White House refuses to release Sept. 11 info

miami.com/KR ^ | 5.6.2003 | FRANK DAVIES

[Destro]

Note the silence on this thread.....

[Shermy]

Well it's interesting to speculate why some things are released, some not.

"Our Saudi Friends" might be one of the considerations.

Also CYA, the usual top concern.

[swarthyguy]

Interesting backgrounder and current info/events here....

http://www.satribune.com/archives/may04_10_03/P1_isi.htm

Pakistan Spy Chief in Difficult Talks with CIA

[LouD]

It's our information.

Not if it could compromise ongoing intelligence or military operations, it's not. Sorry, pal - but neither you nor I have "need to know."

This is a Republic, not a Democracy - We vote for people who are empowered to represent our interests and make decisions for us, using all available information. They get to see the information, you don't. Don't like or trust your representation - Fine, vote (or run) against them next time. But you don't get to see classified information just because you want to second guess them.

[aristeides]

In this case, the leaders of the Intelligence Committees in the Senate and House -- the chairmen from opposite parties, plus the leading staffer, none of them wild-eyed radicals -- want the report released. Aren't they who you mean by our representatives? I find it hard to believe they would be for release if the contents were all that sensitive from an intelligence standpoint.

By the way, some of us on this thread also have intelligence backgrounds. Which means, among other things, that we've had a chance to see how ridiculously some things get classified.

[swarthyguy]

That's your opinion. I disagree. It is imperative we know and this smokescreen of national security etc is just an excuse to CYA.

You're wrong.

[Betty Jo]

Part of the reason Cheney-Bush-Rice dont want it released is the current 9/11 lawsuit.

Hee,hee,we'll just claim its a matter of National Security.

[Dolphy]

It's our information. The country deserves to have this out in the open

The country deserves a report put into context by the long term failures that led to September 11. I don't have confidence in a Congressional effort authored by many of the same people who failed to identify the threats through the 90s. I don't buy the idea that a report focused on the specific failures that led to September 11 would, in the end, make us any smarter or better informed.

bin Laden publicly declared war on the United States in the 90s, he attacked multiple times. The mistake was not taking him seriously. Rather than aggressively meeting that declaration apparently our defense was to rely on intelligence and oceans for protection. It didn't work, and if anyone listened to the agents that came before the Congressional committee they heard that it will never work. We can't play defense against a known threat with 100% accuracy and effectiveness. Why, afterall, do we need a smoking gun memo when we had a smoking ship and smoking embassies? Yet this same Congress demanded nothing in unison and did not shift the public attention or display necessary leadership. Now they are going to explain September 11? Like I said, unless they have reflected on their own contributions, I have little confidence in them.

Is Bush covering his backside? Maybe to a degree, but at least he has set about to right the wrongheaded policy of relying on intelligence and diplomacy against unyielding threats.

[Recovering_Democrat]

yes, I noticed. My premise remains.

[lawdude]

"Dammit, release the damn thing and don't whitewash it into such a state of blandness that it's meaningless. "

The report details the treasonous involvement of ex-pres klinton and full knowledge of his acts could do great harm to the country.

< Speculation/>

[lawdude]

"Women like you turn me on!"

Bet she is really a guy that looks like a cross between Wally Cox and Courtney Cox. Is true, Betty Jo?

[vbg]

[sinkspur]

They are guilty.

And you're hysterical.

[sinkspur]

Note the silence on this thread.....

It resembles a sanitarium.

Most people tiptoe around the insane.

[gedeon3]

Right, never mind the clinton years, and the way he cripled the cia, fbi, dea, our military, etc, etc, which is what bush inherited. Nice try girl.

[sinkspur]

Part of the reason Cheney-Bush-Rice dont want it released is the current 9/11 lawsuit.

The one against the airlines? No jury will EVER convict; that's an attempt by a few greedy families to shakedown some deep pockets.

[andrew7]

Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."

Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th.

Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?

So the hijackers luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures .Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

And this has to do with Clinton how?

[archy]

We are still identfying and finding out about more al qaeda thugs in this country before 9/11 and probably still here.

Including political figures from both parties who have sold out their country.

-archy-/-

[Betty Jo]

Who is Courtney Cox?

[swarthyguy]

Facts, we don't need no steenking facts!

[swarthyguy]

And most importantly, the one or two countries that would be the state sponsors of the Attacks on America.

Them's the pearl(s) in this oyster.