Then you know your statement "Much like the terrorist attacks against the USA were ignored thoughout the 8 years of Clinton" is complete and utter BS.
Iran commits an act of war against the US and what happened? Clinton had 4 primo opportunities to take out Bin Ladden and what happened? Your hate for Bush has clouded your vision.
Hey, I agree more could have been done re:the Khobar Towers attack. The Clinton admin's attempts at economic deals with Iran was clouding the issue and the dollar won out.
WTF? That's a complete and utter lie. You're taking the word of Mansoor Ijaz? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Your love of Bush has blinded you from the truth.
The Clinton admin's attempts at economic deals with Iran was clouding the issue and the dollar won out.
Oh is that all? Silly me.
That's a complete and utter lie
Go do your homework
I am not a Bush lover.
We all know Clinton had chances to capture or kill UBL, but didn't. I would assume we didn't because of some bigger picture that as civilians we do not either understand or privy to classified intel. That said, Clinton did get the blame he deserved for not doing more when he was president. Now obviously UBL was planning 9/11 before Bush came into power, BUT he did have enough time to do something. 52 Reports given to the FAA, the FBI having field agents saying we should look into the people taking flight lessons, the USS Cole, the knowledge that UBL had already attacked inside the US (so we knew he was capable of getting guys in), and the Millennium attacks that were disrupted all over the country, etc... People that think Bush did everything that he could have ZERO right to blame Clinton. That would be like Blaming George Senior for the FIRST WTC attack in 1993. When you are in control you get the blame for what goes wrong and what goes right, it is a simple as that. If we had a democrat in the white house he would get just as much blame for 9/11 as bush SHOULD have.
I have. Clinton didn't have 4 opportunities to take him out.
Whatever you say to help you sleep at night.
Families outraged over FAA 9/11 warnings
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyo...8,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyo...8,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines
I'd be pretty damn pissed off, myself.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,507
- 47,987
- 136
Going on intel from solitary sources may be good enough for this admin, but it wasn't for Clinton's. Unlike Bush Lite, Clinton was accutely aware how 'removal' fvckups could make situations worse. One of these 'primo opportunities' was ruined by Hamid Gul, it was not due to Clinton's choosing. Clinton was also hampered by an uncooperative Pentagon and by the dueling petty egos of the CIA and FBI leadership.
W had 3 opportunities to take out al Zarqawi and what happened? Your love for Bush has clouded your vision.
THE FAA KNEW!
But were they set up?
By
Michael Kane
© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.
February 14, 2005, PST 1200 (FTW) A recently declassified document reveals the FAA was warned about hijacking threats prior to 9/11. If the FAA was warned, who warned them?
The answer is on page 61 of the now declassified document. The intelligence came from CIA, FBI and the State Department. But from page 53 to the very end, this document is so heavily redacted that it's impossible to decipher just what it reveals.
http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/in...e.asp?vfile=../docs/staff_report_3.pdf
The scapegoating of the FAA is a continuation of the 9/11 Commission's agenda: to direct attention away from NORAD & NCA (National Command Authority - Commander in Chief) responsibilities for what happened on 9/11.
However, the Air Force itself has cleared the FAA of any wrong doing on 9/11.
In a book commissioned by the Air Force documenting what happened on 9/11 titled "Air War Over America," it is consistently and repeatedly stated that the FAA was "Johny-on-the-spot" that morning. Flight 11 was reported off-course to the military by FAA before 8:30 am. The 9/11 Commission report and the Air Force account directly conflict; it's as if they were documenting two separate events.
The real issue with the FAA on 9/11 is Ptech.
Ptech (now Go Agile http://www.goagile.com/ ) was the company that supplied the enterprise architecture software for most of the federal government and its military agencies. This included the Whitehouse, Secret Service, Air Force and FAA. This software is able to analyze the critical data throughout an enterprise in real-time. For federal aviation, the most critical data of all lies on FAA radar screens.
Ptech was owned and funded by Saudi terror financiers with reported links to the Bush administration. But it was the Clinton administration that granted Ptech high military security clearance in 1996, when they began receiving contracts throughout the entire federal government.
Why wasn't Ptech ever mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report? Why is the FAA being blamed for 9/11 without any mention of the appalling fact that Ptech was in the FAA for (at least) 2 years with access to their entire data blueprint and all FAA databases?
Ptech's software is powerful enough to have allowed intentional, specific manipulation of real-time information on FAA radar screens. Remember, on 9/11 the Air Force was in the middle of simulated war games that involved false blips, referred to as "radar injects," on FAA screens (see Crossing the Rubicon for full documentation http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml ). Add into this equation the very real possibility of such an inject remaining on FAA screens after the war games were called off - which seems to be exactly what happened.
The FAA, Ptech, and "phantom flight 11"
In the 9/11 Commission report a "phantom flight 11" was added to the official version of what happened that day. A tape was played at the final commission hearing on June 17, 2004, of a woman from the FAA telling NORAD that flight 11 was still airborne at 9:24 am, long after it had actually struck the WTC. Originally this was reported to be the time when the FAA notified NORAD that flight 77 was off course and headed to the Pentagon.
This information was used by the commission to claim NORAD had never been informed that flight 77 was headed towards Washington D.C., leaving the FAA holding the bag for the penetration of the most heavily guarded airspace in the world. The commission's report states that they were "unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information."
It has been clearly documented that "false blips," or radar injects, were placed on FAA radar screens on the morning of 9/11 as part of the Air Force war games that morning. "Phantom flight 11" fits the description of a "false blip." If it was, in fact, a radar inject, that would explain why the 9/11 commission was unable to locate the source of the "mistaken FAA information." The 9/11 war games are classified and specific information regarding such details is not publicly available. We do know by the time "phantom flight 11" appeared on FAA screens - 9:24 am - the war games had reportedly been called off.
So what was it doing there?
FTW's position is that "phantom flight 11" was injected onto FAA radar screens by "the maestro" of the 9/11 war games (either Dick Cheney or General Ralph "Ed" Eberhart) using Ptech software to override FAA systems. Let's examine the feasibility of such a scenario.
Ptech had been working on the data blueprint of the FAA's entire network for 2 years prior to 9/11. Their confidential business plan lays out just how much access they had to the FAA's data systems.
Ptech Inc. Confidential Business Plan: Page 37 of 46, 11/7/2001
The FAA recognized the need for leveraging its IT investment, with a means of centralizing activities and introducing consistency and compatibility within the operating systems environment. A Ptech consulting team was organized to use activity modeling to identify key functions that could be examined for improvement in network management, network security, configuration management, fault management, performance management, application administration, network accounting management, and user help desk operations.
What the above tells us is that Ptech had access to the entire informational barn door of the FAA's data systems. In an amazing exchange published in part 1 of this series, FTW editor Jamey Hecht was able to confirm a central thesis of Crossing the Rubicon while interviewing Wall Street whistleblower Indira Singh. Ms. Singh is an IT professional who started First Boston's first Information Technology group in 1975 and had worked on Wall Street until 2002. She's been an IT consultant for Banker's Trust, the U.N., JP Morgan, and American Express. In 1988 she started TibetNet - a derivative of DARPA's Internet, the service on which you are likely reading this report at the moment. The exchange was as follows:
Jamey Hecht: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - its on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.
Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that?
Jamey Hecht: And that relationship had been going on mediated by Ptech for 2 years prior to 9/11. You elsewhere say that the Secret Service is among the government entities that had a contract with Ptech. Mike Ruppert's thesis in Crossing the Rubicon, as you know, is that the software that was running information between FAA & NORAD was superseded by a parallel subsuming version of itself that was being run by the Secret Service on state of the art parallel equipment in the PEOC with a nucleus of Secret Service personnel around Cheney.
?In your view, might it have been the case that Cheney was using Ptech to surveil the function of the people who wanted to do their jobs on the day of 9/11 in FAA & NORAD, and then intervene to turn off the legitimate response?
Indira Singh: Is it possible from a software standpoint? Absolutely it's possible. Did he (Cheney) have such a capability? I don't know. But that's the ideal risk scenario - to have an over-arching view of what's going on in data. That's exactly what I wanted for JP Morgan.
You know what's ironic about this; I wanted to take my operational risk blueprint which is for an operational event going wrong and I wanted to make it generic for extreme event risk to surveil across intelligence networks. What you're describing is something that I said, 'boy if we had this in place maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.' When I was going down to In-Q-Tel and getting these guys excited about creating an extreme event risk blueprint to do this, I'm thinking of doing exactly what you're saying Cheney might have already had! [emphasis added]
-- end of transcript
Ptech was working with Mitre Corp. in the FAA and, according to Singh, Ptech was the Alpha dog in that relationship. Mitre has provided simulation-and-testing technologies for the Navy. They provide multiple FAA technologies and boast in their annual reports that their two biggest clients are DOD and FAA. Mitre knew the FAA's technological enterprise inside and out, including any simulation-and-testing (war game) technology operated by the FAA.
This was the perfect marriage to ensure that the capacity to covertly intervene in FAA operations on 9/11 existed - in the middle of simulated war games. It was also the perfect marriage to ensure that the command and control of these capabilities was readily available to Dick Cheney via Secret Service Ptech software in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, the bunker to which Cheney was "rushed" by the Secret Service. As already pointed out in part 1 of FTW's series, Ptech does what Total Information Awareness (TIA, the DARPA program designed to monitor all electronic transactions in real-time) is supposed to do. There are an undetermined number of other software programs in the hands of an undetermined number of corporations also capable of this. Again, top-level enterprise architecture software is designed for the express purpose of knowing all the critical information produced across the entirety of the "enterprise" in real-time.
In the case of Ptech software, installed on White House, Secret Service, Air Force and FAA systems (as well as most American military agencies), the enterprise included all of the real-time data of the above-mentioned agencies. Singh has confirmed that Ptech software could have been set up to allow Dick Cheney to surveil and intervene on FAA radar screens.
As documented by former Bush counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies, on 9/11 the Secret Service had the capability of seeing FAA radar screens in real time; and as documented by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon, Secret Service has the authority to take supreme command over any and all American agencies - including the Air Force.
So when you read the Associated Press, or New York Times, or any other mainstream account of how the FAA failed our country on 9/11, ask yourself why none of the above is mentioned in those reports. Ask yourself why the executive branch cleared Ptech software of being a threat to national security on the very same day the FBI first raided their offices. Ask yourself why Ptech software is still in the Whitehouse. And ask yourself whose interests the Bush administration really serves.
Please see?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1_summary.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2_summary.shtml
?for more info on Ptech, the FAA & 9/11
But were they set up?
By
Michael Kane
© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.
February 14, 2005, PST 1200 (FTW) A recently declassified document reveals the FAA was warned about hijacking threats prior to 9/11. If the FAA was warned, who warned them?
The answer is on page 61 of the now declassified document. The intelligence came from CIA, FBI and the State Department. But from page 53 to the very end, this document is so heavily redacted that it's impossible to decipher just what it reveals.
http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/in...e.asp?vfile=../docs/staff_report_3.pdf
The scapegoating of the FAA is a continuation of the 9/11 Commission's agenda: to direct attention away from NORAD & NCA (National Command Authority - Commander in Chief) responsibilities for what happened on 9/11.
However, the Air Force itself has cleared the FAA of any wrong doing on 9/11.
In a book commissioned by the Air Force documenting what happened on 9/11 titled "Air War Over America," it is consistently and repeatedly stated that the FAA was "Johny-on-the-spot" that morning. Flight 11 was reported off-course to the military by FAA before 8:30 am. The 9/11 Commission report and the Air Force account directly conflict; it's as if they were documenting two separate events.
The real issue with the FAA on 9/11 is Ptech.
Ptech (now Go Agile http://www.goagile.com/ ) was the company that supplied the enterprise architecture software for most of the federal government and its military agencies. This included the Whitehouse, Secret Service, Air Force and FAA. This software is able to analyze the critical data throughout an enterprise in real-time. For federal aviation, the most critical data of all lies on FAA radar screens.
Ptech was owned and funded by Saudi terror financiers with reported links to the Bush administration. But it was the Clinton administration that granted Ptech high military security clearance in 1996, when they began receiving contracts throughout the entire federal government.
Why wasn't Ptech ever mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report? Why is the FAA being blamed for 9/11 without any mention of the appalling fact that Ptech was in the FAA for (at least) 2 years with access to their entire data blueprint and all FAA databases?
Ptech's software is powerful enough to have allowed intentional, specific manipulation of real-time information on FAA radar screens. Remember, on 9/11 the Air Force was in the middle of simulated war games that involved false blips, referred to as "radar injects," on FAA screens (see Crossing the Rubicon for full documentation http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml ). Add into this equation the very real possibility of such an inject remaining on FAA screens after the war games were called off - which seems to be exactly what happened.
The FAA, Ptech, and "phantom flight 11"
In the 9/11 Commission report a "phantom flight 11" was added to the official version of what happened that day. A tape was played at the final commission hearing on June 17, 2004, of a woman from the FAA telling NORAD that flight 11 was still airborne at 9:24 am, long after it had actually struck the WTC. Originally this was reported to be the time when the FAA notified NORAD that flight 77 was off course and headed to the Pentagon.
This information was used by the commission to claim NORAD had never been informed that flight 77 was headed towards Washington D.C., leaving the FAA holding the bag for the penetration of the most heavily guarded airspace in the world. The commission's report states that they were "unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information."
It has been clearly documented that "false blips," or radar injects, were placed on FAA radar screens on the morning of 9/11 as part of the Air Force war games that morning. "Phantom flight 11" fits the description of a "false blip." If it was, in fact, a radar inject, that would explain why the 9/11 commission was unable to locate the source of the "mistaken FAA information." The 9/11 war games are classified and specific information regarding such details is not publicly available. We do know by the time "phantom flight 11" appeared on FAA screens - 9:24 am - the war games had reportedly been called off.
So what was it doing there?
FTW's position is that "phantom flight 11" was injected onto FAA radar screens by "the maestro" of the 9/11 war games (either Dick Cheney or General Ralph "Ed" Eberhart) using Ptech software to override FAA systems. Let's examine the feasibility of such a scenario.
Ptech had been working on the data blueprint of the FAA's entire network for 2 years prior to 9/11. Their confidential business plan lays out just how much access they had to the FAA's data systems.
Ptech Inc. Confidential Business Plan: Page 37 of 46, 11/7/2001
The FAA recognized the need for leveraging its IT investment, with a means of centralizing activities and introducing consistency and compatibility within the operating systems environment. A Ptech consulting team was organized to use activity modeling to identify key functions that could be examined for improvement in network management, network security, configuration management, fault management, performance management, application administration, network accounting management, and user help desk operations.
What the above tells us is that Ptech had access to the entire informational barn door of the FAA's data systems. In an amazing exchange published in part 1 of this series, FTW editor Jamey Hecht was able to confirm a central thesis of Crossing the Rubicon while interviewing Wall Street whistleblower Indira Singh. Ms. Singh is an IT professional who started First Boston's first Information Technology group in 1975 and had worked on Wall Street until 2002. She's been an IT consultant for Banker's Trust, the U.N., JP Morgan, and American Express. In 1988 she started TibetNet - a derivative of DARPA's Internet, the service on which you are likely reading this report at the moment. The exchange was as follows:
Jamey Hecht: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - its on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.
Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that?
Jamey Hecht: And that relationship had been going on mediated by Ptech for 2 years prior to 9/11. You elsewhere say that the Secret Service is among the government entities that had a contract with Ptech. Mike Ruppert's thesis in Crossing the Rubicon, as you know, is that the software that was running information between FAA & NORAD was superseded by a parallel subsuming version of itself that was being run by the Secret Service on state of the art parallel equipment in the PEOC with a nucleus of Secret Service personnel around Cheney.
?In your view, might it have been the case that Cheney was using Ptech to surveil the function of the people who wanted to do their jobs on the day of 9/11 in FAA & NORAD, and then intervene to turn off the legitimate response?
Indira Singh: Is it possible from a software standpoint? Absolutely it's possible. Did he (Cheney) have such a capability? I don't know. But that's the ideal risk scenario - to have an over-arching view of what's going on in data. That's exactly what I wanted for JP Morgan.
You know what's ironic about this; I wanted to take my operational risk blueprint which is for an operational event going wrong and I wanted to make it generic for extreme event risk to surveil across intelligence networks. What you're describing is something that I said, 'boy if we had this in place maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.' When I was going down to In-Q-Tel and getting these guys excited about creating an extreme event risk blueprint to do this, I'm thinking of doing exactly what you're saying Cheney might have already had! [emphasis added]
-- end of transcript
Ptech was working with Mitre Corp. in the FAA and, according to Singh, Ptech was the Alpha dog in that relationship. Mitre has provided simulation-and-testing technologies for the Navy. They provide multiple FAA technologies and boast in their annual reports that their two biggest clients are DOD and FAA. Mitre knew the FAA's technological enterprise inside and out, including any simulation-and-testing (war game) technology operated by the FAA.
This was the perfect marriage to ensure that the capacity to covertly intervene in FAA operations on 9/11 existed - in the middle of simulated war games. It was also the perfect marriage to ensure that the command and control of these capabilities was readily available to Dick Cheney via Secret Service Ptech software in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, the bunker to which Cheney was "rushed" by the Secret Service. As already pointed out in part 1 of FTW's series, Ptech does what Total Information Awareness (TIA, the DARPA program designed to monitor all electronic transactions in real-time) is supposed to do. There are an undetermined number of other software programs in the hands of an undetermined number of corporations also capable of this. Again, top-level enterprise architecture software is designed for the express purpose of knowing all the critical information produced across the entirety of the "enterprise" in real-time.
In the case of Ptech software, installed on White House, Secret Service, Air Force and FAA systems (as well as most American military agencies), the enterprise included all of the real-time data of the above-mentioned agencies. Singh has confirmed that Ptech software could have been set up to allow Dick Cheney to surveil and intervene on FAA radar screens.
As documented by former Bush counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies, on 9/11 the Secret Service had the capability of seeing FAA radar screens in real time; and as documented by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon, Secret Service has the authority to take supreme command over any and all American agencies - including the Air Force.
So when you read the Associated Press, or New York Times, or any other mainstream account of how the FAA failed our country on 9/11, ask yourself why none of the above is mentioned in those reports. Ask yourself why the executive branch cleared Ptech software of being a threat to national security on the very same day the FBI first raided their offices. Ask yourself why Ptech software is still in the Whitehouse. And ask yourself whose interests the Bush administration really serves.
Please see?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1_summary.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2_summary.shtml
?for more info on Ptech, the FAA & 9/11
Sept. 11 commissioners seek revised aviation security report
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0305/030405c1.htm
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0305/030405c1.htm
Not going to hold me breath on this one, though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter