation hearing didn't even concern Sept 11.
Senators asked General Myers about space-command, missile-systems, biological warfare, anthrax vaccines, maintenance.
While it would only make sense that not every other military concern be put on hold for this hearing; (life must go on) one may be struck by just how much the government seems bent on carrying on with "business-as-usual."
It rather begs the question: what has to happen in modern U.S. society for the government to stop doing what it's doing, and really consider a fundamental change of management.
The Confirmation Hearings bring some kind of closure to the uncertainties which the evidence has thus far placed before us,
It was already abundantly clear that a gross, criminal negligence had occurred in the realm of civilian air defense on Sept 11th -without which, the terrorist plane attacks would not have been successful.
This appeared to involve ATC/FAA, NORAD, The President, and the Pentagon/DOD as co-incompetents.
Subsequent investigation has shown that the FBI -through its travesty of an investigation- is implicated at a very high level; and increasingly, the paths of culpability point towards the highest levels in the Pentagon, as "ground zero" -for responsibility denied.
Now with the appearance of General Myers before the Senate, we have clear confirmation of,
his personal evasion of responsibility for his role as top General during a national catastrophe,
incompetence beyond belief,
blatant contempt for considerations of accountability to the American public,
and as representative of the top Pentagon Commanders, clear indication of their cover-up and probable guilt for the criminal negligence of Sept. 11th, 2001.
General Myers admits that he and the "crisis-action team [were] up" after the first attack on the World Trade Center, (with a hijacked Flight 175, [NORAD confirmed] still fifty miles outside of New York City); and they did not see to it that a state of emergency was declared; and that fighter-intercepts from all available bases were ordered on immediate patrol.
He said "I do not know when NORAD responded with fighter-aircraft" -as if knowing that was an insignificant concern, a clear abandonment of his most basic responsibility.... to find out why decisive action had not been immediately taken.
The General is unable to answer the most basic questions about when the Pentagon was first informed of the emergency, by whom, or whether planes were dispatched at all. Six times he tells Senators, 'I'll have to get back to you on that...' when he has an enormous staff available to provide him with every stat he needs.
This reflects a similar negligence we've already seen in the command staff of the Pentagon: from the Defense Secretary who says he and his staff were "unaware" that hijacked Flight 77 was headed towards them; to the Joint Chief Officers, monitoring the radar screens in the Command Center... aware of the national emergency since at least 8:50, (likely 8:40 or earlier) privy to all suspect radar data... yet no action taken for thirty-five minutes... if at all.
The Hearing has further confirmed that the Senate has no interest in uncovering the truth about what occurred on Sept. 11; in fact, it's members are doing everything they can to protect the military industrial complex from scrutiny.
This must widen and further complicate our examination of what happened on Sept 11, (and why). Amongst top officials in the Executive, the Pentagon, FBI, we must now cast a wary eye across the network of elected officials who have so thoroughly embraced the "war on terrorism" while avoiding the blatant criminal negligence of American officials which pre-date it.
We can come to no other conclusion but that,
something went terribly wrong in the command centers of the Pentagon on Sept. 11
the President was incapacitated because of it, for an entire day
Top Pentagon officials initiated a campaign of lies and mis-information to derail any public discussion.
the FBI generously fabricated evidence to quickly close the case in the minds of the public
elected officials rallied around the military, denying the obvious
the press made it all seem believable, knowingly or unknowingly, whether out of fear, servitude, or a lack of critical instinct.
The reality of such criminal negligence, widespread corruption, and incompetence is ominous indeed.
It means that the main centers of power and influence in U.S. society -nay, the world- are out of control, way out touch with reality, and that we are headed for a disaster of far greater proportions than 9/11.
For those of us aware that,
planet earth may be made uninhabitable for humans in a relatively short period of time,
humanity spends as much on weapons every two weeks -as it would take to feed all of us for an entire year
this disturbing reflection coming off the waters of Sept. 11th may not come as much of a surprise.
Perhaps one of the most telling aspects of General Myer's performance before the Senate, revolves around the language he employed, and the attitude this language embodies.
It's deceptive, dishonest, without honour, yet in a singularly unremarkable way.
There's no outright, brutish force employed, no charismatic pull to follow; simply an impetus to be left alone, to avoid contact, responsibility.... in order to fulfill one's hidden agenda.
What makes this attitude significant to us is that, it is one which permeates much of our modern culture.
From the attitude of children, (often having more respect for the TV than their elders) to the elders in government, (looking down on the "unwashed masses") there is a moral degeneracy which accompanies our refusal to be seen by others for who we really are. Instead, we cultivate an image by which we attempt to get what we want from others -while avoiding an open admission of intent as much as possible.
Thus, the vague, evasive language; the cultivated confusion of intent.
Underneath this soft, surreal blanket is the brutal face of power: in politics, business, a conversation.
Pornography is about power. Teenage angst, fashion, fame, are primarily about power: those who've got it, those who want it, and what people are willing to do to get it.
This quest for power is driving our world.
There's a different kind of power, of course, formed in the interaction of our vulnerable and courageous souls.
Yet when the deceptive power grows as a dominant force in society, it spreads like a cancer in the minds and hearts of the millions amongst us, and within.... crowding out most precious heart.
It is largely for this reason that the commanders in the Pentagon have been able to get away with their evasion of responsibility for the criminal negligence which occurred on Sept 11th, costing thousands of lives.
Sad to say: it is because we, the masses, don't want to know about it.
That is, we instinctively accept the Pentagon's claim of "we didn't know," "we weren't informed," as a valid excuse, because we ourselves want to believe that our own ignorance of something absolves us of responsibility for it.
Thus: 'if I avoid knowing about something, then I am less responsible for what effect it may have.'
Such an ignorance, of course, stops short of when we perceive it affecting us, (though it does tend to blind us to its ultimate effect on us); the emphasis of our ignorance is on how it affects others.
Thus: 'I don't want to know what my government is doing to other people around the world, so long as I don't perceive it affecting me personally; and if I'm not aware of it's effect on others, then I bear no responsibility for it; hence, the reason we choose to avoid being aware of it.
We know that the governments we elect are schools of deception, yet we continue to elect them, and/or turn our backs on the true implications.... ignoring its effects.
We know that the military let us down on Sept 11th, but we don't want to think about it, for the implications that lie in the dark doorway beyond our dependence on an authoritarian state.
The flip side of this, of course, is that most of us citizens today are unable to separate ourselves from the actions of our government, when it is attacked; for it is precisely because we choose to remain so ignorant, that we are shocked if/and when the repercusions finally hit home.
This is why very few of us were able to listen to the the quite valid argument that American (and European) foreign policy is largely responsible for creating the culture of international terrorism in the first place.
Like a pendulum, we swing from ignorance, to shock, to blind allegiance, then back to ignorance again.
Our governments, and centers of influence are very well aware of this; in fact, they encourage it, cultivate it, because they can use it to their own advantage.
While we all share in a state of general ignorance, the rich and powerful are are not ignorant about power, they merely use the appearance of being "unaware" of it in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for the benefits they receive. We, on the other hand, ("the people") choose to remain ignorant of the power-question, accepting the elite's avoidance of responsibility, in return for a few table scraps, and the ability to knowing what the elite are doing to others.
These are not our only motivations, of course; we struggle every day, (often heroically) to live honourable lives -under great pressure, invariably put upon us by those elites; yet at a certain point, our own oppression no longer becomes a worthy excuse for ignoring the oppression of others; dignity demands that we lift our heads up to behold our whole, human essence.
We are as yet, on the whole, unwilling to deal with the prospect that the government is unworthy of our trust; wherein, we can rely on it no longer, to shield us from our fears; and so the problem keeps getting worse... as it has been for a long, long time.
We do not want to look beyond our own backyard, unless we have to.
This is where the government, military/media can say,
And we accept it, because it lets us off the hook. All we have to do is let those in power off the hook too.
How conveniant for all concerned.
Our menial comfort zones, and the image we have spent so long in crafting, we protect at great cost: we continue to eke out our partial paths of pleasure, rarely realizing that there are some who have learned to profit handsomely from this network of isolated illusions, in which so many play a small, pathetic part.
The cry of our true inner being never grows silent; always we seek to find a way; so even when we finally open our arms to embrace the whole truth, we find the struggle continues.
The depth of denial which confronts us in the world today looms large; ultimately, beyond comprehension: a devastating, relentless expansion of social decay, disintegrating relationships, divided self, imperiled earth; wherein, only the courage to continue shall find within us, a cool compassion, with the capacity to endure.
We forge ahead, as solitary souls, faithful, that the underlying bond between us shall become that much more visible; in the eyes of others, in the arms that one day shall receive us.
When we look upon our everyday heroics and facades as expressions of one, whole humanity, we can see in the language of a General Myers the tired, life-denying ambition which so cruelly characterizes our present human condition: the absence of clarity and concrete inspiration; the combination of lukewarm logic and a vicious boot to the balls; bloody war, bombs to keep the economy booming.
Ignorance, confusion, diffusion of blame -all these contribute to the false sense of freedom we associate with an absence of responsibility.
It's in this context, that we may find meaning in the
Spin is a topic worthy of detailed scrutiny.
In general, a spin evolves from an intention to hide the truth about a given situation, through avoidance, delicate denials, and the semi-conscious creation of confusion.
We may see the embryonic form of this quite clearly in the behavior of children, (esp. teenagers): attempting to establish their own power and authority amongst others more powerful than they, struggling with the ethical challenge of short-term gain vs. long-term love.
In political/social terms, spin becomes significant to us, as an organized system of deception -whereby certain interests cultivate a culture of collective mind management.
This organized form of spin is of a much more sophisticated, refined nature than the instinctive, childhood kind, (though it relies on the dissemination of that same ground-floor deception, to nourish the soil in which the spin can take root).
It almost goes without saying that, in our modern society, we are daily bombarded with a whole labyrinth of sophisticated spins... from numerous levels of government, corporations, advertsiers, "experts," "specialists," "advisors," "think tanks" -and, of course, the media.
These are of varying degrees of sophistication.
We must always allow individuals and groups some bias in their advocacy of a certain point of view; and it is this open and honest exchange of views which we want to distinguish from deception, misrepresentation, and all the various hidden characteristics associated with what we call spin.
The spin is most often observed within nominally "democratic" societies, where the "public's right to know" is an operating assumption. In fascist, totalitarian states, this sense of accountability is openly declared irrelevant to the exercise of power. In so-called "democracies," it is not so much denied as it is managed.
In general, the object of the spin is to suspend a clear understanding of a particular issue, only long enough for events to move the event-in-question, and its' spin, into the dustbin of irrelevance.
Thus, the operating principle: neither deny nor confirm.
Outright denial is often a confirmation of something; it allows some closure to a particular question, allowing the observer to move on to other questions, or examine the denial as if it is standing still, solid, confirmed.
Though denial itself is the essence of spin, a concrete, specific denial usually requires other "ingrediants" to draw attention away from it.
The preferred practice is to both engage and deflect the inquiring observer's attention, so as to occupy it, keep it moving, in flux, until "nobody cares" anymore.
For instance: a "spinster" may say, 'yes, exactly... I'll be glad to answer that...' then proceed to unveil a line of cause and effect which really doesn't speak to the question being asked; but rather, to one which sounds like it... leading to completely different, (confused and irrelevant) conclusions.
A few examples of this which we have already seen include:
General Myers before the Senate,
Q: "[did you have] advance warning that such an attack was being contemplated, prepared, planned or executed...?"
MYERS: "There was no strategic warning that this was contemplated or planned...."
(carefully avoiding the component of the question.... 'did you have a warning that an attack was being executed,' 'underway,' 'goin' down,').
Q: "And I presume... that this has been a source of almost immediate examination?"
MYERS: Absolutely. And it's not just the Department of Defense, but all the civil agencies...
"Absolutely... and... but..."
After describing how completely "unaware" the Pentagon was that a plane was coming towards them, Newsday speaks to what is on everyone's mind,
"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."
Then deflects the question into la la land.
"Yet U.S. continental air defenses, slashed dramatically since the Cold War ended..."
substituting why-the-planes-were-not-intercepted for why-the-Pentagon-was-"unaware."
Readers may also recall the deliberate confusion by Pentagon officials, Dick Cheney, etc. of routine "interception" with "shoot-down."
Sometimes the object of the spin is simply to downplay controversy -to make glaring errors seem more reasonable.
After two weeks of silence, (following the President's nine-hour detour from Washington on Sept. 11th, blamed by White House officials on "clear and credible evidence" that the attackers had "access to Presidential codes") White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says,
"I'm not going to comment on... it's not an uncommon occurrence for people to threaten.... This has nothing to do with anything.... This is about an attack that took place on our country." (ibid)
We have also noted on numerous occasions, how the object of a spin may be to appeal to more malleable, push-button emotions in the observer, which serve to distract from the calm, contentious, critical ones.
"We could not have foreseen...."
"We were caught off-guard...."
"faced with a horrifying decision..."
"We really [lied -I mean] tried...."
The beauty and significance of the larger spin is that, once we have been able to pierce through the web of explanations, the spin campaign itself becomes one of the most damning and localized pieces of evidence, indicating guilt.
In the case of a 'national-event' such as Sept. 11, the spin campaign also provides a most penetrating lens by which to see into the inner workings of a country's culture of intrigue.
We can, however, only arrive at this insight after we have spent much time and effort in piercing through the various explanations.
At first, the web of "stories" seems complex, diverse, and perhaps convincing.
As each "explanation" is explored, and found to be unconvincing -an array of unresolved contradictions is left in the wake of our movement towards the center, inevitably leading towards higher and higher levels of decision-making authority.
As we near the source-point of the "larger spin," the sense of dis-connection between the various diversionary spins starts transforming into connections of persons, times, dates; and the remaining confusion itself begins to take on the weight of solid evidence.
Then we discover, at the core of the various spins, the "main spin" which all the others are designed to deflect attention away from.
Now turning, we can look back along the path and clearly see how all the various "spins" serve the center; and then, to other observers, we can lay out the structure of the spin, (as an organized whole) so that they/we/you can grasp it's central character without having to go through all the sifting.
The main spin is usually rather subtle to the uninformed eye; glaring, once grasped.
In our case, we discovered that,
the Department of Defense is making it seem as if it was "uninformed," as to the aviation emergencies taking place on Sept 11.
This evasion of responsibility was necessary to cover-up the fact that something happened within the highest levels of the Pentagon, to insure that the Air Force did not do its job.
To the uninformed observer, this evasion may appear, at first, insignificant. To those of us with a clear understanding of what "command" means, it's as solid as the human spirit is wide.
Whether by unconcious, criminal negligence or intentional treason, we cannot yet say; what is clear is that the blame directed (by the Pentagon) to other segments does not hold sufficient water to hold back the tide of suspician now washing upon its walls.
The primary purpose of the various weak explanations was to divert attention from what is, in essence, a glaring incongruity: the military, which justifies its existence on its ability to be in charge, was not: thousands died; and a traumitized nation was provoked into war to cover that up.
Standing at the gate of spin-central, we can now clearly see another essential component of the campaign:
the "fall-guy" -the patsy- the one who's supposed to take the bulk of the blame, just in case the initial campaign of damage-control and distraction does not work.
Clearly, in the case of the air defense negligence of Sept. 11, the main body of the blame would fall on the FAA/ATC.
This is in the official timeline of NORAD. It has been clearly identified in the press.
There have been no charges publicly filed against FAA/ATC officials, yet; because, to do so, would be to admit to the existence of the criminal negligence. When innocent people are charged, there's bound to be resistance. Far less messy to simply deny it, by downplaying the extent of the FAA delay.
Any "investigation" has so far been confined to an "internal" review; but if sufficient public dissatisfaction with the "official" story of Sept. 11 begins to mount, we can confidently predict that a selective blaming of certain officials will be made public, (in controlled doses).
The cynical manipulations implied in such a conscious campaign of cover-up and false accusation should not lead us to assume that the perpetrators of this are the "personification of evil," or jump to conclusions about intentional "treason," and so on; nor should it shock or surprise us.
An ongoing infrastructure of "damage-control experts," "p-r specialists," etc. are now considered an essential component of any major governmental authority or institution.
They are designed and constructed so as to be able to move into action, as soon as an emergency, crisis, scandal occurs.
Those employed in these positions, (to varying degrees) have been well-trained in the art of extracting personal morality out of their waking existence, and maintaining passive, emotionless expressions while they lie.
Some do it for the money, some for the prestige, and the taste of power; some have convinced themselves it's in the "national interest." Most are just gutless wonders.
They're good at what they do; and they're an essential part of "doing business."
To see a real "master" at work, just watch a White House press conference, presently hosted by Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:
Having said this, it remains quite possible that the failure of the military to protect American skies on Sept 11th, may be solely and entirely due to an unintentional, (though still criminal) incompetence and negligence.
We have thus far simply proven that the negligence existed, emanating from the highest reaches of the Pentagon (and the Executive) and that a system-wide campaign of damage-control was quickly initiated.
If we have not yet made a case for the possibility of intentional sabotage and treason, it was because it would have been highly speculative. The facts demanded that a case for negligence be verified, before the causes could be explored.
Now that we can further see the extent to which governments are pre-disposed to planning deceit, this may be the logical time to examine the more-troubling question.
In doing so, we should not be tempted to assume some scenario.
The concept of treason doesn't necessarily mean that elements which may have intentionally undermined civilian air defense on Sept 11th knew that thousands of American lives would be lost.
An intentional sabotage of some kind may spark a corresponding unplanned negligence which takes the effects to a level which a perpetrator does not foresee.
Intentional acts on the part of some top officials does not mean that all, or even most of them were involved; it could indicate some kind of internal power-struggle, causing unforseen consequences.
Nor can we absolutely rule out the possibility that thousands of civilians were intentionally sacrificed for certain ends; for, in the dark dimensions of the human condition, great power can sometimes make men do unthinkable things.
Rather than assuming some scenario, we are simply asking the question: is it possible?
The systematic nature of the criminal negligence, coupled with the Pentagon's claim of surprise, then a spin campaign unfolding with military precision, makes it reasonable for us to explore this possibility: if only to put the question to rest, (make a clear distinction between "conspiracy theory" and serious research) and move on.
Neither should we think that we are nearing the end of our investigation; for if there is evidence to support the charge of intentional sabotage, then it may be that our investigation is just beginning; and readers should be prepared for a whole other scope of inquiry demanding the same careful, critical approach we have thusfar employed.
The outline for a case of criminal negligence has been placed before you.
It is now up to the American people, world-citizens, community groups, to take this information -test it in your own research and experience- and raise a call for a process of national inquiry, in the most public way possible.
Let us now turn and face the question of intentional sabotage, by asking the simple question,