Joe 6 Pack's Elegant Coincidence Theory Blog

Commentary: criticism of how 9-11 happened; criticism of how the Bush administration responded to 9-11; and criticism of how the Bush administration is still avoiding efforts to provide the public with the whole truth about September 11, 2001.

Monday, June 21, 2004

The 9-11 Whitewashingtonhouse Commission Report

PETER LANCE, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Well, I think that it's inexcusable for several reasons. First of all, the joint inquiry of Congress listed 12 separate incidents where planes were used as weapons in the years prior to 9/11, at least four of those instances where they were going to fly them into buildings, so the idea that this thing wasn't anticipated just doesn't wash, and that's the congressional joint inquiry's conclusion.



LANCE: Whether it's intent or negligence, the effect is the same. The public is only getting part of the picture.



Example, quick example, there were two F-16s from the 177th fighter wing in Atlantic City, an Air National Guard unit, doing bomb sortees over the pinelands of New Jersey eight minutes away from Manhattan, and the first - they admit in the report today that they contacted Atlantic City, but they said they were basically inactive.



What about that? That wasn't even explored. You know, "The Bergen Record" had a big story. They interviewed Governor Kane (ph) on it. They asked to talk to the people at the base. Why weren't we contacted? So you had two F-16s eight minutes away that could have stopped, potentially thwarted AA 11, not to mention the second flight. So what about that? Why isn't that in the commission report? . . .





LANCE: Indefensible. It's the greatest failure of defense in American history, and I'd like to ask Victoria if you were working with - were you working with Secretary Rumsfeld at the time?



CLARKE: Yes.



LANCE: OK. Now there are two stories about Secretary Rumsfeld. One, the official story today is that he didn't go into the war room, the national military command center, until after the Pentagon was struck. I think 10:30ish or something is the official story. . .



But Richard Clarke in his book, "Against All Enemies," says that a teleconferencing session was set up at the White House at about 9:10. Present in this teleconference were the CIA director, the FBI director, Secretary Rumsfeld, you know, Condi Rice, Richard Armitage representing Colin Powell. The only...



LANCE: Fair enough, but why didn't he go to the war room?



CLARKE: As soon as - wait!



LANCE: He's the secretary of defense.



CLARKE: As soon as - I think...



LANCE: Why didn't he go into the war room and command - take command in the Pentagon? He didn't show up for over an hour and a half after the first plane was hijacked. Why? The secretary of defense? . . .





[PAULA ZAHN] . . .But the president remained in the classroom for at least five more minutes.



LANCE: Ten more, actually. In the classroom and then he stayed in the school in which he prepared a press statement and they actually did a press conference from the school. Now, keep in mind that at this point, as many as 11 planes, [where there was suspicion that they were hijacked, they have no idea where these other planes are going. The president is a highly visible target.



ZAHN: What could he have done at that point?



LANCE: First of all, with hindsight, the commander-in chief, let's put a - commander, as soon as he heard, 9:06, the nation is under attack, we know that there are marines and Secret Service people going, are we ready to go? And he...



ZAHN: He's in Sarasota, Florida.



LANCE: I know, but he could have made it to Air Force One if he was going to do a press conference to reassure the nation, he could have done it aboard the plane. Point is he had the sole ability to order the shoot down of the planes and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Air Force Base pilots Duffy (ph) and Nash (ph) said, we didn't have the authority and even if they had gotten there in time, without that authority from the president, so the potus (ph) is out of the loop. . .



attribution [CNN]









"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported Al Qaeda before 9/11." It added, "Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of Al Qaeda funding, but we found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded Al Qaeda."



The effort to dispel the idea that the Saudi government played a role in supporting Al Qaeda occurred 17 months after the Congressional committee finished its work on a report that many contended reached a very different conclusion.



(from the NYTimes, 19 June 2004, linked above)



- According to Brisard and Dasquie's "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secrect Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden (2002)":



Khalid bin Mahfouz is not your typical banker (p. 115).



"The bin Mahfouz financial and charity network is one of the most active in facilitating Osama bin Laden's activities (p. 125)."



"This organization [Blessed Relief], suspected of having ties to Osama bin Laden, is also accused by the CIA of having received funds via the Saudi National Commercial Bank, headed at the time by Khalid bin Mahfouz (p. 127)."



"Khalid bin Mahfouz was very active in Texas at the time [80s and 90s] (p.133)."



"But the bin Mahfouz empire also shares common interests with American oil companies, specifically concerning central Asia in the area around the Caspian Sea, which is coveted by these companies. ..the Delta-Unocal consortium was undoubtedly counting on Khalid bin Mahfouz's support in the undertaking (p. 134)."



- the above excerpts from Brisard and Dasquie, Chapter 12. "The Banker of Terror"



"Atef's memo shines new light on what Al Qaeda knew about U.S. efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban in exchange for the fundamentalist government's supporting the construction of an oil and gas pipeline across Afganistan. As we document in the book, the Clinton and Bush administration negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies' attempts to construct an oil pipeline.



"The seven-page memo was signed "Abu Hafs" which is the military name of Atef, who was the military chief of Al Qaeda and is believed to have been killed in November 2001 during U.S. operations in Afganistan. It shows Al Qaeda's keen interest in the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and raises more questions aa to whether the U.S. military threat to the Taliban [concerning the oil pipeline negotiations] in July 2001 could
have triggered Al Qaeda's September 11 attack (pp. 141-2)."



"It is also worth asking whether, had this threat of July 2001 been widely known, U.S. intelligence agencies might have analyzed the information they were receiving about bin Laden's plots against the U.S. differently [e.g., August 2001 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the U.S."](p. 143).



Notes:



Hamid Karzai - a former consultant on Unocal's payroll - decided on May 30, 2003, to revive the pipeline project with Pakistan and Turkmenistan, signing an agreement under which the three governments agree to implement a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan. . .Would the U.S. intelligence agencies' investigations into Al Qaeda activities in the months before September 11 had such a productive ending (p. 145)."



"What remains uncertain is the fate of those who inspire and finanace [terrorists], through action, negligence, or self-interest (ibid.)."



Jean-Charles Brisard is a consultant on business, corporate, and diplomatic intelligence. See his report "The Economic Network of the bin Laden Family" commissioned by the French intelligence community.



Guillaume Dasquie is an investigative journalist who is the editor-in-chief of the respected intelligence newsletter, Intelligence Online at www.intelligenceonline.com



Thomas Kean [head of the 9/11 commission] has been targeted for business dealings that include ties to Khalid bin Salim bin Mahfouz of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, who was named among some 70 defendants in a 2002 lawsuit brought by a group of some 600 families of September 11th victims. He has also, apparently inaccurately, been referred to as Osama bin Ladin’s brother in law. (Not Thomas Kean, but Khalid bin Mahfouz.)



Khalid Bin Mahfouz was listed as one of seven “Main individual Saudi sponsors of al Qaeda” in a report prepared by JCB Consulting, the self-proclaimed “world expert on terrorism financing,” for the President of the Security Council of the United Nations in
December of 2002. The report, titled Terrorism Financing: Roots and trends of Saudi terrorism financing, has been cited throughout the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and Jean-Charles Brisard, CEO of JCB Consulting, is the lead investigator for victim’s families in their civil lawsuit against the financial apparatus behind the al Qaeda
network.



- last two paragraphs from the beautifully entitled article"9/11 chair, despite alleged Saudi ties, is remarkably clean" by Freda Moon



Who's on the 9-11 Whitewashingtonhouse Committee?

3 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home