9/11 attacks

From Bwtm

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated suicide terrorist attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

That morning, 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda[1] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. Two planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower. Both towers collapsed within two hours. The pilot of the third team crashed a plane into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth hijacked aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. 2,976 people died in these attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attacks

breaking

Angry tones mix with somber at Sept. 11 memorials. Protests and quarreling over a proposed mosque near the former World Trade Center site in New York strike a divisive chord amid the ritual expressions of mourning. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-9-11-anniversary-20100912,0,1245207.story?page=1

Why didn't the commission investigating the devastating 2001 al Qaeda attacks thoroughly scrub the NSA's files? Philip Shenon on the crucial records the government has never explored. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-10/911-mystery-nsa-files-on-al-qaeda-attack-never-probed/

America must move from the errant, retributive justice of 9/11 to a healing, restorative process of truth and reconciliation. Before the Congress adjourns, I will bring forth a new proposal for the establishment of a National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which will have the power to compel testimony and gather official documents to reveal to the American people not only the underlying deception which has divided us, but in that process of truth-seeking to set our nation on a path of reconciliation. We suffer in our remembrance of 9/11, because of the terrible loss of innocent lives on that grim day. We also suffer because 9/11 was seized as an opportunity to run a political agenda, which has set America on a course of the destruction of another nation and the destruction of our own Constitution. And we have become less secure as a result of the warped practice of pursing peace through the exercise of pre-emptive military strength. It is not simply 9/11 that needs to be remembered. We also need to remember the politicization of 9/11 and the polarizing narrative which followed, locking us into endless conflict, a war on terror which has wrought further terror worldwide and which has severely damaged our standing worldwide as an honorable, compassionate nation. As we were all victims of 9/11, so we have become victims of the interpretation of 9/11. Our government’s external response to 9/11 was to attack a nation which did not attack us. Indeed on the first anniversary of 9/11, the Bush administration issued a well-publicized stern warning to Iraq which was part of a campaign to induce people to believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The deliberate, systematic connection of Iraq with 9/11 has led America into a philosophical and moral cul-de-sac as over 1 million Iraqis and over 4,155 U.S. soldiers have died in a war which will cost over $3 trillion. Additionally, soldiers from 23 other countries have died in the Iraq war. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080911_remembering_9_11_and_moving_forward/

The 9/11 Servility Reflex. by James Bovard, Posted March 24, 2008. Many citizens react to their rulers like little kids who recognize that a stranger is acting suspiciously and may be up to no good — but then decide whether to trust the man depending on the type of candy he pulls from his pockets. It is as if a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup trumps the beady eyes, sweaty forehead, and out-of-season trench coat. Likewise, adults may be wary about a politician — but if the guy promises free prescription drugs or protection and safety, many take the bait. The naive response to politicians triumphed in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks. By the end of September 2001, almost two-thirds of Americans said they “trust the government in Washington to do what is right” either “just about always” or “most of the time.” Amazingly, the attacks even boosted Americans’ confidence that government would protect them against terrorists. Many of the most respected and prominent media commentators saw 9/11 as the great sanctifier of government power. The New York Times’s R.W. Apple announced, “Government is back in style.” Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt proclaimed, “It’s time to declare a moratorium on government-bashing.” Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein declared on September 19, “At the moment the first fireball seared the crystalline Manhattan sky last week, the entire impulse to distrust government that has become so central to U.S. politics seemed instantly anachronistic.” Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam effused, I think there is the potential that September 11 will turn out to be a turning point for civic America.... There could be some good coming from it if it causes us to become ... more open-minded about the role of government. Some of the allegations regarding 9/11 — such as the charge that no plane had hit the Pentagon — were easily verifiable as false. New American, the magazine of the John Birch Society, ran an article harshly criticizing some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, though carefully avoiding embracing the government. Yet, as with Waco, the Establishment invoked outlying loons in order to seek to undermine the credibility of all criticism of the government. But the existence of conspiracy nuts does not make the government honest. The Washington Post never portrayed government officials who put out false statements about 9/11 in the same light as it did the private conspiracy buffs. Despite the fact that private citizens have no power over other Americans and that they have no authority to coerce them or drag them into an unnecessary war, their false statements are presented as a greater threat than those of government officials. The obsession with private lies is misplaced, when the real danger is the government lie — a lie embraced and disseminated by a subservient media, vested with all the prestige and aura of the state, and protected by an iron curtain of government secrecy. And regardless of how many times the government changes the official story, people who continue to distrust the government are delirious. The government’s appearing to be a necessary evil does not oblige people to trust it. We face a choice of trusting government or trusting freedom — trusting overlords who have lied and abused their power or trusting individuals to make the most of their own lives. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0712c.asp

9/11 commision Report

The 9/11 Commission Report, formally titled Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is the official report on the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was prepared by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States at the request of the President and Congress, and it is available to the public for sale or free download.

The report was convened 441 days after the attack [1] and was issued on July 22, 2004. The report was originally scheduled for release on May 27, 2004, but a compromise agreed to by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert allowed sixty days of extension, until July 26.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

Condoleezza Rice Was "Bombarded" with Warnings Before 9/11, Commission Biased Against Clarke

New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s new book — The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation — paints a damning portrait of Condoleezza Rice. Shenon argues that Rice was “uninterested in actually advising the President,” but was instead more concerned with being his “closest confidante — specifically on foreign policy — and to simply translate his words into action.”

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald prints an extract from Shenon’s book which provides further details about Rice’s incompetence. “Emails from the National Security Council’s counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats” before 9/11, Shenon writes. Some examples:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with Rice on the Bush transition team in 2000 and 2001 — “made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.”

When 9/11 Commission historian Warren Bass uncovered a smoking gun email from Clarke to Rice written on September 4, 2001, which asked, “Are we serious about dealing with the al-Qaeda threat?,” Zelikow reverted to defending Condi. Bass then threatened to resign:

“I cannot do this,” Bass declared… “Zelikow is making me crazy.”

He was outraged by Zelikow and the White House; Bass felt the White House was trying to sabotage his work by its efforts to limit his ability to see certain documents from the NSC files and take useful notes from them. … Bass made it clear to colleagues that he believed Zelikow was interfering in his work for reasons that were overtly political - intended to shield the White House, and Rice in particular, from the commission’s criticism.

The former weapons inspector in Iraq — David Kay — passed word to the 9/11 Commission that he believed Rice was the “worst national security adviser” in the history of the job.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/79059/#more

Newly-released FBI timeline

Newly-released records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request contradict the 9/11 Commission’s report on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and raise fresh questions about the role of Saudi government officials in connection to the hijackers. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._11_Commission_0228.html

The 9/11 Report: A graphic adaptation by Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón

This is really good!

http://www.slate.com/id/2147309/nav/tap1/

Run up to the Attacks

PDB August 06, 2001

"Bin Laden Determined To Strike inside US"

The U.S. White House briefing on terror threats of August 6, 2001 is the briefing given to U.S. president George W. Bush and members of his administration by security agencies on that date, concerning terror threats from Osama bin Laden and others.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

October 1, 2006 On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. The mass of fragments made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.

The two men told Rice that the United States had human and technical sources, and that all the intelligence was consistent. Black acknowledged that some of it was uncertain "voodoo" but said it was often this voodoo that was the best indicator.

Tenet and Black felt they were not getting though to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies.

Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. "Adults should not have a system like this," he said later.

Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, Tenet thought, but she just didn't get it in time. He felt that he had done his job and been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.

Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice

Former CIA Chief Told 9/11 Commission of Disputed Meeting

October 03, 2006 Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there.

Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that "they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.

Rice angrily rejected those assertions yesterday, saying that it was "incomprehensible" that she would have ignored such explicit intelligence from senior CIA officials and that she received no warning at the meeting of an attack within the United States.

Rice acknowledged that the White House was receiving a "steady stream of quite alarmist reports of potential attacks" during that period, but said the targets were assumed to be in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel and Jordan.

"What I am quite certain of, however, is that I would remember if I was told -- as this account apparently says -- that there was about to be an attack in the United States," Rice said. "The idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200187.html?referrer=emailarticle

SGE.TOQ78.031006212943.photo02.quicklook.default-245x163.jpg Condoleezza Rice(L) smiles during a joint press conference with Saud al-Faisal