New York City activist

December 27, 2007

Why we need a new investigation of 9/11 – first draft of a leaflet

Filed under: 9/11,9/11 Truth,New York City — Diane @ 4:38 pm

Below is a draft of a leaflet I plan to distribute as part of my own personal street activism on behalf of the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative. The leaflet will be on two sides of a 5.5″ x 8/5″ sheet of paper.

Why we need a new investigation of 9/11

After 9/11/2001, many people had questions about how and why the attacks were allowed to happen.

Were there things the U.S. government could have done, but didn’t do, to stop the attacks? Were there warnings that the Bush administration ignored? Why were none of the hijacked planes intercepted before they hit their targets?

Many people wonder if the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen. Before 9/11/2001, the Bush administration was already preparing to invade Afghanistan. But, if 9/11 had not happened, Bush could not have rallied much public support for an invasion of Afghanistan, given how disastrously the Soviet Union had lost a war in Afghanistan back in the 1980’s.

Many people even suspect that high officials in the U.S. government not only allowed the attacks to happen, but were directly responsible for the attacks themselves, blaming them on foreign terrorists to provide an excuse for war.

Many other people suspect that there was not any deliberate wrongdoing by anyone in the U.S. government, but that various officials were incompetent or negligent. But was anyone fired? If not, why not?

To resolve these questions, and to hold Bush administration officials accountable if any of them are guilty of either negligence or more serious crimes, we need an investigation.

In 2002 to 2004, there was an investigation by the “9/11 Commission.” But the 9/11 Commission was run by people with ties to the Bush administration, such as Philip Zelikow.

To have an honest investigation of even the possibility of incompetence or negligence, let alone anything worse, on the part of high officials in the Bush administration, the investigation needs to be independent of the Bush administration. There has not yet been an investigation, with subpoena power, that was independent of the Bush administration.

We can have an independent investigation here in New York City. If you’re a registered NYC voter, please consider signing the petition for a New York City ballot initiative to set up an NYC-based commission to investigate 9/11.

For more information, please see:

NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative
http://www.nyc911initiative.org

New York 9/11 Truth
(meets Sundays, 6:30 PM, at St. Mark’s Church, 2nd Avenue and 11th Street, in Manhattan)
http://www.ny911truth.org/

This leaflet created by:

New York City Activist
activistnyc.wordpress.com

(On the New York City Activist blog, click Notes on the leaflet “Why we need a new investigation of 9/11” in the list of pages at the top right corner.)

P.S.: I just now wrote a first version of the Notes on the leaflet page. Among other things, it contains links to documentation on some of the points made in the leaflet. More documentation will be added later.

P.S., 12/28/2007: The above leaflet is worded as neutrally as possible. Its main point is merely that we need a new investigation, regardless of the reader’s viewpoint on what happened on 9/11. I’m also on a committee to revise New York 9/11 Truth’s pamphlet which has (and will continue to have) a different aim, to present the case for 9/11 being an inside job.

The above leaflet was written solely by me and does not represent any organization.

P.S., 12/31/2007: I’ll be substantially revising the above draft soon, to make more of a case for at least a coverup of some kind.

Advertisements

10 Comments »

  1. On your notes you say “Why were no planes intercepted?”. Take a look at the new findings by Andrew Burfield.

    -Aircraft Piracy and Terrorism are regarded as distinctly different events, and the procedure for acquiring military assistance in each case is very different.
    -NORAD Active Air Defense Missions (scrambles to intercept unknown aircraft entering the ADIZ from overseas) are distinctly different to FAA requests for escort fighters.
    -NORAD did not scramble alert fighters to intercept Payne Stewart’s learjet – all of the fighters that shadowed his aircraft were unarmed and the Air Force unequivocally stated at the time that they absolutely did not even consider the possibility of shooting the aircraft down – even if it crashed into a heavily populated area.
    -Fighters were scrambled from an air base that had armed alert fighters, but the alert fighters were not used.
    -Before the Payne Stewart incident, there were two other similar incidents that resulted in interception. The first, in 1980 involved the interception of a Cessna 441. When ANG fighters eventually reached the aircraft it was over 1,000 miles off course – a distance that would take the Cessna 441 at least 3 hours to cover. The second was a 1988 incident which was intercepted by a fighter trainer pilot that was already in the air at the time.
    -Escort fighters for a hijacking could only be requested by the FAA Hijack Coordinator, and had to be approved by the Secretary of Defense.
    -The only way around this was for NORAD to declare an Active Air Defense Mission, however NORAD regulations did not allow an AADM over continental US airspace.

    Comment by ref1 — January 12, 2008 @ 3:18 pm | Reply

  2. ref1 wrote:

    Take a look at the new findings by Andrew Burfield.

    Quoted from where? When you quote someone, please provide a link or a citation.

    Before the Payne Stewart incident, there were two other similar incidents that resulted in interception. The first, in 1980 involved the interception of a Cessna 441. When ANG fighters eventually reached the aircraft it was over 1,000 miles off course – a distance that would take the Cessna 441 at least 3 hours to cover.

    No details on where this was. One would expect interceptions to occur more quickly near the coast, or near cities with very busy airports, than out in the boondocks.

    -Escort fighters for a hijacking could only be requested by the FAA Hijack Coordinator, and had to be approved by the Secretary of Defense.
    -The only way around this was for NORAD to declare an Active Air Defense Mission, however NORAD regulations did not allow an AADM over continental US airspace.

    Did the Secretary of Defense have to approve ALL escort aircraft, or just the use of lethal force?

    Anyhow, the above quote seems to contradict your Q&A With 9/11 Boston Center Air Traffic Controller in which “Cheap Shot” contacted NEADS directly.

    “Cheap Shot” also mentions a new regulation that he was unaware of at the time. Cheap Shot says:

    In June 2001 a new order or instruction had come out from the Joint Chiefs, the CJCSI 3610.01A. Some skeptics think that controllers or lower level management people should have been aware of this instruction. The FAA will take an instruction like this and eventually incorporate this into the document. I didn’t know about this instruction until I was actually interviewed by the Justice Department.

    The Hijack coordinator was supposed to notify the National Military Command Center (NMCC), I believe they are located at the Pentagon. The NMCC would notify NORAD, NORAD would notify one of three Air Defense Control Facilities (ADCF’s), in our case Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADs). The ADCF would call the alert site, in our case Otis ANGB (FMH).

    What I knew on 9-11 was that I could call NEADS and get them to launch fighters right away. The ADCF’s had authority to launch interceptors, with coordination to or from NORAD. They didn’t necessarily have to wait for a clearance from NORAD. They could launch on their own and then tell NORAD hey we are launching fighters for an escort mission of a hijacked aircraft. Why they waited for the okay from NORAD I don’t know it could have been a change on their end. But on 9-11 I believe they could have been launched without NORADS blessing. Of course that’s my interpretation of FAAO 7610.4J. Appendix 16.

    Comment by Diane — January 13, 2008 @ 3:54 am | Reply

  3. Quoted from a one single post from JREF. He’s working on a new project.

    Cheap Shot did directly contact NEADS. He did not follow the protocol.

    I’m not commenting any more on this, as it’s Andrew’s project and I have nothing to do with it.

    Here is the one single post, if you want a link.

    [Comment, by ref1, edited by blog author Diane to HTML-ize link.]

    Comment by ref1 — January 13, 2008 @ 10:29 am | Reply

  4. Here’s a copy of the June 1 order CJCSI 3610.01A (PDF) on http://www.dtic.mil .

    Ahd here’s what Jim Hoffman has to say about the June 1 order.

    Anyhow, since the protocol was not followed, the protocol by itself does not explain the lack of air defense.

    But an important related question is why Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, was unavailable for so long. Supposedly he was in a meeting, and supposedly no one thought the matter important enough to interrupt his meeting in any timely fashion?

    Comment by Diane — January 13, 2008 @ 12:41 pm | Reply

  5. What if NORAD just couldn’t reach the planes in time. Plain and simple.

    I’m sure you would still have questions. But the street actions, t-shirts, leaflets? It seems you are very sure there was something fishy going on. Or are you? What if it all simply happened the way we are told?

    Comment by ref1 — January 14, 2008 @ 10:58 am | Reply

  6. ref1 wrote:

    What if NORAD just couldn’t reach the planes in time. Plain and simple.

    I’m sure you would still have questions. But the street actions, t-shirts, leaflets?

    Are you familiar with what the Jersey Girls went through? They certainly didn’t, at least at the beginning, believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Initially they had hoped that Bush would support their call for an investigation into what went wrong with the U.S. air defenses, to figure out how best to make our country more secure in the future, and to hold accountable those people who may have seriously screwed up. But the Jersey Girls’ efforts were stalled at every step of the way. If you have not done so already, I would suggest that you see the videos “9/11: Press for Truth” and “In their own words: the untold stories of the 9/11 families,” if you have means of obtaining them easily.

    Anyhow, there is indeed plenty of reason to believe that there was something fishy going on. I don’t take a dogmatic position on exactly what happened or why; I think that any such dogmatic stance is premature. But there is plenty of reason to suspect a coverup of at least some sort of serious wrongdoing.

    Next I should write a blog post about Donald Rumsfeld’s behavior on 9/11.

    Comment by Diane — January 14, 2008 @ 7:02 pm | Reply

  7. I have seen Press for Truth, but I must admit I don’t remember much of it anymore.

    But would you like to comment this review by Andrew?

    About Donnie, if I remember correctly, wasn’t he actually helping the Pentagon victims at first, carrying a stretcher?

    [Comment, by ref1, edited to HTML-ize link.]

    Comment by ref1 — January 14, 2008 @ 9:52 pm | Reply

  8. ref1 wrote:

    About Donnie, if I remember correctly, wasn’t he actually helping the Pentagon victims at first, carrying a stretcher?

    That is indeed one of the things he was doing. It would have been commendable if only he had been anything but the Secretary of Defense. As such, he was uniquely needed for other things, for which he was unavailable. For more about this, see my forthcoming next post.

    I’ll look at the review of Press for Truth later.

    Comment by Diane — January 15, 2008 @ 9:15 am | Reply

  9. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    The post linked below is the promised next post about Donald Rumsfeld.

    – Diane

    Pingback by George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers: Their whereabouts on 9/11 « New York City activist — January 15, 2008 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  10. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    The post linked below contains my response to Andrew’s review of 9/11: Press for Truth.

    – Diane

    Pingback by “9/11: Press for Truth” - my response to an official-story defender’s comments « New York City activist — January 16, 2008 @ 5:01 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: