Cheryl Seal
Smoking Gun: The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang G.W. Bush
Sat Nov 26, 2005 18:45
Smoking Gun
The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush
By Cheryl Seal 02 June 2002
http://www.williambowles.info/911/smoking_gun.html
http://www.newsinsider.org/seal/smoking_gun.html
The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense
At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission –this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie –that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen…they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams…they had no specific warnings…there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense".
To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at the well-documented facts:
First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had sunk to just 49% – this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon (according to a political scientist who spent eight years in the White House and a prominent professional political campaign manager based in New York).
Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most outraged criticism.
Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime in pursuit of power.
Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up.
So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen.
Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months.
Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?
Therefore, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell, who knows that someone has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a preemptive strike while he still has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus, we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right –both interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1 million. In fact, on the same program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the air on his new "It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest press. Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask you so you can spin them in just the way you want.
Russert asked Cheney how he responded to charges that the information existed in several reports which showed that a WTC-type attack was a possibility. Cheney responded –incredibly!– that reading all those reports weren't his concern. There's just too darn many of them. Russert let this ridiculous response go totally unchallenged and unqualified.
Here are the questions that are missing –the questions a real journalist would have asked: "So then, Mr. Cheney, just what are your criteria for a report that is important enough for you to read? How do you prioritize what you read or what those under you are directed to call to your attention? What reports on this matter DID you read?"
It is insulting to America's intelligence that such questions are not being asked. It's like a grand jury that refuses to ask a murder suspect questions like "Where were you on the night of such and such? What was your relationship to the victim?" but instead says, "Well, here's what we heard from the police that someone thinks you may have killed someone. Go ahead and explain yourself. Don't worry –we won't interrupt you or ask you any uncomfortable questions. And, by the way, your good pal who lives down the block volunteered to serve as jury foreman!"
Here's one last FACT to consider. The GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately merit-less case against Clinton that involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals. Since Bush took office, not one dime has been spent by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings, Bush's stolen election, Tom Delay's boiler room scams that have bilked doctors out of millions, the mysterious wild trading of American and United Airlines stock the week before 9/11 or any of the other crimes that were far more serious than Clinton's offenses. Meanwhile, the GOP –so eager to spend millions to investigate an office romance– has worked overtime to block the initiation of any serious investigation into the biggest crime to have ever been perpetrated on American soil that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
"Vague Warning" or Blueprint for Disaster?
The story Bush wants the world to buy is that the warnings he received were vague, routine, too general to act upon. Condi Rice wants us to believe that no one in the administration could have dreamed the hijackers would fly into a landmark building. But, as they say in show biz, this is "lies, lies, and damn lies."
Since 1993, scores of people, collectively, in the White House, Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and CIA have know that an attack like 9/11 was not only a possibility –but an increasingly likely probability. Because I am not writing a book here, I will confine myself to summarizing the most obvious pieces of evidence that Bush and his team had to work with. However, they are enough to convict him in any court of opinion.
Terrorism 2000 Report
Don't confuse this 1993 study with the report turned out by the Bush administration in April 2001 under the same title. The 2001 release, a summary of terrorist activity in 2000, lifted the title of the original document, no doubt as a smokescreen to confuse anyone who might be seeking the 1993 document through a search engine or library archives.
In 1993, the Pentagon commissioned, via the Department of Defense's office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, a think tank-style study of the ways terrorists could execute large-scale acts of terrorism on the US. Participants in the $150,000 study consisted of a panel of 41 intelligence/security experts that included former ranking CIA, FBI, State Department and Rand Corporation officials, as well as an ex-KGB general and Israeli intelligence agent.
One of the problems the team brainstormed over was the various ways an airplane could be used to destroy national landmarks –in fact, the WTC was most certainly on the panel's list of possible targets. One conclusion reached by the team as a future trend in terrorist activity was that extremists would seek to maximize their impact by escalating their attacks from one-at-a-time truck bomb/suicide bomber events to multiple, simultaneous targeting, thereby touting their power and stretching the victim governments' ability to respond.
The possible terrorist scenarios the team outlined scared the socks off folks in the government. One high-level official described it as "too outrageous." As a result, the team's report, Terrorism 2000 (a reference to terrorism in the new millennia) was blocked from public release. Even a toned down version that had been proposed as a way to raise public awareness and improve national preparedness was killed! A draft of the report was nonetheless passed on through the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is absolutely no doubt that this information was available to everyone in the Bush Administration, including Ms. Rice. It should have been required reading –especially since many of the predictions made by the report had already come true before 9/11.
Four instances of planes used as weapons before 2001
1994: A Federal Express Flight engineer was apprehended as he tried to storm the cockpit of a DC-10. The engineer, despondent over his impending firing, had planned to crash the plane into a Fed Ex building in Memphis.
1994: A pilot stole a Cessna and tried to crash it into the White House. He instead hit a tree on the White House grounds, not far from Clinton's bedroom.
1995: An Islamic fundamentalist group hijacked an Air France flight and loaded the plane with 27 tons of fuel in Marseilles as a way to turn it into an incendiary bomb when they crashed it into the Eiffel tower. This plan was thwarted when Special Forces stormed the craft before it could leave Marseilles.
1995: Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to planting timed explosive devices on eleven US airline flights in an attempt to create a "multiple attack" event (as outlined in the "too outrageous" Terrorism 2000 report). The same terrorist group also planned to crash on airplane into CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and another into the Pentagon (but Condi didn't dream anyone would ever try such a thing in 2001?). This scheme was not a wild and fevered plot. It was in the advanced planning stages –to the point where specific flights had already been selected. Murad himself was going to be the suicide pilot who hit the CIA headquarters. Where did he get his pilot training? In a US flight school.
The specifics of the "vague warning"
The most glaring lie Bush is using in his current spin is his claim that the warnings he received were too vague to act upon. However, the facts all by themselves scream "liar!"
From April, 2001 right up to the day the WTC and Pentagon were slammed, urgent warnings of impending large-scale attacks by terrorists had been issued to the Bush administration from multiple sources. Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel all delivered alerts that accurately foretold the scale of the attack and that it would involve a prominent landmark of some type. This would automatically put the WTC and Pentagon on the short list, especially as both landmarks had been targeted before (as mentioned above, the Pentagon attack was averted).
The German intelligence agency BND warned the US and Israel both in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." This is hardly vague, and hardly refers to an "overseas danger" to Americans (which of our prominent landmarks is in Europe or Asia, pray tell?).
On June 13, Egypt sent an urgent warning that a plane stuffed with explosives could be used as a weapon against George Bush. It was assumed, incorrectly at that time that the target could be the G-8 summit in Genoa, held in June 2001.
Vladimir Putin was so certain of the information he received in the summer of 2001 of an impending attack that he personally instructed Russian intelligence to tell Bush "in the strongest possible terms" (his own words on September. 15, 2001) of an impending attack involving airports and government. The Russians told the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specially trained to execute suicide missions. It was around the same time that the FBI was receiving tips about suspicious Arabic men in US flight schools.
In August, 2001, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad warned the CIA and FBI that as many as 200 al Qaeda members were infiltrating the US and planning "a major assault on the US" against "a large-scale target" in a setting where Americans would be "very vulnerable."
The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001
Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning.
The CIA knew of suspicious airline stock trades by September 7
Last but not least, the CIA knew a week before the attack WHICH airlines were most likely to be hijacked. The Agency maintains an advanced program called Promis, which monitors unusual stock market activity, SPECIFICALLY as a way to anticipate potential terrorist attacks. Promis provides 24-hour continuous real-time data on stock market activity and the FBI and Justice Department have both admitted that Promis was up and running all through the summer and fall of 2001. So there is no doubt whatsoever that as early as September. 7, the CIA knew that something was going down and knew which airlines were being targeted. Even a third-grader could have put this information together with the long litany of warnings above from foreign sources and come up with the conclusion that an American or United Airlines craft was going to be hijacked in the near future and most likely used to crash into a landmark, quite possibly the World Trade Center.
More smoking facts
According to the official government web site of the Military District of Washington the Pentagon ITSELF planned in detail how it would respond to just such a scenario from October 24-26 2000. And this was no low-level exercise, since it took place in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. This story was run in
The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush
By Cheryl Seal 02 June 2002
http://www.williambowles.info/911/smoking_gun.html
http://www.newsinsider.org/seal/smoking_gun.html
The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense
At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission –this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie –that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen…they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams…they had no specific warnings…there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense".
To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at the well-documented facts:
First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had sunk to just 49% – this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon (according to a political scientist who spent eight years in the White House and a prominent professional political campaign manager based in New York).
Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most outraged criticism.
Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime in pursuit of power.
Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up.
So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen.
Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months.
Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?
Therefore, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell, who knows that someone has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a preemptive strike while he still has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus, we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right –both interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1 million. In fact, on the same program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the air on his new "It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest press. Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask you so you can spin them in just the way you want.
Russert asked Cheney how he responded to charges that the information existed in several reports which showed that a WTC-type attack was a possibility. Cheney responded –incredibly!– that reading all those reports weren't his concern. There's just too darn many of them. Russert let this ridiculous response go totally unchallenged and unqualified.
Here are the questions that are missing –the questions a real journalist would have asked: "So then, Mr. Cheney, just what are your criteria for a report that is important enough for you to read? How do you prioritize what you read or what those under you are directed to call to your attention? What reports on this matter DID you read?"
It is insulting to America's intelligence that such questions are not being asked. It's like a grand jury that refuses to ask a murder suspect questions like "Where were you on the night of such and such? What was your relationship to the victim?" but instead says, "Well, here's what we heard from the police that someone thinks you may have killed someone. Go ahead and explain yourself. Don't worry –we won't interrupt you or ask you any uncomfortable questions. And, by the way, your good pal who lives down the block volunteered to serve as jury foreman!"
Here's one last FACT to consider. The GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately merit-less case against Clinton that involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals. Since Bush took office, not one dime has been spent by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings, Bush's stolen election, Tom Delay's boiler room scams that have bilked doctors out of millions, the mysterious wild trading of American and United Airlines stock the week before 9/11 or any of the other crimes that were far more serious than Clinton's offenses. Meanwhile, the GOP –so eager to spend millions to investigate an office romance– has worked overtime to block the initiation of any serious investigation into the biggest crime to have ever been perpetrated on American soil that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
"Vague Warning" or Blueprint for Disaster?
The story Bush wants the world to buy is that the warnings he received were vague, routine, too general to act upon. Condi Rice wants us to believe that no one in the administration could have dreamed the hijackers would fly into a landmark building. But, as they say in show biz, this is "lies, lies, and damn lies."
Since 1993, scores of people, collectively, in the White House, Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and CIA have know that an attack like 9/11 was not only a possibility –but an increasingly likely probability. Because I am not writing a book here, I will confine myself to summarizing the most obvious pieces of evidence that Bush and his team had to work with. However, they are enough to convict him in any court of opinion.
Terrorism 2000 Report
Don't confuse this 1993 study with the report turned out by the Bush administration in April 2001 under the same title. The 2001 release, a summary of terrorist activity in 2000, lifted the title of the original document, no doubt as a smokescreen to confuse anyone who might be seeking the 1993 document through a search engine or library archives.
In 1993, the Pentagon commissioned, via the Department of Defense's office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, a think tank-style study of the ways terrorists could execute large-scale acts of terrorism on the US. Participants in the $150,000 study consisted of a panel of 41 intelligence/security experts that included former ranking CIA, FBI, State Department and Rand Corporation officials, as well as an ex-KGB general and Israeli intelligence agent.
One of the problems the team brainstormed over was the various ways an airplane could be used to destroy national landmarks –in fact, the WTC was most certainly on the panel's list of possible targets. One conclusion reached by the team as a future trend in terrorist activity was that extremists would seek to maximize their impact by escalating their attacks from one-at-a-time truck bomb/suicide bomber events to multiple, simultaneous targeting, thereby touting their power and stretching the victim governments' ability to respond.
The possible terrorist scenarios the team outlined scared the socks off folks in the government. One high-level official described it as "too outrageous." As a result, the team's report, Terrorism 2000 (a reference to terrorism in the new millennia) was blocked from public release. Even a toned down version that had been proposed as a way to raise public awareness and improve national preparedness was killed! A draft of the report was nonetheless passed on through the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is absolutely no doubt that this information was available to everyone in the Bush Administration, including Ms. Rice. It should have been required reading –especially since many of the predictions made by the report had already come true before 9/11.
Four instances of planes used as weapons before 2001
1994: A Federal Express Flight engineer was apprehended as he tried to storm the cockpit of a DC-10. The engineer, despondent over his impending firing, had planned to crash the plane into a Fed Ex building in Memphis.
1994: A pilot stole a Cessna and tried to crash it into the White House. He instead hit a tree on the White House grounds, not far from Clinton's bedroom.
1995: An Islamic fundamentalist group hijacked an Air France flight and loaded the plane with 27 tons of fuel in Marseilles as a way to turn it into an incendiary bomb when they crashed it into the Eiffel tower. This plan was thwarted when Special Forces stormed the craft before it could leave Marseilles.
1995: Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to planting timed explosive devices on eleven US airline flights in an attempt to create a "multiple attack" event (as outlined in the "too outrageous" Terrorism 2000 report). The same terrorist group also planned to crash on airplane into CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and another into the Pentagon (but Condi didn't dream anyone would ever try such a thing in 2001?). This scheme was not a wild and fevered plot. It was in the advanced planning stages –to the point where specific flights had already been selected. Murad himself was going to be the suicide pilot who hit the CIA headquarters. Where did he get his pilot training? In a US flight school.
The specifics of the "vague warning"
The most glaring lie Bush is using in his current spin is his claim that the warnings he received were too vague to act upon. However, the facts all by themselves scream "liar!"
From April, 2001 right up to the day the WTC and Pentagon were slammed, urgent warnings of impending large-scale attacks by terrorists had been issued to the Bush administration from multiple sources. Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel all delivered alerts that accurately foretold the scale of the attack and that it would involve a prominent landmark of some type. This would automatically put the WTC and Pentagon on the short list, especially as both landmarks had been targeted before (as mentioned above, the Pentagon attack was averted).
The German intelligence agency BND warned the US and Israel both in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." This is hardly vague, and hardly refers to an "overseas danger" to Americans (which of our prominent landmarks is in Europe or Asia, pray tell?).
On June 13, Egypt sent an urgent warning that a plane stuffed with explosives could be used as a weapon against George Bush. It was assumed, incorrectly at that time that the target could be the G-8 summit in Genoa, held in June 2001.
Vladimir Putin was so certain of the information he received in the summer of 2001 of an impending attack that he personally instructed Russian intelligence to tell Bush "in the strongest possible terms" (his own words on September. 15, 2001) of an impending attack involving airports and government. The Russians told the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specially trained to execute suicide missions. It was around the same time that the FBI was receiving tips about suspicious Arabic men in US flight schools.
In August, 2001, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad warned the CIA and FBI that as many as 200 al Qaeda members were infiltrating the US and planning "a major assault on the US" against "a large-scale target" in a setting where Americans would be "very vulnerable."
The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001
Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning.
The CIA knew of suspicious airline stock trades by September 7
Last but not least, the CIA knew a week before the attack WHICH airlines were most likely to be hijacked. The Agency maintains an advanced program called Promis, which monitors unusual stock market activity, SPECIFICALLY as a way to anticipate potential terrorist attacks. Promis provides 24-hour continuous real-time data on stock market activity and the FBI and Justice Department have both admitted that Promis was up and running all through the summer and fall of 2001. So there is no doubt whatsoever that as early as September. 7, the CIA knew that something was going down and knew which airlines were being targeted. Even a third-grader could have put this information together with the long litany of warnings above from foreign sources and come up with the conclusion that an American or United Airlines craft was going to be hijacked in the near future and most likely used to crash into a landmark, quite possibly the World Trade Center.
More smoking facts
According to the official government web site of the Military District of Washington the Pentagon ITSELF planned in detail how it would respond to just such a scenario from October 24-26 2000. And this was no low-level exercise, since it took place in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. This story was run in
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
