This is very interesting...
Wednesday, September 12, 2001, Page A - 17, San Francisco Chronicle
WILLIE BROWN GOT LOW-KEY EARLY WARNING ABOUT AIR TRAVEL
[By] Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
FOR Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late
Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security
-- a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks --
advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.
The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San
Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any
alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming
David Irving comments:
ACCORDING to a report today Friday, May 17, 2002, on Pacifica Radio, the
warning to San Francisco's mayor came from squeaky-clean Condoleezza Rice.
I recall that attorney general John Ashcroft received a similar warning
in July .
I watched Ms. Rice, on C-Span a day or two ago, and she seemed genuinely
rattled by the disclosure of these facts; not by the facts themselves,
just by the disclosure.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
9/11 Families Reject 'Bribe,' Sue U.S.
By Tim Harper
Toronto Star, Tuesday 23 December 2003
Families sue U.S., reject 9/11 `bribe', ignore deadline for compensation.
Payouts average $1.8 million.
WASHINGTON-For some, it's blood money, a repugnant payoff they feel they
have no choice but to accept.
For a handful of others, the process of claiming compensation is too
painful: they find themselves paralyzed by grief and unable to reopen
emotional wounds barely healed from the deaths of their loved ones in the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But as many as 73 families see the process of U.S. government compensation
as an attempt to protect those who should be held accountable for what
they believe was mass murder. They ignored a midnight deadline last
night, their last chance to apply for government cash. And today, they
begin a new stage in an arduous odyssey and will sue their government,
airlines and state and local authorities.
"This may be uncharted waters, but I was thrown in a pool on Sept. 11,
2001 and had to learn to swim," said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her
husband Richard in the World Trade Center attack. "I am doing this for
my husband. He was a gentle man, and he was alive, trying to get out of
that building that day. The dead. The dying. The smoke. The terror. No one
should have suffered like that. I want accountability. I need answers."
The compensation fund has been controversial since President George W.
Bush signed it into law 13 days after the attacks. For those who lost
family members, it was always about protecting airlines, federal, state
and local authorities from billions of dollars of lawsuits.
To receive the federal money, recipients must sign a waiver giving up
their right to sue anyone involved in the worst terrorist attacks in U.S.
A late surge of claims on deadline yesterday meant close to 95 per cent of
the 2,976 families who lost loved ones in New York, Washington and
Pennsylvania were expected to finally take the money.
To get there, they had to accept a monetary value on the lives of those
closest to them, after making a case based on birth and marriage licences,
diplomas and degrees, even videos. They will, on average, receive $1.8
million (all figures U.S.) each.
Families of 24 Canadian victims are eligible for compensation and most
Brian Alexander, a New York lawyer representing a portion of the victims
who have launched the lawsuit, said he knew of no Canadians involved. He
said those who have chosen to sue have put no dollar figure on awards and
each claim will be individually tailored. "A widow who is 80 years old
is not in the same category as a widow who lost her husband at age 30 and
has four kids at home," he said.
Some $1.5 billion had been paid from the government fund by the weekend.
Compensation for individual deaths has ranged from $250,000 to $6.9
million. Those physically injured as a result of the attacks have received
compensation ranging from $500 to $7.9 million.
"Only in America could there be a program like this," fund administrator
Kenneth Feinberg told CNN yesterday. "You wouldn't find a program paying
an average $1.8 million tax-free to eligible families. This is an
unprecedented, unique program and exhibits I think the best in the
Yet Gabrielle says it is a bribe by the government so victims can be
coerced into washing their hands of the affair. She is also resentful
that the government is determining the worth of loved ones. "This is
about mass murder," she said. "I want to know who was responsible. No one
has been fired. No one has been demoted. The same people who are guarding
us today on an elevated security alert are the same people who were
working that day."
Gabrielle said she is looking at a special 9/11 commission headed by
former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean to answer the question of
responsibility. Kean has battled the White House, New York and aviation
authorities for access to documents. He has a May deadline.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in
the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply
failed," Kean told CBS last week. He said later he was talking of lower
level officials, but Gabrielle and others want to know more about the
safety of the buildings and airport security.
Even those who have accepted the money see it only as the lesser of two
evils. Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon attack, was
still grappling with the decision to put 9/11 behind her or continue with
a lawsuit. "It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines and not
hold any of those people responsible for what happened," she said.
Feinberg's office detailed some awards. The beneficiary of a 36-year-old
project manager earning $231,000 and with one dependent was paid $3.48
million, while the beneficiary of a 26-year-old military officer with no
dependents and a $44,000 salary got $1.84 million.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[Excerpts from article:]
2) There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the
country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11th.
Routine security measures, normally in place, which may well have been
able to prevent the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended for
one hour while the attacks were in progress, and re-instated once they
3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the
President of the United States acted according to well established
emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B. Myers
stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought
it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the time he
came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose responsibility
was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff?
The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77 crashed
into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National Military Command
Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and
air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m., did not communicate to the
Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon, about the other hijacked
planes especially the one headed to Washington? After he was notified, why
did he go to the war room?
The actions of the President, while the attacks were occurring, indicate
that he deliberately avoided doing anything reasonably expected of a
President wanting to protect American citizens and property. Why didn't
the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is a
President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why was
the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota
elementary school? At 9.05, nineteen minutes after the first attack and
two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the
presidential chief of staff, whispered something in President Bush's ear.
The president did not react as if he was interested in trying to do
something about the situation. He did not leave the school, convene an
emergency meeting, consult with anybody, or intervene in any way, to
ensure that the Air Force completed it's job. He did not even mention the
extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the
reading class. His own explanations of his actions that day contradict
In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that the government
has a whole network of adjuncts and
advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be
informed, not the last. Where were these individuals who did not properly
inform the top officials?
In short, the CIA, the DCI, the State Department, the President, and key
figures around him in the White House, were ultimately responsible for
doing nothing in the face of the mounting evidence of an impending threat
to U.S. national security. Incompetence is a highly improbable
17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported
that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly
canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security
concerns." Why was that same information not made available to the 266
people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft? A
significant number of selected people were warned about flying or
reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a
phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by
air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he
was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address
to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his
scheduled September 11th address. John Ashcroft stopped flying on public
airplanes in July of 2001.
Other evidence exists indicating that government officials knew of the
attacks beforehand. For example, Tom Kenny who was with a rescue squad
from FEMA told Dan Rather of CBS News that, "WE ARRIVED ON MONDAY NIGHT
(SEPTEMBER 10TH) AND WENT INTO ACTION OF TUESDAY." HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR
HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY SURPRISE AS SOME
18) There are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the U.S. attack on
Afghanistan was already planned before September 11th. A pretext for war
is always needed. From investigative journalist Patrick Martin, "[t]his
examination has found that a specific war on Afghanistan . . . launched in
October 2001 had been planned for at least a year, and in general terms
related to regional strategic and economic interests, had actually been
rooted in at least four years of strategic planning. This planning, in
turn, is the culmination of a decade of regional strategizing. All that
was required was a trigger for these war plans, which was amply provided
by the tragic events of 11th September."
It is public knowledge that Unocal and others in the oil industry were
negotiating with Afghan officials for a pipeline across their country as
part of the "Silk Road" strategy. It was also reported that the talks had
broken down. A specific threat made at a meeting: the Taliban can choose
between a "carpets of bombs" - an invasion - or a "carpets of gold" - the
oil and gas pipelines. Experts agree that Central Asia and the Caspian
Basin are central to energy in the 21st century and that energy is central
to political, economic and military power. James Dorian noted in the "Oil
& Gas Journal": "Those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will
impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of
revenues from new production" (cited in Ahmed, 2002, p. 69).
The plans for global domination developed by those of Project for the New
American Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the Spring of
1997, are also a matter of public record. These plans included specifics
for taking military control of Central Asia, including regime change in
Iraq. The primary architects of these plans include Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Pearle, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all part of the first
Bush Administration ousted by Bill Clinton and now back in power with
George W. Bush.
19) The 9/11 attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the Bush
administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the weapons industry, and
the oil industry, all of which have benefited immensely from this tragedy.
It is worth noting the acute observations of Canadian social philosopher
John McMurtry: "To begin with, the forensic principle of 'who most
benefits from the crime?' clearly points in the direction of the Bush
administration. The more you review the connections and the sweeping
lapse of security across so many coordinates, the more the lines point
backwards [to the White House]."