9/11 Panel Suspected Deception byPentagonBy Dan EggenWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, August 2, 2006

Some staff members andcommissioners of the Sept. 11 panelconcluded that the Pentagon's initialstory of how it reacted to the 2001terrorist attacks may have been part ofa deliberate effort to mislead thecommission and the public rather thana reflection of the fog of events onthat day, according to sourcesinvolved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deepthat the 10-member commission, in asecret meeting at the end of its tenurein summer 2004, debated referring thematter to the Justice Department forcriminal investigation, according toseveral commission sources. Staffmembers and some commissionersthought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that militaryand aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to thecommission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turningover the allegations to the inspectors general for theDefense and Transportation departments, who canmake criminal referrals if they believe they arewarranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the NorthAmerican Aerospace Command] told us what they toldus," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New JerseyRepublican governor who led the commission. "It wasjust so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those looseends that never got tied."

Although the commission's landmarkreport made it clear that the DefenseDepartment's early versions ofevents on the day of the attackswere inaccurate, the revelation thatit considered criminal referralsreveals how skeptically those reportswere viewed by the panel andprovides a glimpse of the tensionbetween it and the Bushadministration.

A Pentagon spokesman saidyesterday that the inspector general'soffice will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was"knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamedinaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, accordingto a summary released yesterday.

A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigationis complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the FederalAviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.

In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of thecommission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publisheslengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts lastnight.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials withNORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate informationabout the response to the hijackings in testimony andmedia appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. airdefenses had reacted quickly, that jets had beenscrambled in response to the last two hijackings andthat fighters were prepared to shoot down UnitedAirlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later,audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters andother evidence showed clearly that the military neverhad any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at onepoint chased a phantom aircraft -- American AirlinesFlight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the WorldTrade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scotttold the commission that NORAD had beguntracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but thecommission determined that the airliner wasnot hijacked until 12 minutes later. Themilitary was not aware of the flight until afterit had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did notbecome clear until the commission, forced touse subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from theFAA and NORAD, officials said. Theagencies' reluctance to release the tapes --along with e-mails, erroneous publicstatements and other evidence -- led some ofthe panel's staff members and commissionersto believe that authorities sought to misleadthe commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, aformer New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in arecent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and thepublic for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that hedid not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other militaryofficials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recentinterview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidencewas sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it waswillful or just the fog of stupidbureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said."But in the order of magnitude of things,going after bureaucrats because theymisled the commission didn't seem tomake sense to me."SOURCEhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

UQ Wire: Hence & Widows Open Letter To911 Cmssrs.Tuesday, 5 February 2008, 11:30 amOpinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wirehttp://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

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

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

From

Kyle F. HenceExecutive Producer - http://www.911pressfortruth.com

Dear 9/11 Commissioners:

Tomorrow Philip Shenon's book, "TheCommission" will be released. I forwardthe Comment just released by September11th Advocates (the leading 9/11 familymembers behind the Commission) alongwith a comment of my own here:

Some of you have yourselves said the 9/11Report is "not the last word" on whathappened. This is no doubt true. Horriblyand tragically true. The next question is ofcourse: what are we (or you) going to doabout that? Will you address where you fellshort or seek to rectify the situation? Forstarters, the record now shows that a few of you (you know who you are) were responsible forleaving out details of the Tenet/Black meeting with Rice/Clark on July 10 '01 and another withAshcroft on the 18th. And the Commission left out details of the Global Guardian 'air-warexercises (normally scheduled for October but moved to Sept), Able Danger ID of four of thefuture hijackers (per 5 credible witnesses), and the revelations of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds -http://www.justacitizen.com/, several of whose allegations had been confirmed by the likes ofsenior Senators (and others have confirmed more recent claims). And now, thanks to the CIA and

FBI IG Reports we know a whole lotmore about the extent, nature and timingof the CIA's withholding of keyinformation about Hazmi and Mihdharfrom FBI investigators on the trail ofthose tied to the Cole and Embassybombings. [I could go on and on and notposit a single theory or speculate].

I am willing to concede you werededicated and labored hard on a difficulttask but I am certainly not willing to let

you all off the hook for hiring or notfiring Philip Zelikow, for avoiding the

anthrax attack, for producing anobviously compromised and incomplete report, for not naming names, for not issuing neededsubpoenas, 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 practicalsignificance," 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 theDoD (See… http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm.)

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

Many years after the Warren Commission issued its own final report, the Permanent SelectCommittee 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'tget yet another unsatisfactory and incomplete finding should one be convened. No doubt thefamilies will not make the same mistake twice and this time insist on a formal role in aninvestigation. In case after case without the benefit of classified material or 'access', the 9/11families put the government's own investigators to shame. With your honest help let's hope thefuture 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 thoroughlyexamined the findings of fact and circumstances laid out in your Report and found themdeceptive, or incomplete, and call for a new investigation that reveals the truth, that follows all theevidence trails, wherever they might lead.

Regards,Kyle F. HenceExecutive Producerhttp://www.911pressfortruth.com

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

For Immediate Release February 4, 2008

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

The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation February4, 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 theExecutive Director of the 9/11 Commission, despite hisdirect ties to the Bush Administration. In 2000-2001 heserved as a member of Condoleezza Rices NationalSecurity Council (NSC) transition team, where he wasallegedly the architect of the decision to demoteRichard Clarke and his counter terrorism team withinthe NSC. Furthermore he was a member of thePresidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board(PFIAB) from 2001-2003, where* *Zelikow draftedmost of the 2002 National Security Strategy of theUnited States, creating the pre-emptive Iraq warstrategy. These areas were within the scope of theCommissions mandate and as such were of criticalimportance to determine what, if any, impact they hadon the governments ability to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

As the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission,Philip Zelikow was given the responsibility forchoosing the entire direction of the Commissions investigation. Essentially, Mr. Zelikowdetermined who was or was not interviewed as a witness, and which information was or was notlooked at. He also influenced which documents would be requested from the various agencies. Itseemed to us, that allowing an individual with this much involvement in the Bush administrationto run the investigation, might give the appearance of impropriety and could ultimately taint theCommissions 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 StaffDirector of the Commission. As Executive Staff Director, his job has been to steer the

direction of the Commissions investigation, an investigation whose mandate includesunderstanding 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 thesubpoena of Zelikow's notes from the intelligencebriefings he attended with Richard Clarke. "

Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chair LeeHamilton instead chose to have Mr. Zelikow recusehimself from the areas of the investigation that dealtwith the transition period. However, they allowed Mr.Zelikow to be one of only two people (Ms. Gorelickwas the other) to review the Presidential DailyBriefings (PDBs), reports that went to the heart ofwhat the White House and its National SecurityAdvisor, Condoleezza Rice, knew prior to 9/11. Whileinvestigating the events that led up to the September11th attacks, Philip Zelikow was called as a witness bythe 9/11 Commission though transcripts of histestimony were never made public.

Despite our vehement objections, Mr. Zelikow wasallowed to remain in his position as what seemed to bethe gatekeeper of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Shenons

book illustrates just how deeply and insidiously the Commission's basic fact-finding work wascompromised by Zelikows conflicts. He recounts that even after his recusal, Mr. Zelikowcontinued to insert himself into the work of "Team 3," of the Commission. This team wasresponsible for examining the White House, and therefore, the conduct of Condoleeza Rice andRichard Clarke during the months prior to 9/11.

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

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

Contrary to former Commissioner John Lehmans recent comment on MSNBC that Zelikowsconversations 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 beendone 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 withRove?

It is abundantly clear that Philip Zelikow shouldhave immediately been replaced when the firstrumblings of his impropriety and conflicts ofinterest surfaced. When all of this informationbecame clear, the Commissioners and the pressshould have called for Zelikows resignation.We did. Shamefully, most were silent.

Further evidence of political maneuvering cameto light in the story of Commissioner MaxCleland. Cleland was publicly critical of theCommission and the Bush White House.According to Shenons book, when it becameobvious that Max Cleland would continue to beloudly critical, Commission Chairman TomKean and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton sought thehelp of Senator Tom Daschle to find Cleland anew job. Thus, Max Cleland was quietlyremoved and silenced with a new job in theBush Administration.

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

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

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

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

""Experience indicates that the use of force is notnecessary to gain the cooperation of sources forinterrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poortechnique, as it yields unreliable results, may damagesubsequent collection efforts, and can induce the sourceto say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants tohear." "

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

We believe that author Phil Shenon has revealedinformation which only scratches the surface as to whatwent on behind the scenes of this investigation.

Why, when this Congressionally mandated Commission could have done much to fix the fatalflaws 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 loopholesthat allowed our Country to be so vulnerable. Why would they choose instead, to succumb topolitical machinations? What would we find out if a real investigation into September 11, 2001were ever done?

The bottom line is that the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor remainsdangerously unexamined. This can only be remedied with an investigation guided by the facts andconducted 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 necessarilyendorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -forthe relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration towork 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.

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

Condoleezza Rice and the SmokingPDBBy: Thomas Patrick Carroll FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 16, 2004

Well that was a blow-out, wasn’t it?

After much media speculation, the famousarticle from the President’s Daily Brief (PDB)of 6 August 2001 was declassified this pastSaturday. Many feared (and some hoped) itwould show the President had received‘actionable intelligence’ about the 9/11 attacksmore than a month before they occurred.

But just read the PDB. You don’t have to beJames Bond to see there is no actionableintelligence there at all. Not a shred.

This needless declassification of a Top Secretdocument was the result of a stunt by RichardBen-Veniste, a member — as unbelievable as it sounds — of the 9/11 Commission.

When it was his turn to query Condoleezza Rice during Thursday’s public hearings, Ben-Venistebrought-up the PDB. He said, “Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned againstth

possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB.”

Rice replied, “I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

Immediately after she finished her sentence, Ben-Veniste tried to cut her off. Clearly, his intentwas not to ask a question, but simply to force Rice into publicly speaking the words of the title,thereby inflicting political damage on a war-time President.

Rice would have none of it. She verbally pushed Ben-Veniste aside, explaining the PDB piece wassynthesized from historical intelligence and written in response toquestions the President had asked. The article was not a threat report,said Rice.

However, it was to no avail. Ben-Veniste’s words had done theirwork.

The next day’s press was filled with reports on the ‘secret warning.’The Los Angeles Times, for example, carried a front page story about“disclosures from the commission that President Bush was warned ina highly classified intelligence briefing five weeks before the

attacks...”

What Ben-Veniste did was contemptible. But thereis even more to the story than this.

Not only was this particular PDB article not usedto alert the President of an impending terroristattack, no PDB is ever used that way. Never, ever.Not only was Ben-Veniste wrong, he could notpossibly have been right.

Once you know the difference between the PDBand a threat report — and if Ben-Veniste doesn’tknow the difference, he has even less businessbeing on the Commission than is already obvious— you know his insinuations simply had to bebogus.

The President’s Daily Brief

The PDB is the President’s morning intelligence newspaper, designed to update him on the mostimportant intelligence developments over the past 24 hours. Its overall classification is TopSecret, but individual paragraphs may carry a lower classification.

The PDB is produced by the Intelligence Community, with the CIA taking the lead. It is deliveredto the President and a few other top national policy makers, like the Vice President, NationalSecurity Advisor, and the Secretary of State. When these officials travel outside the Washingtonarea, the PDB is transmitted through secure CIA channels and hand-delivered to them, usually byan Agency officer.

Articles in the PDB are ‘finished intelligence.’ This means they draw from many sources, bothopen and covert. It also means the articles themselves have been thought about and worked on bymany people, all experts in whatever subject the article is discussing.

Finally, the content of the PDB is often shaped in response tothe questions and interests of the President himself. (This isespecially true of Presidents with keen interest in theintelligence product, like President Bush. It was less truewith Clinton, who did not show much concern with nationalintelligence, especially in his first term.) According to bothRice and the CIA, the 6 August PDB article was put togetherin response to questions from the President.

Now, contrast the PDB with a genuine threat report.

Threat reports are raw intelligence, loaded with all the detailsavailable, verifiable or not — time is of the essence. Asanitized, unclassified ‘tear line’ version is typically included,

so recipients can quicklypass the information topeople without securityclearances, like foreigngovernments, or airlines,or police officers. When athreat report is sent toout to intelligenceconsumers, it goes at thehighest precedence and tothe widest possible list ofrecipients, including theWhite House SituationRoom and, often, thePresident himself. This ishow the IntelligenceCommunity handles a threat report. Dissemination is quick and wide, with hardly any attentionpaid to substantive evaluation. As you can see, it is in many respects the exact opposite of how anarticle for the PDB is put together and distributed. The point is straightforward. The PDB is notused to disseminate actionable threat intelligence, whether to the President or anyone else.Politically-motivated games are probably inevitable in forums like the 9/11 commission, at least tosome extent. But it is beyond excuse to make a charge simultaneously as grave and as baseless asthe one Ben-Veniste hurled. Mr. Carroll is a former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA,currently on the editorial board of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. Thomas Patrick Carrollis a former officer in the Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency and a currentmember of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin editorial board. He speaks and publishes onespionage, national security, foreign policy, terrorism, counter-intelligence, Turkey, and Islam.

SOURCE http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13370

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory VIDEO BELOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Loose Change VIDEO BELOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyiwOJ2pnGg

TerrorStorm a History of False Flag Terror VIDEO BELOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y

Project For The New American Century-PNAC VIDEO BELOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ3xRKSnP4

http://www.infowars.com/