Returning briefly to the remarks made by the many firefighters and first responders. Is it normal that so many testimonies contradict the official version, and have subsequently been ignored by the commission investigating the attacks?
For example, why a testimony like Louie Cacchioli should it be presented in private, while the commission's mandate was to 'shed light' on the events of September 11? But more importantly, why members of the same committee tried to manipulate what they witness and adjust history at their convenience, as stated Cacchioli?
For the purpose of the case, push this discussion further and assume that the bombs actually provoked the collapse of the twin towers. Place explosives in a place as busy and impressive as was the World Trade Center was certainly not an easy task and certainly needed a few days work. If such procedures had actually taken place, can not there always some indications in this direction?
Come what may be discovered.
Let's start with the reaction of Ben Fountain a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower. His remarks were published in People Magazine September 12, 2001.
"[...] How could they let this happen? They knew that the building was a target. In recent weeks, we had been evacuated several times, which is unusual. I think they suspected something was afoot. [...]» A3
The World Trade Center, evacuated several times in the weeks before September 11? Interesting. Especially since Mr. Fountain added that such evacuations were unusual. But do not stop there and take a look at an excerpt from AM New York, the daily mail with the greater visibility of all of Manhattan, also published 12 September 2001.
"The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a high security alert was withdrawn at the famous 110-story towers, said yesterday the security employees. Daria Coard
, 37, a guard tower A [North], said that security personnel have worked on shifts of 12 hours over the last two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But Thursday, the bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
˝ Today was the first day without additional protection ˝, said Coard. [...]
The security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken precautions to protect the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and doors in the event of fire in the computerized command center on the 22nd floor. A9 [...]»
Obviously, the most important thing to remember is the extract before the decision to remove the bomb sniffing dogs Thursday, September 6, 2001, five days before the disaster. This left it no time to highly specialized teams in the demolition of buildings to do their job? Though it is certainly not a pleasant prospect to consider, however, it appears essential to explore all possibilities, especially for something as little transparent as those of September 11.
Note also that the day of the attacks was the first day ˝ ˝ without additional protection on the site of the World Trade Center. It remains that the security systems and surveillance of the complex would have prevented explosive devices that are installed with confidence in the days leading up to the attacks, some say. Let us examine an excerpt of the World Independent News Group, issued April 23, 2004, which revealed about him quite a bit of information about the weekend of 8 and 9 September 2001.
"The towers of the World Trade Center have they been affected by a power outage ˝ ˝ volunteer the weekend before the terrorist attacks of September 11? According to Scott Forbes, a director of database high-ranking Fiduciary Trust Company, Inc.. - An investment bank in high-technology that was later acquired by Franklin Templeton - this is precisely what happened. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and was then relocated to the offices of a British division, worked the weekend of 8 and 9 September 2001, and says that his company had received a notice indicating that three weeks Port Authority of New York should cut the current in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority would make an upgrade wiring to improve the computer capabilities of the WTC.
[...] The process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-afternoon on Sunday (September 9th) - approximately 30 hours. After current interruption, security cameras at the World Trade Center have become inoperative, as the card identification systems and elevators to upper floors.
Forbes insists, however, that there was always current on the lower floors of the World Trade Center, and engineers came and went in abundance, with free access to the whole building because the security system is was out of service. [...]
Forbes does not place much importance to these events on the spot, and said he had worked until Monday morning (September 10) to re-set all computer systems. Because computing tasks he had performed Saturday and Sunday, Forbes was off Tuesday, September 11, so he watched the World Trade Center towers crumble from his apartment. At that time, he recalled that ˝ I immediately convinced that something had happened in connection with the work of the weekend ˝.
Moreover, Forbes says there are other features related to this event which passed over in silence, including that:
1 - Fiduciary employees trapped between floors 90-97 of the South Tower told members of their families (through their cell phones) that they heard explosions like bombs around the towers.
2 - Video cameras placed on the roof of the World Trade Center used to provide daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that morning.
3 - An employee of the Fiduciary that was on the lower floors and escaped immediately after the first round (North) was reported to have struck was surprised by the large number of FBI agents already in the streets surrounding the World Trade Center complex , just minutes after the initial attack.
[...] Finally, Forbes says that even if these revelations could make him lose his job, he decided to come forward because ˝ I sent this information to several people, including the commission of September 11 investigation, but no one seems consider these facts ˝. [...]» W7
Once again, here are many important components, which raise their share of issues. Notice that here again the inquiry does not seek to clarify these specific allegations. Would it not have been essential for a serious investigation committee to determine whether a power outage lasting nearly 30 hours, causing the cessation of surveillance cameras and security systems, had genuinely occurred less than two days before the disaster?
Would he not was also important to check whether and for what reason, transmission of images from cameras located on the roof of the World Trade Center was interrupted on the morning of September 11? Apparently, the commission judged it inappropriate to answer these questions. But
continue and see if traces of explosives were found at the scene following the collapse of the towers. We assume of course that experts have been sent out to analyze the debris and ensure that no such indication could be found. After all, with the magnitude of the tragedy September 11, such a step should not she be at the top of the inspection protocol? Those who are tempted to say yes, unfortunately in the process of disillusionment.
Let us remember one of the first excerpts quoted in this book, published by AFP (American Free Press).
"[...] While steel is often tested for traces of explosives, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in relating the towers, the engineers involved in the assessment of buildings managed by the FEMA did not lead any kind of test. [...]» A8
Following is an excerpt from the journal Fire Engineering, who sounded the alarm January 4, 2002 by appealing to the entire engineering community to protect against fire.
"Have they got rid of the locked doors of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Have they thrown in the trash containers of gas used during the fire of Happy Land Social Club? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, is what they are doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months steel structure of the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut into pieces and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about the plans of skyscrapers and their performance in a fire, are found on cruise ships to China, and will probably never journals in America until that you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials toward the importance of a thorough scientific investigation of the biggest collapse due to fire any world history. [...]
complete investigations of claims mean increased security. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the official investigation ˝ ˝, under the auspices of FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a comedy of bad taste that may have already been commandeered by forces whose political interests, say it politely, no resemblance to a complete transparency. Except for the few results obtained by a monitoring visit of three days on the scene conducted by members of the committee investigating the ASCE - described by an informed source as a tourist - a person does not consider any evidence. [...]
From the way things are going and if they continue this way, the investigation into the fire and the collapse of World Trade Center is to summarize the paper - and assumptions generated by computer .
However, respected members of the engineering community protection against fires start sound the alarm, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage produced by planes and the initial explosion of fuel were not sufficient to cause the collapse of the towers. [...]
Builders and Owners of the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a government agency operating without accountability and out of reach of local regulations on fires and buildings, denied accusations that the structural components or fire protection of buildings were non-compliant, but refused to cooperate with requests documentation to support their position. [...]
destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
The federal government should abandon the current organization and order the establishment of a committee with access to all resources to conduct a frank and thorough investigation into the fires and collapses, leaving no stone turned.
Fire, this is your call to action. A10 [...]»
Since this editorial was a direct reference to the debris of the World Trade Center sold to China as scrap without being examined, corroborate this information immediately with an excerpt from article published January 24, 2002 by People's Daily, one of the most influential newspapers in China.
"The group Baoshan Iron and Steel Company has bought 50,000 tons of steel debris from the World Trade Center destroyed by terrorists on September 11 last year.
The company plans to melt the scrap, purchased at a price of U.S. $ 120 per tonne in a furnace to make new steel.
A cargo ship carrying steel debris must arrive at the port of Shanghai on Friday, reported the Beijing Youth Daily on Wednesday. [...]
Beams steel calcined at the World Trade Center - cut, melted and reforged - will soon be transformed into hundreds of thousands of sticks of canned, machinery, engines in cars and buildings around the world, according to a recent report in the New York Daily News. [...]
While most shipments were destined for steel mills in South Korea, others have also resulted in Malaysia, Chicago and Florida. The fast course
steel, since the smoking ruins of Ground Zero to the furnace for recycling, is the result of a controversial decision of the city [New York] to send beams, columns and beams in scrap prices - which were then sold.
˝ It is an insult to the memory of nearly 3,000 people killed ˝, said Sally Regenhard, mother of firefighter Christian Regenhard, who died Sept. 11.
It is part of a group of families of victims, building engineers and experts in protection against fire wishing that recycling is interrupted until the steel can be examined in depth. [...]
The recycling process is so fast, say industry experts, a Just over four months after the terrorist attacks, tons of steel have probably been mixed with a virgin ore, melted and reused. [...]» W8
And according to the official website of the State of Pennsylvania, from September 14, 2001, Governor Tom Ridge ˝ implementing emergency measures to deal with rubble and debris whose arrival is scheduled to landfills and incinerators in the state following the terrorist attacks Tuesday in New York. [...]
Emergency procedures for handling of waste will be effective until 30 September but that timetable could be extended depending on the status of collection efforts. "W121
***** Let's see what the New York Times reported on the development of investigative work at Ground Zero in his edition 25 December 2001.
"Affirming that the current investigation on how and why the collapse of the twin towers is inadequate, some of the engineers building the country's foremost experts on protection against fire calling for a new investigation, independent and better funded, could lead to conclusions vital skyscrapers and any buildings across the country. [...]
Experts critical of the current procedure, including people currently in charge of operations, citing a lack of significant financial support and poor coordination with the agencies that clean the site of the disaster. They indicate that the team of about 20 investigators do not have the power to issue subpoenas ˝ ˝ and has little support staff, and has not even been able to obtain basic information such as detailed plans of buildings that collapsed. [...]
Family members of some victims have added their voices to calls for further investigation.
The exact scope of a more detailed investigation has not been defined. But the central desire is to draw some lessons that can be hidden under the debris and identify precisely the sequence and cause of the collapse, but from the premise that it was inevitable from the moment the planes crashed, said members of the investigating team and other sources.
In their call for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that a serious error had been committed in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to quickly recycle the steel columns, beams and joints that supported buildings. This could have private investigators some of the most direct physical evidence on which to rely in order to reach an answer.
officials at the offices of mayor refused to respond to requests for written and oral comments on a period of three days to know who made the decision to recycle the steel and the concern that this decision could have handicapped the investigation. [...]
interviews with some team members, who include some of the most respected engineers in the country, also revealed discontent at having been repeatedly handcuffed by bureaucratic restrictions that prevented the interview witnesses, examining the disaster site and require access to critical information such as recordings of distress calls to the police and fire department.
The investigation, organized immediately after September 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the largest professional organization in the field, was funded and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Poor acclimatization between the federal agency and the chief engineers, accustomed to bypass the protocol for rapid response, has been identified as a clear point of friction.
˝ It is almost a national team of engineers who dream of working on it, and we have their hands tied ˝, said a team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.
˝ ˝ FEMA controls everything, "said this member of the team. ˝ It may sound strange, but give us only the money and let us work out policies and portraiture.
˝ A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said the primary mission of the agency was to help victims and relief workers, and accelerate the restoration of the city, and added ˝ We are not an investigative agency.
˝ [...] Some experts have suggested that the only way to definitively determine the sequence and cause of the collapse is to recover large quantities of steel from where the plane hit, and possibly bring these sections of the towers.
Others argue that such a reconstruction of an entire section might be impractical, but also expressed discomfort to say the obstacles they have encountered in their investigation.
For example, three months after the disaster, Ronald Hamburger, an expert in analysis of buildings for ABS Consulting in Oakland, California, and Director National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, claims not being granted access to basic plans describing where the steel and other structural elements were when the World Trade Center was still around.
˝ I want to be able to have a copy of plans for all buildings affected ˝, said Mr. Hamburger, ˝ but I did not. ˝ "W9
Much information can be found in this section. Without repeating each of these include the most important. First, members of the investigating team were threatened to be fired if they spoke to the press. Of course, when an investigation is underway, it is not possible to comment on the case, of course. But when investigators are imposed bureaucratic restrictions to which they are not accustomed to stumble, it becomes public interest to disclose, without sacrificing the progress of this investigation. The desired effect is then, instead of advancing.
As the article mentioned, the friction between FEMA and the engineers in charge stemmed from the fact that engineers were accustomed to circumvent the restrictions bureaucratic responses to achieve, but this time specifically, FEMA opposed.
Moreover, what reason could justify the investigators themselves have had access to recordings of distress calls? And why the investigators could not they have access to all witnesses desired? Why the experts saw they deny access to the original design of the structure of the World Trade Center?
So many questions, so few answers.
But since it is about the original plans from the World Trade Center, concluded here that the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on the attacks.
"[...] Moreover, the outside of each tower was covered with a frame made of steel columns by 14 inches wide, the center of each column was separated by 40 inches between each. These exterior walls bore the majority of the weight of the building. The inner core of the buildings was a steel cage empty, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. W2 [...]»
A steel cage empty? One minute! Observe an image dating from the construction of the World Trade Center (photos attached - PH-12.1). Huge steel columns are yet clearly visible in the center of the tower, at the very spot where, according to the report of the inquiry should be a steel cage empty.
Do we really need extensive knowledge in building engineering to know that massive columns are necessarily central to all types of buildings? Why members of the Committee of Inquiry have they preferred to exclude from their final report the existence of more than 45 huge steel columns located in the heart of each tower? Is this why the engineers did not have access original plans of the buildings?
note in passing that particular group to investigate the cause of the collapses at the World Trade Center - the American Society of Civil Engineers - is the major target of accusations for several years. Here is an excerpt from article by Associated Press March 25, 2008.
"The professional organization for engineers who develop roads, dams and bridges in the country, has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic design flaws while investigating national disasters.
Following the 2001 attacks against the World Trade Center and the failure of the levees caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government paid the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate what had gone wrong.
critics now accuse the group of engineering conceal errors, reduce the need to change building standards, and use investigations to protect engineers and government agencies against prosecution.
Similar accusations had surfaced after each of these disasters, but the most recent allegations have prompted the organization to convene an independent team to investigate. [...]
In the case of the World Trade Center, critics argue that the engineering company has wrongly concluded that skyscrapers can not withstand the impact of aircraft. [...]
The company received $ 1.1 million Army Corps of Engineers to study the failure of levees [New Orleans]. Similarly, the Agency for Crisis Management U.S. [FEMA] has provided the group with approximately $ 257 000 to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center. [...]
In 2002, the company report on the World Trade Center was praised for buildings held up long enough to have enabled tens of thousands of people to escape.
But the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand aircraft impacts. Instead of solidifying the buildings against such impacts, it was recommended to improve aviation safety and protection against fires. [...]» W233
This conclusion of the 2002 report, however, came directly contradicts the words of Leslie Robertson, John Skilling and Frank A. DeMartini, who said that all three twin towers were designed to withstand such impacts, as we mentioned earlier this book. Mr. DeMartini said even in January 2001 that he said could each turn withstand multiple aircraft impacts.
But back to the lack of analysis conducted on the debris of the towers. Here is an excerpt from USA Today, which reported the importance of examining parallel columns and steel pillars of the complex.
"The investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center has been hampered by the destruction of steel scrap which could provide vital clues on why the twin towers collapsed, said a fire expert before a congressional committee.
Glenn Corbett, a professor of fire science at John Jay College, has been critical of the decision of the City of New York to melt and recycle tons of steel and twisted carbonnisé the Trade Center. [...]» W158
The following excerpt comes again to the Chinese press, which quoted a statement from the contextual interesting New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. He had succeeded Rudolph Giuliani in November 2001. Article is dated January 24, 2002.
"A shipment of scrap steel from the ruins of the World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Inc. and several other domestic mills, always eager to acquire the steel scrap. [...]
Another shipment of 10,000 tons of scrap metal from the World Trade Center arrived in India earlier this month, reported Shanghai Morning Post. [...]
The decision of the New York authorities to send the twin towers of scrap recycling companies raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe that the massive beams should be examined more closely to help determine how the towers collapsed.
But the mayor of New York has insisted that better ways exist to study a tragedy like September 11.
˝ If you want to look at construction methods and plans, that's what the computers in this era ˝, said Bloomberg, himself a former engineering student. ˝ Just watch a piece of metal generally does not tell you anything. ˝ "A11
alone, that statement spoke volumes: obviously, the mayor of New York tried to defend the indefensible decision to dispatch and eagerly suppress physical evidence of a crime scene. In a context where several elements pointed to the presence of explosives in the buildings, it seems highly likely that only the scientific analysis of these pieces of metal ˝ ˝ has been definitively confirm or refute this hypothesis.
The Criminal Code is very clear yet vis-à-vis any destruction of evidence at a crime scene. Is it possible that the Mayor of New York was not familiar with this law?
*****
now observe more closely how the FBI conducted its fight against terrorism before Sept. 11, 2001, from the perspective of one of their own agents. Here is an excerpt from the official communique issued by Judicial Watch November 14, 2001.
"Judicial Watch, the law firm of public interest investigation and initiate procedures against corruption in government, announced today that a special agent still active from the FBI filed a complaint last week regarding interference and a incompetent management by the FBI and the Justice Department to investigate terrorists. The FBI special agent, who wishes to remain anonymous at this stage, alleges he was reprimanded when he continued to push and pursue certain terrorist investigations over the objections of his FBI supervisors and the Department of justice. [...]
Based on the evidence, FBI Special Agent believes that if certain investigations had views can track their progress, the network of Osama bin Laden could have been prevented from committing attacks September 11 terrorists, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 innocent people [the first results had been significantly overstated]. T2 [...]»
This is therefore corroborate what we briefly discussed earlier. Then look at another excerpt from Judicial Watch, issued a year to the day after the attacks.
"Judicial Watch represents [...] Special Agent (SA) 'whistleblower' Robert G. Wright Jr, offices of the Division of Chicago, who said today that the FBI continues to avoid accountability and hides its neglect and abandonment of its duty to pursue the terrorists who pose a direct threat to the United States. [...]
AS Wright points to recent misconduct and falsification of application forms for warrants for electronic surveillance by FBI agents (signed by former FBI Director Louis Freeh) the Court Act Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Before Sept. 11, AS Wright claims that intelligence agents from the FBI lied and hidden files criminal agents of paramount importance in order to encumber its criminal investigation on terrorists to protect their 'subjects ' and to prolong their intelligence operations. AS Wright was stunned to learn recently that some intelligence agents from the FBI, who strangled and night in his criminal investigations of terrorists in Chicago had also lied to judges of the FISA Court in Washington, DC
AS Wright claims to be of the opinion that, before September 11, incompetence and repeated failures of the ITU (International Unit on Terrorism FBI) to support criminal investigations have directly contributed to the deaths of five U.S.. Total failure of the ITU to detect and identify the terrorist plot of September 11 and the Islamist extremists who have perpetrated, is further evidence of the negligence of the ITU, and places the death of thousands of Americans on his door. [...]
The FBI continues to illegally ban the publication of the manuscript of 500 pages of the SA Wright, entitled "Fatal Betrayals Of The Intelligence Mission ', that the SA Wright submitted for prepublication review in October 2001. [...]
˝ AS Wright makes his country a service by exposing the abandonment of duty by the FBI - especially members of management at FBI headquarters. Director Mueller has survived a 'critical press last May, and the nation's attention then focused on another matter - until the next terrorist attack. How many more American should die for the FBI to account? ˝ said Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch. [...]» T3
This second insight into the workings inside the U.S. intelligence services leads us to question, whether the source of the problem not look like more of corruption than a bureaucracy. ˝ falsification of forms of applications for warrants to wiretap ˝ ˝ withholding records from criminal agents ˝ crucial in order to impede an investigation of terrorists, through lies to judges the FISA Court, all this does not feel it very bad?
ask us once again why, after so much incompetence and failure in many aspects and levels of government to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history, there had he ultimately no reprimand or dismissal on September 11? Instead, as we noted earlier, many promotions were even awarded to individuals holding key positions at the time of the tragedy.
, finally, some examples.
us first recall the man who was named as the top official involved in the evacuation of many Arabs, including several members of the Bin Laden family, out of the U.S. in the days following September 11: Richard Clarke. Despite this contentious decision, Mr. Clarke was assigned to the post of special adviser for cyber security In October 2001, just weeks after the attacks. He previously served as coordinator of the division of cons-terrorism National Security Council. W162
similar situation in the case of Major Kevin Nasypany, commander of the military installations of the NEADS (Air Defense Sector North-East, precisely where the attacks took place). Mr. Nasypany was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel (V3) despite the inability of the larger world of airpower to defend, under its governance, the heart of its own territory four times in less than two hours.
General Ralph Eberhart, meanwhile, was in command of NORAD (Air Defense Command North American) on the morning of September 11. NORTHCOM now leads Mr. Eberhart, the Defense Agency of the Pentagon whose creation was announced April 17, 2002 in the context of fighting terrorism (W10). NORTHCOM covers North America as a whole, including Mexico and Canada, some decried the detriment of their respective territorial sovereignty, which gave power to General Eberhart not only on air defense, but also on actual land and sea. In the event of a decree of martial law, for example, it is this that General Eberhart would end up flying.
We also noted earlier the case of Michael Maltbie. The latter, a senior FBI had first mentioned to his agent that issuing a warrant to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui on would hurt her career prospects. It had subsequently been promoted.
Another class of note is that of General Richard Myers, who rose from vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs Joint (Joint Chiefs of Staff) to assume the presidency on 1 October 2001 (W11). Indeed, this same Richard Myers, an important link in the chain of military command Sept. 11, who said he believed an accident when he was informed of the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center. He was then locked in a meeting room just to show that after the Pentagon had been struck, his meeting with then 50 minutes covered the most critical attacks, thereby making the unavailable and crippling the ability of reaction U.S. military.
also quote the respective cases of Marion Bowman and Pasquale D'Amuro. Let this excerpt from Time America, dated December 22, 2002, the care we report them.
"[...] However, in other areas, the FBI has done little to change its methods. [The agency's director, Robert] Mueller has stunned some observers FBI insiders by offering promotions and by granting awards to honor leaders who held key leadership positions when the agency missed signals alarm in the months leading to 11 September. The FBI chief outraged congressional critics by citing Marion (Spike) Bowman - the head of the Legislative Division at the National Security Agency, which refused to agents in Minneapolis, Minn., To search the property and computer of Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 - for 'exceptional performance'. Mueller also Pasquale D'Amuro assigned, cons-terrorism chief at the FBI office in New York before Sept. 11, the highest position of cons-terrorism agency - dismaying critics who claimed that the failures of Last year in intelligence required a commotion in the organization. 'They have basically promoted the specific persons who governed during the ... failures, 'said a former official in the Department of Justice,' and these people have to follow the same reasoning with them '. [...] "W181
For his part, Lieutenant General Michael Hayden, who was head of the NSA (National Security Agency) at the time of the attacks, was never blamed for not having seen it coming what many other countries had yet sniffed. Instead, he was then promoted to the rank of General. Since May 2006, Mr. Hayden to head the CIA. W12
We mentioned earlier the case of Porter Goss, the Republican congressman and chairman of the House Intelligence during attacks of 11 September. It was he who at the time of the attacks, having lunch with the head of Pakistani intelligence behind the transfer of $ 100 000 for flights to Mohammed Atta. Goss was later promoted to the direction of the CIA in 2004.
Let's what Porter Goss said the same about the lack of reprimand in connection with his agency's failures to prevent the attacks of Sept. 11, in this excerpt from an article published Oct. 6, 2005 by News Service ISN (International Relations and Security Network).
"The CIA will not punish officers or retired for obvious failures that led to the attacks of September 11, 2001, said agency director, Porter Goss, a media release Wednesday.
˝ I do not convene accountability committee to judge the performance of any CIA agent ˝, said Goss.
The CIA director also announced that the intelligence agency would not make public the internal report Inspector General John L. Helgerson that allegedly blames several CIA officials for intelligence failures that led to attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 people.
Goss said that the report contains sensitive information that could not be disclosed to the public without endangering national security.
He also said he would not follow the recommendation to convene a Helgerson ˝ Committee accountability and review ˝ to evaluate the performance of some CIA officers before the attacks.
A The New York Times story published Thursday, compared Helgerson identifies some 20 employees, current and former CIA for their specific failures to anticipate and prevent attacks of 11 September.
The intelligence assessment conducted by Helgerson was delivered to Congress in August. The Democrats as the Republicans have asked that it be made public. [...]
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, are not necessarily agree with the decision of Goss.
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Goss should reveal as much as possible the contents of the report, claiming that the CIA had sufficient information, ˝ if they were used properly ˝, could have prevented the attacks of September 11.
˝ Director Goss's announcement leaves me with a troubling question: what failures of performance, if not them, require the establishment of a committee reporting to the CIA? ˝, Rockefeller asked in a written statement issued Wednesday. [...]» V1
queries under the law of free access to information were by subsequently deposited to learn what was in the report of the Inspector General. Here's what the Associated Press reported on this, May 17, 2007.
"A bipartisan group of senators trying to pass a law that would force the CIA to make public the report of an Inspector General on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The CIA has more than 20 months to assess applications under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has so far made no public section.
˝ It's amazing the efforts the administration is to ˝ block this, "said Wyden [Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat, Oregon]. ˝ The American people deserve to know what the CIA did during the critical months before Sept. 11. ... I'll harass them until the public has access.
˝ [...] But [Wyden] said that protecting individuals from embarrassment was not a legitimate reason to maintain the contents of report out of public view. He added that the decision to classify the report secret had nothing to do with national security but rather with the security policy. [...]
But the CIA did not provide document with the Associated Press or other organizations that began their requests for information there are at least 20 months.
The law requires that agencies respond to requests within 20 days, but officials rarely meet those deadlines and often blame the accumulation of work. [...]» W168
Some individuals named in the report in 2005 Helgerson also still occupy key positions within the administration. It also seems appropriate to take a look at a sample of Bogdan Dzakovic's testimony at the second session of public hearings of the Commission of Inquiry on September 11, held May 22, 2003. Mr. Dzakovic was a member of the Security Department of the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) of the United States for 14 years.
"[...] But what has done the TSA [Transportation Security Agency National]? One thing is certain, no one was punished for having mismanaged agency [FAA] that worked so as to make a significant danger ˝ and specific public safety ˝ and which contributed directly to the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11 while turning the country upside down. The OSC (Office of Special Counsel) has formally agreed that this was unacceptable. In fact, many of these same managers have been promoted to TSA and are key players in how the ASD is running its responsibilities. Managers who were not transferred to the TSA are still with FAA, and they run the internal investigations, the responsibilities for security at the FAA and handling of hazardous materials in precisely the same way they hurt led security operations aviation previous. [...]» W13
*****
The FBI also has its share of problems internally. It is also of interest down to the case of Sibel Edmonds, a translator hired by the intelligence agency shortly after the attacks of 11 September. It was later returned after she had expressed some concerns to his superiors professionals. Here is an excerpt from an article published August 8, 2004 by CBS News.
"[...] Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the FBI's language department, said the documents were not translated because the department was filled with incompetence and corruption. Edmonds was fired
after reporting her concerns to FBI officials. She told her story behind closed doors to investigators from Congress and the Department of Justice. More recently, she spoke with the commission investigating the attacks of September 11. [...]
Edmonds says that to his great surprise, since his first day at work, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no emergency - it could take time to translate documents for the department appears overworked and understaffed. In this way, he would receive a larger budget next year. [...]
Edmonds put on paper his worries about the language department of the FBI and gave them to his immediate superiors and to a top FBI official. For months, she said they had received no response. She then sought assistance from the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and Senator Charles Grassley, whose committee, the Judiciary Committee, directly oversees the FBI.
˝ ˝ It is credible, "said Grassley. ˝ And the reason I think she's very credible is that people inside the FBI have confirmed much of its history.
˝ [...] She says she complained repeatedly to her bosses about what ' she had found on recordings of wiretaps and electronic conduct of [Jan] Dickerson [a fellow Turkish translator], but nobody at the FBI did not want to hear about it, not even the assistant auxiliary load.
˝ He said 'Do you realize what you're making progress? Are you saying that our security staff is not doing its job? Is that's what you say? If you insist on this investigation, I will make sure that in less than two, it turns and it becomes an investigation on you ˝, said Edmonds.
Sibel Edmonds was fired. The FBI offered no explanation, simply stating in the letter that his contract was to end completely at the discretion of the government. [...]
Is that the case of Sibel Edmonds is one of a certain type of behavior, conduct by the FBI?
˝ ˝ The usual type, "said Grassley. ˝ Let me tell you this: first, the embarrassing information comes out, [then] the reaction FBI is to slide it under the carpet, and eventually they attack the messenger.
˝
Special Agent John Roberts, recently retired from the post of leader of the Department of Internal Affairs of the FBI, agreed. [...]
Has he found cases since Sept. 11 where people were involved in a situation of misconduct and were not reprimanded, but even promoted? Roberts says yes.
˝ ˝ It is astounding, "replied Bradley [journalist] Roberts. ˝ One would think that September 11 was a big slap in the face. It's time to wake up. ˝
˝ It depends on who you are ˝, said Roberts. ˝ If you are in the highest levels of executive power, it might not hurt you. You will receive a promotion.
˝
Last month, the FBI began the highly unusual step of classifying secret information he provided to Congress two years ago in the case of Sibel Edmonds.
As for the FBI language department, the agency claims to have dramatically increased its translation capabilities. [...]» W85
Curiously, the most devastating accusations of Sibel Edmonds were never addressed in the final section. Indeed, the former FBI translator posed a trial far more damaging than a simple matter of poor management of personnel at the site of his former employers, as indicated by a letter written by him about a month before publication section of CBS News.
Here's an excerpt.
"Tuesday, July 6, 2004, Judge Reggie Walton took a decision and ruled on my case. In its decision, me, an American citizen, am not able to exercise my right to use the 1st and 5th Amendments guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The reasoning loosely quotes, without explanation, it is to protect "certain diplomatic relations for national security reasons'. Judge Walton reached this decision after remaining seated on the back without moving for nearly two years. [...] He made his decision after allowing government lawyers to present their case before him in private, behind closed doors and in the presence of only one party, we were not allowed to participate in these small sessions . [...]
The September 11, 2001, 3000 lives were lost. Nevertheless, this administration has hindered all past and investigations currently underway into the causes of this horrific day, claiming that vague notion of protecting "certain diplomatic relations foreign '.
Result of the September 11 attack, thousands of people lost loved ones and had their lives changed forever. Despite that, this administration has knowingly and intentionally left free several people directly or indirectly involved in this act of terrorism - and unattainable without being investigated - by simply citing 'protecting certain foreign diplomatic relations for national security reasons '.
Today we are told that we are still under the threat of terrorists, and we live in a color-coded system to assess the threat, [a] invented and promoted by this administration. Yet, this same administration prevents any investigation eagerly to discover the real facts, real facts about acts, semi-legal organizations, and individuals involved in conspiracies against the country and its people - under the miserable pretext of 'protecting certain foreign diplomatic relations. "
Is it not time to ask what these foreign diplomatic relations which they constantly refer?
Is it not legitimate to demand that they let the people know what kind of foreign relations are worth 3,000 lives lost? [...]
It is obvious that this administration confidently expects the American people that he sign blank checks unquestioningly.
[...] As I have indicated on several occasions previously, I will continue this fight, since taking the oath of citizenship I am committed to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic. [...]» W86
This letter shows that the accusations of Sibel Edmonds to the U.S. administration were not intended as an internal management of the FBI language department, as suggested by CBS News, but more directly concerned obstruction of investigations into the events of 11 September, at the request of the government itself for 'protecting certain foreign diplomatic relations. " Some will ask
also probably why CBS has chosen to emphasize the inner workings of the language department of the FBI, Sibel Edmonds, while attacking Yet a much more serious problem.
Returning for a moment on an interesting point raised at the end of the article. Special Agent John Roberts confirmed in turn that promotions were granted after September 11 some people in high places, despite allegations of breaches of the code of conduct. We have also cited several similar cases. However, the importance of such changes in personnel at the head of the military command and U.S. government can not be overstated.
Take a step back and indulge us just a simple exercise in logic, in adopting a broader perspective.
Since our Western society is undoubtedly based on capitalist principles, it is therefore a system rooted in competitiveness, and at all levels. For example, it is not uncommon for a company closes one of its subsidiaries for the move in a country where he will be more profitable to operate, it is not uncommon for a boss replaces a its employees with a new, in the hope that it is more efficient, or even a woman or a man to push the example to the extreme left spouse to another, believing that it best meets their needs. Such is the scope of the competitiveness of our days. So this is almost an unwritten rule in our society.
It is also an implicit logic deeply rooted in the mentality of every individual, 'If I do not perform, someone else will and take my place'. The principle is especially true as one moves up the rungs of the chain of power. There are certainly more competitive in obtaining a position as director in a multinational for a secretarial position in the same company. Certainly, this reasoning remains valid for obtaining a high-ranking military post or command of a major U.S. government agency.
Far from wanting to debate the merits of capitalism and competitiveness it creates, the reason for this digression is obvious. Assuming that the official version of September 11 is authentic, and after years of preparation, the 19 Arab armed with knives are actually managed to hijack four planes that day, then this would unquestionably the most significant failure of security system in American history. At that time, why we do not find any dismissal but several promotions at the highest levels of a capitalist system advocating competitiveness also remains inexplicable and mysterious.
Experience teaches us however that member promotion is the result of a job well done. Would not it make more sense for those individuals who received promotions after September 11 have satisfactorily completed exactly the job they were asked?
And speaking of good work, here's a concrete example reported by the BBC 23 December 2007. We learn that in 2002 the CIA had conducted the videotaped sessions muscular interrogations of suspected terrorists suspected of involvement in the Sept. 11 plot, and that the intelligence agency had then hidden the existence of such records to the commission investigating Sept. 11 and eventually destroy them in 2005.
"A memo from the former Sept. 11 commission's recently released reveals that several applications were made by it to the CIA to obtain information on the interrogation of suspected Al Qaeda.
But the former executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow says the CIA has not provided their records that have since surfaced, reported The New York Times.
The CIA later erased the tapes, which allegedly contained images of abuse [suspects].
The memo emphasizes a deeper investigation to determine whether the agency acted illegally by withholding the recordings.
The CIA says there was no specific request for records, which allegedly contained images of interrogation techniques including "waterboarding", which is a simulation of drowning. The CIA denies that torture. [...]
The memo notes that the commission asked the CIA in 2003 and 2004, to obtain the 'documents', the 'reports' and 'information' relating to interrogations. [...] "W177
Why the CIA hid Does the inquiry the existence of recordings of interrogations of suspects linked to 11 September? And especially, why have these records destroyed afterwards? Here In this regard the reactions of some people especially concerned by this revelation in the media, as reported by the International Herald Tribune December 8, 2007.
"The CIA is facing threat of obstruction of justice investigations on Friday from the Justice Department and congressional committees about the destruction of videotapes of interrogations of meetings of members Al Qaeda.
Dana Perino, spokeswoman for the White House said Friday that President George W. Bush "has no recollection of being informed recordings or their destruction, until this week. [...]
The agency [CIA] said that the tapes were destroyed in part to protect the identities of interrogators.
Meanwhile, former presidents of the commission on Sept. 11, claiming that the CIA had assured them repeatedly during the investigation that no original material of interrogations of al Qaeda existed, were said furious to learn of the existence of records. [...]
'The CIA was certainly aware of our interest in obtaining any information possible over the detainees, and they have never suggested that any records existed, 'said [Lee] Hamilton. 'Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes. If this is a crime, it will be for others to judge. "
[Thomas] Kean said, 'I'm upset that they have not told us the truth. [...]» W202
pursue this same line with another example of destruction of evidence. Here is an excerpt from The New York Times dated May 6, 2004.
"At least six air traffic controllers who had deal with two of the airliners hijacked Sept. 11, 2001 proceeded to record an audio cassette on the same day to describe events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone do a transcript of its contents or never have even heard, a report reveals today the Department of Transportation.
Registration began before noon Sept. 11 at the Center for Air Traffic Control in New York, in Ronkonkoma, Long Island, where about 16 people gathered in a conference room in the basement known as the ˝ Bat ˝ cellar and have exchanged a microphone, remembering to turn their version of events occurred several hours earlier. But officials
Centre n'informèrent never anyone above them on the existence of the tape, and was later destroyed by an official of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] described in the report as a supervisor for the proper functioning of the place. This supervisor has crushed the cassette in his hand, tore the tape and threw the pieces into different bins of the building, according to a report released today by the inspector General of the Department of Transportation.
The recording was made following an agreement with the union so that it is then destroyed after the written statements of supervisors, according to the report of the Inspector General. But the supervisor for the proper functioning had argued that the creation of the recording itself had been a violation of procedures for the Federal Aviation Administration, said the report. [...]
On the recording, controllers, some of whom had radioed people on board planes and others had followed the aircraft on radar, had made statements to a five to ten minutes each, the report said. [...]
One of the central questions about the events of that morning on how the FAA responded to the first indications that four planes had been hijacked. A recording made in a few hours short of events, as written statements made later, could help answer them. [...]» F4
Are there limits to blame the bureaucracy, or the destruction of evidence will remain forever as easily justifiable? Let us recall the batteries and other documents related to September 11 that had been destroyed at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the metal from the rubble of the World Trade Center that was quickly shipped overseas for recycling without first being inspected, not to mention the destruction of computer data collected by the team of Able Danger military intelligence on terrorists.
But in this case, the existence of a recording made on the spot of the moment would not it have hampered the task of a person wishing to question the accuracy written statements, made some three weeks later by air traffic controllers?
Moreover, the individual who made the decision to destroy the tape does not he deserved to have his name appear in the article in The New York Times? How does a supervisor for the proper functioning ˝ ˝ could he make a decision of such importance in itself given the seriousness of the events without first consulting his superiors? Next we look
version of the Washington Post, published the same day. This brings some new elements.
"report was [...] conducted at the request of Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona) after the committee investigating the attacks of September 11 [...] had complained that the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] has been uncooperative in providing them documents and has issued a subpoena to the agency for more information.
The FAA said it was cooperating fully with the Committee of 11 September. The agency said it had taken disciplinary action against the employee who destroyed the tape but declined to elaborate on the kind of action taken. [...]
A controller said she asked to listen to the recording in order to prepare the written report of his experience, but one of the directors refused his request.
Directors [offices] in New York said they had received an email from the FAA officials giving them the instruction to retain all documents related to the attacks of September 11. ˝ If you're wondering whether you should retain the data or not, HOLD THEM ˝, mentioned the email cited in the report. [...]
The inspector general concluded today that the actions of managers have resulted in loss of evidence that would potentially have allowed the Sept. 11 commission to compare controllers memory of events immediately after the attacks with the written statements prepared three weeks later.
˝ The destruction of evidence in possession of the government, in this case an audio-recording - particularly during times of national crisis - has the effect of maintaining the appearance that information is kept out of the access public. ˝ "F2
First, why the FAA refused she specify the nature of the alleged disciplinary action companies against the employee responsible for the destruction of registration? And why did she not want to identify, prosecute and even in good and due form for destruction of evidence? If the agency had just been a little bit concerned that it planned appearances in public, would it not have been less vague on this subject, which would have possibly contributed to avoid giving the impression that n had in fact issued a simple verbal warning and informal main person surreptitiously monitoring of congratulations and a big pat on the back?
In fact, this example allows us to see one thing: the era of investigative journalism is likely over. Accordingly? Now found the information in bits and pieces here and there, one day in New York and London the next, sometimes in Washington, then in India or China. But ultimately, the public ends up lacking a global vision and distinct from the reality that he can collect a portion, including the local media reported it.
***** Let us complete this last section by reporting the existence of a letter co-signed by 25 experts from various military and intelligence services United States (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs). It was intended to sound the alarm about the incompleteness of the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on Sept. 11 and was presented to Congress September 13, 2004. Here's an excerpt.
"[...] We, the undersigned, wish to bring to the attention of Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report [the commission] and its recommendations . [...]
One major flaw of the report of the Committee is the omission [of information or materials]. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were reported promptly to the commission by those of us who had direct information, but these cases escaped any way to his attention. Serious problems and shortcomings within government agencies were similarly reported to the committee but were not included in the report. The report simply does not touch the core issues of intelligence, security and aviation communities of law enforcement. The omission of such serious subjects and relevant information and itself renders the report flawed and raises doubts about the validity of several of its recommendations.
We believe that one of the primary goals of the Commission was accountable [as to the responsibility of individuals involved] that this step is essential to understanding the failures that led to Sept. 11 and prescribe the necessary changes. However, in its report, the committee never holds anyone accountable, stating instead that "our goal was not to assign individual blame." This amounts to playing the game of politics, and it shows that the goal of achieving unanimity has surpassed one of the primary objectives of establishing this commission. When we demand that accountability, we are not referring to the almost innocent mistakes caused by a "lack of imagination or due to 'human error' standard. Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inactions of individuals from responsibility for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the American people safe. The report deliberately ignores officials or officials that were, and still are, clearly negligent and / or do not fulfill their duty towards the nation. If these individuals are protected rather than held accountable, this way of thinking that led to Sept. 11 persist [...].
The commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances', his evasiveness to hold anyone accountable and his indifference to knowledge, expertise and experience of those who do the work in the field, has now begun to press Congress and our nation to hastily to implement all its recommendations. [...]» W197
0 comments:
Post a Comment