New observations regarding the commanders in charge on 9-11 and events following.
New Page 1
A new internet friend sent me his excellent compilation of the 9-11 history.As I was reading and chasing the links, I made some interesting discoveries that I think need to be shared. I can't seem to organize myself enough to write a commentary about it so I'm just going to give it to you in the pieces that I found with comments interspersed.
On September 11th, Gen. Hugh Shelton was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Richard Meyers was the Vice Chairman. On Sept. 11, Gen. Shelton was on an airplane headed to Europe for a conference. Gen. Meyers was the man in charge on Sept 11.
1. In 1998 Gen. Richard Meyers was the commandar of NORAD.
From August 1998 to February 2000, General Myers was Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command; Commander, Air Force Space Command; and Department of Defense manager, space transportation system contingency support at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
Almost immediately after taking command of NORAD in 1998, General Myers reorganized defense of the Eastern Seaboard.
As a result of North American Aerospace Defenses Command (NORAD) tasking, the 177th FW began conversion to the general-purpose F-16 mission on 01 October 1998. This action ended the wing's 25-year association as part of NORAD's alert force. During that tenure, the wing's NORAD responsibility included providing air sovereignty of the mid-Atlantic between Long Island, New York, and the Virginia capes. As of October 1, the wing entered into its extensive period of general-purpose fighter retraining.
Meyers was promoted toVice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff in March 2000 to September 2001. October 1, 2001 he was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff despite the fact that he was the man in charge on September 11, 2001 and the fact that he had weakened the defense of the east coast several years before. Gen. Meyers confirmation hearing was held on September 13, 2001.
The following are key excerpts from this hearing. Keep it uppermost in your mind that this is a confirmation hearing for a promotion to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2 days after Sept. 11thGen. Meyers was in charge on that day:
[Notice - no mention of the fact that Meyers had been the commander of NORAD prior to becoming Vice Chairman]
LEVIN: General Myers is uniquely well-qualified to serve as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran who knows the dangers faced by our men and women in uniform. He has led U.S. forces in Japan and in the Pacific with a steady hand. He has served as assistant to the chairman and as commander-in-chief, U. S. Space Command. Since February, 2000, he has served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the nation's second-highest ranking military officer, at times acting as chairman in General Shelton's absence. General Myers is, I believe, the first vice chairman to be nominated as chairman.
But I believe that we can agree on one thing. General Myers would make an excellent chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His extensive leadership in space-based defense, U.S.-Asia policy and defense acquisition make him an ideal candidate to oversee the military's transformation of the 21st century.
CARNAHAN: General Myers, I understand that you've had extensive experience in planning for combating cyber attacks. I was wondering if you would describe your work in this emerging field and elaborate on your plans to build off of these experiences?
MEYERS: ..... And General Eberhart, who now serves at U.S. Space Command, has really taken this to the next level. .....Here in Washington, D.C., we have a joint task force for computer network operations. It does its job through coordination with all the services, of course, and other agencies. There is great cooperation with our civilian telecom folks. And there is also great cooperation with the FBI and other civil authorities who have a role in all this.
CLELAND: we need to boost our intelligence capability; two, we need to make sure that so much of our assets, more of our assets, are put forward toward counter-terrorism activity; and three, that the United States American military has to be an integral part of this and that cyber-terrorism is a part of this in the future. ..... And so, with Tuesday's events, for me it's awfully simple: that this is where we've got to beef up. It is amazing that we spend well over $300 billion a year on defense and yet, Tuesday, we seemed very much defenseless.
And so that's the homeland defense issue. And we need to
get about that business of coming to grips with that and how
all the agencies of this government collaborate and
cooperate to bring focus to the problem.
REED: [talking about China and their stepped up missle
program] If a foreign power launched a missile against the
United States, even if that missile were intercepted, would
you recommend to the president we retaliate against that act
COLLINS: Under the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols law, most of the world has been divided up into geographic areas, each assigned to a specific regional commander-in-chief, the CINCs, who in time of crisis serve as the military's top crisis manager or warfighter in that area. It's my understanding, however, that the United States territory itself is not thought of in those same terms. If we're going to increase our focus on homeland defense, does that mean that we should consider the possibility of treating our own country as, to some extent, a military operational command, the way we have divided the rest of the world?
MEYERS: If you remember, the first time this was brought up,
to my knowledge, and the debate was made public, there was a
lot of concern about the Department of Defense getting into
areas that were traditionally those areas of civil
responsibility. And this is a huge question. You know, what
do you want your United States military to do for this
COLLINS: It is a difficult issue about the military's
appropriate role in our society. And I'm struck by the fact
that the attacks that we experienced this week are being
treated more as a matter of law enforcement, that the
Department of Justice, for example, is the lead agency,
rather than as an act of war, where the Department of
Defense would be, I would assume, the lead agency.
COLLINS: It strikes me that a great deal of our force
protection efforts have focused upon ensuring the security
of facilities and military personnel overseas.
Does what occurred this week at the Pentagon suggest that
the department needs to refocus its planning on force
protection issues here in the United States itself?
In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out. [Mind you, this is 2 days after 9-11.He was ready for the confirmation hearing, he had the military wish list and his priority list ready for the hearing - but he doesn't know the exact details of what happened on 9-11?].
NELSON: And so, I would certainly commend you to have your folks start checking into this. I think, because of the actions of the tragedy of this week, that we're going to be able now to turn around that budget and start getting the shuttle upgrades, over the course of the next five years, in place in order to give the United States that reliable access to space that we have in the space transportation system. [ 2 days after 9-11 and he's talking about space shuttle upgrades at a confirmation hearing?]
[General Meyers was previously asked what timeline was between the first crash and the Pentagon being hit.... he said he didn't know].
BILL NELSON: Mr. Chairman, may I, just for the record? Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. And it is an hour and seven minutes until the crash occurred in Pennsylvania. [Imagine that..... A congressman quoting CNN on the timeline].
MEYERS:I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately. So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time. [Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former commander of NORAD and he doesn't know what the timeline is for when NORAD responded - 2 days after the attack on the Pentagon].
BUNNING: What I'm getting as is we don't want the end result
of a terrorist attack on the United States to be handled in
court because we believe it's an act of war. Now, if it's an
act of war, the military should be involved in determining
how the punishment should be dealt out, through the
administration's use of the military.
Before I do that, I do note with some irony that it's important to document all of the timeframes by using our most able informant, CNN, about the timeframe and other particulars. [Is this incredible or what?]
MEYERS: And so that's where I would, again, that's where I'd focus our efforts. I think this review we have ongoing on the whole intelligence community is appropriate. And I think they'll pick up on this and probably come out with some really good recommendations on how we can do a better job of coordinating and cooperating. [ So the entire 9-11 commission study of the events and subsequent recommendations were bullshit.The changes to the intelligence community were already in the works prior to 9-11]
HUTCHINSON: With the understanding that there is an ongoing debate as to the proper role of the military in protecting in a domestic terrorist attack, if this attack had been, instead of airliners, flying bombs, piercing the Pentagon and piercing these towers, if the attack had been -- and I think the estimate is that there could be up to 50 people who were co- conspirators or participants in this -- if it had been 50 people going into 50 U.S. cities carrying briefcases with biological pathogens, biological weapons, what would have been the consequences? [Bioterrorism]
HUTCHINSON: Right. I was very pleased, in the advance
questions, with your response to the issue of vaccine
production. You said, "I support establishing a long-term,
reliable national vaccine production capability. The
Department of Defense has a long-term need for reliable
sources of FDA-approved vaccines for any biological health
threat that may impact our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines now and in the future."
[GOCO - government owned, contractor operated facility. Timeline for the the Anthrax attacks - first letter MAILED September 18th. Then in the October 25th hearing in which Gen. Eberhart testifies - role of the defense dept in Homeland Security.
HUTCHINSON: The BioPort facility -- the Michigan facility, my first question is, can the vaccine that is produced there, the anthrax vaccine, presumably, hopefully that it will be approved quickly by the FDA and that we can see production begin again -- how can the civilian population access that? Will it be only for force protection? We're talking about homeland security. What kind of prospects are there that the production of anthrax vaccine could be available for protection of the general population should that be needed?
HUTCHINSON: I think we've got to do better. I think we have
to place a high priority on that. We've got to protect
against this threat.
[This is an incredible interesting exchange. Meyers doesn't think our missle defense is important. Remember above when he said that if we were hit by a missle, he would not recommend retaliating]
DAYTON: Thank you. I was intrigued by your answer on page 20
of your response about you believe it's in the national
security interest of the United States that all land-based
ICBMs be de-MIRVed. And you said there are no significant
military advantages to the elimination of MIRVed, land-based
ICBMs, which has particular relevance, given President
Putin's comments that that might be a Soviet response to our
pulling out of the ABM Treaty.
SESSIONS: I thought I would just ask you a few questions that are real fundamental and will go to your challenges in your job, not unlike what you and I discussed when you came by for a visit, and that is basically about our budget. President Bush this year is proposing -- and will achieve, I believe -- a $38 billion increase, over $30 billion increase in our defense budget from $290-something (billion) last year to nearly $330 (billion) this year and with a supplemental in between.
It's distressing to me -- and I'll ask you if you will agree
that even with this largest increase we've had in over a
decade, that we still are not able to do as much as we need
to be doing to recapitalize our aircraft, our ships and our
Army and Marine equipment.
(Earlier in the testimony, Meyers said "We have, as you know well, having just marked up the president's '02 budget, the majority of the increase in that budget was for just those things: for flying hours, for driving time for the Army, for steaming time for the Navy, for the spare parts to keep the whole military machine healthy and to try to do so in a way that wouldn't require coming back to the Congress for a supplemental.
INHOFE said: Most Americans may disagree with the causes of
wars or with some of the problems that we have, but they all
have been laboring under, I think, this misconception that
we have the very best of everything out there. [$300 billion
dollars a yearjust doesn't go as far as it used to I guess]
According to my research, all of the key people that were involved in 9-11 from an operational standpoint, were also involved in the y2k analysis and cyber terrorism studies.Thomas Barnett said in a recent presentation on C-Span that one of the scenarios they looked at was 'terrorists' flying airplanes into the cooling towers of nuclear plants. So that makes Gen. Meyers statement that they were only looking at external threats and not internal threats a lie. Look at all the lies and who told them, and you can build the Perp List for 9-11 from our own government and military officials.
When I was watching the hearings on the first $87 billion dollar supplemental for the war effort in Iraq, it was pretty clear that the lives of our soldiers were being held hostage in order to force the Congress to fund the reconstruction effort. It is also pretty clear that there was advance knowledge of 9-11 and complicity by senior military and government officials. All the wish lists were ready to go and nobody seemed too interested in finding out exactly what failed, who failed and why they failed. Obvious now.... they already knew the answers to those questions, they were in phase III of the plan for the coup d'etat of the United States.
Phase I - Steal the election in Florida 2000. Implement computerized voting systems (HAVA) so that elections can forever be controlled and the winners selected in advance by New Rulers.
Phase II - September 11th
Phase III - Perpetual war in Iraq, destroy our reserves and national guard troops, bankrupt the U.S. Treasury, cripple the U.S. economy, flood our country with foreign invaders and break down the rule of law. Implement a police state with computerized systems for monitoring and tracking citizens (aka terrorists to these people).
Phase IV - Rewrite the Constitution - they are working on this now by making it seem as if it needs so many amendments that it is just an obsolete document.