Criminal Negligence or Treason?


Richard Moore

Bcc: some colleagues


I'd like to encourage you to forward our postings to other lists 
where they might be well received.  I subscribe to very few lists 
these days myself.

warm regards,

btw> after this first posting, there is another about campus 
activism re/WTC.

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:12:41 +0200
To: •••@••.•••
From: TARGETS <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Criminal Negligence or Treason

URL for this article:
[Emperor's Clothes]

Criminal Negligence or Treason
Commentary on a NY Times article
by Jared Israel [posted 15 September 2001]

"Police radio broadcasts 'This was a terrorist attack.
Notify the Pentagon.' 9:08 a.m." ('Daily News' (New York),
12 September 2001, NEWS SECTION; Pg. 24: THE TRAGIC
TIMELINE, our emphasis)

[Emperor's Clothes note: This was after the first and second
planes had struck the WTC Towers. The third plane is said to
have hit the Pentagon 35 minutes later, at 9:43 am.

"In Sarasota, Fla., Bush was reading to children in a
classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card,
whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber
before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a
half-hour later. " ['AP' Sept 12, 2001, our emphasis]

"President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School
second-graders read a story about a girl's pet goat Tuesday
before he spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist
attacks." --Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 12, 2001
Wednesday, A SECTION; Pg. A20 HEADLINE: Bush hears of attack
while visiting Booker [Emperor's Clothes note: The school
was Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla.]

We are not soothsayers.

We cannot say with certainty what happened Sept.11 - that
is, what really happened, behind the scenes.

But the following report from the semi-official 'N.Y. Times'
makes it clear that either Americans are being lied to by
the those in the highest places - which if true has the
gravest implications - or Washington's New World Order is
ruled by criminally negligent morons.

In an analysis of the 9-11 nightmare, which we have been
preparing, one of the things we asked is: how could the
so-called third plane stay in the air, hijacked, for almost
an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC
Towers, and not be seen and intercepted by U.S. air defense
forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly
back to Washington, to the Pentagon, undisturbed?

Apparently it occurred to someone On High that ordinary
folks might harbor such thoughts, hence the following
article has been published by the 'N.Y. Times,' with the
apparent intention of defusing such doubts.

But the cure is worse than the doubts. It is one thing to
say the plane was not spotted. But to say, as this article
does, that the plane was spotted, that it was tracked from
the time it turned back from the Midwest until it struck the
Pentagon, and yet nothing was done because they "didn't know
what to do" - this is simply unbelievable.

* If they knew the plane was coming, why didn't they force
it down and failing that, shoot it down? Before you say
"They wouldn't do a thing like that," note that whoever
edited the 'N.Y. Times' article left in the following
damning sentences, regarding the fourth plane, the one that,
we are told, crashed in Pennsylvania:

"Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said today
that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could
have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes
after the Pentagon crash." (From article posted below)

So if they "could have shot" down the fourth plane, why
didn't they shoot down the third? Why didn't they shoot down
the first three, or at least planes # two and three? Once
they "knew" these were suicide hijackings what were they
waiting for them to do, hit the WTC Towers and the Pentagon?
Or a nuclear power plant?

And why, if they were really confused about what to do, why,
after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was
happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency
meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to
children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd
plane flew towards Washington?

Moreover, knowing that two other planes had hit highly
visible symbols of US power, if they knew a third plane was
heading for Washington, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume
that the next target would be a symbol of US power in
Washington? Why then didn't they order the evacuation of the
most sensitive public buildings? And wouldn't that mean,
right at the top of the list, the Pentagon. Yet according to
news reports:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Up to 800 people may have died Tuesday
when a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the
Pentagon, officials said.

"Firefighters were still battling a fire on the west side of
the 29-acre, 6 million-square-foot building late Tuesday,
more than 12 hours after the crash. Washington hospitals
reported 71 people injured, some severely, and another 100
to 800 were still listed as missing and possibly dead late
Tuesday. " (CNN at

So what do we have here? Either criminal negligence beyond
belief, and that includes the Commander in Chief, who
hearing that planes are destroying the country focuses on
goats, or b) the 'N.Y. Times' piece is a lie, that is a
cover story to explain a hole stupidly left in the original
cover story - the huge gap between when the 3rd plane would
have had to turn around, and the time it hit the Pentagon.
And if the 'N.Y. Times' is lying, then we know: those who
fed it this lie are guilty of conspiracy. They are people in
high places and they are directly involved in the murder of
God knows how many people in N.Y. as well as the 800
casualties the media speaks of in Washington because either
they planned this or wanted to let it happen and therefore
did nothing to stop the second, and certainly the third

So there you have it - either criminal neglignece, including
Mr. Bush who reads about goats while his countrymen are
slaughtered, or treason.

Mr. Bush has called for bringing those responsible to
justice. Let us begin at home.

- Jared Israel

'N.Y. Times'
SEP 15, 2001
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — During the hour or so that American
Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to
the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military
officials in a command center on the east side of the
building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air
traffic control officials about what to do.

But despite elaborate plans that link civilian and military
efforts to control the nation's airspace in defense of the
country, and despite two other jetliners' having already hit
the World Trade Center in New York, the fighter planes that
scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not
arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Even if they had been there sooner, it is not clear what
they would have done to thwart the attack.

The Federal Aviation Administration has officially refused
to discuss its procedures or the sequence of events on
Tuesday morning, saying these are part of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation's inquiry. But controllers in New England
knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound
from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When
the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane
might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was
Flight 11. And within a few minutes more, controllers would
have known that both United 175 (the second plane to hit the
World Trade Center) and American 77 (which hit the Pentagon)
had probably been hijacked.

Flight 77, which took off from Dulles International Airport
outside Washington shortly after 8 a.m., stayed aloft until
9:45 a.m. and would have been visible on the F.A.A.'s radar
system as it reversed course in the Midwest an hour later to
fly back to Washington. The radars would have observed it
even though its tracking beacon had been turned off.

By 9:25 a.m. the F.A.A., in consultation with the Pentagon,
had taken the radical step of banning all takeoffs around
the country, but fighters still had not been dispatched. At
that same time, the government learned from Barbara Olson, a
political commentator who was a passenger on Flight 77, that
the plane had been hijacked. She twice called her husband,
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, on her cellular phone
to tell him what was happening.

Despite provisions for close communication between civilian
and military traffic officials, and extensive procedures for
security control over air traffic during attacks on the
United States, it does not appear that anyone had
contemplated the kind of emergency that was unfolding.

The procedures, first devised in the 1950's, cover how to
send fighter planes to shadow a hijacked plane on its way,
perhaps, to Cuba. They tell how to intercept a plane
entering the nation's airspace through the air defense zone
along the Atlantic Coast, but not what to do with kamikazes.

"There is no category of `enemy airliners,' " a recently
retired F.A.A. official said. He and others said they could
not recall any instance in which a military plane fired on a
civilian one in the United States, though in 1983 a F-4
Phantom fighter that scrambled to intercept an unidentified
target off Cherry Point, N.C., accidentally rammed it. That
plane was a private twin-engine propeller plane on the way
home from the Bahamas, carrying seven people.

The United States is signatory to a treaty that appears to
bar using force against civilian airplanes. Congress has
voted against letting the military shoot down suspected drug
planes trying to cross into the United States. Whether those
restrictions would apply to a plane showing clearly hostile
intent has never been spelled out. An F.A.A. spokeswoman
said earlier this week that there was a policy for shooting
down civilian airliners but would not divulge it.

And shooting down a jet as large as a Boeing 757 or 767
raises other problems. One F.A.A. official said, "If you
keep it from hitting a government building, it's going to
hit something else." That was clearly true for the planes
that hit the World Trade Center, which flew over other parts
of Manhattan, and the plane that hit the Pentagon, which
flew over urbanized Northern Virginia.

John S. Carr, president of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, the controllers' union, said: "Our
system of unfettered access and freedom has limitations in
terms of responding to a case like this. We've created a
system for transportation, not defense."

Today officials were trying to reconstruct that system.
Ronald Reagan National Airport — with approaches that are
within a few hundred yards of the Pentagon and just seconds,
at jet speeds, from the heart of Washington — remains
closed, "temporarily and indefinitely." Private planes were
allowed to resume flying at 4 p.m. today, but only under air
traffic control.

Combat aircraft are patrolling the skies; an aircraft
carrier is at sea off Washington and another off New York to
provide air defense.

Military officials have offered vague descriptions in public
about their procedures against airborne terrorists. In a
confirmation hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, Gen. Richard B. Myer of the Air Force,
who has been nominated to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said he did not know whether the F.A.A. had contacted
the Pentagon about the hijackings.

"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 F.A.A. system that were hijacked," he said. He
added that once the fighters were aloft, it was not
necessary to use force.

In part, that was because American Airlines Flight 77 had
already hit the Pentagon, and the hijacked flight from
Newark, its target unknown, had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said today
that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could
have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes
after the Pentagon crash. 

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company Reprinted for Fair User Only 


Further Reading:

1) Rick Rozoff takes a critical look at Washington's
response to Tuesday's tragedies in 'Bush's Press Conference:
Into the Abyss' at

2) While Washington points to Osama bin Laden as "suspect #
1" in yesterday's horrific violence, the truth is not being
told to the American people: 'Washington Created Osama bin
Laden' by Jared Israel can be read at

3) If one looks carefully, one can find in the Western media
evidence that bin Laden has been involved - on the
U.S.-backed side - in Kosovo, Bosnia and now Macedonia.

4) Bin Laden was propelled into power as part of the U.S.
drive to create an Islamist terrorist movement to crush the
former Soviet Union. See, the truly amazing account from the
'Washington Post,' 'Washington's Backing of Afghan
Terrorists: Deliberate Policy.' at

5) Head of Russian Navy says official scenario couldn't have
happened. See 'Russian Navy Chief Says Official 9-11 Story
Impossible' at 

6) Emperor's Clothes has interviewed Rudi Dekkers from the
Huffman Aviation facility, at which two of the hijack
suspects were students a year ago. Though Mr. Dekkers' told
the interviewer he had received many calls, the media has
not published his comments. The interview was taped and the
text on Emperor's Clothes is a verbatim transcript,
including the grammatical errors common in daily speech. See
"Interview With Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on Official
Story" at 


To join Emperor's Clothes email list, go to:


TARGETS - Independent monthly paper on international affairs
 - contributes to its ability to inform on issues of war and
peace, social justice and international affairs. We
encourage you to forward our messages to your friends. If
you do not want to receive our mail, pleas send us an
e-mail: •••@••.•••

Sloterkade 20 - 1058 HE Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Ph.  ++ 31 20 615 1122 - Fax: ++ 31 20 615 1120
See our website:

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:25:04 -0400
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Bill Thomson <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fwd: Over 100 campus anti-war protests!   Please forward.

From: "attn blaine" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Over 100 campus anti-war protests!   Please forward.
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:19:27 +0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2001 12:19:27.0656 (UTC)

Hey guys:

Could you please forward this to all national and campus
lists?    This morning's news clippings (see below) should
inspire every campus to do a rally,  or at least a teach-in,
 against the current war fever:   Especially every campus's
Muslim Students Association, Arab Student Union, etc.

There have just been over 100 U.S. anti-war protests on
campuses!!  Some very large, and all peaceful.  Pretty good
for the first week of the movement.  The "Washington Post"
mentioned a national rally in DC set for Sept. 30th– Please
e-mail everyone a flyer for this rally as soon as you get
one.  Is it really happening?

As soon as the many campus Muslim and Arab groups feel a
little safer, they will turn these protests into a really
massive national and international movement.   The last
year's events in Palestine have made strong, confident
campus leaders out of hundreds of Arab and Muslim students
in North America.   Many thousands of Arabs and Muslims have
confidently marched for human rights & freedom in Palestine,
 in all the largest campuses and cities of North America.

Meanwhile, everybody who’s doing these big peaceful
protests,  and holding teach-ins,  should keep doing it!  
Every person, and every group, is really needed now.

This week’s campus protests (most of them were held on Sept.
20) included,  just to name a few:

* Ann Arbor, Michigan– 

"Antiwar rallies are vocal and peaceful"

"300 at U-M barely louder than 30 who support war", 

September 21, 2001 "Detroit Free Press" (Detroit, Michigan),  on the Web


see also (Hundreds

Ann Arbor also had a scholarly Teach-In against racial profiling of Muslims,
Arabs, and Sikhs (600 people attended, far more than reported!):



* Berkeley, California– 

On the Web at: (At least 2,500 rallied at Berkeley!)

* University of Illinois– 

* All over the country– 

* Harvard University–<>
(Sept. 21,

* University of Texas, at Austin–