9/11 Culpability. Was anyone negligent in their duties?

When the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor, after eight inquiries, General Walter Short, Commander of the Army for the defense of Hawaii, and Admiral Husband Kimmel, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, were both charged with negligence and dismissed. After 9/11, neither the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, nor the head of Civil Aviation, nor the head of Air Defense was punished or removed from office:

On September 10, 2001, U.S. Army Brigadier General W. Montague Winfield asked junior officer Captain Charles Leidig to temporarily replace him as Director of Operations at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) from 8:30am on 9/11. After the last plane had crashed, Winfield resumed control. After 9/11, Winfield was promoted to Major General.

Captain Charles Leidig had only just completed a course qualifying him to run the NMCC. After 9/11, he was promoted to Rear Admiral, Director of Operations of the Sixth Fleet Naval Forces in Europe.

On 9/11/01, Brigadier General David F. Wherley Jr. was Commander of Andrews Air Force Base (the nearest base to the Pentagon). After 9/11, he was promoted to Major General, Commanding General of the National Guard, District of Columbia.

On 9/11/01, Richard B. Myers, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the temporary head of all U.S. armed forces in the absence of Chairman Shelton who was out of the country. On October 1, 2001, Myers was promoted to Chairman.



The above information is derived from the latest 9/11 documentary "ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11". If you haven't seen it, it is an excellent movie and one of the best 9/11 documentaries.

If 9/11 was NOT an inside job, there should have and would have been people held responsible.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]

I was told about it but not specifics so I didnt say anything until right after. I feel bad but the man I turned in didnt say how americans would die soon.m Just that he was friends with the arabs in hamberg, the german and russian mafia, and the nazis from eastern europe and adolph hitlers crews grandkids.. that is the truth swear to god. So they where close knew specifics but not exactly what was up.

reply to post by _BoneZ_



Have you seen Core of Corruption yet? Well worth it.

And I think the last sentence of your OP really answers your own question, doesn't it?

Your question is an interesting one. The way I interpret it is as follows. Given the sequence of events that unfolded on 9/11 is there anyone in the story who could be said to be clearly negligent as opposed to traiterous in their conduct that day. I'm trying to weed out the perps and the dupes here and just concentrating on people who may be judged to have neglected their duty.

I think one could make an argument that when Dick Cheney refused to do anything about the aircraft approaching Washington, as remembered by Thomas Mineta, he should have been arrested or at the very least removed from command. I think someone was negligent there.

There might be an issue with the Office of Emergency Management in New York as well when the Mayor changed locations after having been informed that one of the Towers was going to collapse. Were firemen ordered to evacuate immediately? I'm not sure of that.

One could also make an argument that scheduling so many military exercises involving so much of the North American fighter protection and generating so much confusion with false radar blips, etc. could be viewed as negligent, should have been viewed as negligent by some innocent but high ranking military officers. I think, as the OP has already indicated, some of the innocents may have had their silence paid for with promotions.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by ipsedixit]

Sure..

Every member of the Congress that spent the 90s spending the "Peace Dividend".

Reviving this thread as the anniversary is just about upon us. The information in the OP is pretty damning and should be known by everyone.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Reviving this thread as the anniversary is just about upon us. The information in the OP is pretty damning and should be known by everyone.

I'm not quite sure what you are implying is damning? The only point I can see that could even be relevant is:

If 9/11 was NOT an inside job, there should have and would have been people held responsible.

This seems silly though, surely if it was an inside job then it would be a perfect opportunity to place the least 'compliant' staff in a position of authority and then hold them accountable for the failures? Why does the lack of public shamings indicate an inside job?

reply to post by exponent


Everyone was promoted and nobody was fired or held accountable for their negligence in not protecting this country or preventing the attacks. Just as General Short and Admiral Kimmel were fired for negligence in not protecting or preventing Pearl Harbor.