Shocked into activism by the ACLU's analysis of the Patriot Act II, Mal Chaddock has been involved in social justice issues since 2002, first with Peace Fresno, a group that was infiltrated by the FBI and made international news. After relocating to Portland, OR Mal helped co-found Oregonians Against the Wars and Individuals For Justice (www.individualsforjustice.com) and joined the Portland, OR chapter of Veterans For Peace where he currently serves as vice president. Mal has traveled the nation extensively over the last dozen years supporting endeavors for peace, often accompanying Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan on her journeys in the USA. Most recently he's been active in helping found and support NoNukesNW and RadCast.org as well as Don't Shoot Portland.
Kevin Ryan Interview
Interview published on February 15, 2014
MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/429-int-42
Who was responsible for the crimes of 9/11? Osama bin Laden and nineteen, young Islamic terrorists? Or is there evidence pointing towards other suspects who should be investigated? To discuss this question, we are joined by Kevin Ryan, author of the book Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, and co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Drawing upon a decade of investigation, Kevin Ryan traces an intricate web of interconnections between key individuals, institutions and businesses, and reveals an alternative set of 9/11 suspects, each with the "means, motive and opportunity" possibly to have played their part in the crimes of 9/11.
Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator
Of the many unanswered questions about the attacks of September 11, one of the most important is: Why were none of the four planes intercepted? A rough answer is that the failure of the US air defenses can be traced to a number of factors and people. There were policy changes, facility changes, and personnel changes that had recently been made, and there were highly coincidental military exercises that were occurring on that day. But some of the most startling facts about the air defense failures have to do with the utter failure of communications between the agencies responsible for protecting the nation. At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), two people stood out in this failed chain of communications. One was a lawyer on his first day at the job, and another was a Special Operations Commander who was never held responsible for his critical role, or even questioned about it.
The 9/11 Commission wrote in its report that – “On 9/11, the defense of U.S. airspace depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).”
According to the Commission, this interaction began with air traffic controllers (ATCs) at the relevant regional FAA control centers, which on 9/11 included Boston, New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis. In the event of a hijacking, these ATCs were expected to “notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate. “
The testimony of Norman Mineta is widely discussed and known at 911blogger. For example "Mineta's Testimony CONFIRMED".
Nevertheless there are important statements made by important FAA-personal, which need to be contributed to the discussion:
Mike Weikert was in charge in the FAA-Headquarter for the "primary net" (hijack-net). In his statement to the 911 commission, he describes, what happened shortly before the Pentagon attack. He says, that the FAA-Headquarter tried to "raise" the White House, Defense Department, and that Belger was monotoring "both nets":
"We were trying to raise them when we were tracking the plane that crashed in the Pentagon. Belger was in the room at the time. He was monitoring both nets." source
Monte Belger Acting (FAA Deputy Administrator) cannot remember speaking with Mineta, but can recall reports of a "high speed VFR", which flow eastward in this time:
Here is another oddity surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Two new entries in the Complete 9/11 Timeline reveal that a New York air traffic controller mistakenly reported over an FAA teleconference that the first aircraft to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a helicopter, and this hit the north WTC tower at 8:27 a.m., almost 20 minutes before the attack there actually occurred.
Aidan Monaghan of 911Blogger.com joins The Corbett Report to discuss his tireless efforts to uncover government documents about 9/11 via FOIA requests. We discuss some of the information he has uncovered and how others can follow in this fruitful area of research.
Recently Added Events
Showing 1-20 of 100 recently added events:
* 6/28 - NEADS Instructs AWACS Plane to Return to Washington Area to Help It Communicate with Fighters, (11:25 a.m.) September 11, 2001, posted by matt
* 6/28 - Marine Fighters Arrive over Washington but Lack Correct Authentication Code, (11:25 a.m.) September 11, 2001, posted by matt
* 6/28 - Attorney General Ashcroft’s Plane Diverted to Richmond, Threatened with Being Shot Down, 11:11 a.m. September 11, 2001, posted by matt
* 6/28 - Attorney General Ashcroft Ignores FAA Order for His Plane to Land, 10:40 a.m. September 11, 2001, posted by matt
* 6/28 - Unarmed Fighters Find Target Is Just US Military Aircraft, (10:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001, posted by matt
* 6/27 - FAA Controller Passes on Shootdown Authorization to Toledo Fighters, Because NEADS Cannot Reach Them, (Shortly After 10:32 a.m.) September 11, 2001, posted by matt
* 6/27 - FAA’s Boston Center Declares ‘ATC Zero’, (Shortly After 10:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001, posted by matt
A study, which is based on the official FBI documents issued on 11/09/2001, show how UAL and the FAA were tracing two different flights, but both were identified as "UA 93".
The study contains also analysis of documents issued by FBI, LAU, NTSB and 9/11 Commission published after 9/11.
This document can be viewed and/or downloaded here
Quote article: "One of the three who received his FAA licenses this year, Yeslam bin Laden, a half-brother of Osama who lives in Geneva, Switzerland, is named in a civil lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims alleging he helped to finance Osama's al-Qaeda network as it started up in the 1990s in Yemen and the Sudan."
Source: ABC News
By ERIC LONGABARDI and JOSEPH RHEE
At least 12 members of Osama bin Laden's family currently hold Federal Aviation Administration pilot's licenses that make them eligible to fly aircraft anywhere in the United States, including three who received their licenses just this June, according to an analysis of FAA records provided to ABC News by a computer security firm, Safe Banking Systems.
Photo: The High-Flying Bin Laden?s; 13 Osama Kin Hold FAA Licenses: US Says No Terror Threat Posed by the Bin Laden Family?s Fascination with Aviation
As people who follow the issue closely are aware, there has been some debate over the involvement of a group of military officers stationed at FAA headquarters--generally referred to as the "military cell"--in the events of 9/11. Although I don't mean to recap the whole debate here, the basic jist is that the 9/11 Commission claimed that the military were unaware of the hijacking of United 93 until a few minutes before it crashed, but what about the military cell--were they too unaware of what was going on?
Yesterday, I was reading through the commission documents we have posted at the 911 Document Archive at Scribd , and I came across a transcript of FAA communications on the day of 9/11. You can find the following at page 59 (approximately 9:45 a.m. - 9:50 a.m.):
MR. : Tactical Net--
MR. : And this is Cleveland Center. Who's up?
MR. : It is the Command Center with about five or six people listening.
MR. : Okay. Mr. [inaudible], the chief, just asked if we have any military up or not? Are we pursuing that? We'd like to be able to track this guy (United 93) so we know what's going on, especially when we lose a transponder.
MR. : We have been in contact with the military cell here in the building and they're working the issue. I'm not sure where they are with--
The Wall Street Journal, by way of Siobhan Gorman, reports that "Civilian air-traffic computer networks have been penetrated multiple times in recent years, including an attack that partially shut down air-traffic data systems in Alaska, according to a government report."
The concerns are reiterated on the website of congressman Tom Petri.
But the notion that the FAA could allow (direct or indirect) internet access to flight control systems is dubious. What could be the reasons behind this publication? Let's examine some hypotheses.
- Genuine concern - Some security breaches to non-critical systems are blown out of proportion, but are made public in genuine concern for FAA IT security as it relates to national security
- Fearmongering - Fan the flames of the security hype, easing the adoption of new laws, allowing the government draconian control over internet infrastructure
I have obtained a new document via FOIA request. It is an FAA memo comprising a transcript of calls between various FAA facilities and other institutions on the day of 9/11, and was referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report, in endnote 128 to Chapter 1 (on page 459). It is not spectacularly exciting, but touches on awareness of all four hijacks, in particular the last three. You can find it here.
This comes from DNotice.org, in a piece entitled 'The NORAD Papers III,' which follows two other informative reports from them about NORAD that people have submitted to 911bloggger.
Their article begins:
In The NORAD Papers and The NORAD Papers II we learned from government/military documents, media reports, university curricula, etc. dating from before 1995 to 1999 that NORAD since its founding in 1958 was tasked with three missions:
1. surveillance and control of the airspace covering the United States and Canada;
2. providing the NCAs [National Command Authorities] with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America; and
3. providing an appropriate response to any form of an air attack.1