Make your own free website on Tripod.com
This Is Not A Conspiracy Theory
911 Commission
Home
Paul Craig Roberts: Real-time live-feed didn't happen
Mike Rogers: Conspiracy Theorists Same No OBL Photo Released GWB had something to do with 9/11
Paul Craig Roberts: Osama bin Ladens Useful Death
Paul Craig Roberts: Osama Bin Laden Second Death
Classified Document Obscured in Real-Time bin Laden Kill Watch Photo
28 October 2011
A Scanner Darkly
Details
Clinton Culpable
The Order
Analysis The Shoot-Down Order
Fiction Scenarios
Nothing... would have changed the course of history
Alive 9/11 hijackers and BBC News
Poll Find
Video
North American Union
9/11 Bush not really the President
End of Serenity Photo
TWA Flight 800
Find Truth
Sites Skewed Time
Hoax No Planes
Bill Clinton
A republic, if you can keep it
Bush History
Why No Footage
George W. Bush Mock War Crimes Trial
Documentaries
Flights and Passengers
Balance: Questioning Conspiracy Theories
Net the Truth Online (after 9/11)
WTC identifications
Visas and IDs
911 Commission
Net Truth
Beware wrong time
only known footage 1st plane hit
Will 9/11 commission ask
In & Out of Focus
Timeline Off
Who did what when
Timetable G.W. Bush 911
This is Not A Conspiracy Theory
Common Sense
Shuttle Lost
Bush Morning
Bush at School
Bush: Dawdler in Chief
Bush Pilot Error
Bush Remains in Second Grade Classroom
Bush in Second Grade Classroom
Contact Us
Resources
Research Links Bush Reading
Bush Early Timetable

Nobody asked what was discussed between Rice and Bush on 9-11 morning hours approximate time after 1st plane hit and before 2nd plane hit!

Another fact is confirmed from sources:  Bush talked to Condoleeza Rice on the telephone in the school building.  The telephone had been secured by Secret Service agents hours prior to the president's appearance.  The telephone was located in a room close to the second grade classroom where President Bush was to listen to children practice reading.
 
Check it out for yourselves in FIGHTING BACK, author tags Bush as Dawdler-in-Chief for remaining sitting amidst second graders after Bush learns from Card that second plane had hit World Trade Towers and says, "America is under attack."
 
So if Bush knew planes could be hijacked - August 6, 2001 memo
 
If Bush discussed with Rice on the morning of September 11, 2001 after the first plane crash, that one plane or more had been hijacked, then why on earth, when learning of the second plane crash, didn't George W. Bush arise out of his seat and excuse himself from the children?  He didn't have to jump up all excited.  He didn't have to tell anybody why he had to leave. 
 
He could have gone into the next room, adjacent to the second grade classroom, and made some phone calls to find out what was happening to his country and his people.

In the documentary History Channel WTC Rise and Fall of an American Icon, 9/11 Commissioner Kean makes the statement concerning transponders were turned off, when a transponder is off, you lose radar.
 
Further on in the documentary, during description of the hijacking of Flight 11, the speaker says the transponder was turned off, but the center was still able to track the flight because of radar.

Pre-9/11 FBI Missteps Detailed.except _for_ the_ redactions Jun 10, 05
 
What is wrong with the the Dan Eggen (Washington Post) Friday, June 10, 2005 report both in content and title?  "Pre-9/11 FBI Missteps Detailed"
 
Neither the title or the content tell us that over a hundred pages were inked out, redacted, by the government, and thus the government report released to the media and public cannot possibly be detailed.

So it is up to bloggers across the United States of America to set the record straight.

Fox News this morning noted the redactions! 

An earlier report of interest:  http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p01s01-uspo.html


Connected Coast to Coast with Ron Reagon and Monica Crowly hosts is featuring a segment on the discussion of the "details" of the government's report, and the reports on the report.  Transcript details on the msnbc site.

While others are talking about what the publicly released document reveals, citizens such as myself are wondering what is being hidden from the public, and why?

On a related situation developing today the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is not up for "renewal," only 17 provisions in the Patriot Act are up for reauthorization.

Congress alone has the power to stop this Orwellian legislation and repeal the Patriot Act.  But Congress is made up unfortunately for citizens of the United States of a bunch of weak-willed kingfish.

We citizens are told, you have nothing to worry about;  we are not after you, we are not after you, little lady, or you law-abiding citizen.  We are after the "terrorists."

The supporters of the Patriot Act want us to believe that the the FBI and CIA didn't communicate prior to September 11, 2001 on intelligence sharing.  They want us to believe that the agencies were legally denied the option of the sharing of intelligence, by some archaic ill-fitting law.

Mr. Gonzales was interviewed on Fox News this morning.  Watch throughout the day for clips of his interview.  Maybe it will sink in - we are not after you. 

We just want these agencies to be able to share their intelligence.  That's all.  The number one provision Gonzales thinks should be reauthorized in the Patriot Act is you guessed it - law that allows FBI and CIA and (by implication) other agencies to share intelligence.

Mr. Bill Gavin was interviewed on Fox News.  Very doubtful there will be numerous clips shown throughout the day in my opinion because if Mr. Gavin makes a certain specific statement again, there may be somebody who will email the hosts with the correct information and Mr. Gavin will look ill-informed.  Bill Gavin, by the way, was former assistant director of the FBI, now founder of the Gavin Group. 

Mr. Gavin during the interview said that prior to September 11, 2001, the FBI and the CIA and (implication) other agencies were prevented from sharing intelligence, by law.

That's right.  That is what Mr. Gavin said.

But the September 11 Commission, repeatedly during the course of its public hearings, said nothing prevented the agencies from sharing intelligence.  No law existed that prevented intelligence sharing among agencies.  http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

So, where is the Commission now to set the record straight, to prevent misinformation but being spread around as fact?

They are only interested in forming a private group to weild some sort of power to urge Congress to implement each and every one of their recommendations.
 
The group didn't even ask the President when he was informed the morning of September 11, 2001 that one or more airplanes had been hijacked.  Was he informed before approximately 9:07 a.m. when Andrew Card whispered in his ear as Bush was seated in a second grade classroom (listening to second graders read) that a second plane had hit the WTC and America was under attack?  Or was President Bush informed that plane/s were hijacked after he left the second grade classroom at approximately 9:13 a.m. to go to an adjacent classroom?  The empty adjacent classroom had been secured by the FBI Secret Service with a secure phone line, according to Bill Sammon in his book, FIGHTING BACK.  The Commission didn't bother to ask President George W. Bush what was duscussed in his Presidential Daily Briefing that morning.




911 investigation Apr 05, 04 Reports and news and citizen watch focus

Condoleeza Rice will testify before US and the 911 Commission on Thursday this week at 9 a.m. ET for 2 and one-half hours.

Washington Times reportedly did story consisting of 15 or so questions that should be asked of Rice.

Recall, 9/11 Family Steering Committee compiled dozens of questions long before the appearance of Richard Clarke before the Commission.

One member of the FSC had been making numerous appearances on talk shows - find transcripts for Chris Matthews Hardball - MSNBC

CNN Sunday Late Edition for April 4, 04 informative and provocative program with Wolfe Blitzer asking a few dynamite questions... get transcript.

Same day 4/4/04 Meet the Press get it now... excellent

ABC This Week 4/4/04  One guest made statement it was illegal for FBI and CIA to "talk to each other" prior to 9/11.  Find the facts.

Rice to testify Mar 31, 04
Many commentators are saying the reason President Bush ok'd Rice to testify under oath and in public before the 9/11 Commission is because of pressure, mostly from Republican Party people.  I think overall that is the case.  We can all scream all we want, the public, no matter what our party affiliation, even if we're of the same party, but these public servants don't do anything until it looks like they don't have the support of high-placed people.  That's on both party sides.  At least the Commission itself unanimously agreed that Rice should testify under oath and in public.


The TODAY SHOW program reportedly had an interview with 9/11 family members this morning.  Get that transcript.

CNN TRANSCRIPTS

MSNBC

Fox News unfortunately doesn't have transcripts online.  Their loss, can't cite what we can't document.

C-Span had an interview with Hoefstra. 

During a few of the segments on these programs, hosts were asking Commission members what kind of questions would they ask.

Nobody said, since they don't want the testifier to have advance knowledge of questions, duh.

Last evening, every news outfit broke the news.  I heard it first on CNN, Chris Matthews broke in on I think the 360 program.  Get transcript.  Then I switched to MSNBC, heard it there, then Fox News.

E-MAIL TO CNN American Morning:

CNN AM QUESTION SHOULD RICE TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND IN PUBLIC

Answer 9/11 Commission 350 times = John Fudging Kerry tax hike votes

Rice should answer as many questions in public and under oath as many times as presidential candidate John (Fudging) Kerry voted to raise taxes during his Senate term.

Rice must settle the disparities between these 3 items:

her public comments as published in her March 22, 2004 editorial in the Washington Post  (9/11: For The Record By Condoleezza Rice Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21).

her public comments "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002"

her retraction of May 16, 2002 public statement during her private meeting with the 9/11 Commission in 2004.

Before the 9/11 Commission in private session, Rice claims she "misspoke."  Yet, in her Washington Post commentary, Rice dismisses charges that she was aware airplanes could be used as missiles, writing, "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles..."

Which is it?

Rice would not be testifying before Congress.  The 9/11 Commission was created by Congress, and the legislation creating it was signed by President George W. Bush.  The panel is Independent of both the White House and Congress, and in fact (check them again) has independent subpoena power.

Rice would be testifying before the Independent 9/11 Commission, before the public, before us.

Resources:

1.  Washington Post  9/11: For The Record By Condoleezza Rice Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21

Excerpt
.."Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.

Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."

End excerpt.

A dozen questions could be asked about those 3 paragraphs alone.

2.  The Washington Post reports of the disclosure by Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste last week ... "that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that 'I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.' Rice told the commission that she misspoke..."

3.  9/11 Family Steering Committee Forwarded Questions for National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to answer.  The Family Steering Committee(FSC) firmly insists that Ms. Rice testify under oath, and at some point testify in public with regard to her role as National Security Advisor for the Bush Administration.

Among the questions posed:  Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence Community provide the NSC with any information regarding the possibility that al-Qaida members would use airplanes as weapons or hijack airplanes in the United States? What did the NSC do in response to this information?"

4.  "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

FOR READERS OF THIS BLOG Many more resources went into the crafting of the above e-mail.  I searched using Google for information about Rice's public statement "I don't think anybody could have predicted that..." still attempting to find primary source (May 2002 press conference) where and when Rice made the comment.  A CNN Transcript for May 16, 2002 has a videoclip transcript which include some of Rice's statements, however, that exact quote isn't apparently made therein.

The following are the most recent results:

Much thanks to the documented post at this public!! Message Board by poster

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004) http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/cgi-bin/mt_2004/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=541 includes many well-written posts - keep it up, we value the documentation.  One poster gives this credit ... The Center for American Progress has compiled an excellent list of Rice's contradicted claims. Here are some excerpts:

* RICE CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
* FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]  Posted by MattB at March 27, 2004 09:47 AM

Similarly, much thanks to the documented post at this public!! Message Board So Condi's at bat?
Posted By Squinty Vernier on 3/28/2004 at 1:15 PM

http://www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=355344&ThreadID=35121&IsResponse=True

Finally, much thanks to the documented post at this public!! Message Board by the poster

Posted by: arcadia at March 26, 2004 08:11 PM

March 26, 2004 World Magazine Blog  http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/002403.html

Washington Post
9/11: For The Record By Condoleezza Rice Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13881-2004Mar21


More follow-up to search for specific statement by Rice...



Unfortunate that partisanship enters into many of these message board discussions, the following LeftCoaster at least does point to resources used to support contentions made.  9/11 and the Evolution of Lies  Posted by CA Pol Junkie  Monday :: Jul 14, 2003  http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000420.html


We know from where the Dubya Report is coming, but I have to say, this is very well-documented.  Keep it up, please - gives credibility to your opinions!  What a Difference a Day Makes  Updated June 20, 2002 http://www.thedubyareport.com/terrorisanship.html

Thank you so much, details, quotations, with links ...13 DAYS, 13 DECEPTIONS: DAY 2, LIE 2 "NO WARNINGS ABOUT 'PLANES AS MISSILES'" by John Buchanan  January 16 http://thomasmc.com/0116jb.htm don't miss out

More...

NEWSWEEK

May 20, 2002 issue

The FBI has insisted it had no advance warning about the 9-11 attacks. But internal documents suggest there were more concerns inside the bureau's field offices than Washington has acknowledged.

One FBI memo, written by a Phoenix agent in July 2001, warned about suspicious activities by Middle Eastern men at an Arizona flight school. Last week, in little-noticed testimony before a Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller referred to another internal document that may prove more explosive: notes by a Minneapolis agent worrying that French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui might be planning to "fly something into the World Trade Center."...

thanks for the reference Unheeded Warnings 

 http://www.drugwar.com/punheeded911.shtm will check out

Go Public or Go Home Mar 29, 04 Reposted

Condi should GO PUBLIC OR GO HOME.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

Rice is backing off her public statement, claiming she "misspoke."

The entire reason for the 9/11 Commission is to find "truth."

Rice misspoke, she claims, in private.

Tell us that publicly.  She can't testify, there is a long-standing principle that sitting National Security Advisors do not testify before Congress.

A principle?  We as a nation have asked our youth to die for not only a principle, but for each of us, for our freedoms to remain, our rights to remain, inseparable from us.  We've asked our youth to die in Afghanistan, in retaliation for the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Nobody is asking Rice to die for a principle or for us.  The Commission is requesting, on the behalf of the public, for Rice to testify in public before them... before us.

The 9/11 Commission was created to be an Independent Commission.  Technically, Rice would not be testifying before "Congress."

FoxNews keeps repeating that there is no precedence for Rice to testify in public. Let's hold you accountable.  Have you listened to any of the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission?

One member, Richard Ben-Veniste said there was precedence - he was quite adamant during the appearance of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage.  Discussion publicly ongoing suggests President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, did.  The Commission unanimously wants Rice to testify in public.  September 11 families want her to do so.

There should be no compromise on those requests.

Rice is a public servant - to us.

Resources:

9/11 Family Steering Committee Forwarded Questions for National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to answer.  The Family Steering Committee(FSC) firmly insists that Ms. Rice testify under oath, and at some point testify in public with regard to her role as National Security Advisor for the Bush Administration.

Among the questions posed:  Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence Community provide the NSC with any information regarding the possibility that al-Qaida members would use airplanes as weapons or hijack airplanes in the United States? What did the NSC do in response to this information?

More reason for Rice to publicly testify is the following:  According to Washington Post "Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that 'I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.' Rice told the commission that she misspoke..."

council foreign relations conspiracy

http://www.google.com/search?q=council+foreign+relations+conspiracy&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

council foreign relations conspiracy john birch society

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=council+foreign+relations+conspiracy+john+birch+society&btnG=Search

Group Watch Profile

Council on Foreign Relations

sandra day o'connor council foreign relations
 

http://citizenmom.com