Tribute to early black leader William Leidesdorff was
a businessman and politician long before Gold Rush.

By Molly Dugan -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Sunday, December 7, 2003

He was a debonair seafarer who became a business and
civic leader in San Francisco, where he threw parties
for high society in the 1840s.
He led U.S. troops to secure the Presidio against
Mexican forces and once served as vice consul to
Mexico, becoming the first African American diplomat.

He owned 35,000 acres in what is now Rancho Cordova
and Folsom, and he gave money and land for the state's
first public school, which was in San Francisco.

Nevertheless, many Californians have never heard of
William Alexander Leidesdorff Jr. But action by the
Legislature could change that -- at least for the
thousands of Highway 50 commuters who drive past his
former land holdings daily.

The Assembly has unanimously passed a resolution
naming a 15-mile stretch of the freeway from Bradshaw
Road to the eastern Sacramento County line for
Leidesdorff. The measure is pending in the state
Senate.

Michael Harris, director of the Black Sacramento
Cultural Center, pushed for the tribute in an effort
to teach people more about African American pioneers,
who often are left out of the history books, he said.

"There (are) very few things that honor early African
American pioneers," Harris said. "Here's a man who
owned all that land and most people have never heard
of him."

In Folsom, the plaza on Sutter Street and a
residential road are named for Leidesdorff. A plaque
at his burial site and a small street with his name
honor him in San Francisco.

State Librarian Kevin Starr said Leidesdorff resonates
with African Americans today because he was
sophisticated, educated and oozing with charisma. He
spoke several languages fluently and mingled among
dockworkers and power brokers with equal ease.

"He was not a man on the margins. This was a man at
the center," Starr said. "He was one of the state
founders with a capital 'F.' "

Leidesdorff proved that the color line in early
California was not as impenetrable as some might
think, said Starr, who is also a professor at the
University of Southern California.

"His ancestry didn't prove a problem," Starr said. "He
seemed to be able to live in the larger white world.
There are many people in the mid-19th century who
moved in various worlds."

Not everyone welcomed Leidesdorff, the son of a white
Dutch planter and black woman, who was born in 1810 on
the island of St. Croix in what is now part of the
U.S. Virgin Islands.

According to legend, he fell in love with a woman
whose family refused to bless their relationship
because he was of mixed ancestry. He never married.

Instead, Leidesdorff, who earned a fortune through
cotton speculation in the South before moving to New
York, launched a seafaring career. In 1841 he sailed
to San Francisco, where he owned a general store and
opened the city's first hotel.

He joined the City Council, serving as treasurer. A
prominent businessman and city official, he hosted
parties for San Francisco society leaders in his home.

Leidesdorff also is credited with commanding the first
steamship voyage on the West Coast, traveling from San
Francisco Bay up the Sacramento and American rivers.
The vessel, named the Sitka, may have been the
inspiration for the one pictured on the state seal.

In 1844, Leidesdorff acquired a massive land grant
from Mexico in what is now Rancho Cordova and Folsom.
He operated the land as a wheat farm and cattle ranch
for a few years until his death. He was $60,000 in
debt when in 1848 he died mysteriously at age 38.

After his death, Leidesdorff's mother sold the rights
to the land to Joseph Folsom for $75,000. A few months
later, pioneers discovered gold in the region, raising
the value of Leidesdorff's former land holdings to
$1.5 million.

Assembly Republican leader Dave Cox of Fair Oaks, who
introduced the resolution honoring Leidesdorff, said
naming a stretch of Highway 50 for him is a "small
token of appreciation" for his contributions.

"It's important that we honor people who made
something of their lives," Cox said.

Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, who co-wrote the
resolution, said honoring Leidesdorff is one way to
begin recognizing California pioneers of different
races and backgrounds.

"Every time we rename something for a historical
figure, it's an opportunity to teach," said Steinberg,
D-Sacramento. "These stories should be told. Too
often, they're not told."

-------------------------------------------

About the Writer
-------------------------------------------

The Bee's Molly Dugan can be reached at (916) 608-7453
or mdugan@sacbee.com.

================================================================

J. Edgar Hoover Back at the 'New' FBI
By Nat Hentoff
The Village Voice

Thursday 04 December 2003 

Classified FBI Bulletin Reveals Tactics at Protests

If you go around telling people, "We're going to ferret out information on demonstrations,"
that deters people. People don't want their names and pictures in FBI files. —American
University constitutional law professor Herman Schwartz, commenting on FBI
Intelligence Bulletin no. 89, October 15, 2003, "Tactics Used During Protests and
Demonstrations"

Americans of a certain age remember the FBI's counter-intelligence operation, COINTELPRO, which,
during its years of operation from 1956 to 1971, surveilled, infiltrated, manipulated, and tried to provoke
criminal activities by entirely lawful civil rights and anti-war demonstrators exercising their First
Amendment rights to oppose government policies. 

In the 1970s, the Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to
Intelligence Activities so exposed FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's relentless violations of the Bill of
Rights, very much including the First Amendment, that Attorney General Edward Levi—the best
constitutionalist in that office in our history—established new FBI guidelines to keep its agents within
the bounds of the Constitution. 

And Senator Frank Church of Idaho, chairman of that Select Committee on Intelligence Activities,
pledged in 1975, "The American people need to be reassured that never again will an agency of the
government be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers a threat to the
established order." 

Attorney General John Ashcroft has broken that pledge more times than I can count, because so
much of his surveillance of we the people is done in secret. But Ashcroft's overturning of the Levi FBI
guidelines was perpetrated publicly in May 2002, when he set new FBI guidelines in the spirit of
COINTELPRO. As a May 31, 2002, New York Times editorial charged: The FBI now has "nearly
unbridled power to poke into the affairs of anyone in the United States, even when there is no evidence
of illegal activity." 

As further evidence of how FBI director Robert Mueller continues morphing into J. Edgar Hoover, the
November 23, 2003, New York Times—in a front-page story by its invaluable legal affairs reporter Eric
Lichtblau—warned: 

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and
organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any
suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential
bureau memorandum." 

This is not news to those of us who track the FBI tracking us. But the importance of this coverage of
the continuous contempt of Frank Church's 1975 pledge to the American people by Robert Mueller and
his boss, John Ashcroft, is revealed in a sentence deep in that New York Times story: 

"The FBI memorandum . . . appears to offer the first corroboration of a coordinated nationwide effort to
collect intelligence regarding demonstrations." 

Analyzing this classified confidential FBI memorandum, FBI Intelligence Bulletin no. 89, (of which I
too have a copy), the October 15, 2003, Times quotes ACLU executive director Anthony Romero: "This
bulletin confirms that the federal government is targeting innocent Americans engaged in nothing more
than lawful protest and dissent. . . . It is troubling that the FBI is advocating spying on peaceful
protesters, but even protesters who engage in civil disobedience or other disruptive acts should not be
treated like potential terrorists." 

Among the "tactics" the FBI advises local law enforcement agencies to track in this intelligence
bulletin on "current, relevant terrorism information" is the frequent use by protesters of "the Internet to
recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations." 

This is exactly how the nation's Bill of Rights Defense Committees coordinate—and provide
organizing tools for the formation of new BORDC committees—to protest Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act
and subsequent executive orders in messages to their members of Congress. 

And when the attorney general went on his "victory tour"—speaking only to law enforcement agencies
on the virtues of the Patriot Act—BORDC and ACLU members used the Internet, exercising their First
Amendment rights, to recruit demonstrators at various stops on Ashcroft's barnstorming trek. 

In what part of the Constitution does the FBI have the authority to put in its databases the names of
protesters using the Internet to organize peaceful demonstrations? 

FBI Intelligence Bulletin no. 89 also alerts local police that "activists often communicate with one
another using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing
events. Other types of media equipment (video cameras, photogenic equipment, audiotape recorders,
microphones, and computer and radio equipment) may be used for documenting potential cases of
police brutality and for distribution of information over the Internet." 

Good grief! These persons under suspicion actually document out-of-control police during
demonstrations—and they also communicate with each other in the course of a demonstration! 

This FBI "Law Enforcement Sensitive Bulletin" ends, "Law enforcement agencies should be alert to
these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts to the nearest FBI
Joint Terrorism Task Force." 

But why does this brooding FBI bulletin contain so many references to entirely legal protest
activities? Like this one: "Activists may use intimidation techniques such as videotaping" during
demonstrations. Who is intimidating whom? (Emphasis added.) 

Referring to these FBI instructions on how to deal with the "tactics" of protesting demonstrators,
Senator Ted Kennedy—on ABC-TV's This Week, November 23—said, "How could we be fighting
abroad to defend our freedoms, and diminishing those freedoms here at home?" 

Adds the ACLU's Anthony Romero,"What is the chilling effect that will be felt by Americans all
across the country if they think they will come under FBI scrutiny just by going to a protest?" 

Will somebody in the elite Washington press corps ask George W. Bush if he's heard about the fifth
freedom in the First Amendment, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"?

================================================================
Planttrees@aol.com 
Date: 
2003/12/06 Sat PM 06:48:40 EST
To: 
undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: 
[democracyaction] 9/11 The Twin Towers' Demolition: Exposing the fraud of the government's
story







The Twin Towers' Demolition: Exposing the fraud of the government's story 
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.htm.

http://www.wtc7.net or http://wtc7.net

 Both work.
Fires have never destroyed steel buildings. 
* The collapses were not seriously investigated. 
* The evidence was destroyed. 
* The official explanations are ludicrous. 
* The evidence indicates demolition. 
* Demolition is provable. 
1535 C - melting point of steel. ~825 C - maximum temperature of 
hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-
heating 
(premixed fuel and air - blue flame) 
None of the features of 700+ C fires were observed: 
* steel glowing red-hot 
* extensive window breakage 
* big bright emergent flames 
* light smoke (not seen after first few minutes) 
The concrete, glass, drywall, insulation, and other non-metallic building 
parts were pulverized to mostly sub-100 micron powder. 
* Nearly all office contents were pulverized beyond recognition. 
* 1000 bodies were "vaporized", preventing identification, even with 
advanced DNA techniques. This indicates Demolition/ high energy explosives/ 
weapons.
Dust Cloud Expansion Energy Sink Vastly Exceeded Gravitation Energy Source
* Dust cloud of North Tower expanded to about 5 times building volume by 30 
seconds from collapse start. 
* Heat energy is required to produce expansion:
Ideal gas law: PV = nRT where: P = pressure, V = volume, T = absolute 
temperature
* Heat required over 10X gravitational potential energy. 
* energy required for 3.4X expansion is on the order of 1,500,000 KWH. 
* gravitational energy was about 100,000 KWH. Indicates presence of 
demolition/ explosives.
Conclusion: The Twin Towers Were Deliberately Demolished
* The demolitions must have been set up before the attack. 
* It was an inside job -- not the work of Osama bin Ladin. 
Further Info http://wtc7.net http://911research.wtc7.net

 http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/


================================================================
Planttrees@aol.com 
Date: 
2003/12/07 Sun AM 08:56:05 EST
To: 
undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: 
[democracyaction] 911 Smoking Gun - story by Will Thomas


Dear friends and others,

You have in your hands the genuine, US government-signed and issued
smoking gun of 911.

Now you know how I felt when this NORAD news release crossed my desk late
one night in a blur of too many late nights. Like an overlooked explosive
device emplaced just a week after Sept. 11, this little gem blew up as
soon as I scanned it. Holy smokes! Woke me right up: a statement by the
Pentagon saying basically that they had deliberately let it happen.

"Stand down" is militareze for "put down your weapons". Which is exactly
what happened on a day that traumatized a nation of somnambulists into
welcoming their own police state.

I can't think of a more accurate description for Patriot 1 and Patriot II,
the Guantanamo gulag, surrogate Syrian torture chambers, airport "watch
lists" - and soon-to-be-introduced by the grandson of the man who financed
Hitler - scanning of mandatory ID cards (or "more convenient" implanted
VeriChipsT) for all purchases and police requests.

At least, for those they let out of the camps.

Am I really saying this? Haven't I spent countless hours on talk radio
trying to calm hysterical Americans who see a NATO tank around every
street corner? After all, I've lived under martial law in Milwaukee, while
the ghetto burned to the nighttime accompaniment of shotgun blasts and
automatic weapons back in '67.

Martial law is very nuts. Since everyone gets the democratic choice of
staying inside during curfew - or getting shot - everything stops. Parking
all those cars may be good for global warming. But it's hell on businesses
and wage earners. (Just ask a Palestinian.) Imposing military law
indefinitely basically crashes the economy. Not to mention - at least in
the Excited States where everyone owns at least 15 guns - risking civil
war when all those yahoos, rednecks, militias, whackos and paranoids are
proven right.

What I hadn't reckoned on is the massive and mounting desperation
tightening like a noose around a gang of seriously psychotic paranoids
watching the wheels come off their war wagon.

It's not looking good in "Eyerack". Or Afghanistan. Or Illinois, for that
matter. Pick your state. The whole country's tanking. Washington's weapons
debt is poking another hole in the stratosphere, both poles are melting,
cheap oil is about to run out - hell, why not pull the plug on pretenses
and just get down and RULE by naked intimidation and force?

Don't look at me. I'm only a reporter repeating what General Tommy Franks
said a few days ago. Flying a trial balloon above swiftly gathering
darkness, the Desert Stormtrooper stated that it would take just one more
"big attack" on Americans to "suspend the Constitution" and bring in "a
military government."

Say what?

In a statement heard round the world and hardly at all in the land of the
free, Franks managed to make martial law sound, if not reasonable, at
least inevitable.

And imminent.

Which snaps NORAD's admission below into even sharper focus - by
confirming the Sept. 11 installment of a silent coup that took place in
Dallas over Kennedy's dead body, warned would-be resisters not to resist
by murdering a dozen or so children at Waco, then really got ruthless at
Oklahoma City - before stealing the present presidency outright and
putting all future electronic election results under direct Washington
control.

Which isn't all that difficult when the media lays down like a White House
whore.

Too bad all those innocent people had to die. I don't mean just in
Manhattan, DC and Pennsylvania - but all the children, wives and mothers,
sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, infants and elders blown to bits in so
many more buildings, villages and suburban homes equally vulnerable to
terror weapons hurled without warning from the sky.

OLD NEWS AND NEW NEWS The following information will be old news to many
Internet junkies. What's new - and so explosive none of the hundreds of
"news" agencies who received this story dared print or broadcast it - is
that this official confession can't be spun!

I know because I called NORAD in Colorado Springs and asked the
spin-doctor on duty about their own press statement. I wanted to know why
on Sept. 11, all the interceptors flew so slow? Maybe there was some kind
of regulation or something, prohibiting them from flying faster than the
airliners they were chasing?

After a brief pause, the Public Disinformation Officer said he would have
to buck this smoking info-grenade "upstairs". He would get back to me if
they could defuse the damn thing. I said great. I would look forward to
quoting NORAD verbatim in the story I would be releasing worldwide in five
days.

Since NORAD never got back to me with either confirmation or correction,
it's probably safe to conclude what is already starkly apparent: namely,
that the "official" airspeeds of the Sept. 11 interceptors corroborate -
and are in turn confirmed by - the logged flight times of fighters
scrambled during what was the biggest military debacle on US soil since
the Canadians sacked Washington.

Or another day of deception as treacherous as the closely tracked Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor.

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE Five days later, a shorter version of the story on your
screen went by special, paid news wire to every major news org in Europe.
It also went to all major media across Canada, as well as the biggest
broadcasters, news magazines and newspapers in the USA.

Somebody somewhere - possibly Newsweek or the NY Times - must've scanned
my memo and bucked it back to NORAD. Next thing I know, Colorado Springs
emails me my own news release. The accompanying message is one sentence:
"Is this your writing?"

"Yes," I wrote back, feeling flattered to be asked. Especially since I'd
never sent NORAD a copy.

But this was not the time to get into a terseness contest. Since we were
developing such a cozy relationship, I asked NORAD why the ready alert
jets at Andrews hadn't been scrambled that morning. Perhaps they could get
back to me on that? And then we could discuss the shoot down over
Pennsylvania.

Since no ordinance was expended, and I was not actually buzzed, I can only
conclude that the American F-15 that flew past my place 20 minutes after I
pressed "Send" was on a routine return mission from the big Canadian air
base nearby. Still, I took it as a hopeful sign that I had rattled some
cages at Cheyenne Mountain. (My landlord saw it differently, and began
erecting a blast wall.) Alas, my advances to the not normally shy NORAD
must have been too forward. Because that was the end of our
correspondence.

But not the end of this story.

Feel free to clip and post it to your local news mafia.

----------------------------

Pentagon says Sept. 11 interceptors flew:

TOO FAR, TOO SLOW, TOO LATE

by

William Thomas

Senior Correspondent lifeboatnews.com Dec. 5/03

It happens all the time. When a small private plane recently entered the
23-mile restricted ring around the U.S. Capitol, two F-16 interceptors
were immediately launched from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away.
In a similar episode, a pair of F-16 "Fighting Falcons" on 15-minute strip
alert was airborne from Andrews just 11 minutes after being notified by
the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a Cessna straying
towards the White House. AP Nov11/03; CNN June20/02 

These were well-practiced routines. With more than 4,500 aircraft
continuously sharing U.S. airspace, between September 2000 and June 2001
the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft.
FAA news release Aug/9/02; AP Aug13/02 

But on Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and
strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked
airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from
distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top
speeds. NORAD news release Sept. 18/01 

WHAT NORAD KNEW A recently resurfaced NORAD news bulletin released seven
days after Sept. 11 explains that America's aerial defenders were slow to
counter rapidly developing air attacks because they didn't hear from the
FAA that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked until 8:40 that
fateful morning. NORAD news release Sept. 18/01 

But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the
Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over
the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when
Flight 11's identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 -
automatically triggering a radar alarm.

With their capability to monitor developing "situations" by tapping into
military and civilian radars, U.S. military commanders would have also
seen Flight 175 turn abruptly south 25 minutes later - just as they had
watched on radar in October 1999 when pro golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet
abruptly departed its flight path while enroute o Dallas. CNN Oct26/1999 

In that legendary intercept, a fighter jet out of Tyndall, Florida was
diverted from a training flight to escort the Lear, whose pilot had become
incapacitated, trapping Stewart in the stratosphere. An F-16 was
reportedly sitting off the left wingtip of Payne's pilotless business jet
within 19 minutes of the FAA alert. ABC News Oct25/99 

If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on
Sept. 11, two "anti-terrorist" F-15's on armed alert could have been sent
south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. Flying at full afterburners
without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of
the fastest fighters on the planet would have broken a few windows. But
all the glass in the Twin Towers might have stayed intact had the
"fast-movers" intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson River at least six
minutes from Manhattan.

NO HURRY SAYS NORAD Instead, in a stunning admission that received little
press scrutiny at the time, NORAD noted that for all interceptions flown
against the hijackers on Sept. 11, "Flight times are calculated at 9 miles
per minute or .9 Mach." In other words, every interception flown by the
world's hottest air-combat aircraft was flown at less than a third of the
planes' top speed.

A Defense Department manual insists, "In the event of a hijacking, the
NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA." To make
this happen, the Federal Aviation Administration permanently posts a
liaison officer in the Pentagon air defense room. CJCSI 3610.01A,
June1/01 

Yet, according to NORAD, after air traffic controllers realized that
Flight 11 had been hijacked, 38 vital minutes passed before a pair of
F-15's was scrambled from Otis. As they lifted off, American Airlines
Flight 11 struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center, 153 air miles
away as a Falcon flies. NORAD Sept. 18/01 

United Airlines Flight 175 was still 20 minutes out.

"The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were
unable to catch up to the airliner," Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver later told
reporters. St. Augustine Times Sept16/01 

Scalded apes? Airliners fly at 500 mph. An F-15 can fly almost four-times
faster.

STEP ON IT One of the Otis intercept pilots dubbed "Duff", later lamented:
"We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know
what we could have done to get there any quicker."

For starters, he and his wingman could have tried pushing their twin
throttles fully forward. Instead of flying two-and-a-half times faster
than a bullet, "Nasty" and "Duff" drove their expensive air superiority
fighters at a leisurely 447-mph - supposedly to intercept a Boeing 767
flying 43 mph faster! Utilizing only 27% power, the F-15's were "eight
minutes/71 miles" away, according to NORAD, when Flight 175 struck the
South Tower with 56 souls and more than ten tons of fuel onboard.
Christian Science Monitor Mar8/02 

HONOR THE THREAT With both Trade Towers burning, and hijacked United
Flight 93 shadowed by a circling F-16 over Pennsylvania, American Airlines
Flight 77 was the only threat left in the sky. When that Boeing 757
silenced its transponder signal, made a U-turn over Kentucky and headed
directly for the White House and the Pentagon, one billion viewers riveted
to the big networks knew this was a kamikaze run. Telegraph Sept13/01 

With no other bogeys on eastern seaboard scopes, air combat doctrine
dictates that the two unemployed Otis F-15s already in the area be
redirected to "honor the threat" of an incoming flying bomb, 330 miles
out. Even loafing along, the fighters would have more than 20 minutes to
confront Flight 77 before it neared the Pentagon.

Instead, Pentagon professionals defending their country's nerve centers
waited more than an hour after watching Flight 11 go rogue - including 30
critical minutes after Flight 77 turned abruptly toward them and the
nearby White House - before scrambling two F-16's out of Langley Air Force
Base to protect the capitol.

Nearly half-an-hour after receiving the belated order to scramble, two
Falcons coasted in over the burning Pentagon. Slowed down to just 410 mph,
it had taken the 1,500 mph-capable fighters 19 minutes to cover the 130
miles from Virginia. It should have taken just over seven minutes to reach
the Pentagon - at about the time Flight 77 was making a predatory circle
overhead. NORAD Sept18/01; USAF 

GROUNDED The supersonic jets were flown no faster than WWII prop-driven
fighters. But it hardly mattered. Sitting on the Andrews ramp just 10
miles away, were two fully armed and fueled supersonic interceptors tasked
with protecting the capitol from airborne terrorist threats on 15 minutes'
notice!

Isn't it about time someone asked why those routinely launched Andrews
interceptors were "stood down" as Flight 77 bored in toward the
headquarters they were supposed to protect? San Diego Union-Tribune
Sept12/01

In the most heavily armed nation on Earth, at least two-dozen air force
installations were within fast flying time of the World Trade Center and
Pentagon. Does anyone else wonder why none of those aircraft were ordered
launched - or why none of the armed fighters on training flights or
patrolling Air Defense Intercept Zones just off the Atlantic Coast were
diverted to intercept four commandeered airliners until after the Pentagon
was struck - one-hour and 18 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked?
http://www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a 

According to NORAD, the F-16s from Langley were still "12 minutes/105
miles" away when the big Boeing they were "chasing" soared past the White
House and the Andrews runways. Allegedly flown by an incompetent Egyptian
flight student who couldn't solo a Cessna, the 757 peeled off and piled
into the Pentagon after an abrupt dive and pull-up that left veteran
pilots agape. San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01; NBC Nightly News
Sept11/01; All Fall Down 

Immediately after the Pentagon was hit, the Andrews alert jets were
launched to guard empty skies. Mirror Nov13/03 

ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH Responding to questions from a Senate confirmation
committee two days after this suspicious fiasco, the Joint Chief's acting
air defense chief on Sept. 11 said he was in a meeting while all hell was
breaking loose in his sector.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers had not let a TV report about a small plane
hitting the World Trade Center interrupt his routine. As jumbo jetliners
kept diving into buildings, apparently no one thought to inform the acting
commander of U.S. air defenses that his country was under attack. Myers
said he came out of his meeting just as the Pentagon was hit.

Asked repeatedly when the brass were first informed of the emergency, and
when interceptors were scrambled, Myers repeated a muddled mantra six
times, saying ""I'll have to get back to you on that."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html 

Instead of being court-martialed like the luckless commanders defending
Pearl Harbor, or even reprimanded, General Myers was awarded command of
the entire U.S. military as new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Bush publicly commended the air force general for his "calm manner, sound
judgment, and his clear strategic thinking." White House press release
Oct15/01 

As this bizarre and possibly treasonous story goes to press, the FAA has
refused to disclose documents relating to when that agency notified U.S.
air defenses about the four hijacked airliners. A second subpoena served
on the Pentagon by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States has been similarly unsuccessful in attaining records
concerning whether NORAD responded quickly enough in dispatching
interceptors on Sept. 11. Washington Post Nov8/03 

Instead of fingering air traffic controllers for not following procedures,
these documents could show that the FAA did follow its own Standard
Intercept Procedures and notify NORAD within a few minutes of each
hijacking - which would leave the Air Force with even more explaining to
do. AP Oct18/03 

# # #

Award-winning journalist William Thomas is the author of Bringing The War
Home, Chemtrails Confirmed and All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and
Mass Persuasion.

Please click here for more writing by William Thomas.

OK to post freely with author's contacts and credits.

For commercial reprint rights, kindly contact William Thomas: rwt@telus.net