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.


[SIDEBAR: Gen. Shelton who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff went to work for NBC as a commentator in 2002. "Gen. Shelton joined NBC News as an on-air commentator for breaking national security news in 2002. "


In the spring of 2002 Gen. Shelton had an accident the ended his career as a commentator.


"His 6-foot-6-inch military bearing and commanding presence at the Celebrity Forum belied his recent personal battle. Only months after his retirement, following 400 parachute jumps from 30,000 feet, the former special ops soldier fell from a ladder outside his home, landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down. " Incredibly acrobatic of him don't you think? ]

Curiously, the hearing had less to do with Gen. Meyers than it did with discussing the military wish list and the picture of U.S. Homeland Defense. In my opinion, from my reading of this hearing, I'd say that several of the members of this committee were following a script. After re-reading this several times, I found the answer. The script must have been given to them in Gen. Meyers written testimony before the hearing: COLLINS: "In the priorities that you submitted to the committee in response to an advance question, you said that we should better define the military's role in homeland security".


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.

MEYERS: 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.

I would also, on the intelligence side, say that obviously that's a lesson learned.

As you know, Senator Cleland, there is a major review of our intel apparatus going on right now. And I think it goes without saying that our intelligence operations are structured as they were during the Cold War. They're looking at that. ....And my guess is they'll have substantial changes to the way we're perhaps organized and, for sure, equipped to deal with the 21st century.

MEYERS: We can talk about the absolute fundamental nature of space control to everything else we want to do in space. And it all starts with knowing what's going on up there. So space surveillance is the one I'd highlight.
[Space survelliance is probably that top secret, outrageously expensive item in the defense budget this year]

ALLARD: I'd like to now go to, since I still have some time left, to go to space-based radar.

MYERS: Yes, sir.

ALLARD: This has been a controversial program between the House and the Senate and that came out in the conference. Last year and in previous years, we've had quite a bit of discussion on it.

What is your feeling about space-based radar. And can you relate to this committee whether the Air Force and OSD have decided to deploy space-based radar?

MYERS: The whole issue about space-based radar, if we take it up to the next level, is what we're talking about here is persistence. We're talking about the difference between reconnaissance, which looks at things in elements of time, to something that surveils, that looks at something all the time.

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 of war?

MYERS: That's a hypothetical situation.
...And the situation you have posed, if there was a missile launched and we intercepted it, would I advocate a response? In that scenario, in that narrow scenario, absolutely not. In fact, as we sat there in Cheyenne Mountain and showing, taking people through the mountain, we played a simulation of what an attack on the United States might look like. And the frustrating part was, you know, we do a pretty good job of telling folks we're under attack with very high assurance, but there's nothing you could do about it.

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 country?

And so, we've been tiptoeing around that issue for quite some time.
My view is that this tragedy is going to help crystallize our thoughts. And we'll have some thoughtful debate and find a way forward. [Remember also that Meyers supplied his wish list for the military - 2 days after the attack of September 11th which means that it had to be ready to go prior to 9-11].

[When people are involved projects, they tend to use the terminology and concepts of the project when they speak to other people. Keep in mind that Meyers was involved in the cyber terrorism project also. Refer to the transcript of Thomas Barnett, Military in the 21st Century: "
Their fear with Y2k was that it would be something cataclysmic and that it would crystallize our understanding of the rules sets out of whack and that there would be a period of tremendous rule set catch-up at that point."   ]

[SIDEBAR: Speaking of wish lists - Judicial Watch was able to obtain a memo containing the following: Email from an Energy official, asking an energy industry lobbyist, "If you were King, or Il Duce, what would you include in a national energy policy, especially with respect to natural gas issues?"]

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.

Do you have any comments on how we better define the role of the Department of Defense?

MYERS: Well, as I indicated earlier, it was on the question on cyber warfare as well, it's the same issue. Is this a civil law enforcement issue? Or is it one of national security? Because, however you decide that question, then will decide who has got primary responsibility.

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?

MYERS: Well, I think the answer to that is yes. And I think some of that has already begun. I think the force protection here in the United States has always been front and center.

NELSON: If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question.

I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft. [He thinks but he is not sure?]

One of the things you have to understand, senator, is that in our posture right now, that we have many fewer aircraft on alert than we did during the height of the Cold War. And so, we've got just a few bases around the perimeter of the United States. [Remember that Meyers is the guy who shut down bases - especially the one that protected New York & New Jersey].

So it's not just a question of launching aircraft, it's launching to do what? You have to have a specific threat. We're pretty good if the threat's coming from outside. We're not so good if the threat's coming from inside. [We're incompetant but trust us - we're looking out for you]

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.

We surely don't want any terrorist you can think of to use a court system, rather than a military solution, to an act of terrorism, whether it be against the USS Cole or whether it be against the Pentagon.
[Intro - need for the patriot act, which we know was already to go at this point]

MYERS: Senator, some of the ones we've already talked about. But I think we need to look really closely at our intelligence capabilities, our ability to analyze the information we get. We get a lot of information. It's the ability to analyze it, I think, and disseminate it in a timely manner that make the difference. [Plug for intelligence computer systems ]

I think we need to look at our communications as well. And again, I go back to the other issue, and that is the issue of homeland security, homeland defense. There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area that we've just got to wrestle to the ground. And we can't keep putting these off or we'll not be prepared in the future.

BEN NELSON: The acts of this week, Tuesday, have probably, in the most indelible way, framed the issue for us for the future ["crystallized our thinking of rulesets out of whack"] and that is that national security requires that we be prepared, both internationally and internally. There are those who would suggest that, as Senator Collins and Senator Bunning and others, that we make certain that we not treat the acts of this week as some sort of a legal or criminal matter alone; that they must, in fact, be dealt with as a military matter, with a military response to the situation.

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."

I appreciate that. I think that commitment is absolutely essential.

You say earlier in your comments, you speak to anthrax, but you also expand that to recognizing that there are a lot of biological threats to force protection that confront us. What concerns me is that, while we have a terrible shortage in vaccines now, we are not able to protect our men and women in uniform, that the estimates, if we go with a GOCO, if the determination is that that's the best way for us to address this, we're still talking years.

[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?

Who owns BioPort? CARLYLE GROUP & BIN LADEN FAMILY!    (This was written several years ago so I'm not sure if this is still true - but it was true when I wrote it) So..... I guess now we know why there was no flu vaccine this year. My guess is that the Carlyle Group and the Bin Laden family haven't extorted enough money from our government yet. The lack of vaccine this year will help "crystallize in Congress' mind" that they need to fund this facility for the NWO]

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.

And the added benefit of that kind of production capability will be to, I think, also provide protection to the American people who are equally vulnerable. So I think you for your commitment to that. I want to urge that that be given a priority under your leadership and that we expedite, to the extent possible.

[ As an aside, I was watching Booknotes TV, and it turns out that Kaye Bailey Hutchinson wrote a book that was covered on C-Span. Imagine that? We have a superwoman in Congress - time to be a senator on several major committees and still finds time to write books.I did a search on her Amazon several days ago.It returned a listof4 books.Today I went back and did the same search but only one book came up. I tried several different search methods and formats. So... being the programmer that I am, I decided to test the search facility. In the advanced search for books, I typed in the author: Louis Lamour. Gee Whiz... it works just fine. It came up with a list of 98 books ]

[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.

Could you elaborate on that, please, sir?

MYERS: As I recall that question, I think I was talking about the significance of U.S. missiles. We have, as you know, de-MIRVed some under previous agreements. And we still have some that are MIRVed.

DAYTON: Maybe I'm misinterpreting because the question that preceded that referred to the Russians, that they may not de-MIRV. And you pointed out correctly that START II Treaty is not in force.

MYERS: Right.

DAYTON: So that they're not being required to do so. So maybe I misunderstood. Let me just rephrase it then and say would that be of strategic and security concern to the United States if Russia took the position that it would not de-MIRV its nuclear warheads in response to something such as withdrawing from the ABM Treaty?

MYERS: I don't think the issue of whether they're MIRVed or de- MIRVed is really the issue. The issue to me would be, first of all, what is our strategic relationship with Russia? And today, I think it's quite different than it was, obviously, during the Cold War.

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.

Senator Sessions, that's absolutely the case. The account -- the modernization account, if you will -- has been, for a lot of this past decade, been used to ensure current readiness and current operations. [ So why didn't our guys have body armor?] So we borrowed from that account to make sure we're ready to do what we have to do today.

We're reaching the point now where our shipbuilding accounts, our aircraft modernization accounts, Army transformation accounts are short. And the average age of our aircraft continues to go up. Things are just getting older.

(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]

And we don't have the very best anymore. Our best air-to-air vehicle, the F-15, air-to-ground vehicle, the F-16, in many ways, the SU series that's on the open market, manufactured by the Russians, are better than that what we have. So I'm sure that that's one of your top priorities. And if you have any comments to make about your ideas on modernization, maybe specifically the F-22.)


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.