FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Peter, Craig - Take it down a notch.

You are both passionate about your views, but you both have to be civil to each other. Both of you are moving towards comments which I'll regard as insults requiring a warning.

Address the message, not the messenger.

Thank you.

[Michael Hogan]

Defense Historians Document 9/11 Pentagon Attack

By Samantha L. Quigley

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2007 – Nearly six years after a terrorist-controlled plane slammed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people aboard the plane and in the building, Defense Department historians have published a book on the incident and its aftermath.

“Pentagon 9/11” is a narrative history based on a multitude of information sources, including 1,300 oral histories gathered in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The book became available this week through the U.S. Government Bookstore at

http://bookstore.gpo.gov

and also through commercial vendors.

“It’s the first scholarly study of what happened at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001,” said Randy Papadopoulos, a historian with the Naval Historical Center, who co-authored the book. “The 9/11 Commission Report, very rigorously researched, doesn’t really talk about the Pentagon very much and what happened here.”

Thanks to intensive interviewing in the aftermath of the attack conducted by personnel in Defense Department history offices, Papadopoulos said historians know more about what happened during the Pentagon attack than they do about what happened at the World Trade Center....

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47355

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0160783283/1n9867a-20

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

If the recollections are honest and accurate, would you consider that the incident at the Pentagon was a terrorist act?

[Charles Drago]

Peter,

If the recollections are honest and accurate, would you consider that the incident at the Pentagon was a terrorist act?

Evan,

Please know that I am NOT answering for Peter.

I appreciate your question for its subtext, which I humbly suggest leads directly to the rim of the chasm that separates your mindset from my own (which is quite similar to Peter's point of view, by the way).

Of course the "incident" at the Pentagon was an act of terrorism.

Our separation arises from the fact that you seem to be emotionally incapable of merely considering the possibility that players in the American political structure -- deep and otherwise -- are terrorists.

Do not read this as an ad hominem, but only as my sincere effort to get to the essence of this disagreement.

Charles

Edited November 6, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

If the recollections are honest and accurate, would you consider that the incident at the Pentagon was a terrorist act?

Evan,

Please know that I am NOT answering for Peter.

I appreciate your question for its subtext, which I humbly suggest leads directly to the rim of the chasm that separates your mindset from my own (which is quite similar to Peter's point of few, by the way).

Of course the "incident" at the Pentagon was an act of terrorism.

Our separation arises from the fact that you seem to be emotionally incapable of merely considering the possibility that players in the American political structure -- deep and otherwise -- are terrorists.

Do not read this as an ad hominem, but only as my sincere effort to get to the essence of this disagreement.

Charles

Charles,

Well pointed out, and no I don't consider it an ad hom. I didn't define what a terrorist was, so we could both agree to the statement while disagreeing with one another over the whole matter!

My revised question would be: if accurate, would you consider that it was an American Airlines 757 that was flown into the Pentagon? I can't really remember what your position on this was. IIRC, you may believe that it was an A-3 or a Global Hawk or some type of missile.

[Charles Drago]

Hi Evan,

It seems to me that the honesty and accuracy of the proffered recollections, important issues to be sure, are just barely beside the main point.

The sponsors of the publication repeatedly have been revealed to be, beyond refutation, serial liars. Or, if you prefer, propagandists of the highest and vilest order. Accordingly, we are obliged, as thoughtful and honorable men, to subject their every utterance to the most intense and sophisticated scrutiny of which we are capable.

They are guilty until proven innocent.

We must bring to bear everything we have learned in our studies of deep political phenomena as we analyze not only what they present, but what they choose NOT to present.

Since I have seen no credible evidence to support the contention that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon on 9/11/01 -- and my access to publicly available evidence has been and continues to be reasonable indeed -- the new book by definition would have to contain previously unreleased material supportive of the USG's conspiracy theory if I am to be persuaded.

Which brings us back to your rephrased question. A regurgitation of previously shared recollections that tend to buttress the official line would be unconvincing by definition.

I do not know what caused the wound to the Pentagon. I am all but convinced that it was not a 757.

In other words, I cannot take the publication's sponsors at their word if such is their claim.

Charles

[Matthew Lewis]

the larger questions are HOW the anti-aircraft batteries on the roof and around the building did not fire [not even ADDRESSED by USG or 9/11 REPORT] I presume whoever/whatever had the 'I'm friendly code' - which is also a clue to an inside job.

Is there any proof that anti-aircraft batteries even exist at the Pentagon? The airspace above it is not and has not been restricted as the building is in the direct landing path of a major airport. I've yet to see any photos showing these batteries, even though thousands of tourists fly over the building every single day. You imply that one must have a "friendly" code to avoid getting shot at. Assuming you mean a working transponder, what about a civilian plan that is landing with a broken transponder or electrical problems?

[Len Colby]

Don’t you get it by now Mathew? Facts and reality aren’t important; Peter’s fantasy world is all that matters. Griffen said so it must be true.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75728

[Charles Drago]

Don’t you get it by now Mathew? Facts and reality aren’t important; Peter’s fantasy world is all that matters. Griffen said so it must be true.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75728

Don't you get it by now, everyone. Facts and reality aren't important; Colby's fantasy world is all that matters. His terrorist heroes/masters said so, so it must be true.

[Matthew Lewis]

Don’t you get it by now Mathew? Facts and reality aren’t important; Peter’s fantasy world is all that matters. Griffen said so it must be true.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75728

Thank you Len. As I suspected, the claim that the plane should have been shot down by missile or anti-aircraft batteries is yet another claim made up without any evidence to support it and repeated verbatim around the internet with nobody bothering to check the facts.

[Evan Burton]

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of matters on this forum. It doesn't mean I'm always right, or always wrong, or that the people who disagree with me are deliberately trying to deceive... or that I am guilty of the same charge.

We generally come to opinion based on experience, education, and research. Changing that opinion can be difficult - or unnecessary. What I have learnt to do is not try to convince your opponent they are wrong, but lay out the facts as you believe them to be... and to try to convince the lurkers that whatever opinion you hold is the more logical one.

And so I'll begin....

I totally agree with Matthew about the "anti-aircraft batteries" at the Pentagon. I have never seen any evidence of any such systems there. At certain times there may have been what we call MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems - that is, shoulder-launched missiles) but they do not have the ability to discriminate between targets using IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe). They generally use an IR source and home in on it. To me, such a claim is simply make a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. I might claim there is a secret underground airfield beneath my locale McDonalds... but I have no evidence for it at all.

I can understand your mistrust, but we have a pretty significant amount of witnesses who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. Some military, but generally a large amount of people who just happen to be there during their normal activities.

This is not a small number of people who may have been coerced by government agencies, but a large number of people who reported what they saw almost immediately after it happened.

There is the Flight Data Recorder from the aircraft.

There is the aircraft debris around the Pentagon.

There is the damage to the building which is consistent with a large aircraft and not anomalous as some people claim, plus the remains of persons aboard the aircraft.

And much more. And I say this as someone who does have a reasonable amount of aviation experience.

I've have consistently maintained that although I do not believe it to be the case, it is possible that a group of persons unknown arranged for the 757 aircraft to be hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That is consistent with the known facts.

[Evan Burton]

Add to anti-aircraft missles interceptor jets.

Mixing up a few terms there, aren't we Peter?

Anti-aircraft Missile/s

Interceptor Jet/s

Two different things there, sport.

[Evan Burton]

Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001 there were 129 fighter scambles in under ten minutes and 67 fighter interceptions of civilian aircraft...

Could you post details of where I can confirm this? This is not the case to my knowledge but I am willing to be corrected on the matter.

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

Your posts are being slightly truncated by whatever system you are using. It's only normally only the first letter or two, but you should be aware of it.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of matters on this forum. It doesn't mean I'm always right, or always wrong, or that the people who disagree with me are deliberately trying to deceive... or that I am guilty of the same charge.

We generally come to opinion based on experience, education, and research. Changing that opinion can be difficult - or unnecessary. What I have learnt to do is not try to convince your opponent they are wrong, but lay out the facts as you believe them to be... and to try to convince the lurkers that whatever opinion you hold is the more logical one.

And so I'll begin....

I totally agree with Matthew about the "anti-aircraft batteries" at the Pentagon. I have never seen any evidence of any such systems there. At certain times there may have been what we call MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems - that is, shoulder-launched missiles) but they do not have the ability to discriminate between targets using IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe). They generally use an IR source and home in on it. To me, such a claim is simply make a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. I might claim there is a secret underground airfield beneath my locale McDonalds... but I have no evidence for it at all.

I can understand your mistrust, but we have a pretty significant amount of witnesses who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. Some military, but generally a large amount of people who just happen to be there during their normal activities.

This is not a small number of people who may have been coerced by government agencies, but a large number of people who reported what they saw almost immediately after it happened.

There is the Flight Data Recorder from the aircraft.

There is the aircraft debris around the Pentagon.

There is the damage to the building which is consistent with a large aircraft and not anomalous as some people claim, plus the remains of persons aboard the aircraft.

And much more. And I say this as someone who does have a reasonable amount of aviation experience.

I've have consistently maintained that although I do not believe it to be the case, it is possible that a group of persons unknown arranged for the 757 aircraft to be hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That is consistent with the known facts.

Evan, My position is that 911 was an arrangement of some sort. Call it a new Pearl Harbour. As you quite rightly say, you and others view this position with distrust and tend towards favouring the "terrorists done it" storyline. And each of us tends towards harbouring and promulgating our own (now) instinctive views.

But sifting some of the more minor evidence post 911 is proving most difficult for someone not particularly intersted in the minutiae (me) of the event itself. I've taken a peek at the Pentagon anti aircraft batteries story and opinions are very divided about it. In the scheme of things it should be relatively simple to solve the puzzle and get to the truth. It's a small fact in and of itself.

Were there anti aircraft defences deployed at the Pentagon or not? Ordinarily, I would phone up the Pentagon and simply ask. Ordinarily. Sure, the Pentagon has said that it didn't have any "anti aircraft batteries" (I believe this is the exact term they used but am open to being corrected here) and all this proves, for those of us are cynically minded, is that there could have been, anti-aircraft missiles (not batteries mind), and even a free traversing Phalanx CIWS that is, as you know, specially adapted for closer in anti aircraft "work".

But who in a position of authority can we really trust these days? Everything has been politicised and we're left sorting through the ashes of what may well be purposeful disinformation - and getting clogged down in that rather, than focusing efforts on more important issues.

Me, I'm still scratching my head over the now mostly forgotten story of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the highly classified Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) operation “Able Danger” that identified Mohammed Atta and three other terrorists as Al Queda operatives a year before 911 took place. Col. Shaffer further stated that when he informed the FBI of what he had learned about Atta and urged that he be arrested, Pentagon lawyers intervened “and protected Atta for reasons that remain unclear”.

See: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...p;articleId=867

And: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/02/lt-c...-testimony.html [Note the "blackouts" in Colonel Shelton's testimony about his confidence in ABLE DANGER liklihood of preventing 911...

The fact that a long serving, decorated officer with an impeccable record thereafter had his reputation trashed by his employers strikes me as being quite revealing.

The data ABLE DANGER collected was, thereafter, destroyed.

Any opportunity that might have allowed Col. Schaffer to further testify was scuppered by Donald Rumsfeld who "insisted that the Able Danger program is classified and information about it cannot be publicly disclosed"

See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005...ys-pentagon.php

And: http://qtmonster.typepad.com/qt_monsters_p...er_sources.html

Col. Shaffer is a CIA trained senior intelligence operations officer with over 22 years work in the intelligence community. He was a director of a DIA Task Force and was a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal.

Of course, one may ignore his experience, disregard all his achievements and mistrust his testimony and prefer, instead, to accept without question the report published by the Defense Department’s Inspector General that Col Shaffer’s “claims are without merit”. See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200609270011

That's the politicised world of the Pentagon for you.

Nice.

David

PS, my apologies for shifting the emphasis of this thread slightly away from the Pentagon air defences...but at least we're still focused on the Pentagon, ain't we.