Kyle F. Hence (Press For Truth) & 911 Widows Open Letter To 911 Cmssrs. Re: Shenon Book

[althecat]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0802/S00047.htm


With Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
www.unansweredquestions.org .

********************

*OPEN LETTER with attached Comment
from September 11th Advocates (aka "9/11 widows")*

Kyle F. Hence
Dear 9/11 Commissioners:

Tomorrow Philip Shenon's book, "The Commission" will be released. I forward the Comment just released by September 11th Advocates (the leading 9/11 family members behind the Commission) along with a comment of my own here:

Some of you have yourselves said the 9/11 Report is "not the last word" on what happened. This is no doubt true. Horribly and tragically true. The next question is of course: what are we (or you) going to do about that? Will you address where you fell short or seek to rectify the situation? For starters, the record now shows that a few of you (you know who you are) were responsible for leaving out details of the Tenet/Black meeting with Rice/Clark on July 10 '01 and another with Ashcroft on the 18th. And the Commission left out details of the Global Guardian 'air-war exercises (normally scheduled for October but moved to Sept), Able Danger ID of four of the future hijackers (per 5 credible witnesses), and the revelations of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds - www.justacitizen.com/, several of whose allegations had been confirmed by the likes of senior Senators (and others have confirmed more recent claims). And now, thanks to the CIA and FBI IG Reports we know a whole lot more about the extent, nature and timing of the CIA's withholding of key information about Hazmi and Mihdhar from FBI investigators on the trail of those tied to the Cole and Embassy bombings. (I could go on and on and not posit a single theory or speculate).

I am willing to concede you were dedicated and labored hard on a difficult task but I am certainly not willing to let you all off the hook for hiring or not firing Philip Zelikow, for avoiding the anthrax attack, for producing an obviously compromised and incomplete report, for not naming names, for not issuing needed subpoenas, for ignoring important witnesses, for giving too much credence to tortured co-conspirators, for concluding that the question of who funded the attacks is of 'little practical significance, "for softening the report to protect the Bush administration, for the embargo on Commissioner comment until after the election, for overlooking the missing trillions from the DoD."

In the long run history will no doubt be harsh on your record but less so, or quite the reverse, if you come forward with candid admission of where you fell down and if you stand up now, or when the time comes, to support a new investigation. For God's sake, admit that Philip Zelikow for all his seeming intelligence, dedication and hard work had no business running the Commission, if not for appearance's sake alone.

Many years after the Warren Commission issued its own final report, the Permanent Select Committee on Assassinations concluded there was a wider conspiracy behind the killing of JFK. Let's hope it we don't have to wait as long for a new investigation of 9/11 and let's hope we don't get yet another unsatisfactory and incomplete finding should one be convened. No doubt the families will not make the same mistake twice and this time insist on a formal role in an investigation. In case after case without the benefit of classified material or 'access', the 9/11 families put the government's own investigators to shame. With your honest help let's hope the future writes a different story; for the sake of all of us and our children.

Please join the now millions of people around the world who have honestly and thoroughly examined the findings of fact and circumstances laid out in your Report and found them deceptive, or incomplete, and call for a new investigation that reveals the truth, that follows all the evidence trails, wherever they might lead.

Regards,
Kyle F. Hence
Executive Producer
www.911pressfortruth.com

******** STATEMENT FULL TEXT *********

For Immediate Release February 4, 2008

*September 11th Advocates Comment on the Impending Release of Philip Shenons Book

The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation February 4, 2008

Philip Shenons new book, "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11Investigation, serves to justify our suspicions and the concerns of the Family Steering Committee, that we attempted to publicly air during the course of the 9/11 Commissions tenure.

One of the most egregious revelations put forth by Mr. Shenon is the fact that Philip Zelikow was hired as the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, despite his direct ties to the Bush Administration. In 2000-2001 he served as a member of Condoleezza Rices National Security Council (NSC) transition team, where he was allegedly the architect of the decision to demote Richard Clarke and his counter terrorism team within the NSC. Furthermore he was a member of the Presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) from 2001-2003, where* *Zelikow drafted most of the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, creating the pre-emptive Iraq war strategy. These areas were within the scope of the Commissions mandate and as such were of critical importance to determine what, if any, impact they had on the governments ability to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

As the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow was given the responsibility for choosing the entire direction of the Commissions investigation. Essentially, Mr. Zelikow determined who was or was not interviewed as a witness, and which information was or was not looked at. He also influenced which documents would be requested from the various agencies. It seemed to us, that allowing an individual with this much involvement in the Bush administration to run the investigation, might give the appearance of impropriety and could ultimately taint the Commissions findings.

In a statement issued by the Family Steering Committee of March 20, 2004 we wrote:

"It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow should never have been permitted to be Executive Staff Director of the Commission. As Executive Staff Director, his job has been to steer the direction of the Commissions investigation, an investigation whose mandate includes understanding why the Bush Administration failed to prioritize the Al Qaeda threat. "

In the same statement we also called for:

"Zelikows immediate resignation; Zelikows testimony in public and under oath; and the subpoena of Zelikow's notes from the intelligence briefings he attended with Richard Clarke. "

Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton instead chose to have Mr. Zelikow recuse himself from the areas of the investigation that dealt with the transition period. However, they allowed Mr. Zelikow to be one of only two people (Ms. Gorelick was the other) to review the Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs), reports that went to the heart of what the White House and its National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, knew prior to 9/11. While investigating the events that led up to the September 11th attacks, Philip Zelikow was called as a witness by the 9/11 Commission though transcripts of his testimony were never made public.

Despite our vehement objections, Mr. Zelikow was allowed to remain in his position as what seemed to be the gatekeeper of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Shenons book illustrates just how deeply and insidiously the Commission's basic fact-finding work was compromised by Zelikows conflicts. He recounts that even after his recusal, Mr. Zelikow continued to insert himself into the work of "Team 3," of the Commission. This team was responsible for examining the White House, and therefore, the conduct of Condoleeza Rice and Richard Clarke during the months prior to 9/11.

According to the author, Team 3 staffers would come to believe that Mr. Zelikow prevented them from submitting a report that would have depicted Ms. Rice's performance as "amount to incompetence, or something not far from it."

Evidence of the possible duplicitous nature of Mr. Zelikows role on the 9/11 Commission was further exemplified by his numerous conversations with Karl Rove, President Bushs Senior Political Advisor. When questioned about his contact with Rove, Zelikows response was to tell his secretary to stop logging his calls.

Contrary to former Commissioner John Lehmans recent comment on MSNBC that Zelikows conversations with Rove are a red herring, these contacts with Rove should have been /a red flag/. Negotiating for or procuring of White House documents for the Commission should have been done through the Office of White House Counsel NOT the Presidents political advisor. Consequently, knowing how this would appear, one must ask why Zelikow was speaking with Rove?

It is abundantly clear that Philip Zelikow should have immediately been replaced when the first rumblings of his impropriety and conflicts of interest surfaced. When all of this information became clear, the Commissioners and the press should have called for Zelikows resignation. We did. Shamefully, most were silent.

Further evidence of political maneuvering came to light in the story of Commissioner Max Cleland. Cleland was publicly critical of the Commission and the Bush White House. According to Shenons book, when it became obvious that Max Cleland would continue to be loudly critical, Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton sought the help of Senator Tom Daschle to find Cleland a new job. Thus, Max Cleland was quietly removed and silenced with a new job in the Bush Administration.

Also revealed in Shenons book is the fact that the Commissions staff never ventured to the National Security Agency (NSA), the chief collector of intelligence information, in order to review their voluminous treasure trove of documents. At NSA Headquarters, 27 miles from the Commissions offices, there was a gold mine of information detailing terrorists threats and connections, including those of al Qaeda. General Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA at the time, was eager to cooperate and share what his organization had with the 9/11 Commission, but Executive Director Zelikow was not interested.

A lone staffer, who understood the importance of these archives, had the information moved to a reading room within walking distance of the Commissions offices. Even then, she was the only member of the Commission to take the time to read these documents. By her own admission, this insightful staffer had concerns as to how much she, on her own, would be able to glean from these jargon filled documents. Why didnt Phil Zelikow make reviewing these vital NSA documents a Commission priority? It seems clear that not every fact and lead was followed in this investigation compromising the validity of the Commissions final report and its findings.

Moreover, the Pre-9/11 story largely revolved around second and third hand knowledge of interrogations of tortured individuals, detainees that were being held in secret locations.

According to many sources at the CIA and deep within the government, confessions extracted from individuals who are tortured are generally deemed useless. A tortured detainee will say anything in order to make the torture stop and therefore, the confession cannot be trusted. One needs to look no further than the Army Field Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52), which states in Chapter 1:

""Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." "

How could the Commission have based their entire pre-9/11 narrative on these unreliable, torture-induced confessions?

We believe that author Phil Shenon has revealed information which only scratches the surface as to what went on behind the scenes of this investigation.

Why, when this Congressionally mandated Commission could have done much to fix the fatal flaws in our in government by conducting a real investigation and making vital recommendations, would they instead allow it to become a sham. This investigation was meant to fix the loopholes that allowed our Country to be so vulnerable. Why would they choose instead, to succumb to political machinations? What would we find out if a real investigation into September 11, 2001 were ever done?

The bottom line is that the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor remains dangerously unexamined. This can only be remedied with an investigation guided by the facts and conducted outside the reach of those with a vested interest in suppressing the truth.

*Patty Casazza*
*Monica Gabrielle *
*Mindy Kleinberg *
*Lorie Van Auken *

******** STATEMENT ENDS *********

********************

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

[autorank]

1. I urge all of you to get "Press for Truth" by Kyle Hence. It's a knockout.

This letter and the timing of the book are signs that the 60% of Americans who have serious doubts
aobut 911 are, ONCE AGAIN, right on target.

Great letter, great post. "Scoop" leads the way on honesty in government, here and there.

DVD Press for Truth here www.911pressfortruth.com



"9/11: Press for Truth, five of the most prominent members of the Family Steering Committee, including three of the 'Jersey Girls', tell their story for the first time, providing the most powerful argument yet for why 9/11 still needs investigation."

[AntiFascist]

6. K&R, I agree...

'Scoop' has scooped the American media on many issues of deep US government corruption, and with the help of some outstanding journalists.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. K&R

[seemslikeadream]

3. The bottom line is that the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor remains dangerous

:hug:

[kster]

4. K&R.NT

[Me.]

5. Amen

K & R

[althecat]

7. Flashback: The Family Steering Committee Statement and Questions Feb 16 & Mar 18 2004

http://www.911independentcommission.org/bush2162004.html

The Family Steering Committee Statement and Questions
Regarding the 9/11 Commission Interview with President Bush

Statement and Questions 1-23 submitted February 16, 2004
Questions 24-39 submitted March 18, 2004

The Family Steering Committee believes that President Bush should provide sworn public testimony to the full ten-member panel of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States . Collectively, the Commissioners are responsible for fulfilling the Congressional mandate. Therefore, each Commissioner must have full access to the testimony of all individuals and the critical information that will enable informed decisions and recommendations.

Before an audience of the American people, the Commission must ask President Bush in sworn testimony, the following questions:


1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

3. What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th? What time were these orders given, and to whom? What orders were carried out? What was the result of such orders? Were any such orders not carried out?

4. In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center.

6. Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th.

7. What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack? Approximately how long did you remain in the classroom after Card’s message?

8. At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?

9. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton administration and your own, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information (either verbal or written) about terrorists, possible attacks and targets, did you receive from any source?

This would include briefings or communications from

• Out-going Clinton officials
• CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other intelligence agencies
• Foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys
• National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
• Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar


10. Specifically, what did you learn from the August 6, 2001, PDB about the terrorist threat that was facing our nation? Did you request any follow-up action to take place? Did you request any further report be developed and/or prepared?

11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?

12. What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States? Did you prepare any directives in response to these actions? If so, with what results?

13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL? If so, what resulted?

14. Your schedule for September 11, 2001 was in the public domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma E. Booker School is only five miles from the Bradenton Airport, so you, and therefore the children in the classroom, might have been a target for the terrorists on 9/11. What was the intention of the Secret Service in allowing you to remain in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, even though they were aware America was under attack?

15. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children?

16. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11th? Was Air Force One at any time during the day of September 11th a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One’s code ever breached on September 11th?

17. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed to allow military jets to arrive?

18. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9/11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?

19. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when all commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially, when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege—a privilege not available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9/11?

20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?

21. Please comment on the fact that UBL’s profile on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does not include the 9/11 attacks. To your knowledge, when was the last time any agent of our government had contact with UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what was the date of that contact and what was the context of said meeting.

22. Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda? What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?

23. Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11? Please state specifically how you think they have benefited.

24. After the first WTC building was struck, did you receive any information directly or indirectly from the Secret Service agents located in WTC 7?
• If so, what information did you receive?
• Did the Secret Service agents or anyone else accompanying you attempt to call the New York City Secret Service office for information?
• Did the Secret Service agents or anyone else accompanying you attempt to call the Washington Secret Service office?
• Who provided you information, directly or indirectly, and what exactly was that information?


25. Please describe the role and influence of the President’s Foreign Advisory Council in establishing the administration’s counterterrorism policies.

26. In Feb 28, 2001, you released your economic blueprint and stated "to improve INS' focus on service and to reduce the delays in INS processing of immigration applications, the administration proposes a universal 6-month standard for processing all immigration applications." Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, did you or anyone else implement this processing goal in any way? Were any directives, orders or policy guidelines given to INS personnel relating to this issue by anyone?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud14.html

27. During the second presidential debate on Oct. 11, 2000, as a Presidential candidate you responded to a question about racial discrimination and said that " ...there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab Americans are racially profiled in what's called "secret evidence".
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/2ndebate3.html

28. On Feb 28, 2001, you issued a memorandum on racial profiling to Attorney General Ashcroft, stating; "I hereby direct you to review the use by Federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches, and other investigative procedures."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010228-1.html

To your knowledge, were directives or communications issued, through Attorney General Ashcroft or anyone else, to any federal agencies, or to any individuals or offices of any agencies, that concerned the racial profiling Arabs or Muslims? • Could prohibition of racial profiling have been a factor in the FBI Headquarters personnel continually and “inexplicably” throwing up “roadblocks” and even undermining the field agents’ “desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant in the Moussaoui investigation.”
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

29. In the first few weeks of the Bush administration it has been reported that Andrew Card, Chief of Staff required that all regulations (passed down by the Clinton administration) that had not yet been issued had to be reviewed anew by an official appointed by the new administration, generally, the department secretary.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-4.html

• Before adopting this blanket policy that delayed the implementation of regulations, did anyone in your administration have any concerns about delaying those that related to security issues, such as National Security or aircraft/airport security?
• Was any special course of action taken regarding these regulations?


30. In July, 2001, an executive order was issued which “blocks all property and interests in property of the Taliban and prohibits trade-related transactions by United States persons involving the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010702-10.html

Please discuss the American government’s role and position, either officially or unofficially in discussions/negotiations with the Taliban in 2001 and their timing and appropriateness with respect to the executive order of July 2, 2001 mentioned above. According to an article in Salon, 6-05-02:

“The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/index_np.html

• Who else was involved in those discussions/negotiations?
• What was the outcome?
• What promises or threats were made?


31. Please discuss the National Security Presidential Directive presented for your approval on September 9, 2001, which outlined plans for attacking al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

" Clinton administration to launch an attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Those plans were shelved when Bush took office, but were revived and accelerated in August 2001, following the breakdown of the pipeline negotiations. By the beginning of September 2001, the war plans had been approved by the Pentagon. On September 9 a National Security Presidential Directive outlining plans for an attack the following month, was presented to President Bush for approval."
http://pmdtc.org/docs/frnotices/66FR23310.PDF
http://www.jimpivonka.com/unpublished/forbiddentruthrev.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

• Who else was involved in those discussions/negotiations?
• What was the outcome?
• What promises or threats were made?


32. Please explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation.
http://www.rense.com/general25/ggg.htm

33. Please explain the reasoning which prompted the Executive Order governing the release of Presidential Records, including those of previous administrations, which could conceivably include historically important documents pertinent to the September 11th investigation. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_records_let.pdf

34. When did you first become aware of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”( RAD) proposed by the New American Century’s (PNAC)? Who introduced it to you?

35. After September 11th, you seemed to have fully embraced the RAD plan. Please comment on these observations:

"Bush has virtually used, word for word, the written statements by PNAC members when he speaks publicly about Iraq crisis”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0227hellbent.htm

“Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement… Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption… There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

36. On February 29, 2004, the Seattle Times ran this headline “U.S. changes tactics, adds forces in hunt for bin Laden” and went on to say, “President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden…” Please explain why there has not been a consistently intense push since September 11th to capture or kill bin Laden.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001867838_binladen29.html

37. Why was author, Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War permitted access to confidential PDBs while the Joint Inquiry, and subsequently, the Commission, was not?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2003/03/030403.html
http://video.msnbc.com/id/4304339

38. Please explain why the White House has not demanded that the 19 recommendations made by the Joint Inquiry either be fully enacted or discussed via hearings?

39. What type of federal rescue measures are in place in the event of an attack on our nation, in terms of personnel and equipment?

[CanSocDem]

8. Good work (eom)

[SpiralHawk]

20. Great questions. America is owed truthful anwers to all of them...

Thanks for posting...

[JohnyCanuck]

9. Why Were the 9/11 Tapes Destroyed?

Why Were the 9/11 Tapes Destroyed?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Many Americans are content with the 9/11 Commission Report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are not. Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a US Senator who resigned from the 9/11 Commission, telling the Boston Globe (November 13, 2003): "This investigation is now compromised." Even former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the commission's report and "questions that need answers."

Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, and again in the January 2, 2008, New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered--or mis-answered--questions.

On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: "What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the President, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

In their book, Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were unable to obtain "access to star witnesses in custody who were the only possible source for inside information about the 9/11 plot."

Continued at: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02042008.html

[DrDebug]

16. Why was Rudy's testimony not included and subsequently destroyed?

UQ Wire: Long Debunked Rumor Validated by Giuliani
Thursday, 3 June 2004, 12:34 pm
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

FEMA in NYC prior to 9-11 for Project TRIPOD terror drill, scheduled for
9-12
By Gregor Holland

As of this writing, June 2, 2004, the transcript of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's testimony to the 9-11 Commission during the May 18-19, 2004 hearings in New York is the only transcript of that hearing omitted from the Commission website ( http://www.9-11commission.gov).

Did Rudy say something wrong?

In case you missed it live, you can listen to his testimony in full at the WNYC radio website at: http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/28147. As Giuliani recounts his experience of the day of 9/11, and the evolving location of the Emergency Command Center that morning, you might want to pay special attention to what he says at the end of his prepared statement:

"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

(...)

We should note that the actual wording of the debunking accounts does not deny that FEMA was in New York on September 10, it merely denies that the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force was not in New York on September 10. We should note that FEMA, when denying presence in NYC prior to 9/11 did not raise the possibility that there was confusion about the existence of a separate FEMA team for the scheduled 9/12 bioterror drill, a drill which we have learned is named Operation TRIPOD. It seems that prior to the Giuliani testimony there has been scant mentioning of the bioterror drill.

(...)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0406/S00031.htm

[The Wizard]

24. Would that be

the air traffic controller tapes destroyed by a supervisor on 9-11-01?

[althecat]

26. Them too....

[althecat]

10. NYT: Tragicomic Tale of the 9/11 Report

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/books/04thom.html

Tragicomic Tale of the 9/11 Report

By EVAN THOMAS
Published: February 4, 2008

Journalists like to talk about the back story, the story behind the story. The back story can be nothing more than vaguely sourced gossip traded among pundits and politicos before they go on talk shows. But sometimes the back story is the real, whole truth, a tale of conniving or official blundering that the headlines can only hint at. Journalists often conceal the whole truth because they need to protect their sources.

Philip Shenon, a reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times, set out to get behind the scenes of the 9/11 Commission. The inside story of a government commission doesn’t sound very promising; most commission reports wind up unread on dusty shelves.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/books/04thom.html

Discussion of this in DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2818043

[althecat]

11. Flashback: Hence 4 August 2006 - 11 Questions Avoided by the Media On NORAD Tapes

This is interesting. Will there be anything about NORAD in the book? After these tapes were released the alert of you may recall that some of the commissioners said they had ordered an inquiry into why the Pentagon had lied about these things... what happened to that inquiry? Does anybody know?




**********

Flashback
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1813362&mesg_id=1813362

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

Eleven (11) Questions Avoided by the Media in Recent Reporting of Department of Defense Violations of Law

Kyle F. Hence
Executive Director 9/11 CitizensWatch
Co-Founder UnansweredQuestions.org
http://www.911citizenswatch.org

/Washington Post/

*9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon*
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html
/Vanity Fair/


*9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes*

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
/The New York Times/


*New Tapes Disclose Confusion Within the Military on Sept. 11*

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/us/03norad.html

Recent articles in corporate media examine deception and lying by the Department of Defense relative to the attacks of September 11th 2001. They shed light on an effective cover-up by the 9/11 Commission in its refusal to bring Government deception to the American people by way of their discredited 9/11 Report. Links to these articles follow as do 11 questions which these revelations and NORAD tapes beg to be asked and which must be answered:


=======================================
The real and problematic confusion and fog is one which is seemingly preventing the corporate media from grappling with any of the following pressing questions which have been advanced for years by the 9/11 families, advocates and independent researchers.

Here are* Eleven Questions* that the corporate media have thus far refused to raise or attempt to answer in their examination of the NORAD tapes and related issues:

1. *Who was responsible for scheduling multiple war games and terror exercises involving aircraft for Sept. 11th

2. Who moved "Global Guardian" normally scheduled for October to September?

3. Who designed the war games to involve 'hijackings'?

4. Who planned and scheduled the movement of Airforce aircraft north to Canada, Alaska and Greenland?

5. Who planned the terror exercise at the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) involving an evacuation in response to threat from the air?

6. Who was "hands-on" responsible for coordinating all the war games the morning of September 11th?

7. Who would have been responsible for turning off the war games to enable a timely real world response to the attacks?

8. How were as many as 21 false radar blips or possible targets (per Jane Garvey) inserted into FAA radar screens?

9. Who was responsible for the identification of ghost flight 11 which allegedly continued to fly south past Manhattan and which may have caused NORAD's Langley intercept jets to vector North toward NYC rather than D.C.? * *

10. Why was there no reference to the pattern of 9/11 Commission cover-up including that of Able Danger as revealed by Capt. Scott Philpott?


=================
* 11. The bottom line question that corporate media refuse to answer and which the 9/11 Commission ignored is who, specifically, would have been responsible for creating the circumstances that led to the confusion or fog the morning of 9/11 and who should have immediately ceased any and all war gaming activity and deceptive radar data?

To begin to answer these questions journalists intent on getting answers to questions long asked by the families and others should visit:

*Center for Cooperative Research: Essay -- "U.S. Military Exercises up to 9/11"*
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

*Randi Rhodes interview with Complete 9/11 Timeline author, Paul Thompson on Air America*
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/RandiRhodes_PaulThompson_NORAD_080206.mp3

Enough with excusing those responsible by pointing to 'confusion' or 'fog'. The real and dangerous 'fog' here is that which prevents journalists from doing their jobs and asking and answering the hard questions about 9/11 including those posed above and those surrounding the growing evidence for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers and WTC #7.

[leveymg]

12. Thanks for posting this.

Excellent summary of the principal flaws with the Commission's product.

[althecat]

13. I wonder how a commission expose could miss the NORAD lies issue however....

Will be interesting when the book is out and can be properly critiqued.

[leveymg]

14. As glad as I am to see the Commission finally get some mainstream criticism, it's a case of too

little, way too late.

Much of this antecdotal evidence of Condi's pre-9/11 inattention to counter-terrorism, Zelikow's sabotage of the evidence, and the gaping omissions in the public record being developed by the Commission were already well known and documented before November 2004.

If the NYT or other major news media had simply paid attention to the subject, we might have avoided thousands more US casualties, and a great loss of US standing around the world. The refusal of the media to question the Administration on 9/11 was one of the most unpatriotic acts of dereliction in U.S. history.

[althecat]

15. refusal of the media to question the Administration on 9/11 was one of the most unpatriotic acts

Hear hear...

[EFerrari]

17. I have so much respect for Kyle for never letting up. K&R

[Twist_U_Up]

18. I dont think Americans can handle the truth.

The masses are just too afraid of big brother, so they hide behind the OCT.
Scared little sheeple. Exactly the way they want it.

[SpiralHawk]

19. "Smirk." - Commander AWOL & occult reublicon cronies

[Bill in Chicago]

21. A Second Look at the Saudis

Regarding Philip Zelikow's phone calls to Karl Rove in the middle of his work on the 9/11 Commission, I always thought Zelikow was a fink, especially after reading this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Clearly not a man who has any regard whatsoever for the publics' right to know.

And how come the 9/11 Commission Report glossed over so much of this:

http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

I think the fact that our President is out dancing around like a chimp for the Saudis' amusement, and groveling for their oil, might offer a clue.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Afternoon kick, because...

this treason on the part of Commander AWOL, Dickie "Five Military Deferments" Cheney, and the other republicon homelanders must be exposed and procsecuted.

[MasonJar]

23. Great letter from the Jersey girls. Take that Ann Coulter, you piece of

ugly slime. I am so glad that this journalist took the time and energy to do this study. I am buying the book this week-end. Also thanks to the committee member who actually went to get the important docs and the the one, sole reader. They were able to reveal the truth to the author. As was pretty prevalent here on DU, I never believed that piece of propaganda. Zelikow was suspect the whole time and the way Richard Clarke's warnings were ignored was proof enough of culpability or total incompetence. And why were some of the top CEOs, who were usually in the Towers, told to go to a meeting somewhere out of the city? And wasn't Neil Bush or one of the Bushista brothers in charge of security? And John was killed; he had his thumb on the Bush activities... Then there was the callous Bush comment, "That is one bad pilot." There was the drill of the military planes, usually in October, but conveniently moved to September 11. Normally no plane would survive in the DC airspace. Yet a plane flew into the Pentagon, of all places. And as someone pointed out, the Capitol would have been blown up without the brave passengers who took over and were killed in the field in Indiana. Meanwhile our fearless idiot-in-chief was safely in Florida at a school, reading My Pet Goat.

[pberq]

25. kick - finally this is being discussed in GD!!! nt