The 9/11 Story That Got Away

[Caro]

Wouldn’t it have been nice if someone had told the rest of us about the warnings that Little Miss Run Amok, Judith Miller, talks about in an interview ("The 9/11 Story That Got Away") posted today at AlterNet.org?

I catalogued many of the warnings in the year or so after 9/11, in my What Did They Know And When Did They Know It series. Most of the links to articles don’t work any more, but I captured an essential sentence or two from each article, and there’s enough information about each one to find it in Lexis/Nexis, for those who have a subscription. See especially the pages for the first three questions:

What did George Bush himself know, prior to the attacks?,

Why were certain people warned not to fly on or about September 11 (or even earlier), and not the rest of us?, and

Did the U.S. know that the attacks were going to happen?

I don’t say the Bush administration actually planned and carried out the attacks, as do some netizens. We don’t have to go that far. The fact is that there were plenty of warnings and those warnings were ignored. Consistently. Was it due to incompetence, or was it purposeful? It could only have been one or the other. If it was purposeful, the administration was providing itself the “new Pearl Harbor” that the Project for the New American Century said would be necessary to scare the American people into becoming militaristic. And giving up our freedoms.

Worked pretty well for a while, didn’t it?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[papau]

1. the media self censorship (or control by the RW?) is a stain on journalism

But they will never admit that fact.

Wish I still had Lexis/Nexis - only way these days was via one of the kid's law office setups and now she has dropped it due to cost.

But your point is well taken -

"Was it due to incompetence, or was it purposeful? It could only have been one or the other. If it was purposeful, the administration was providing itself the “new Pearl Harbor” that the Project for the New American Century said would be necessary to scare the American people into becoming militaristic. And giving up our freedoms."

I'd love to see a media discussion on that paragraph - but I am not holding my breath.

[Caro]

4. One of the things I'm trying to push...

... is a subscription service for progressives, which could make those kinds of link headaches go away. I'll keep everyone posted on the progress or lack thereof on my website.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[joeunderdog]

2. thanks for the links.

the whole thing just haunts me.

[KJF]

3. Crikey!

Miller, talking about the July 4, 2001 weekend, says: "But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend. The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone's attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaida. And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, 'Don't worry; we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond."

The article goes on to say at least one of the callers was in Yemen. That's odd, because one of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al Mihdhar, was associated with an Al Qaeda safe house in Yemen (it was run by his father in law) whose calls were intercepted by the NSA. The CIA knew he was in the US, too. Shame they never caught him.

[medienanalyse]

5. Low ? High ? Standard ?

After being alerted several times by different sides about several able dangers we could expect that the responsible officials raise their attention.

But we noticed only:
rehearsals, emergency drills. But no warnings to the public (which may be explained) and no special initiatives.
Just the opposite: all tries to stop 911 were blocked and forbidden, see John O`Neill, see Edmonds, see Minnesota and so on.

So in fact the U.S.A. were kept on low alert. Substandard.
BEFORE 9/11.

ON 9/11 we can judge it was a break of all SOPs too. Especially in airpolicing which is NATO operational procedure, the same in every NATO country. A response trime of TWO (2) hours instead of 5-10 minutes is VERY sub standard. And impossible for ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY.Compare
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

After 9/11: was anything raised, better than standard? Investigation in pit-options ?money flow ? Anthrax? In responsibilities? Was anybody fired who handled his resonsibility sub standard ? Those in the FBI, CIA, FAA, NORAD ? Who was held responsible?

So all in all
BEFORE
ON and
AFTER 9/11

sub standard.

Now rethink your "I don’t say the Bush administration actually planned and carried out the attacks, as do some netizens."

[Caro]

6. I'm not saying...

... they WOULDN'T or COULDN'T. I'm only saying that we can't get there until we start getting some investigations. Only then will people begin to see what truly evil people these Bush people are, and only then will they be able to take the next step to determine the level of involvement in 9/11.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[medienanalyse]

7. start getting some investigations

Do you need more than this to hold Bush and Rumsfeld accountable ?

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html