Hat tip to simuvac who caught this here (no, he wasn't the source for Dr. Scott). - Jon
May 22, 2009 Peter Dale Scott 911Truth.org
Here is an excerpt from the text of what Cheney said at the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009:
"For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day - word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that. But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities."
-- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics (Emphasis added)
The first radar sighting of a plane approaching Washington was at 9:21 AM. In other words Cheney has confirmed his first account (and ours) that he was taken from his office earlier than 9:36 AM (as claimed in the 9/11 Report, p. 39), and first arrived in the bunker much earlier than "shortly before 10:00; perhaps at 9:58" (9/11 Report, p. 40, citing Cheney interview with Newsweek, November 19, 2001). There were of course no images to watch for some time from the crash in Pennsylvania, as opposed to the Pentagon.
What Cheney said yesterday adds nothing to his first account on September 16, 2001, but clearly discredits his second conflicting account for Newsweek two months later. (Cf. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11, 197-98, 200-01).
Documents recently found in the National Archives cast doubt on the integrity of the 9/11 Commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow. In an e-mail exchange with author Philip Shenon, Zelikow claimed that he first learned of a dispute on the commission over the investigation of false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials after it had been “percolating for a while” and was not involved in the initial stages of the argument. However, an e-mail chain (scroll down) found in the Archives by History Commons contributor paxvector shows that Zelikow had been involved in the issue from very near the beginning.
Zelikow made the claim he was not involved in the initial stages of the dispute in response to an allegation made by commission staffer John Azzarello and relayed by Shenon. After the staff investigators drafted a memo for the commissioners in early April 2004 outlining why they thought NORAD and FAA officials had deliberately lied to them to overstate the military’s readiness during the attacks, Zelikow “just buried that memo,” according to Azzarello. In response, Zelikow claimed that he had not even known of the issue at the start. The implication was that, as he had not known of it, it could not be him that was orchestrating--or even involved in--a dispute between the staff investigators and the commission’s lawyers, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne.
However, the newly found e-mail chain shows Zelikow did know of the issue in April, raising the question as to why he falsely told Shenon he did not. Zelikow is not known to be linked to the FAA, but, if the commission had referred the matter to the Justice Department and it had started a perjury investigation against NORAD officials, this would certainly have had the potential to embarrass his friends at the Pentagon. Zelikow is alleged to have husbanded the issue to ensure a less potentially embarrassing referral to the inspectors general of the FAA and Defense Department, who in the end blamed the false statements on innocent mistakes and poor logkeeping.
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor - Thursday, 21 May 2009
'Work for us or we will say you are a terrorist'
Five Muslim community workers have accused MI5 of waging a campaign of blackmail and harassment in an attempt to recruit them as informants.
The men claim they were given a choice of working for the Security Service or face detention and harassment in the UK and overseas.
They have made official complaints to the police, to the body which oversees the work of the Security Service and to their local MP Frank Dobson. Now they have decided to speak publicly about their experiences in the hope that publicity will stop similar tactics being used in the future.
Osama bin Laden
Dead or Alive?
David Ray Griffin
“This book is part of a growing body of nonfiction that illuminates the cataclysmic gap between those with power, who do as they please, and those with knowledge, who are not heard. … President Obama [must] break out of the closed circle of power to connect with the kind of independent knowledge found in this book…”
—Robert David Steele Vivas, recovering spy, founder of the USMC Intelligence Center, CEO of OSS.Net, and CEO of Earth Intelligence Network
The US’s political discourse and foreign policy in recent years has been based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden is still alive. George W. Bush promised as president that he would get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” and has been widely criticized for failing to do so. The US’s present military escalation in Afghanistan is said to be necessary to “get Osama bin Laden.” The news media regularly announce the appearance of new “messages from bin Laden.” But what if Osama bin Laden died in December 2001—which is the last time a message to or from him was intercepted?
See also: Rolling Stone articles "The Fear Factory" and " Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts" linked here. For a Canadian version of this kind of framing, see "Unfair Dealing" by David Weingarten.
Four men were arrested late on Wednesday over alleged plots to attack targets in and near New York.
The four planned to blow up synagogues and use Stinger missiles to bring down military planes, US prosecutors said.
The men were seized after allegedly planting what they thought were bombs near two synagogues in the Bronx area.
They earlier agreed to buy explosives from FBI agents posing as Islamic militants. New York has been on alert for a new terror attack since 9/11....
Thank you! As a result of your generous support in the last week, NYC CAN has been able to TRIPLE the size of its petitioning staff. For the next two and a half weeks, we will be able to collect 1,000 signatures everyday and skyrockect our total to nearly 60,000.
On Sunday, May 17, 2009, we eclipsed the milestone of 40,000 signatures!
With that number, we are almost guaranteed to have over 30,000 valid signatures – the magic number that requires City Council to vote on putting the referendum on the ballot. In six weeks, we will have enough that City Council’s vote will not matter – it will go on the ballot automatically. On November 3, 2009, millions of New Yorkers will go to the polls to vote on the formation of a new, independent Commission to finally conduct a real investigation of 9/11.
Zelikow Failed to Mention Possible Criminal Referral of False Statements by NORAD and FAA in Memo to 9/11 Commission Heads
A document recently discovered in the National Archives shows that, in a memo to the 9/11 Commission’s chairman and vice-chairman on false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials about the failure of US air defenses, the commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow failed to mention the possibility of a criminal referral. This supports allegations that Zelikow “buried” the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation. The document was found at the National Archives by HistoryCommons contributor paxvector and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd.