blog

Why Were U.S. Intelligence Facilities in an ‘Information Void’ During the 9/11 Attacks?

August 30th, 2012 Posted in | No Comments »
Submitted to 911blogger by Shoestring on Sun, 08/19/2012 – 8:18am

The FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Center

When the terrorist attacks began on September 11, 2001, numerous U.S. intelligence agencies and facilities that should have been closely following the catastrophic events taking place in the skies over America were unaware that anything was wrong. Because of their particular responsibilities and their advanced capabilities, agencies such as the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) should have been among the first to learn the details of the crisis. But, instead, they were apparently in an information blackout, and their knowledge of the attacks was limited to what they could learn from television reports.

The fact that key intelligence agencies and facilities experienced this problem, and all at the same time, suggests that the information blackout may have been intentional–an act of sabotage committed by the perpetrators of the attacks. Such an act could have been intended to render these agencies and facilities useless when their services were urgently needed, thereby helping to ensure that the attacks were successful.

MILITARY OFFICERS UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ATTACKS
The lack of awareness of the crisis on September 11 is highlighted in the accounts of two military officers who contacted numerous facilities in their attempts to learn more about the attacks. These officers were Lieutenant Colonel Mark Stuart, an intelligence officer at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), and Major David McNulty, the senior intelligence officer of the 113th Wing of the District of Columbia Air National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base. [1]

Stuart and McNulty’s units had crucial roles to play on September 11. NEADS, based in Rome, New York, was responsible for coordinating the U.S. military’s response to the hijackings. [2] And “air defense around Washington, DC,” according to Knight Ridder, was provided “mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base,” which is just 10 miles from the capital. [3] The DC Air National Guard was in fact known as the “Capital Guardians.” [4] It was therefore essential that Stuart and McNulty be provided with up-to-the-minute information on the attacks. That, however, did not happen.

NEADS was alerted to the first hijacking–that of American Airlines Flight 11–just before 8:38 a.m. on September 11, when an air traffic controller called to report the incident and request military assistance. [5] Beginning at around 8:48 a.m., Mark Stuart contacted several facilities to see if they had any information on the hijacking, beyond what he had already learned. These facilities included the FBI’s Strategic Information and Operations Center, the National Military Joint Intelligence Center, and the 1st Air Force headquarters. None of them could provide any additional information. A colleague of Stuart’s checked the SIPRNET–the U.S. military Internet system–for relevant information, but also without success. [6]

At Andrews Air Force Base, about five minutes or so after he learned that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center (the crash occurred at 9:03 a.m.), McNulty went to his “intel vault” and began seeking relevant information. He too checked the SIPRNET. He called agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. He also called units such as the Air Combat Command Intelligence Squadron and the 609th Air Intelligence Squadron. But he was unable to find out anything more than he had already learned from television reports. [7]

Other accounts provide further details of the lack of awareness of the catastrophic events within the military and other government agencies. Indeed, the information blackout appears to have been almost universal. One government official commented that the U.S. was “deaf, dumb, and blind” for much of September 11. [8]

Continued here.

Bookmark and Share

Two New Letters on Journal of 9/11 Studies

July 3rd, 2012 Posted in | No Comments »

Letters 2012

The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus (June, 2012)
Frank Legge
Letter to the Royal Society from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (Written June 2011, posted June 2012)
Board of Directors, AE911Truth

Bookmark and Share

Keiser Report: 9-11 Insider Trading and Germany’s Elusive Gold Reserves

March 28th, 2012 Posted in | No Comments »

RussiaToday–Mar 24, 2012–Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, talk to independent journalist, Lars Schall, about his recently published investigation into insider trading around the 9-11 terrorist attack as well as his pursuit of Germany’s elusive gold reserves.

Copyright Russia Today 2012

Video link here.  Discuss on 911blogger here.

Bookmark and Share

Two new papers just out

January 1st, 2012 Posted in | No Comments »

A new paper has been published by John Wyndham in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact

“The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.”

Additionally, Kevin Ryan has also published a new paper:

The Small World of 9/11 Players: LS2, Vidient and AMEC

“A simple review of the people whose roles were critical to the success of the attacks, and their associations before and after 9/11, brings to light surprising connections between companies that were responsible for security and construction, and the people most responsible for protecting the nation.”

Bookmark and Share

Niels Harrit’s Talk at the Toronto Hearings

September 13th, 2011 Posted in | 1 Comment »

Bookmark and Share

Laurie Manwell talk at the Toronto Hearings

September 13th, 2011 Posted in | No Comments »

Bookmark and Share

The Meaning of 9/11 by Michael Meacher MP

September 12th, 2011 Posted in | No Comments »

michael-meacher_1406249i
September 11, 2011
Author: Michael Meacher
Source: Michael Meacher MP

9/11 remains one of the most misunderstood events in modern history. The first myth is that it came out of the blue on an unsuspecting America. In fact it is known that 11 countries provided advance warnings to the US about the 9/11 attacks, including Russia and Israel which sent 2 senior Mossad experts to Washington in August 2001 with a list of terrorist suspects that included 4 of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. Moussaoui, now thought to be the 20th hijacker, was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners, and Newsweek later revealed (20 May 2002) that an agent had written that month that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers. Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism chief in the White House, has since said that “50 CIA personnel knew that al-Hamzi and al-Mihdhar (2 of the hijackers) were in the US in July-August 2001, including the Director”, but never passed the information to the FBI. And the former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has stated that “the information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence”.

See full article here.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Ryan’s Talk at the Toronto Hearings

September 11th, 2011 Posted in | No Comments »

See: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17188564

Bookmark and Share

David Chandler’s talk at the Toronto Hearings

September 10th, 2011 Posted in | No Comments »

Video streaming by Ustream

See schedule: http://torontohearings.org/schedule-and-live-coverage/

Bookmark and Share

National Post Toronto Hearings coverage: ‘The truthers are out there’

September 9th, 2011 Posted in | No Comments »
Matthew Sherwood for National Post

Matthew Sherwood for National Post

Sept. 11 panelists Kevin Ryan, left, Lance deHaven-Smith and David Ray Griffin will eventually write a report on the matter.

The truthers are out there: Toronto Hearings on the events of September 11

Sep 9, 2011 – 6:00 AM ET, source

As people across Canada and the United States publicly remembered the tenth anniversary of 9/11 this week, a small group at Ryerson University were examining another angle altogether: the “myth” of 9/11. The four-day Toronto Hearings kicked off Thursday with a trio of experts and academics offering their opinions on why the official narrative of 9/11 as a terrorist attack is flawed. The Post’s Megan O’Toole looks at the day’s highlights.

THE LEGAL ANGLE

Though the Toronto Hearings have so far played out more like a conference than a legal hearing, organizers referred to each of the three experts who took to the podium as “witnesses.” No lawyers were there to cross-examine them; instead, a panel of three academics and an Italian judge peppered the speakers with friendly questions. The panel, which will ultimately draft a report on the matter, may address the question of whether another state-sponsored inquiry is needed to help answer all the lingering questions about 9/11. “We know that the official story does not fly,” organizer Graeme MacQueen said. “It’s full of holes.”

CONSPIRACIES ABOUND

Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who addressed the panel first, came right out and said it: “Maybe [9/11] was an inside job to advance a war agenda.” He cited evidence that the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition, a theory popular among the so-called 9/11 Truth movement. “What is more disconcerting in some ways is that this was not investigated,” Mr. deHaven-Smith told the mostly older crowd of about 100 people. By labelling such views as conspiracy theory, the U.S. political elite “silences and stigmatizes” legitimate questions, Mr. deHaven-Smith said. He drew a parallel between 9/11 and a host of other historical U.S. “state crimes against democracy” — or SCADs, for short — including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the 2001 anthrax scare and the disputed presidential elections that put George W. Bush in the White House for two successive terms.

SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH, PART I

The official report from the 9/11 commission is replete with glaring omissions, said speaker David Ray Griffin, who wrote the book 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. “There were continuing signs the Bush administration didn’t want the truth of 9/11 to be discussed,” Mr. Griffin said, pointing to the appointment of Bush crony Philip Zelikow as the commission’s executive director. “The commission was the White House investigating itself.” The resulting report failed to include relevant information about the alleged hijackers, including the revelation that some were still alive after the attacks, he said. In addition, Mr. Griffin questioned the discovery of alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta’s will in a suitcase that was supposed to be on the plane with him. Why put your will in a plane destined to crash, Mr. Griffin asked.

SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH, PART II

Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, was similarly critical of a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into how and why the twin towers, and a third building in the World Trade Center complex that was not hit by any plane, collapsed in the fashion they did. “A steel structure does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire,” Mr. Ryan said, noting the NIST report “distorted many important facts.” The fires raging in either tower were not hot enough to melt the steel structure, he said, nor would the plane crash have created sufficient force to pull the building’s exterior columns inward, as the NIST report suggested had occurred. “This is the opposite of science,” Mr. Ryan fumed.

THE AUDIENCE

In addition to dozens of guests, speakers and experts, a number of amateur filmmakers were on scene to record the Toronto Hearings, while security posted outside the door ensured anyone entering had an appropriate badge. Critics have questioned the timing of the hearings, coming when so many people are grieving their losses. Mr. MacQueen, however, said the goal was not to delegitimize their mourning, but rather to sift through the “myth and deception” surrounding 9/11.

National Post
• Email: motoole@nationalpost.com

Bookmark and Share