Banned
|
"YOU, THE JURY" Do TFP Members Believe The Official Version of What Happened on 9/11?
I am seeking the opinion of as broad a segment of the TFP membership as possible. Here is "the evidence" that white house, defense, CIA, and FAA officials did not make a sincere effort to disclose accurately, the events leading up to, and during the attacks on 9/11.
If you do not think that there is enough evidence that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised, please post your opinion on what you would need to see, in addtion to the following, to raise doubts in your mind that would be great enough to change your opinion:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/wa...hp&oref=slogin
By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON — At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.
The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.
Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel....
...The only White House official previously reported to have taken part in the discussions was Ms. Miers, who served as a deputy chief of staff to President Bush until early 2005, when she took over as White House counsel. While one official had said previously that Ms. Miers’s involvement began in 2003, other current and former officials said they did not believe she joined the discussions until 2005......
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...pes/index.html
December 21, 2007 -- Updated 1926 GMT (0326 HKT)
White House: NYT wrong about CIA tapes
.. The Times ran a correction in Thursday's paper saying "the White House itself has not officially said anything on the subject, so its role was not 'wider than it said.' "
The White House release Wednesday said administration officials have generally declined to comment on the matter and denied making any misleading statements. It said the "no comment" policy would continue. ...
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/op...on&oref=slogin
Op-Ed Contributors
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. <h3>Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations....</h3>
....In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.
<i>Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the 9/11 commission.</i>
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/wa...erland&emc=rss
October 1, 2006
9/11 Panel Members Weren’t Told of Meeting
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Members of the Sept. 11 commission said today that they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a White House meeting in July 2001 at which George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action.
Details of the previously undisclosed meeting on July 10, 2001, two months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, were first reported last week in a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward.
The final report from the Sept. 11 commission made no mention of the meeting nor did it suggest there had been such an encounter between Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice, now secretary of state.
Since release of the book, “State of Denial,” the White House and Ms. Rice have disputed major elements of Mr. Woodward’s account, with Ms. Rice insisting through spokesmen that there had been no such exchange in a private meeting with Mr. Tenet and that he had expressed none of the frustration attributed to him in Mr. Woodward’s book.
“It really didn’t match Secretary Rice’s recollection of the meeting at all,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
“It kind of left us scratching our heads because we don’t believe that’s an accurate account,” he said.
Although passages of the book suggest that Mr. Tenet was a major source for Mr. Woodward, the former intelligence director has refused to comment on the book....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...00.html?sub=AR
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03
...Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"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."....
|
<h3>Please click the link in the following quote box and read the news reporting in the post:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...40#post2372640
....In the preceding quote box is news reporting that:
a.) The 9/11 Commission chairman and many of the members believed that testimony from military commanders and from FAA officials to the Commission regarding the timeline of events related to the four hijacked airliners was untrue and/or intentionally misleading.
b.) As a compromise, the Commission members agreed to allow the FAA and Defense Dept., to investigate themsleves, regarding the alleged false testimony, instead of filing their suspicions of false testimony with the Justice Dept. as criminal complaints.
c.)The Inspectors General of both the Defense Dept. and the FAA took more than two years to publicly release any results of their respective investigations about false testimony. THe Defense Dept. Inspector General actually completed his report 14 months before releasing it's contents in response to a long pending FOIA request filed by the press.
d.)The Defense Dept. report contradicted the 9/11 Commission report by claiming that:
"..initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping..." and "...On Sept. 11, the report said, air-defense watch centers used handwritten logs that were not always reliable...." The excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report (Below) clearly contradicts the Inspector General's report, the logs and the tape recordings were already compared by the 9/11 Commission to coordinate the timeline of the sequence of events for accuracy.
e.)The Defense Dept. Inspector General told the NY Times in early August, 2006, two years after the 9/11 Commission requested an investigation into false testimony:
"A spokesman for the inspector general’s office, William P. Goehring, said that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.
But Mr. Goehring suggested that the second report would exonerate the commanders....."
I can find no record of the promised "second report", ever being released !!!!!!!!!....
|
Quote:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/050607.html
Tenet-Bush Pre-9/11 'Small Talk'
By Robert Parry
May 6, 2007
In late August 2001, when aggressive presidential action might have changed the course of U.S. history, CIA Director George Tenet made a special trip to Crawford, Texas, to get George W. Bush to focus on an imminent threat of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack only to have the conversation descend into meaningless small talk.
Alarmed CIA officials already had held an extraordinary meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10 to lay out the accumulating evidence of an impending attack and had delivered on Aug. 6 a special “Presidential Daily Brief” to Bush entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”
“A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.
Tenet’s trip to Crawford – like the July 10 meeting with Rice and the Aug. 6 briefing paper for Bush – failed to shock the administration out of its lethargy nor elicit the emergency steps that the CIA and other counterterrorism specialists wanted.
While Tenet and Bush made small talk about “the flora and the fauna,” al-Qaeda operatives put the finishing touches on their plans.
It wasn’t until Sept. 4 – a week before 9/11 – when senior Bush administration officials, including Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “finally reconvened in the White House Situation Room” to discuss counter-terrorism plans “that had been lingering unresolved all summer long,” Tenet wrote . click to show
Tenet’s memoir also provided new details about the emergency July 10 meeting that Tenet had demanded with Rice to lay out the startling new evidence of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
By July 10, senior CIA counterterrorism officials, including Cofer Black, had collected a body of intelligence that they first presented to Tenet.
“The briefing [Black] gave me literally made my hair stand on end,” Tenet wrote. “When he was through, I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk – the one with a direct line to Condi Rice – and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qa’ida threat.”
‘Significant Terrorist Attack’
After reaching the White House, a CIA briefer, identified in the book only as Rich B., started his presentation by saying: “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!”
Rich B. then displayed a chart showing “seven specific pieces of intelligence gathered over the past 24 hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack,” Tenet wrote. The briefer presented another chart with “the more chilling statements we had in our possession through intelligence.”
These comments included a mid-June statement by Osama bin Laden to trainees about an attack in the near future; talk about decisive acts and a “big event”; and fresh intelligence about predictions of “a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead,” Tenet wrote.
Rich B. told Rice that the attack will be “spectacular” and designed to inflict heavy casualties against U.S. targets, Tenet wrote.
“Attack preparations have been made,” Rich B. said about al-Qaeda’s plans. “Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning.”
When Rice asked what needed to be done, the CIA’s Black responded, “This country needs to go on a war footing now.” The CIA officials sought approval for broad covert-action authority that had been languishing since March, Tenet wrote.
Despite the July 10 briefing, other senior Bush administration officials continued to pooh-pooh the seriousness of the al-Qaeda threat. Two leading neoconservatives at the Pentagon – Stephen Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz – suggested that the CIA might be falling for a disinformation campaign, Tenet wrote.
But the evidence of an impending attack continued to pour in. At one CIA meeting in late July, Tenet wrote that Rich B. told senior officials bluntly, “they’re coming here,” a declaration that was followed by stunned silence.
The intelligence community’s evidence was summarized in the special PDB that was delivered to Bush while he was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford.
The PDB ended by noting that “FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”
Bush apparently was not pleased by the CIA’s intrusion on his vacation nor with the report’s lack of specific targets and dates. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, “All right, you’ve covered your ass,” according to an account in author Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine., which relied heavily on senior CIA officials.
Ordering no special response, Bush returned to his month-long vacation of fishing, clearing brush and working on a speech about stem-cell research.
Averting 9/11
While it will never be known whether a different reaction by Bush and his national security team might have disrupted the 9/11 attacks, a variety of options – both short- and long-term – were available.
Inside the FBI in August, there were other warnings that went unheeded. FBI agents in Minneapolis arrested Zacarias Moussaoui because of his suspicious behavior in trying to learn to fly commercial jetliners when he lacked even rudimentary skills.
FBI agent Harry Samit, who interrogated Moussaoui, sent 70 warnings to his superiors about suspicions that the Islamic extremist had been taking flight training in Minnesota because he was planning to hijack a plane for a terrorist operation.
FBI officials in Washington showed “criminal negligence” in blocking requests for a search warrant on Moussaoui’s computer or taking other preventive action, Samit testified more than four years later at Moussaoui’s criminal trial.
Samit’s futile warnings matched the frustrations of other federal agents in Minnesota and Arizona who had gotten wind of al-Qaeda’s audacious scheme to train pilots for operations in the United States. The agents couldn’t get their warnings addressed by senior officials at FBI headquarters.
But another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Bush and his top aides shrugged off the growing alarm within the U.S. intelligence community.
Counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke said the 9/11 attacks might have been averted if Bush had shown some initiative in “shaking the trees” by having high-level officials from the FBI, CIA, Customs and other federal agencies go back to their bureaucracies and demand any information about the terrorist threat.
If they had, they might well have found the memos from the FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota. They also might have exploited the information that two known al-Qaeda operatives, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hazmi, had entered the United States. On Sept. 11, they boarded American Airlines Flight 77 and helped fly it into the Pentagon.
In his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke contrasted President Bill Clinton’s urgency over the intelligence warnings that preceded the Millennium events with the lackadaisical approach of Bush and his national security team.
“In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks,” Clarke said in an interview about his book. “President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks.
“Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.
”Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the President ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.” [CNN’s “Larry King Live,” March 24, 2004]
Other Priorities
In his book, Clarke offered other examples of pre-9/11 mistakes by the Bush administration, including a downgrading in importance of the counterterrorism office, a shifting of budget priorities, an obsession with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and an emphasis on conservative ideological issues, such as Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars missile defense program.
A more hierarchical White House structure also insulated Bush from direct contact with mid-level national security officials who had specialized on the al-Qaeda issue.
The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission – New Jersey’s former Republican Gov. Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton – agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.
“The whole story might have been different,” Kean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the “lack of coordination within the FBI” and the FBI’s failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui’s arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.
Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, 2001, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells derived from human embryos.
On side trips from his August vacation, Bush also made forays to Middle American cities that Bush said represented “heartland values” and the basic decency of Americans. Some residents living near the Atlantic and Pacific oceans viewed the hype about “heartland values” as a not-so-subtle snub at the so-called “blue” coastal states that favored Al Gore.
Bush kept drawing distinctions, too, between his presidency and Bill Clinton’s. Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.
Tenet’s late August trip to Crawford seeking to underscore the urgency of the terrorist threat may have been viewed in that light, helping to explain why it devolved into a meaningless discussion of the ranch’s “flora and fauna.”
Despite the Sept. 4, 2001, meeting of senior Bush aides to review the counterterrorism initiatives that had been languishing since March, the administration still didn’t seem moved by the urgency of the moment.
On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.
Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Gary Hart, who had co-chaired a commission on terrorism, was again trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the threat. Hart met with Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.
|
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030003
Summary: NBC's Nightly News and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume uncritically reported the new White House explanation for President Bush's claim that <h3>"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."</h3>
|
Bush used a remarkably similar phrase to hide what he knew BEFORE 9/11, about the potential threat of terrorists hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, just five days after 9/11.....
<p>This is on the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html ">http://www.whitehouse.gov/...</a> website, but it is never quoted....only Condi's similar declaration....months later, gets repeated!</p><p>
Quote:
"For Immediate Release<br>
Office of the Press Secretary<br>
<b>September 16, 2001</p><p>
Remarks by the President</b> Upon Arrival<br>
The South Lawn </p><p>
<b>....No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people</b> - and show no remorse. This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil........</p><p>
.......Q Mr. President, would you confirm what the Vice President said this morning, that at one point during this crisis you gave an order to shoot down any civilian airliner that approached the Capitol? Was that a difficult decision to make?</p><p>
THE PRESIDENT: I gave our military the orders necessary to protect Americans, do whatever it would take to protect Americans. And of course that's difficult. <b>Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.</b> And so, obviously, when I was told what was taking place, when I was informed that an unidentified aircraft was headed to the heart of the capital, I was concerned. I wasn't concerned about my decision; I was more concerned about the lives of innocent Americans. I had realized there on the ground in Florida we were under attack. But <b>never did I dream we would have been under attack this way."</b>
|
</p><p>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A9449-2004Apr13&notFound=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...</a><br>
By Bradley Graham<br>
Washington Post Staff Writer<br>
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16</p><p>
While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a </p><p>
scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday. <br>
|
</p><p>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html">http://www.mdw.army.mil/...</a><br>
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates<br>
scenarios in preparing for emergencies<br>
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan<br>
MDW News Service</p><p>
Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 -- The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the </p><p>
Pentagon courtyard.<br>
|
<br>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/17/attack/main509471.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/...</a><br>
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking</p><p>
WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002</p><p>
Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, </p><p>
said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.</p><p>
(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's </p><p>
terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building...... <br>
</p><p>
<B>......"I don't think anybody</B> could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade </p><p>
Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked </p><p>
airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. <br>
|
From the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB delivered to Bush while he was on vacation at his Crawford, TX ranch.....the words that he used all of his presidential powers to attempt to conceal from you.....and from me:
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
Saturday, April 10, 2004 Posted: 6:51 PM EDT (2251 GMT)
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.
.......Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York......
|
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Updated 4/19/2004 3:08 PM
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.
NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.
"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.
On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.
On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."
President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."
The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska....
|
Last edited by host; 01-02-2008 at 12:09 PM..
|