White House refuses to release Sept. 11 info

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

Well, let's hear it. Please specifically name the countries you are considering. Thanx.

Here's a fine starting place:

Riyadh's former intelligence chief has been accused in US court documents of helping to fund al-Qaeda, report Paul Harris and Martin Bright

Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer

It was another royal function on a cold February evening as Prince Charles mingled with the guests at the opening of an Oxford clinic. Among the doctors were a few celebrities, including the actress Joanna Lumley. Canapés were eaten, a few glasses of wine were drunk. 'I can't tell you all how pleased and glad I am to be here today,' Charles gushed.

Charles stopped to chat with the new Saudi ambassador to Britain, the distinguished figure of Prince Turki al-Faisal. The two friends shook hands and exchanged pleasantries.

But Turki is not what he seems. Behind him lies a murky tale of espionage, terrorism and torture. For, while Turki has many powerful friends among Britain's elite, he is no ordinary diplomat. Turki has now been served with legal papers by lawyers acting for relatives of the victims of 11 September.

They accuse him of funding and supporting Osama bin Laden. The Observer can also reveal that Turki has now admitted for the first time that Saudi interrogators have tortured six British citizens arrested in Saudi Arabia and accused of carrying out a bombing campaign.

The revelations throw a stark light on Turki's appointment late last year as Saudi Arabia's new ambassador to Britain. They also cast doubt on the suitability of Charles's relationship with senior Saudis. A year ago Charles had dinner with bin Laden's brother, Bakr bin Laden, and regularly hosted meetings for Turki's predecessor, Dr Ghazi Algosaibi, who was recalled after writing poems praising suicide bombers.

The US lawsuit is seeking more than $1 trillion in com pensation from a list of individuals and companies alleged to have supported al- Qaeda. The claimants' head lawyer, Ron Motley, a veteran of successful anti-tobacco suits, has already called it 'the trial of the century'.

Now, after papers were served on Turki several weeks ago, the Saudi ambassador will be at the heart of it. Legal papers in the case obtained by The Observer make it clear that the allegations are serious and lengthy. Many centre around Turki's role as head of the Saudi intelligence agency. He held the post for 25 years before being replaced in 2001 just before the attacks on New York.

Turki admits to meeting bin Laden four or five times in the 1980s, when the Saudi-born terrorist was being supported by the West in Afghanistan. Turki also admits meeting Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 1998. He says he was seeking to extradite bin Laden at the request of the United States.

However, the legal papers tell a different story. Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden's network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.

Kakshar's statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. 'Mullah Kakshar's sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,' the papers said.

Turki's link to one of al-Qaeda's top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda's top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.

Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was 'instrumental' in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports.

Turki did not respond to phone calls and a letter sent by The Observer to the Saudi embassy in London.

But his lawyers will have to respond in court. The case is expected to begin in May and experts think it could go on for four of five years. If it rules against him, Turki may face enormous compensation payments and the seizure of his financial assets. It would also cost him his post as ambassador.

Coupled with the looming court case, Turki last week raised alarming questions over the treatment of six Britons jailed in Saudi Arabia when he admitted that they had been tortured. Turki was head of Saudi intelligence when the men were arrested. Saudi authorities claim the men were involved in a 'bootleggers' feud', despite the attacks continuing after their arrest and bearing the hallmarks of Islamic terrorists.

In an astonishing call-in programme, carried on the BBC World Service and unnoticed in Britain, Turki fielded a call from a British resident of Riyadh who knew some of the imprisoned men. The caller confronted him about the torture allegations. Turki said: 'They were tortured and there was a complaint about it and that complaint would have been investigated.'

The revelation has angered relatives of the men and campaigners, who have accused the British Government of sacrificing their freedom in the interests of good diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Last week the relatives met Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who told them that Britain would continue its 'softly, softly' approach. However, that news angered many. 'His stance is the same. He said softly, softly is working. But it has been two years. How much longer?' said one relative at the meeting.

Lib Dem MP John Pugh has also tabled a series of questions about the men in Parliament, but said that Foreign Office officials had failed to answer them. 'I am being blocked,' Pugh said. Diplomatic sources say Pugh has also been asked 'privately' to stop his questions. Pugh has now applied to have the issue debated in the Commons.

Let's walk through the whole screed about interceptors.

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.

What she fails to mention is that the US had a grand total of 14 interceptors on short-time alert on 9/11.

Why so few?

Because prior to 9/11, the alert status of NORAD-assigned aircraft was based on the activity level of certain airfields in Russia, where strategic bombers were based.

It was a relic of the Cold War.

BTW, the highest alert aircaft were in Alaska, which just happens to be right next to Russia.

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.

They were practiced.

Without live ammunition loaded on the aircraft.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD.

OK.

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 the jets aren't ready for launch, it takes a while.

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".

Which, incidentally, would SLOW any real-world response, because the exercise controllers would have to verify that the event wasn't in the exercise script.

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."

False. Live ordnance is NOT loaded for air defense exercises.

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

Unlucky for this woman that she doesn't know how the military works.

Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.

Let me rip your argument to shreds.

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.

So far, so good.

Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

IF the aircraft is in line-of-sight. At low altitude, it's unlikely.

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.

OK.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m.

It takes time to confirm that this isn't an equipment failure, that the phone call isn't a hoax, and to communicate that data to NORAD.

Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Getting airborne only 12 minutes after the initial report to NORAD is a miracle.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD?

If the FAA notified NORAD every time ANYTHING went slightly differently from the norm, they'd be in the position of the little boy who cried "wolf."

Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets?

12 minutes is not a "delay."

How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Because the Vigilant Guardian exercise controllers needed to know that this wasn't in the script, and the NEADS folks needed to deconflict existing operations.

Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets.

Yup.

Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC

One of the unavoidable facts of war is that military organizations will perform at substantially below par when going from a standing start--i.e., responding to a surprise attack without having received indicators and warnings. I would suggest reading Trevor N. Dupuy's Numbers, Predictions, and War for an analysis of why this is so, and guidelines for modeling its effects.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases.

Not when you consider that the closest bases did not have active-duty squadrons available.

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.

For example, Andrews Air Force Base is home to an Air National Guard squadron and a Marine Corps Reserve squadron.

Reservists and Guardsmen are called "Weekend Warriors" for a reason. 9/11 was a Tuesday.

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?

It takes time to get aircraft ready from a standing start, and the decision was undertaken to arm the aircraft--which added further delay.

This thing was over in under an hour.

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.

Well, yes. That's because if the F-16s out of Langley had gone on afterburner all the way up, they would have run out of gas over the District and the pilots would have had to punch out.

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.

I assume she meant "Mach 1.2" and not "Mach 12."

The former is the dash speed of an F-16. The latter is not attainable by any combat aircraft in the world. If they'd flown at their dash speed, they would have covered the distance in about 2/3rds the time it actually took.

This woman is ignorant. But, because she lost her husband on 9/11, she's accorded the status of "expert."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.