UQ Wire: 11 Top 911 Talking Points & Questions
Presented by... http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
11 Top Talking Points & Questions
4 July 2002
(NOTE TO EMAIL READERS: There are several URL links embedded in the HTML version of this page see… http://www.unansweredquestions.org/top_11.html for HTML version)
UQ asks the reader for your open mind, patience, and healthy skepticism in what follows. We ask only that citizens embrace your democratic responsibility to think for yourselves, because nobody else can do your thinking for you. Some of what follows may seem hard to accept or difficult to believe. We suggest that you revisit, check and double check difficult points with friends, family, colleagues, or independently, via the web (see point #11 below) or otherwise.
UQ offers these Top 11 Talking Points & Questions as a starting point for thinking about responsibility for the tragedy of September 11th.
- Whistleblowers : FBI agents Colleen Rowley (Minneapolis), Kenneth Williams (Phoenix), and Robert Wright (Chicago) amongst others have courageously come forward with accusations and evidence that their superiors derailed promising investigations that might have foiled the 9/11 attacks. Why were capable field agents hot on the trail of terrorists blocked, thwarted, intimidated and undermined by their superiors at FBI headquarters? Surely claims of incompetance and inefficient beauracracy is missing the point of these accusations. Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has even suggested possible treason may be involved at a recent press conference. How does the FBI hope to explain this pattern of blocking of legitimate investigations by capable field agents ?
- Insider trading: After 9/11, investigations were
launched around the world into suspicious pre-9/11
trading that clearly indicated detailed foreknowledge
of the attacks. Bloomberg News documented massive
spikes in put options (a bet the stock will fall) in
specific companies whose stock did in fact fall
precipitously once trading opened. Put option expert Phil
Erlanger estimated that profits would have been in the
billions of dollars. In a recent trial, federal
prosecutors accused Amr Ibrahim Elgindy of bribing an
F.B.I. agent to gain prior knowledge of the Sept. 11
So, where does this money trail lead? Why have we learned nothing from the SEC about who placed these trades? Do we not have a right to know ?
- Links to terrorists: According to published and
confirmed mainstream reports Mohammed Atta was wired
$100,000 by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI,
just prior to the attacks. The man who approved this wire,
General Mahmud was meeting with top officials of the US
government, including Intelligence Committee Chairmen
Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) and Senator Bob Graham
(D-FL) on the morning of the attacks.
The FBI confirmed on ABC News (This Week, September 30, 2001) that the payment had come from banks in Pakistan. A short time later, former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad retired amidst the scandal that linked him to the payment. This was published in The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001 and AFP (Agence France Press), 10 October 2001
One might be forgiven for asking - is this the only case of ties between US organisations and those allied or connected to terrorists ? What of the Bush families' close ties to the Bin Laden family through their shared business concerns in the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest US defense contractor ? Are we in fact with the terrorists or against them ?
ISI ties to Taleban
Who is Osama Bin laden ?
Manipulation of CNN and White House transcripts of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's May 16th Press Conference. (listen to original audio-video file), June 29, 2002
- Do warnings imply foreknowledge ? In the
aftermath of the attack, the administration stated that
they had had no warnings of an attack. Nine months
later they concede that they had received general
warnings of possible 'traditional'
hijackings by Al-Queada. In actual fact, numerous
reports from foreign intelligence groups and leaders
in terrorist attacks. The Bush administration
received warnings from Israel, Germany, Egypt, UK, and
Russia amongst others some very specific. In light of
detailed terrorist threat assessments, foiled plots or
discovered plans involving planes as missiles, and G-8
air defense measures last Summer, all well before 9-11, is
it not preposterous and deceptive for the
administration and the President to suggest that no one
could have imagined that planes might be used as weapons?
Is it not reasonable to ask, who specifically received these warnings and what specifically did they do with them? Why, in fact did the warnings not lead to a heightened state of readiness and an aggressive response by US Air Defenses on September 11th (as opposed to the opposite - see point four below) ?
"CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9/11", Larry Chin, Online Journal, May 6, 2002
"Air Force officer disciplined for saying Bush allowed September 11 attacks: Hijacker attended US military school;" Jerry Isaacs; World Socialist Website, Monterey County Herald; June 21, 2002
"Specificity of Method" Warnings, Kyle F. Hence [UQ Co-founder]; 5/18/02
"Echelon Gave Authorities Warning Of Attacks"; Ned Stafford; Newsbytes, May '02
- Air Defenses: The first hijacking was
known by Boston ATC at 8:28, (Village Voice,
amongst others). The Pentagon admits to being aware of
one hijacking at 8:40, (Boston Globe) and two
hijackings by 8:50 (General Myers). General Myers told
the Senate on Sept. 13th that "we did scramble fighter
aircraft... after the Pentagon was struck". That is,
fighters were scrambled at 9:40, a full hour
later. A story that fighters were launched from
Otis AFB and Langley AFB appeared in the press on Sept.
14th. Why the delayed report ? Rough
calculations of the time and distance traveled show
they would have been flying at less than half
their top speed. Surely this was a situation
requiring emergency measures?
Flight 93 was in the air, with the hijacking confirmed, for more than half an hour before it crashed, but no interceptors launched from Andrews AFB, only 10 miles and mere minutes flight time away - even after a second (hijacked-confirmed) plane had struck the WTC (according to "official" government military sources). All this flies in the face of standard procedure. Why was the air response so inadequate?
- An 9/11 Investigation?: According to Mary
Schiavo, former Inspector General for the U.S. Dept.
of Transportation (1990-1996), 682 hijackings have
occurred worldwide since 1972. All were thoroughly
investigated. Nearly a year has passed and the four
hijackings of 9-11 have neither been investigated by
the FAA nor the subject of pubic hearings. A congressional
investigation by a special joint House/Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence has met behind closed doors,
repeatedly delayed open hearings (most recently until
September, 2002) and had their chief investigator resign.
Precedent for convening immediate Investigative Commissions on issues of national security has been clearly established in the case of the Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination. Why is this so vehemently blocked and resisted by the Administration and others? Why, according to Senator Daschle, did both the President and the Vice-president lobby him for no investigation whatsoever? Why did 8 committees investigate Enron and only a single one, largely behind closed doors, undertake an in-depth investigation of 9/11?
- Legal Action: Increasingly victims' family
members are taking the lead in asking questions of
their government and insisting on an independent
commision. Julie Sweeney, a past guest on Oprah who
has refused what she refers to as 'government hush
money' to instead pursue legal action, said that it is
"patriotic to ask questions." Recently, members of three
victims' families groups were present and posed
questions at a national press
conference (where Sweeney was a presenter) organized by
UnansweredQuestions.org. Class-action lawsuits against
government agencies and airlines suggests that enough
evidence may exist to move on a legal front to find
accountability and the truth. Why are Bush
administration lawyers seeking to limit the victims'
families access to global evidence in their suits against
the airlines? Why have they sought torte reform to
- Rewarding Failure and Incompetance: Outside of
airport security personnel UQ knows of no
instances of firings or reprimands issued as a result
of 9/11 events. This despite the obvious failure of
intelligence, which, given the warnings received
implies at the very least gross incompetence, egregious
negligence if not worse. Rather than holding responsible
individuals directly accountable, and insisting upon
answers, we are instead rushing ahead and rewarding
them with rich financial bonuses and budget increases.
This comes on the heels of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld pre-9/11 confirmation in Congressional testimony that the Department of Defense had undocumentable 'adjustments' (ie. money unaccounted for) of $2.3 trillion. For comparison, the total federal outlay in the 2002 budget comes to just over $2 trillion. This staggering figure demands that we seek full disclosure of what's happened to taxpayer funds. Why are we throwing good money after bad without holding any one accountable for the worst breach of national security in history?
"The Real Deal on 9:11: Rewarding Failure"; Catherine Austin Fitts, Issue #2, Global Outlook magazine, published by www.globalresearch.ca.
"Not Important? Think Again!;" Chris Sanders, Sander Research, London, UK
- Anthrax : Suspicions continue to
swirl around an FBI investigation going nowhere after
eight months of investigation. Despite early attempts
to blame Iraq, it is now an established fact that all the
Anthrax came from a US Army facility at Ft. Detrick,
Maryland. Furthermore, respected scientist Dr Barbara
Hatch Rosenberg, has suggested that the FBI is dragging its
feet even though it has a clear prime suspect with the
US defense establishment. Recently it has surfaced that
the White House was put on Cipro on the very morning of
September 11th, more than a month before the
attacks. Are we being subjected to a campaign of fear
(ie 'terrorism') by people within our own government
Report: Iraq Behind Anthrax Attacks. Oct. 15, 2001 (sources The Gaurdian, including quotes from a CIA official)
Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army's Stocks
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks
Whitehouse on CIPRO
- Sleeping at the wheel? Shortly after taking
office, Ashcroft sent a memo to department heads
outlining his seven top priorities. Counter-terrorism
was not one of them. Two Star General Donald
Kerrick commented "Clinton's advisors met
nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden... I didn't
detect that kind of focus from the Bush administration." A
June 29th 2002 AP story states "President
Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly
100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet
terrorism was the topic during only two of those
sessions, officials say." In light of all the warnings
described above and increased 'noise' or 'chatter' they
now report receiving during the Spring and Summer of '01,
why did they not give this matter the attention it
deserved? How does this reconcile with Ashcroft's
personal decision to heed an FBI threat assessment and not
fly commercially in the weeks leading up to the attack?
"Before 9-11, Terrorism was low priority for the Bush Administration"; AP/NYTimes; June 29, 2002
"Avoiding the real questions"; Jane's Intelligence Digest; May 28, 2002
- 20 web sites
The following are 20 websites, in no particular order, selected from the hundred or more web sites that relate to this matter.
Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller by Coleen Rowley [edited version of 13 pp.]
"Agent: FBI Rewrote Moussaoui Request," John J. Lumkin; Associated Press, May 25, 2002
Agent Wright encountered stonewalling, negligence, indifference and outright opposition by his superiors and FBI H
"Massive pre-attack 'insider trading' offer authorities hottest trail to accomplices"; Kyle F. Hence; www.globalresearch.ca; posted April 23, 2002
Index of stories on insider trading posted at From the Wilderness
"Stock Advisor Knew About Attack", US Suggests; Alex Berenson, May 25, 2002
Complete indictment of FBI linked insider trading circle (33pp)
McMurtry, John, ‘Decoding 9-11’
Szamuely, George, ‘Nothing Urgent,’ New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2,
Zwicker, Barry, ‘The Great Deception: What Really Happened on Sept. 11th Part 2,’ MediaFile, Vision TV Insight, 28 January 2002,
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions (140pp. deep analysis)
"Inquiry of Intelligence Failures Hits Obstacles"; Greg Miller; Los Angeles Times; May 4, 2002
Congresswoman McKinney Presses for Investigation of Bush Administration Links to 9-11; April 12, 2002
"S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11"; David Kiefer, San Francisco Examiner, 6/11/02
Mary Schiavo's speech before the National Air Disaster Alliance and Foundation 2001 Autumn Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., September 29, 2001
(Updated December 7, 2001 to reflect the changes in the law as signed by the President on November 19, 2001)
- http://www.copvcia.com / www.fromthewilderness.com
- http://www.democraticunderground.com (911-section)
Any one of the these talking points (with supporting evidence and sources) taken on its own raises questions that require further attention. However, taken together, they build a compelling case that, at the very least, justifies our demand for a full, open and aggressive investigation as to accountability and even culpability for the attacks of September 11th.
Remember, these are only a starting points, and a 'first tier' of questions and talking points. Other sets of questions, and deeper analysis is already offered by other groups and investigators. Further questions and source links will be offered via UQ in the future.
We shall never forget the heros, and all those that gave their lives in the attacks of September the 11th 2001.