1,000 Turn Out In Oregon To
Hear Mike Ruppert Expose
Government Complicity in the
WTC, Pentagon Attacks
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html
12-5-1

(FTW) - On November 28th an estimated 1,000 people came from as far away as 
Seattle and San Francisco to Portland State University to see FTW 
Publisher/Editor Mike Ruppert give a 2 hour lecture and documentary 
presentation on the events surrounding the September 11th attacks and their 
aftermath. Starting with an offer of $1,000 to anyone who could show that 
any of the sources he cited were not authentic or misrepresented, Ruppert 
launched into an display of more than 40 visual exhibits showing government 
complicity in and foreknowledge of the attacks.
The event was organized by the campus newspaper The Rear Guard and its 
editor Dimitris Desyllas. I never expected that we would have this kind of 
turnout, Desyllas said. But it is obvious that the public has very deep 
concerns about what we are being told and what the government is doing. We 
eventually brought in 860 chairs and there were people all around the walls 
and on the floor. One of the volunteer videographers at the event was a 
Native American spiritual teacher of the Dakota Sioux nation, Skip Mahawk. 
Mahawk, then with the 101st Airborne Division, won the Congressional Medal 
of Honor at the legendary 1969 Vietnam War battle known as Hamburger Hill. 
Mahawk refused to accept the decoration.
Ruppert's lecture was full of documentary evidence. After pointing out - 
among other things - that the Chief of Pakistani intelligence (approved for 
his position by the CIA) ordered a $100,000 wire transfer to lead hijacker 
Mohammed Atta; that the Bush family had business dealings with the bin Laden 
family through the Carlyle Group, that the U.S. and British governments had 
extensive military deployments already in the area before the attacks, and 
that the Bush administration had ordered the FBI to stop investigating two 
relatives of Osama bin Laden living near CIA headquarters this January, 
Ruppert launched into the centerpiece of the lecture which was a visual 
presentation of his timeline of events around September 11th - which left 
some members of the audience in tears. 
Special attention was also paid to a newly resurrected Unocal pipeline to 
transport oil and natural gas from the Central Asian republics to the 
Pakistani coast for sale to China and Japan. Henry Kissinger is on both ends 
of that deal.
Audience reaction and anger was strongest as Ruppert presented selected 
quotes from The Grand Chessboard, a 1997 book by former Carter National 
Security Advisor and member of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew 
Brzezinski. Those quotes - along with maps of Central Asia - indicated 
clearly that the current war had been in the planning stages for at least 
four years. Two particular quotes from Brzezinski indicating the need for a 
Pearl Harbor-like attack evoked boos and hisses for the intelligence expert 
and professor who also served in the Reagan Administration.
Ruppert closed the lecture with an analysis of the assault on American civil 
liberties since September 11th in the form of the so-called PATRIOT Act and 
several unilateral decisions made by President Bush and Attorney General 
John Ashcroft which have effectively nullified three amendments to the Bill 
of Rights and taken away part of another. He also showed documentary 
evidence from Congress supporting his claim that the Bush administration was 
going to loot the Social Security Trust Fund.
The audience responded to the lecture with a two minute standing ovation. 
Report by Peter Farley

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html
 

A TIMELINE SURROUNDING SEPTEMBER 11TH - IF CIA AND THE GOVERNMENT WEREN’T INVOLVED IN THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS WHAT WERE THEY DOING? Bin Laden Met with the CIA in July and Walked Away by Michael C. Ruppert [© COPYRIGHT 2001, All Rights Reserved, Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. May be copied and distributed for non-profit purposes only.] FTW, November 2, 2001 – 1200 PST [Revised, Nov 27, 2001] -- On October 31, the French daily Le Figaro dropped a bombshell. While in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA official - presumably the Chief of Station. The meeting, held in bin Laden’s private suite, took place at the American hospital in Dubai at a time when he was a wanted fugitive for the bombings of two U.S. embassies and this year’s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office in January. Yet on July 14th he was allowed to leave Dubai on a private jet and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him down.  In 1985 Oliver North – the only member of the Reagan-Bush years who doesn’t appear to have a hand in the current war - sent the Navy and commandos after terrorists on the cruise ship Achille Lauro. In his 1991 autobiography “Under Fire,” while describing terrorist Abu Abbas, North wrote, “I used to wonder: how many dead Americans will it take before we do something?” One could look at the number of Americans Osama bin Laden is alleged to have killed before September 11 and ask the same question. It gets worse, much worse. A more complete timeline listing crucial events both before and after the September 11th suicide attacks, which have been blamed on bin Laden, establishes CIA foreknowledge of them and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution. It also makes clear that the events which have taken place since September 11th are based upon an agenda that has little to do with the attacks. One wonders how these events could have been ignored by the major media or treated as isolated incidents. Failing that, how could skilled news agencies avoid being outraged, or at least even just a little suspicious?  1998 and 2000 - Former President George H.W. Bush travels to Saudi Arabia on behalf of the privately owned Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the U.S. While there he meets privately with the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family. [Source: Wall Street Journal, Sept. 27, 2001. See also FTW, Vol. IV, No 7 – “The Best Enemies Money Can Buy,” -  http://www.copvcia.com/members/carlyle.html. ] January, 2001 – The Bush Administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to “back off” investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden’s relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in Falls Church, VA – right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back to 1996, frustrating efforts to investigate the bin Laden family. [Source: BBC Newsnight, Correspondent Gregg Palast – Nov 7, 2001]. Feb 13, 2001 – UPI Terrorism Correspondent Richard Sale – while covering a trial of bin Laden’s Al Q’aeda followers - reports that the National Security Agency has broken bin Laden’s encrypted communications. Even if this indicates that bin Laden changed systems in February it does not mesh with the fact that the government insists that the attacks had been planned for years. May 2001 – Secretary of State Colin Powell gives $43 million in aid to the Taliban regime, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who are starving since the destruction of their opium crop in January on orders of the Taliban regime. [Source: The Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2001]. May, 2001 – Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a career covert operative and former Navy Seal, travels to India on a publicized tour while CIA Director George Tenet makes a quiet visit to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani leader General Pervez Musharraf. Armitage has long and deep Pakistani intelligence connections and he is the recipient of the highest civil decoration awarded by Pakistan. It would be reasonable to assume that while in Islamabad, Tenet, in what was described as “an unusually long meeting,” also met with his Pakistani counterpart, Lt. General Mahmud Ahmad, head of the ISI. [Source The Indian SAPRA news agency, May 22, 2001.] June 2001 – German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” [Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001.] July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. A French book released in November, “Bin Laden - La Verite? Interdite,” discloses that Taliban representatives often sat in on the meetings. British papers confirm that the Pakistani ISI relayed the threats to the Taliban. [Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001; the BBC, September 18, 2001.The Inter Press Service, Nov 16, 2001] Summer 2001 - According to a Sept. 26 story in Britain’s The Guardian, correspondent David Leigh reported that, “U.S. department of defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January. The Guardian’s Felicity Lawrence established that US Rangers were also training special troops in Kyrgyzstan. There were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana.” Summer 2001 (est.) – Pakistani ISI Chief General Mahmud (see above) orders an aide to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, who was according to the FBI, the lead terrorist in the suicide hijackings. Mahmud recently resigned after the transfer was disclosed in India and confirmed by the FBI. [Source: The Times of India, October 11, 2001.] Summer 2001 – An Iranian man phones U.S. law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week of September 9th. German police confirm the calls but state that the U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any further information. [Source: German news agency “online.ie”, September 14, 2001.] August 2001 – The FBI arrests an Islamic militant linked to bin Laden in Boston. French intelligence sources confirm that the man is a key member of bin Laden’s network and the FBI learns that he has been taking flying lessons. At the time of his arrest the man is in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals. [Source: Reuters, September 13.] Summer 2001 – Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots have been specifically training for suicide missions. This is reported in the Russian press and news stories are translated for FTW by a retired CIA officer. July 4-14, 2001 – Osama bin Laden receives treatments for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and meets with a CIA official who returns to CIA headquarters on July 15th. [Source: Le Figaro, October 31st, 2001.] August 2001 – Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government “in the strongest possible terms” of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. [Source: MS-NBC interview with Putin, September 15.] August/September, 2001 – The Dow Jones Industrial Average drops nearly 900 points in the three weeks prior to the attack. A major stock market crash is imminent. Sept. 3-10, 2001 – MS-NBC reports on September 16 that a caller to a Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several warnings of an imminent attack on the U.S. by bin Laden in the week prior to 9/11. 17. September 1-10, 2001 – In an exercise, Operation “Swift Sword” planned for four years, 23, 000 British troops aresteaming toward Oman. Although the 9/11 attacks caused a hiccup in the deployment the massive operation was implemented as planned. At the same time two U.S. carrier battle groups arrive on station in the Gulf of Arabia just off the Pakistani coast. Also at the same time, some 17,000 U.S. troops join more than 23,000 NATO troops in Egypt for Operation “Bright Star.” All of these forces are in place before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. [Sources: The Guardian, CNN, FOX, The Observer, International Law Professor Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois.] September 6-7, 2001 – 4,744 put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) are purchased on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the UAL puts are purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard. [Source: The Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/, September 21; The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal.] September 10, 2001 - 4,516 put options are purchased on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options. [Source: ICT – above] September 6-11, 2001 - No other airlines show any similar trading patterns to those experienced by UAL and American. The put option purchases on both airlines were 600% above normal. This at a time when Reuters (September 10) issues a business report stating, “Airline stocks may be poised to take off.” September 6-10, 2001 – Highly abnormal levels of put options are purchased in Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re(insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re. All of these companies are directly impacted by the September 11 attacks. [Source: ICT, above; FTW, Vol. IV, No.7, October 18, 2001, http://www.copvcia.com/members/oct152001.html. ]  It has been documented that the CIA, the Israeli Mossad and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs reported to be descended from Promis software. This is to alert national intelligence services of just such kinds of attacks. Promis was reported, as recently as June, 2001 to be in Osama bin Laden’s possession and, as a result of recent stories by FOX, both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed its use for U.S. intelligence gathering through at least this summer. This would confirm that CIA had additional advance warning of imminent attacks. [Sources: The Washington Times,  June 15, 2001; FOX News, October 16, 2001; FTW, October  26, 2001, - http://www.copvcia.com/members/magic_carpet.html; FTW, Vol. IV, No.6, Sept. 18, 2001 - http://www.copvcia.com/members/sept1801.html; FTW, Vol. 3, No 7, 9/30/00 - www.copvcia.com/stories/may_2001/052401_promis.html.  September 11, 2001 – Gen Mahmud of the ISI (see above), friend of Mohammed Atta, is visiting Washington on behalf of the Taliban. [Source: MS-NBC, Oct. 7.] September 11, 2001, For 35 minutes, from 8:15 AM until 9:05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9:30 that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred – an event that has never happened in history. [Sources: CNN, ABC, MS-NBC, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times.] September 13, 2001 – China is admitted to the World Trade Organization quickly, after 15 years of unsuccessful attempts. [Source: The New York Times, Sept. 30, 2001.] September 15, 2001 – The New York Times reports that Mayo Shattuck III has resigned, effective immediately, as head of the Alex (A.B) Brown unit of Deutschebank. September 29, 2001 – The San Francisco Chronicle reports that $2.5 million in put options on American Airlines and United Airlines are unclaimed. This is likely the result of the suspension in trading on the NYSE after the attacks which gave the Securities and Exchange Commission time to be waiting when the owners showed up to redeem their put options. October 10, 2001 – The Pakistani newspaper The Frontier Post reports that U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain has paid a call on the Pakistani oil minister. A previously abandoned Unocal pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan, to the Pakistani coast, for the purpose of selling oil and gas to China, is now back on the table “in view of recent geopolitical developments.” Mid October, 2001 – The Dow Jones Industrial Average, after having suffered a precipitous drop has recovered most of its pre-attack losses. Although still weak, and vulnerable to negative earnings reports, a crash has been averted by a massive infusion of government spending on defense programs, subsidies for “affected” industries and planned tax cuts for corporations. Now, let’s go back to the October 31 story by Le Figaro – the one that has Osama bin Laden meeting with a CIA officer in Dubai this June. The story says that, “Throughout his stay in the hospital, Osama Bin Laden received visits from many family members [There goes the story that he’s a black sheep!] and Saudi Arabian Emirate personalities of status. During this time the local representative of the CIA was seen by many people taking the elevator and going to bin Laden’s room. “Several days later the CIA officer bragged to his friends about having visited the Saudi millionaire. From authoritative sources, this CIA agent visited CIA headquarters on July 15tth, the day after bin Laden’s departure for Quetta… “According to various Arab diplomatic sources and French intelligence itself, precise information was communicated to the CIA concerning terrorist attacks aimed at American interests in the world, including its own territory.”… “Extremely bothered, they [American intelligence officers in a meeting with French intelligence officers] requested from their French peers exact details about the Algerian activists [connected to bin Laden through Dubai banking institutions], without explaining the exact nature of their inquiry. When asked the question, “What do you fear in the coming days?’ the Americans responded with incomprehensible silence.”… “On further investigation, the FBI discovered certain plans that had been put together between the CIA and its “Islamic friends” over the years. The meeting in Dubai is, so it would seem, consistent with ‘a certain American policy.’” Even though Le Figaro reported that it had confirmed with hospital staff that bin Laden had been there as reported, stories printed on November 1 contained quotes from hospital staff that these reports were untrue. On November 1, as reported by the Ananova press agency, the CIA flatly denied that any meeting between any CIA personnel and Osama bin Laden at any time. In the most ironic twist of all, FTW has learned that Le Figaro is owned by the Carlyle Group, the American defense contractor which employs George Bush Sr., and which had as investors – until they sold their stake on October 26 - the bin Laden family. Who do you believe? In coming stories FTW will prove to you that this war, which according to Dick Cheney, may not end in out lifetimes, has been in the works for at least four years.

___ The full story with photographs is available online at http://www.copvcia.com/st ories/dec_2001/portland.html -- Mike Ruppert s website and information on his subscriber-based newsletter  From The Wilderness is located at  <http://www.copvcia.com./http://www.copvcia.com. Anyone interested in  arranging a 2002 lecture appearance can obtain additional information by  contacting Andrea Shepherd at 818-788-8791 or by emailing  <mailto:service@copvcia.comservice@copvcia.com. Mike Ruppert "From The Wilderness" www.copvcia.comC. RUPPERT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 [Book exposes the Bush regime's fraudulent "war on terrorism" --
 Read "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" by Jean-Charles Brisard
 and Guillaume Dasquie]

 U.S. Policy on Taliban Influenced by Oil: Authors

 By JULIO GODOY

 PARIS, France (Inter Press Service): Under the influence of
 United States oil companies, the government of President George
 W. Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations
 on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery
 of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and
 economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

 In the book, "Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite" (Bin Laden, the
 Forbidden Truth), that was released recently, the authors,
 Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the
 Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Deputy Director John
 O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

 The authors claim that O'Neill told them that "the main
 obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil
 corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it."
 The two claim that the U.S. government's main objective in
 Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban
 regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central
 Asia.

 They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the
 Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that
 would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central
 Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and
 Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian
 Ocean. Until now, says the book, "the oil and gas reserves of
 Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government
 wanted to change all that."

 But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S.
 conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a
 military one", the authors claim.

 "At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives
 told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of
 gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in
 an interview in Paris.

 According to the book, the Bush Administration began to
 negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power
 in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met
 several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

 To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even
 employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The
 authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S.
 intelligence organizations, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a
 former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

 The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took
 place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and
 Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina
 Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S.
 government, met the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan [Abdul Salam
 Zaeef] in Islamabad.

 Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence
 analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s Director of economic
 analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also
 worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a
 report on the now famous Al-Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden.

 Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of
 Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy,
 economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet.

 Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of the closest aides to
 Bush, linking them to the oil business. Bush's family has a
 strong oil background, as do some of his top aides. From Vice
 President Dick Cheney, through the Director of the National
 Security Council Condoleezza Rice, to the secretaries of
 commerce and energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have
 for long worked for U.S. oil companies.

 Cheney was until the end of last year President of Halliburton,
 a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was
 between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham
 worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

 Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and
 Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes
 issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic
 fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the
 networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his
 activities.

 Brisard and Dasquie contend that the U.S. government's claim
 that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998 [is a big
 fraud]. "Actually," Dasquie says, "the first state to officially
 prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism."

 "Bin Laden wanted to settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was
 hindered by the government of Muammar Gaddafi," Dasquie claims.
 "Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organized attacks inside
 Libya, including assassination attempts against Gaddafi."

 Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG),
 reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organization, based
 in London, and directly linked with bin Laden. "Gaddafi even
 demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to
 pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained cooperation,"
 Dasquie says. "Until today, members of IFG openly live in
 London."

 The book confirms earlier reports that the U.S. government
 worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations
 with the Taliban. "Several meetings took place this year, under
 the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of
 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in
 Afghanistan," says the book. "Representatives of the U.S.
 government and Russia, and the six countries that border with
 Afghanistan were present at these meetings," it says.
 "Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the
 table."

 These meetings, also called Six plus 2, because of the number of
 states (six neighbors plus the U.S. and Russia) involved, have
 been confirmed by Niaz A. Naik, former Pakistani Secretary for
 foreign affairs.

 In a French television news program two weeks ago, Naik said
 that during a Six plus 2 meeting in Berlin in July, the
 discussions turned around "the formation of a government of
 national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they
 would have immediately received international economic aid. And
 the pipelines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,"
 he added.

 Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at
 these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan.
 "Simons said: 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or
 Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another
 option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation',"
 Naik claimed.

 [©2001 Asia Times Online Co. Ltd.
 Room 6301, The Center, 99 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong,
 China]

 ========================================

 New Book Details Bush/Big Oil Negotiations With Taliban BEFORE
 WTC
 http://www.rense.com/general17/before.htm
 Monday, 19 November 2001

 By TOP VIEW
 top_view1@go.com

 Fact: The World Trade Center (WTC) was bombed right AFTER
 Bush-Taliban oil pipeline talks soured.

 The talks soured right AFTER Bush/Big Oil threatened Taliban to
 take their offer or receive a "carpet of bombs."

 SPELLING IT OUT

 Bush-Cheney/Big Oil and Afghanistan's Taliban negotiated for
 MONTHS over running a Caspian Sea oil pipeline through
 Afghanistan. Talks began in February and continued right on
 until only one MONTH before New York City's World Trade Center
 towers were demolished.

 DURING the course of these negotiations, the two parties were
 unable to agree upon a deal, MAINLY because Bush/Big Oil agents
 constantly upped the ante on the rather naive Taliban
 representatives: playing intimidation, bait & switch, and
 "shell" games relentlessly. The Taliban negotiators,
 understandably, became distrustful of the entire process, and
 less and less confident they were being dealt with in good
 faith.

 In the beginning of August, the Bush Administration and its Big
 Oil cohorts delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to the
 Taliban.

 The Taliban representatives were reportedly told by Bush/Big
 Oil: Accept our offer of "a carpet of gold or you'll get a
 carpet of bombs."

 That's a DIRECT quote, according to French authors Jean-Charles
 Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, who've just written a
 thoroughly-researched and heavily-documented book about the
 entire extraordinary business titled "Bin Laden: The Forbidden
 Truth"

 ALSO revealed in the book is the fact that BUSH HIMSELF directly
 ordered the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement groups to BACK
 OFF on TERRORIST-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS while the oil pipeline
 negotiations were underway!

 In FACT, the FBI's Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July
 in protest over this outrageous and intolerable obstruction.

 And by the way: the whereabouts of one OSAMA BIN LADEN, then
 already firmly entrenched at the very top of the US's
 "most-wanted terrorist" list during the entire course of these
 pipeline negotiations, was NEVER an issue with the Bush cartel.
 Never ONCE were the Taliban urged to hand bin Laden over for all
 those OTHER horrendous crimes Feds maintain bin Laden has been
 charged with committing over the years.

 And SO: barely a MONTH after the Bush administration sabotaged
 the negotiations with the Taliban regarding running the Caspian
 Sea oil pipeline through Afghanistan, the World Trade Center
 towers are bombed into oblivion, bringing about the currently
 ongoing UNDECLARED (and therefore illegal) "war on
 terrorism"...that just HAPPENS to be directed at the Taliban in
 Afghanistan.

 The WTC was bombed -- according to Feds -- by the VERY SAME
 Osama bin Laden whom the very same Bush administration was so
 UNCONCERNED ABOUT during those JUST-WRECKED talks with the
 Taliban.

 NO ONE but the bush administration and their Big Oil
 allies/accomplices -- not the Taliban, not the Palestinians, not
 ANY other nation whether Islamic or otherwise -- not any other
 group, agency, force or faction on Earth stood to "GAIN" from
 the destruction of the World Trade Center which occurred only
 ONE MONTH after talks between the Bush administration and the
 Taliban fell apart due to outrageous threats and intimidation by
 Bush/Big Oil "negotiators."

 [Now the Taliban have been removed, Americans have lost even
 more freedom and liberty thanks to the 'Anti-Terrorism' Bill
 (passed by the House without even having READ the bill), and we
 can expect the pipeline project to get back on track soon. It is
 important to remember that the world's richest oil country,
 Saudi Arabia, has 30 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The
 Caspian oil reserves are conservatively estimated to be 50
 BILLON barrels.--Editor.]

 ========================================

 THE IRISH TIMES - Monday, 19 November 2001
 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/1119/wor8.htm
 http://www.rense.com/general17/shco.htm

 U.S. Efforts to Make Peace Summed up by 'OIL'

 A new book alleges years of attempts to arrest Osama bin Laden
 being blocked by the U.S., one of the authors tells LARA MARLOWE

 ANALYSIS: The fate of John O'Neill, the Irish-American FBI agent
 who for years led U.S. investigations into Osama bin Laden's
 Al-Qaeda network, is the most chilling revelation in the book
 Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth, published in Paris this week.

 O'Neill investigated the bombings of the World Trade Centre in
 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in
 Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year.

 Jean-Charles Brisard, who wrote a report on bin Laden's finances
 for the French intelligence agency DST and is co-author of
 Hidden Truth, met O'Neill several times last summer. He
 complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it
 the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked
 attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt.

 The US Ambassador to Yemen, Ms. Barbara Bodine, forbade O'Neill
 and his team of so- called Rambos (as the Yemeni authorities
 called them) from entering Yemen. In August 2001, O'Neill
 resigned in frustration and took up a new job as head of
 security at the World Trade Center. He died in the September
 11th attack.

 Brisard and his co-author Guillaume Dasquié, the Editor of
 Intelligence Online, say their book is a tribute to O'Neill. The
 FBI agent had told Brisard: "All the answers, everything needed
 to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organisation, can be found in
 Saudi Arabia."

 But US diplomats shrank from offending the Saudi royal family.
 O'Neill went to Saudi Arabia after 19 US servicemen died in the
 bombing of a military installation in Dhahran in June 1996.
 Saudi officials interrogated the suspects, declared them guilty
 and executed them - without letting the FBI talk to them. "They
 were reduced to the role of forensic scientists, collecting
 material evidence on the bomb site," Brisard says.

 O'Neill said there was clear evidence in Yemen of bin Laden's
 guilt in the bombing of the USS Cole, in which 17 US servicemen
 died, but that the State Department prevented him from getting
 it.

 Brisard and Dasquié discovered that the first country to issue
 an international arrest warrant against bin Laden was not the
 US, but Moamar Gadafy's Libya, in March 1998. The confidential
 notice, published for the first time in their book, was sent by
 the Libyan interior ministry to Interpol on March 16th, 1998,
 and accuses bin Laden of murdering two German intelligence
 agents, Silvan Becker and his wife, in Libya in 1994.

 Bin Laden supported a fundamentalist group called al-Muqatila,
 made up of Libyans who had fought with him against the Soviets
 in Afghanistan.

 Al-Muqatila wanted to assassinate Gadafy, whom it considered an
 infidel. According to the former MI5 agent David Shayler,
 British intelligence - also in league with al-Muqatila - tried
 to assassinate Gadafy in November 1996.

 It was because of British collaboration with al-Muqatila that
 the Interpol warrant was ignored, Brisard says. Since September
 11th, al-Muqatila has been placed on President Bush's list of
 "terrorist groups".

 The central thesis of Brisard and Dasquié's book is sure to join
 the annals of 21st century conspiracy theories. The writers
 document negotiations between the Bush administration and the
 Taliban between February and August of this year.

 Less convincingly, they conjecture that the September 11th
 suicide attacks were the result of the failure of those
 negotiations.

 The chief motivation behind US attempts to make peace with the
 Taliban can be summed up in one word: oil. The former Soviet
 republics of Central Asia - Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and
 especially "the new Kuwait", Kazakhstan - have vast oil and gas
 reserves. But Russia has refused to allow the US to extract it
 through Russian pipelines and Iran is considered a dangerous
 route. That left Afghanistan.

 The US oil company Chevron - where Mr. Bush's National Security
 Advisor Condoleeza Rice was a director throughout the 1990s - is
 deeply involved in Kazakhstan. In 1995, another US company,
 Unocal (formerly Union Oil Company of California) signed a
 contract to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3
 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through
 Afghanistan to Pakistan.

 The authors recall how the State Department applauded the
 Taliban takeover in September 1996, five months after a US
 assistant secretary of state warned "economic opportunities will
 be missed" if political stability was not restored in
 Afghanistan.

 Laila Helms, the part Afghan niece of the former CIA director
 and former US Ambassador to Tehran Richard Helms, is described
 as the Mata-Hari of US-Taliban negotiations.

 Ms. Helms brought Sayed Rahmatullah Hashimi, an adviser to
 Mullah [Muhammad] Omar, to Washington for five days in March
 2001 - after the Taliban had destroyed the ancient Buddhas of
 Bamiyan. Hashimi met the directorate of Central Intelligence at
 the CIA and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State
 Department.

 In negotiations which continued until July, the US then took a
 more discreet position, letting the UN envoy Francesc Vendrell
 do most of the work and appointing a former US Ambassador to
 Pakistan, Thomas Simons, to represent the US at informal
 meetings in Berlin.

 The last direct US contact with the Taliban was on August 2nd,
 2001, when Christina Rocca, the director of Asian affairs at the
 State Department, met the Taliban Ambassador in Islamabad. Ms.
 Rocca was previously in charge of contacts with Islamist
 guerrilla groups at the CIA, where in the 1980s, she oversaw the
 delivery of Stinger missiles to Afghan mujaheddin.

 Last February, the Taliban had indicated it might be willing to
 hand over bin Laden, but by June, according to Brisard and
 Dasquié, the US began considering military action. "The US
 thought they could 'decouple' Osama bin Laden from the Taliban,"
 Brisard says. "What they did not understand was that without bin
 Laden, the Taliban regime wouldn't have existed."

 By dispatching Francesc Vendrell to see the exiled King Zaher
 Shah in Rome and raising the threat of military action,
 Washington "backed the Taliban into a corner", the authors say.
 For the Taliban - assuming its leadership had advance knowledge
 of the suicide attacks - September 11th was a sort of
 pre-emptive strike.

 Brisard and Dasquié claim a significant part of the Saudi royal
 family supports bin Laden. "Saudi Arabia has always protected
 bin Laden - or protected itself from him," says Brisard. He
 points out that attacks inside the kingdom targeted US
 interests, never the Saudis.

 Khalid bin Mahfouz is the former chairman of the kingdom's
 biggest bank, the National Commercial Bank, who, with 10 family
 members received Irish citizenship in December 1990. Brisard and
 Dasquié call him "the banker of terror".

 The 73-year-old Mahfouz is now under house arrest in the Saudi
 resort of Taif, accused by the FBI and CIA of having diverted $2
 billion to Islamic charities that helped bin Laden.

 [© 2001 ireland.com]

 ==================================================

 INTERNET-WEB LINKS:

 [Book exposes the Bush regime's fraudulent "war on terrorism" --
 Read "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" by Jean-Charles Brisard
 and Guillaume Dasquie]
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InfoTimes/message/1193

 "Thank You Letter To Supporters Of Bush's "War On Terrorism"
 http://www.rense.com/general16/waron.htm

 The Truth About Imperialistic Terrorists
 - http://www.geocities.com/americanterrorism
 - http://www.geocities.com/americanstateterrorism
 - http://www.angelfire.com/dc/americanterrorism
 - http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism
 - http://www.wakefieldcam.freeserve.co.uk/classicquotes.htm

 Free Press Network (FPN)
 http://www.geocities.com/fpninfo

 Human Rights Foundation (HRF)
 http://www.geocities.com/hrfinfo

 Government Reform Committee (GRC)
 http://www.geocities.com/grcinfo

 Common Dreams
 http://www.commondreams.org

 CounterPunch - America's Newsletter
 http://www.counterpunch.org
 CounterPunch: Complete Coverage of 9-11 and
 the War on Afghanistan
 http://www.counterpunch.org/wtcarchive.html

 Anti-War
 http://www.antiwar.com

 ZNet - Z Magazine
 - http://www.zmag.org
 - http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
 - http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm

 Rense
 http://www.rense.com

 International Action Center (IAC)
 http://www.iacenter.org
 Stop War and End Racism
 http://www.internationalanswer.org

 Serendipity Website
 http://serendipity.magnet.ch

 Exposing Big Lies of the Pro-War Propaganda Media
 http://www.11september.20m.com

 Did Israeli Mossad Know?
 http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=480

 Reporters Notebook Bulletin Board
 http://reportersnotebook.com/newforum/indexforum.html

 Islamic News Information Network (ININ)
 http://www.inin.net

 Islamic Association For Palestine (IAP)
 http://www.iap.org

 American Civil Liberties Union
 http://www.aclu.org

 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
 http://www.fair.org

 Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
 http://www.accuracy.org

 The Nation
 http://www.thenation.com

 The Progressive
 http://www.theprogressive.org

 U.S. Map of Human Rights Groups
 http://www.tolerance.org/maps/human_rights/state.jsp?state_id=9

 Fight Hate and Promote Telerance
 http://www.tolerance.org

 Independent Media Center
 http://www.indymedia.org

 Ralph Nader
 http://www.nader.org
 http://www.votenader.com
 http://www.essential.org

 Progressive Review
 http://www.prorev.com

 Working For Change
 http://www.workingforchange.com

 AlterNet
 http://www.alternet.org
 Musharraf Dictatorship Boxed into a Corner
 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11920

 Web Active
 http://www.webactive.com

 Citizen Works
 http://www.citizenworks.org

 Public Citizen
 http://www.publiccitizen.org

 Open Secrets
 http://www.opensecrets.org

 Green Party - USA
 http://www.gpus.org
 http://www.greenpartyus.org
 http://www.gp.org
 http://www.greenparties.org

 Green Pages
 http://www.greenpages.ws/index.php

 ==================================================
 INFORMATION TIMES: http://www.InformationTimes.com
 America's Daily Internet Newspaper - Washington DC, USA
 ==================================================
 InfoTimes Network (ITN) is the Information Times News-Info Service.

 Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. 

 On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job
 was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's
 advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.

 The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically
 intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.

 Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:

      "Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon
      was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's
      event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
      --'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1)

 Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is a lie. 

 Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what
 happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are
 common emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert
 efficiency based on clear rules.

 The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was
 faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air
 safety and defense systems. 

 The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast: 

      " 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
      --'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)

 'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they
 could be next:

      "'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When
      the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center
      is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'"
      --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)

 U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day.
 On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only
 happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

 Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection
 systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately.
 Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted.
 Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that
 they themselves would be arrested. 

 The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been
 contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This
 includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the
 then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers. 

 In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the
 above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they
 had sworn to protect. 

 The summary of evidence covers the following areas:

 * Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'

 * The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;

 * The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and
 constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

 * The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as
 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported
 accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when
 he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and
 demonstrated consciousness of guilt; 

 * The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th.
 Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes.
 But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In
 the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the
 hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically
 by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and
 incriminating. 

 SECTION 1, PART 1: Why did no fighter jets
 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.?

 LIE #1: 'NO COMBAT READY FIGHTERS WERE STATIONED
 NEAR THE PENTAGON'

 As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The media has mainly avoided
 talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in
 America. On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from
 Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:

 FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY: 

      "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the
      Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has
      changed."
      --'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4)

 SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:

      "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force
      Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and
      not deployed."
      --'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)

 Both stories are false.

 Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':

      "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air
      Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard
      is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman
      said.

      "But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the
      Pentagon..."
      --'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6)

 Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

 * the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16
 fighters; 

 * the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A
 (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped with
 F/A-18 fighters.

 These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel. 

 THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING

      "…as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for
      the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also
      assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the
      District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force"
      --DC Military (7)

 THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321)

      "In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two
      combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB. 

      "Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies
      the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A,
      provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "
      --DC Military (7)

 So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons.

 The above quotes are from www.dcmilitary.com, a private Website authorized by the military to provide
 information for members of the armed forces. We discovered it 24 September. A month later we found
 that the address had been changed and the Andrews information posted in the smallest type size.
 Similarly, the official Andrews AFB Website has been 'down' since mid-September. Fortunately, it can
 still be accessed by going to www.archive.org and entering www.andrews.af.mil .

 On the Andrews main page, front and center there is a direct link to DC Military. The information on the
 Andrews Website confirms the information on DC military. We urge everyone to check these links and
 download the pages as soon as possible because they may be moved or removed yet again. For
 Andrews, go to www.archive.org and then enter www.andrews.af.mil 
 [Note: a few days after this Emperor's Clothes article was posted, the www.andrews.af.mil website 
went back up with the  note: "This Page was last modified September 12, 2001." 
The new Andrews website no longer links to the most relevant
 information regarding 9-11. The most relevant web pages "cannot be found." 
Fortunately, they are still available through
 www.archive.org.

 The original addresses (now dead) are: http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/113wing/pa/html/wg_units.html and
 http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm

 The direct links to the archives of these pages are:
 http://web.archive.org/web/20010306223457/http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/113wing/pa/html/wg_units.html
 http://web.archive.org/web/20010408230859/www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm

 We also have a backup copies of the pages at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr.htm
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcandr2.htm  ]

 Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers and TV news departments have
 full-time research staffs. The important media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from
 the Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported the truth: that
 Andrews job was to protect DC?

 This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from
 Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to
 defend D.C.:

 For example: 

      " Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their
      highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from
      Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
      --'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 (8)

 And: 

      "WASHINGTON - …an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large
      black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep
      and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River.
      Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and
      cross-crossed the skies…

      "A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone
      on the train understood what had happened moments before."
      --'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (9) 

 And: 

      "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s
      out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover
      over Washington, DC."
      --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10)

 The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect
 Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. 

 Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily available.(An AWACS is a flying
 communication center equipped with radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full
 distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American Air Flight 77 turned around
 before flying back to DC.) Both General Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did
 not go into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit. 

 Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September:

      "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS,
      radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed
      up in the FAA system that were hijacked."
      --Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 (11)

 And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press':

      "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of
      whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

      "MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?'

      "VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol
      up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker
      support so they could stay up a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16
      September 2001 (12)

 As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or
 not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove
 that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without
 requiring or asking for approval from the White House.

 Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN SECTION I, PART II

 FOOTNOTES:

 (1) 'Newsday' 23 September 2001, "Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses" by Sylvia Adcock, 
Brian  Donovan and Craig Gordon
 Web version at::
 http://www.newsday.com/ny-uspent232380681sep23.story
 Backup at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nd923.htm

 (2) 'Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, Wednesday, NEWS SECTION; Pg. 24: 'THE
 TRAGIC TIMELINE The sad events of the day.'
 the full text is available at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dn912.htm

 (3) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual, Then 'Boom'" By Jim Garamone, 'American
 Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001
 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109132.html
 Backup at
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/def.htm 

 (4) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A, "Military now a presence on home front," by Andrea
 Stone.
 Web version is at:
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm
 Backup at:
 http:/.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa-1.htm

 (5) 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued
 on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, Washington
 Web version is at:
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
 Backup at
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa2.htm

 (6) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001. Homepage at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/ 
Article at:
 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/main/document.html
?QDesc=&FMTS=FT&QVPID=&FrameName=&QCPP=&QIID=000000080620146&FMT=FT
 Backup at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/sd.htm

 (7) Current DC Military weblink is:
 http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html:
 Backup of the November 2001 web page at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmil.htm
 Backup of how the page looked on September 2001 at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmilsep.htm

 (8) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001
 Web article at:
 http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
 Backup article at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/tel16.htm

 (9) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
 To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on:
 http://www.denverpost.com
 Backup article at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dp11.htm

 (10) 'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America," (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 2001, "Tuesday President
 Bush returns to White House on Marine One," Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.
 See transcript at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbc911cover.htm

 (11) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001
 Full transcript at:
  http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm 
 This particular quotation was also reprinted by many mainstream media sources.

 (12) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
 Full transcript at:
 http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
 Backup transcript at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm 

MR. CHENEY'S
 COVER STORY
 Part 1, Section 2 of 'GUILTY FOR 9-11:
 BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS'
 by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
 [Posted 20 November 2001]
 [Updated 21 November 2001]

 Dedicated to the firemen of New York.

 =======================================
 In Part 1, Section 1 we demonstrated that Andrews Air
 Force base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, had
 combat-ready fighter squadrons on September 11th.
 Why didn't jets scramble from Andrews until after the
 Pentagon was hit?
 (To read Part 1, Section 1, go to:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm )

 LIE # 2: PRESIDENTIAL
 AUTHORIZATION WAS
 NEEDED TO SCRAMBLE
 JETS TO INTERCEPT FLIGHT
 77 

 On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney
 was interviewed on NBC TV's 'MEET THE PRESS.' During that
 interview he created the impression that the military would have
 needed presidential authorization to scramble fighter jets to
 intercept American Airlines Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.

 Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. 

 Instead he did two things. First, he avoided discussing the failure
 to intercept Flight 77. Instead he talked only about the choices Mr.
 Bush supposedly made after the Pentagon was hit.

 Second, he took it for granted that presidential approval was
 required to intercept a commercial jet, as if this were an accepted
 fact. Then based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of
 emotional misinformation to confuse the millions of Americans
 who wanted to know: why didn't jet fighters scramble to intercept
 Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon? Doesn't the U.S.
 have radar and an Air Force anymore?

 It is common for officials attempting to cover-up a capital crime to
 put the blame on a subordinate. However Mr. Cheney used a
 different approach on 'MEET THE PRESS.' Relying on his skills
 in public deception, Cheney tried to create the impression that
 nothing improper had occurred, that faced with horrendous
 choices a brave President had done the right thing.

 But as soon as one sees through this verbiage, one realizes Mr.
 Cheney has actually placed the responsibility for the failure to
 intercept American Flight 77 on George W. Bush. 

 Here is the relevant excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS':

      "MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision
      you think he made during the course of the day? 

      "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the
      toughest decision was this question of whether or not
      we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft. 

      "MR. RUSSERT: And you decided? 

      "VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in
      effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city;
      F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar
      system, and tanker support so they could stay up a
      long time...

      "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if
      you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they
      feel it's appropriate. 

      "MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government
      became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r]
      was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we
      would take the plane down? 

      "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the
      decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last
      resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out.
      Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous
      decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full
      of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists,
      headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down,
      obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? 

      "...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president
      made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say,
      "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New
      York."
      --NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1)

 * * * 

 Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here. 

 First he says, "the toughest decision was...whether we would
 intercept incoming commercial aircraft." 

 Later he says, "The president made the decision... that if the
 plane would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized
 to take them out..." that is, "shoot it down." 

 But "intercept": and "shoot it down" do not mean the same thing. 

      "in·ter·cept 

           "in·ter·cept (în´ter-sèpt¹) verb, transitive
           in·ter·cept·ed, in·ter·cept·ing, in·ter·cepts 

           "1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended
           course of"
            --'American Heritage Dictionary'

      "shoot·down 

           "shoot·down (sh¡t¹doun´) noun
 

           "Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire."
           --'American Heritage Dictionary' 

 Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people
 from asking: why weren't any of the hijacked planes intercepted?

 Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or
 intended course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily
 involve violence, there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling
 fighter jets to intercept Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted
 quickly to the morally charged question of whether to shoot down
 "an airplane full of American citizens". By creating this emotional
 link between interception (not necessarily violent) and shooting
 down a commercial jet (very violent), Cheney hoped to create
 sympathy for a President forced to make this "horrendous"
 choice: to intercept or not to intercept. 

 Note that Cheney is speaking only of the period after Flight 77 hit
 the Pentagon. By confusing the issues of "intercepting" vs.
 "shooting down" AFTER the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was trying
 to get his listeners to forget the real issue: that nothing had been
 done BEFORE the Pentagon was hit.

 Mr. Cheney attempted to hide the jump from "intercept" to "shoot
 down" by means of the following connecting sentence: 

      "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if
      you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they
      feel it's appropriate." 

 This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like
 fools. 

 First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the
 Internet can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to
 intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. Sometimes the
 purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has gone off
 course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe
 the situation directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane.
 None of this requires presidential approval. 

 Second, military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear
 "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in
 detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense.
 The instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to
 hijackings. If a problem is serious, high-ranking military officers
 from the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the
 Pentagon can take charge. 

 Let us consider the procedures used in intercepting commercial
 aircraft. 

 An Air Traffic Controller (ATC) may request military jets to
 intercept (or 'escort') a commercial aircraft in response to any
 serious problem which the Air Traffic Controller cannot solve
 through radio contact. Perhaps the most common problem is that
 a commercial jet has deviated from its authorized flight path. 

 Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight
 Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal
 Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.
 (FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (2) 

      "Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight
      plans. These flight plans are intended to provide quick
      routes that take advantage of favorable winds while
      avoiding the routes traveled by other aircraft. The
      usual flight plan is a series of three connected routes:
      a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en
      route path, and a standard instrument arrival (STAR).
      Each route consists of a sequence of geographic
      points, or fixes, which, when connected, form a
      trajectory from the point of departure to the point of
      arrival."
      --'Direct-To Requirements' by G. Dennis & E. Torlak
      (3)

 If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at
 one of its 'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the pilot.
 If the ATC cannot make contact, he or she will request an escort -
 that is, a military jet - to scramble and check out the situation. This
 is called 'interception.'

 As you can see, interception is not necessarily an aggressive act.
 Usually it is requested because routine communication has
 become impossible. 

 For example, when the Lear jet chartered by Payne Stewart, the
 famous golf pro, went off course, and the pilot did not respond by
 radio, the FAA immediately contacted the military:

      "Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets,
      plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the
      Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway
      Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel."
      --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)

 The FAA online manual describes how an escort (i.e., a fighter
 jet) might communicate with a commercial airliner which fails to
 respond to radio contact. The FAA has a chart entitled: 

                   "INTERCEPTING SIGNALS
 "Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted
                          aircraft."

 According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial
 jet is intercepted in daytime, the escort fighter jet may
 communicate by: 

      "...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and
      ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted
      aircraft..." 

 This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The
 commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it
 will comply. 

 The escort then makes a

      "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired
      heading [direction]." 

 The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the
 escort.
 (FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (5)

 When a commercial jet deviates from its approved flight path, it
 creates a potentially deadly hazard: it could collide with another
 jet. It is therefore reassuring that the FAA has an exacting
 standard for what constitutes an emergency: 

      "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when:
      ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio
      communications with any ...aircraft."
      --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)

 And: 

      "EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS 

      "If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an
      emergency or potential emergency, handle it as
      though it were an emergency."
      --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

 A high-ranking FAA official - called an Air Defense Liaison Officer
 (ADLO) - is stationed in the headquarters of NORAD, the North
 American Aerospace Defense Command. The purpose: to help
 the FAA and the military work together to handle emergencies as
 quickly as possible. (8) Escorts are usually scrambled from
 NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod,
 Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia. But not
 always: 

      "Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the
      required action. However, for the purpose of these
      procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any
      military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. "
      --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)

 Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:

      "First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted
      from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet.
      Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up
      the chase, later handing it over to two Air National
      Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to
      two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
      --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (10)

 During a serious emergency, or if there is any possibility that a
 hijacking has occurred: 

      "The escort service will be requested by the FAA
      hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National
      Military Command Center (NMCC)."
      --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)

 A Defense Department manual makes the same point:

      "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified
      by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The
      NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
      responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of
      Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for
      approval."
      --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 (11)

 Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations
 and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For
 example, during the Payne Stewart incident: 

      "...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the
      Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's
      National Military Command Center."
      --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)

 When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt
 more aggressive behavior: 

      "Small Private Plane Ordered to
      Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch 

      "A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity
      of President Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered
      by the military to land Thursday, a sheriff's deputy
      said.... 

      "The Federal Aviation Administration declared that
      the plane was unauthorized and ordered its occupants
      detained, Plemons said. At that point military officials,
      flying in two jets beside the plane, got on the pilot's
      radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land... 

      "The plane landed on a private landing strip near
      State Highway 6, about eight miles from the Bush
      ranch near Crawford.... 

      "In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's
      senior Dispatcher Rodney Mize said a private plane
      was forced down by two military pilots in A-10
      Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one
      above and one below until the private plane's pilot
      landed at Wisener Field near Mineola."
      --'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12)

 The 'Boston Globe' reported that:

      "[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD
      spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept
      aircraft. 

      "When planes are intercepted, they typically are
      handled with a graduated response. The approaching
      fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's
      attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft.
      Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's
      path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a
      missile."
      --'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)

 Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE
 PRESS.' 

 As you will recall, he said:

      "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if
      you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they
      feel it's appropriate." 

 Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept
 pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows
 perfectly well that clear instructions and a whole organizational
 network exist to handle intercept emergencies.

 Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point
 in sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot
 down a commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision
 have to be made in advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an
 airliner has been taken over by a terrorist with a suicide mission,
 how could Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush or anyone else other than God
 Himself possibly predict how the hijacker would respond to an
 intercept by military jets? Even if a hijacker were ready to die for
 the glory of crashing into the Pentagon, does that mean he would
 also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a military pilot's order
 to land? 

 So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77,
 why not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and
 the military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a
 potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker
 to surrender? 

 Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in
 trying this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human
 lives at stake? Isn't that "a point"?

 A DEFENSE THAT BACKFIRES 

 What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that
 only President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot
 down a hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we
 shall see in a later section, this comment, as well as other things
 Mr. Cheney said on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to
 George W. Bush when he goes on trial for treason. 

 Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN
 PART 1, SECTION 3

 FOOTNOTES:

 For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air
 Force base to the Pentagon go to:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/andrewsmap.htm 

 (1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September
 2001.
 Full transcript at:
 http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1
 Backup transcript at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm 

 (2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order
 7400.2E 'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective
 Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7,
 2001), Chapter 14-1-2.
 Full text posted at:
 http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2

 (3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and
 Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory
 Dennis and Emina Torlak at:
 http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm

 (4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing
 Stewart's Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT)
 Full text posted at:
 http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/
 Backup at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/cnnlearjet.htm

 (5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic
 Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,'
 (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4
 "Interception Signals"
 Full text posted at:
 http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

 (6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations"
 Full text posted at:
 http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

 (7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency
 Determinations"
 Full text posted at:
 http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1

 (8) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective
 Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3,
 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5,
 "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)"
 Full text posted at:
 http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

 (9) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective
 Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3,
 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2,
 "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service"
 Full text posted at:
 http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

 (10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in
 S.D.; Golfer, at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey
 Full text posted at:
 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
 Backup at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm

 (11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,'
 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of
 Derelict Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1)
 PDF available at:
 http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
 Backup at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf

 (12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September
 2001, Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in
 vicinity of Bush ranch"
 Full text posted at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bushranch.htm

 (13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third
 Edition Page A1, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter
 Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks" by Glen Johnson.
 Full text posted at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bg915.htm