Wednesday, August 02, 2006

NORAD, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney

You've no doubt read this WP bombshell:
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate...

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So what went on with NORAD that day? Vanity Fair gives us the closest look we have yet received. I do not consider it the full story (and some consider it pure spin), but we need every scrap of info we can get. Here's a bit that lept out at me:
For the NEADS crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once. What emerges from the barrage of what Nasypany dubs "bad poop" flying at his troops from all directions is a picture of remarkable composure.
"Bad poop" about phantom hijackings was all over the media on 9/11. Has anyone done any research as to just how those stories began?

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

For an interesting brief response to the VF article, go here and scroll down to Paul Thompson's take (response 11). Everyone reading the new VF article should keep in mind this revelation published in the New York Observer:
What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning.
Concentration of power means that the actions of only a few can engineer events.

This section of the VF article will surely make the greatest impression:
In his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02—only one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. "Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision," Bush's then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News.

Cheney echoed, "The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, it's an order that had never been given before." And it wasn't on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over.
Is there one reason why Bush could not have granted that authority while in that classroom -- or earlier, since he knew of the first strike before the reading of "My Pet Goat" began?

He did not say "Fight back" until the fight was over. If Clinton had done precisely the same thing, the right would have spun endless conspiracy stories.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The answer I think was on the 911 symposium televised on cspan and available online.
This was a planned distraction. Global Guardian?
Many false blips were on radar. They were part of the millitary exercises used to help conceal rogue government complicity.

Anonymous said...

And to add, they've had 5 years to work on these tapes. They could've done a number of things. God knows they have the technology. Just look at what they did with the on flight phone calls.

Anonymous said...

Soemthing stinks about the Pentagon because I say for myself there were at least a 100 winesses. Yet all we hear about is that guy who worked for USA TOday. You know, the guy who had kids working in the Pentagon? The only one to have seen the actual AA jet ?

Joseph Cannon said...

You're talking about either Fred Gaskins or Steve Anderson, both of whom saw a passenger jet, although I did not know that either one had recognised it as American Airlines.

Oliver Campo, a guy mowing the lawn not far from the Pentagon, DID specify an AA jet. So did a witness named John O'Keefe, who was traveling on the interstate. Some very early witness must have said the words "American Airlines" to 911, because a tape of the DC emergency dispatch unit mentions that name wtihin the very first minute.

Father Steve McGraw saw a passenger jet too, as did truck driver Steve Eiden.

I can understand the contuining debate over Flight 93, but to repeat foolishness over the Pentagon strike is silly.

Anonymous said...

Silly huh? Well we all have our opinions. I really wish you'd watch "Loose Change 2nd edition.
There's too many unanswered questions!

Anonymous said...

Mr Cannon: i have a conspiracy theory now too. Notice that on the day that military people were saying Israel is losing the war, Hugo chavez shows up in Russia. He says, "Thank You, Mr. Putin, for thos jet fighters. If you didn't break the American blockade, I would have been helpless." Then he goes to Iran to make deals. Then he goes to Vietnam.

It gets better. Before that we hear a story about an Englishman arrested in Turkey and let go. the charge - being Israeli! Then, Iraq and Turkey have talks about economics and security.

There's more. Remember how Mr. Maliki came and exposed the Democrats as hacks for AIPAC. So now, Chuck Hagel is the only one with credibility.

Ok, wait. Then we hear stories of Iraq having a coup because Bush has mad a mess of everything, and they're mad about Lebanon. (that one is probably true.) Sistani came out and told people not to tolerate the attack on Lebanon.

So, now we have the rise of the shiite crescent, coupled with a three sided world - if France can pull it off. I hope they can, for everyone's sake.

But also, Bush has to choose between the Shiite or the Israel/House of Saud alliance. Let's hope he chooses the shiite.

then, Mel Gibson blames jews for the world's wars. Then, Castro's health is apparently tied to the progress of the war.

Comrade Putin takes Hezzballah off of his terror list.

Comrade's Putin and Chavez are clver men.

Anonymous said...

The tinfoil is hitting the fan!

C-Span video of Los Angeles 9/11 conference:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5004704309041471296&q=c-span+jones

or... http://tinyurl.com/kndab

Anonymous said...

As to your observation that Clinton non-action would have inspired right-wing conspiracy theories, Rocky Mountain News columnist Paul Campos revently went you one further and opined that these theories would have got mainstream press in the interests of working against the liberal bias.

How did the phantom plane stories start? Mike Ruppert says that part of the war games involved the insertion of false blips on the radar screens.

Anonymous said...

Every day that passes now and more of the official story starts to unravel. In addition to his comment on DU Paul Thompson was also interviewed by Randi Rhodes on Air America. The thread can be picked up via the 911blogspot website.
As to the claim that Cheney was in the bunker and not informed until after 10.00, check Norman Mineta's (no doubt unintentionally) honest testimony to the 911 commission about Cheney being questioned by a young aide on 4 occasions BEFORE 9.30 as to whether the "orders still stand" as what was said to be flight 77 approaching the Pentagon; i.e. that the plane was not to be shot down. Needless to say the 911 commission skipped that evidence along with much else.
Another compelling broadcast I woud commend to your readers is Bonny Faulkner's interview with Professor Steven Jones on kpfa's guns and butter program August 2. I think that the Vanity Fair article is really just another limited hangout and sjows how nervous the Cheney gang are becoming as the truth emerges.

Anonymous said...

I agree, James. The Cheney gang is pushing "incompetence" material in hopes of heading off interest in more damaging issues. Maybe heads of a few scapegoats will roll.

Truth is bustin' out all over. Ain't it grand?

Anonymous said...

The Vanity Fair article is garbage.

The same old tired claims of incompetence and outdated equipment.

The author repeats the lie that turning off your transponder makes your plane invisible!

How stupid do they think we are?

The function of this disinfo piece is to reinforce the official story while appearing to give the suckers yet another false hope that eventually truth,justice and the American way will prevail.

911 Seeker said...

"The function of this disinfo piece is to reinforce the official story while appearing to give the suckers yet another false hope that eventually truth,justice and the American way will prevail." - absolutely right, but I'm not quite so pessimistic. The official 9/11 myth is in freefall. These "fake news" pieces in WaPo and VF and elsewhere are fallback positions, firewalls. As each crumbles more of the truth is exposed.

Listen to Malloy tonight (Aug 3, 10:30 eastern) Webster Tarpley will be on.