At your leisure, please review this chapter from
"The Hidden History of 9-11-2001";
"The Military Drills on 9-11: 'Bizarre Coincidence' or Something Else?"
172kb PDF
http://physics911.net/jacobs.pdf"...The U.S. Government Printing Office has made the final 9/11 Commission
Report available on the web, all 585 pages of it. It is published as a single
PDF file. I used it to search for places in the report where the Commission
may have discussed the war games conducted on 9/11. Before doing this,
I tested the process with some random key words. For example, I inserted
‘‘fire department’’ and got 13 hits. ‘‘Rumsfeld’’ was mentioned 71 times and
Bush 175. The word, ‘‘building’’ was used in the report 105 times and ‘‘terrorist’’
416 times. I searched for ‘‘Zacarias Moussaoui’’ and found his name
in the report in 128 places. I plugged in ‘‘plane into building.’’ This also
came up nil, although the word ‘‘plane’’ had 128 references that were not
applicable.
I then searched for the specific names of military drills that I understood
may have been relevant to 9/11. These were Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant
Warrior, Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian and Tripod II. Still I
found nothing except for one reference in the endnotes for Chapter 1 that
were cited on page 467 of the Final Report:
116 On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian,
which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated
whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s
response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, ‘‘it
took about 30 seconds’’ to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph
Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited
by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the
scheduled exercise. (See Robert Marr interview, January 23, 2004)
Besides the official hush on the war games, mainstream media also neglected
the subject by and large. Early in 2004, independent researcher, Mark
Robinowitz, published the results of his research for news on the exercises
and found mention only in a January 5, 2002 article in Newhouse News; an
August 21, 2002 Associated Press article; a June 3, 2002 Aviation Week and
Space Technology piece; and a December 9, 2001 news article published in
the Toronto Star. There were undoubtedly more, but the fact remains that
most American citizens still have no idea about military exercises scheduled
for 9/11 and their possible effects...."
Yesterday Mr Bronner was on NPR talking about his VF article. His "aw, shucks" attitude about the Military Drills is fully ineduaquate, as is the lack of investigation by the 9/11 Commission into: the War Games, insider trading, reports of false identities used by the "hijackers", the fact that two of the "hijackers" lived with an FBI informant for over a month, the possibility that Ziad Jarrah appears to have had a double who could be on different continents while he was in Lebanon with his sick father, the fact that the "hijackers" acted nothing like Islamic extremists, the ABLE DANGER revelations... it just goes on an on.
One may ask, "Why is that?"
One answer is that despite the fact there were 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats on the Commission, the agenda and overall investigation of the Commission was set and directed by
Phillip Zelikow;
"... Why is the commission bending over backwards to please the White House when it's supposed to be fiercely independent and bipartisan, made up of five Republicans and five Democrats?
The answer may lie in the little-known fact that the White House has a friend on the inside. And not just any friend, either.
His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman.
Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.He also carries with him a downright obnoxious conflict-of-interest odor, one that somehow went undetected by the lawyers who vetted him for one of the most important investigative positions in U.S. history..." -
Paul SperryMr. MELVIN GOODMAN: The most important individual to me, other than a commissioner, was the staff director, Philip Zelikow. His conflicts of interest were so great that you do have to wonder why this individual was appointed to head this important staff of over 80 people. He had very strong ties to the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. Very strong personal and political and policy ties to Condoleezza Rice. More importantly, Philip Zelikow was running the case study program at Harvard which took millions of dollars from the Central Intelligence Agency over a ten year period to write case studies on the CIA, to establish a record that was essentially untrue with the facts about the work of the CIA. Of course, the classic case study that Philip Zelikow chaired, along with Ernest May, who was his patron at the Harvard Kennedy School, was the case on the Soviet Union, how the CIA got it right. You know, the politics of getting it right. Of course, as we all know, one of the greatest disasters of politicization of intelligence that occurred even before the Iraq war was over the politicization of intelligence on the Soviet Union. Who did Philip Zelikow bring into the staff structure as a team leader on his staff? None other than Douglas MacEachin, who was serving a tour up at the Harvard Kennedy School. Who was Douglas MacEachin? Douglas MacEachin was the head of the Soviet analysis job during the 1980s ….. responsible for most of the politicization of intelligence. Here you have Philip Zelikow from Harvard and the case study program, and Douglas MacEachin, as a team leader on Zelikow’s staff, making serious decisions about the need for change within the intelligence community. - Mel Goodman.
Mel Goodman, (ex-CIA... not "former"... EX... he quit), had his testimony entered into the Congressional Record last year thanks to Rep. Cynthia McKinney. That's how strongly he views the "balanced partisanship" of the Commission.
You can view Goodman's testinomy online by going to the Library of Congress’ THOMAS service, (
http://thomas.loc.gov ), selecting “Congressional Record” and typing in “THE 9/11 COMMISSION FINAL REPORT ONE YEAR LATER” into the “Search” field, selecting McKinney’s name from the “Member of Congress” drop down list, de-selecting the “Senate” option, and hitting “Search”.
It gets even worse about Zelikow;
"...Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report , pp. 5-7).
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”...
In short, the 9/11 Commission Report, and hence the "official story" as commonly accepted, is ALREADY THE PRODUCT OF A TRUE POLITICAL IDEOLOGUE.
We have no idea how many lies and omissions constitute the report, but David Ray Griffin has given us a good head start;
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
