Jon Gold
3/31/2009

I don’t know if you heard, but the United States has been threatened by someone named Baitullah Mehsud. “Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world.”

I’ve never heard his name before myself, but historycommons.org has. Apparently Benazir Bhutto named him as one of her possible assassins. According to two reports from Oct. 2008, he died from kidney failure (hat tip to Reprehensor). This wouldn’t be the first person to die, and come back from the grave.

I was sitting here, reading about the possible fantastic news concerning the environmental disaster that was 9/11, and it dawned on me. If we’re getting threatened now, has Obama received the equivalent to the August 6th, PDB? How about the July 10th, 2001 warning, or the June 30th, 2001 warning, or how about you just go here and read about the different types of warnings received?

Has he? Does he have a piece of paper with this person’s name on it? Is there something he could be doing to ensure that we are protected? Is there a specific target that he is aware of? If so, then NOW would be a good time to do something about it, and warn those who need to be in the know.

If this warning came from a legitimate source of course.

A word of advice for President Obama. If you’re sitting in a classroom with a room full of children, and you are told that “America is under attack,” do me a favor… tell the children politely that you have to go because there are matters you have to attend to, allow the secret service to get you to a safe location, and make sure you’ve got good communications equipment with you so you can deal with the situation.

Also, don’t let Joe “take charge.” It might not look good.

Most importantly, WHATEVER you do, don’t lie about it, use the attack for more wars, more loss of civil liberties, more bankrupting of this country, more executive power, and so on. That also wouldn’t look good.

Decide for yourself whether or not this information is important with regards to the 9/11 attacks. I think it is.

This past weekend at the NE 9/11 Truth Symposium, Kyle Hence elaborated on the put options that were purchased prior to 9/11. I recommended to the audience to watch “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families” because there was a good clip about the put options in it. This is that clip. 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken, Monica Gabrielle, Bob McIlvaine, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza make an appearance.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2005

September 11th was neither an intelligence failure nor was it a failure of imagination. It was nonfeasance on behalf of a whole host of government agencies, including the FAA.

Of the 105 warnings issued, 52 warnings regarding al Qaeda were given to the FAA by the intelligence community in a six month period from April 2001 to September 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission’s final report, there were eight information circulars put out by the FAA between July 2, and September 10, 2001. Five of these information circulars targeted overseas threats, while the remaining three targeted domestic threats.

The 52 threats regarding al Qaeda were not received by the FAA in a vacuum. From March 2001 to September 2001, according to the Joint Inquiry of Congress, our Intelligence Community received at least 41 specific threats of a possible domestic attack by al Qaeda. Additionally, the FAA was also made aware of the August 16, 2001 arrest of Zaccarias Moussouai. Finally, the FAA attended a high level meeting on July 5, 2001 where the domestic threat posed by al Qaeda was discussed by all relevant intelligence agencies.

According to the newly released FAA monograph, in the spring of 2001 the FAA knew that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable”.

The aforementioned statement is yet another indicator of how widely known it was in the national security community that al Qaeda was interested in using planes as missiles. Yet, as the historic record also widely indicates, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice publicly stated that she didn’t think that anyone could imagine that planes could be used as missiles.

Furthermore, Ms. Rice also testified, under oath, before the 9/11 Commission, that the August 6, 2001 PDB, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.,” contained purely “historical” threat information. The revelation of the 52 warnings given to the FAA during this same time period would seem to indicate that Ms. Rice perjured herself during her testimony.

Moreover, Ms. Rice also testified that there was nothing more the U.S. government could have done during the summer of 2001 to thwart the attacks of 9/11. Yet, the newly released 9/11 Monograph states that the federal air marshal program was specifically deleted from all domestic flights during the summer of 2001 as a result of cost cutting by the airlines. Certainly, placing air marshals on domestic flights was well within the purview of Ms. Rice’s own responsibilities and tasking as National Security Advisor. Why has she not been held accountable? Additionally, why has no one in the airline community been held accountable?

An FAA spokesperson asserts that the FAA didn’t have specific information regarding means or methods that would have enabled them to tailor any counter measures. This statement clearly contradicts the reality detailed in this report. Stepping up security in the face of terror warnings is not a new concept for America’s government agencies. The FAA testified before the 9/11 Commission that during the millennium an unknown terror plot caused them to ratchet up their security procedures. With 52 warnings, why was this not done in 2001?

The American public must not be lulled into a false sense of security. While government reports might allege that the myriad of government agencies, individuals, and institutions that failed our nation on 9/11 have been fixed post-9/11, the disturbing fact remains that after all the failures of 9/11 have been revealed, far too many of the same individuals who were unable to react appropriately to clear and abundant warnings, are still in their positions today.

Notably missing from this monograph is any information pertaining to NORAD’s failure to timely scramble jets, which leads us to wonder what else is being withheld from the public.

September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Source: www.iht.com

The Associated Press
Published: May 1, 2008

NEW YORK: Aviation companies sued by the families of Sept. 11 victims for failing to safeguard air travel are in turn blaming federal investigators — arguing the Federal Aviation Administration was not alerted that al-Qaida was poised to launch terrorist attacks.

In court documents filed this week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, aviation companies are seeking to force five FBI employees to provide testimony that may help defend against claims the companies share blame in the attacks.

“The aviation parties anticipate that the FBI witnesses’ testimony will demonstrate that the FBI had information before Sept. 11 indicating that al-Qaida may have been about to launch terrorist attacks on civil aviation, which it did not timely pass along to the Federal Aviation Administration,” lawyers wrote.

The airlines and aviation companies are defending themselves against lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for injuries, fatalities, property damage and business losses related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

The companies in turn filed separate lawsuits against the CIA and the FBI last August to force terrorism investigators to tell whether the aviation industry was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

The latest documents filed by the airlines, airport authorities, security companies and an aircraft manufacturer argue that if the FAA had known about an FBI investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, it could have amended security measures to guard against the type of terrorist attack Moussaoui was planning.

The aviation defendants said the FBI has refused to permit even a single deposition, although the agency does not deny that five potential witnesses in the case have already testified and made other public statements before the 9/11 Commission, the Moussaoui trial jury and the media.

In the lawsuit against the CIA, companies including American Airlines Inc., United Airlines Inc., US Airways Group Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. and The Boeing Co. are seeking to interview the deputy chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit in 2001, and an FBI special agent assigned to the unit at that time. The names of both are secret.

The lawyers said testimony from both agencies was critical to their defense.

“After weighing this evidence together with the criminal acts of the terrorists, the jury would be entitled to conclude that any act or omission by the aviation parties was so dwarfed by the other causal factors of the attacks that the aviation parties’ conduct was not a substantial cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries,” the lawyers wrote.

U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said last year that the request for depositions with FBI agents was rejected because the aviation companies didn’t explain how FBI information before the attacks would relate to their defense efforts.

Garcia said much of the information was protected from disclosure, “because it involves classified national security information or matters protected by the law enforcement investigative privilege.”

He also said it would be “extremely difficult and burdensome” to separate the classified information from the non-classified information and risk that some classified materials may be inadvertently disclosed.

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for government lawyers in the case, said there was no comment Wednesday.