9/11 Criminal Negligence or Treason?



The information on this web site is provided for educational purposes only. Please see Disclaimer, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

"The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease."
- Thomas Edison

"In politics nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin Roosevelt

9/11 is a crime scene more than it is a terrorist incident. By treating 9/11 as a terrorist incident, the crime has gone uninvestigated and the criminals are unpunished.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." - Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century, September 2000.

Major General Albert  Stubblebine on 9/11

Military Officers Comment on 9/11

9/11 Ommission Hearings

Crossing the Rubicon by Michael C. Rupert
complete text

Active thermite discovered in 9/11 dust - this is evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Loose Change - Final Cut

Japan questions 9/11 and the global war on terror.

Evidence that news broadcasts on 9/11 were video edited. 1, 2

Jason Ryan and Theresa Cook report for ABC News: "Six years after the deadliest attack on US soil, the head of US spy operations admitted to lawmakers that '9/11 should have and could have been prevented.' Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, told members of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday.

For more unanswered questions regarding 9/11 see Washington Knows.

Islamic fundamentalism is largely an American creation.

Project Censored comments on "Unanswered Questions of 9/11". 1, 2

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln

Cancer is a political problem more than it is a medical problem.


Why were the 9/11 planes not intercepted by the air force? Particularly strange is Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. Flight 77 was watched on radar for 40 minutes as it flew through an air corridor from Ohio to Washington, D.C. that the FAA had ordered closed to all air traffic. Why was Flight 77 not intercepted as it approached Washington? Several articles on this page look for an answer.  

[Posted 30 June 2002]
In response to the letter below, we have provided a clearer explanation of the proof that the Air Force was ordered to stand down on 9-11.

Dear Emperor's Clothes,

I want to start with congratulating you on a great website, all kudos to you. I'm pointing out a key error you're making because I'm trying to help.

In several places on your 911 pages you refer to "combat ready" jets, seemingly implying that these jets are ready to take off on a few minutes notice. But the terminology is wrong.

All that the term "combat ready" means is that they are capable of combat. It doesn't necessarily mean "scramble ready".

A much clearer phrase is "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness," which you quoted from the Washington, DC Air National Guard [DCANG] website but it looks like that's been erased from the archives since the middle of June. Any suggestions?

Best regards,
Kalun D.
Seattle, Washington USA


Dear Kalun,

Thanks for the kind words and helpful criticism. Fortunately, the DC Air National Guard (DCANG) Website archives have not been erased, at least not yet. We'll show how to locate them below. These archives provide a key part of the evidence that the Air Force was not permitted to respond on 9-11.

You're right about 'combat-ready.' It is too broad a term. And as you say, the phrase "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness" is much clearer. We'll go through our 9-11 texts and make some changes, using this clearer wording.

The Website of the D.C. Air National Guard (DCANG) is at http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil

But please don't go there yet.

As of April 19, 2001, that Website included the following statement:


To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness."

This is powerful stuff. Consider. The military never makes public all its air defense procedures. If it did, a potential enemy could entirely circumvent defenses. So key air procedures are kept secret.

Therefore one can be sure that air defense information posted on the DCANG Website on April 19, 2001 and available to the general public excluded some key defense procedures. They would *understate*, not overstate.

When DCANG stated that its Mission was "To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness," they were indicating a general approach but leaving out the nitty gritty details. They were saying: 'Don't worry; we're ready. But we're not going to tell you our emergency plans.'

Given this understandable reticence, the phrase, "To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness," means that the DC Air National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base had fighter jets ready for an emergency.

And when you think about it, this would have to be the case. Not only is Andrews Air Force Base a few miles from the White House, the Pentagon, the Capital building and the CIA, but it is also the official airport of the US government.

The President flies out of Andrews. Other top US officials fly out of Andrews. Foreign diplomats and national leaders may arrive and depart from Andrews at any time. For instance:

"[There is] Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain. He has just landed here at Andrews Air Force Base." (CNN  November 7, 2001)

Let us say that as it took off from Andrews Air Force Base, Tony Blair's plane was attacked by a hostile jet. Would his pilot have to radio the attackers and ask them to kindly postpone their attack until US fighter jets arrived from Langley Air Force Base, 129 miles away?

Andrew's unique role as the Federal government's official airport is another reason DCANG would withhold key details of its emergency response procedures. So again, when DC ANG stated on its Website that its Mission at Andrews included providing combat units "in the highest possible state of readiness," one can be sure this meant Andrews was equipped to scramble aircraft in an emergency.

We'll show you how to find the April 19th backup of the DCANG Mission Statement in just a moment. Let us consider the significance of that statement, as it relates to 911.

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reported that it 'suspected' Flight 11 out of Boston had been hijacked by 8:20 Eastern Time. (1) So when Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center, of course the FAA knew this was a terrorist act. Vice President Cheney said on MEET THE PRESS September 16th that the FAA had open lines to the Secret Service as soon as Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. So the Secret Service was in the know no later than 8:45 Eastern time. (2)

Flight 77 reached Ohio and turned around, heading back to Washington, DC around 8:55, we are told. At 9:06 the FAA reports that it ordered the air corridor from Cleveland, Ohio, to Washington, D.C. closed to all air traffic. (3)

We are told that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon around 9:45 Eastern time.

So here's the burning question: why weren't those combat jets which DCANG provided, "in the highest possible state of readiness" - why weren't those planes scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base *before* the Pentagon was hit?

Some respond that it was due to human error. The people at DCANG were asleep at the wheel. Well, military organizations don't accept explanations like that. A catastrophic failure leads to court martial. If the people at DCANG merely are guilty of criminal negligence in failing to respond, why haven't they been pilloried and put on trial?

Some respond that the whole military was lax before 9-11. Nobody was worried about security. Really? In a dispatch discussing security after 9-11, Associated Press noted that US military bases were already on security alert *before* 9-11:

"Earlier this summer, all three Army bases in Hampton Roads, including Fort Eustis and Fort Story, already had begun restricting public access to their grounds for security reasons. The bases did so under an order affecting major Army installations around the country.

"The Army required its bases to perform mandatory vehicle registrations. Military members and civilian employees were to receive vehicle decals serving as proof they have permission to be on base." ("Military Tightens Security in Wake of Apparent Terrorist Attacks," AP, 12 September 2001)

We'll put out an FAQ with more evidence concerning the myth of a security lapse prior to 9-11.

Now, here's how you can access the DCANG Mission Statement.


The Mission Statement is no longer posted on the DCANG Website, but you can (as of June 30th) access it by using the free archive service at www.archive.org. They backed up the DCANG Website as it was on April 19th (with the Mission Statement) and on September 13th (without the Statement.)

Important point: we cannot say *exactly* when the Mission Statement was removed. We can only say with certainty that it was between April 19 and September 13, 2001.

Here's a step-by-step guide to access the Mission Statement:

1) Go to http://www.archive.org

2) You will see their logo, 'WAYBACK MACHINE.'

Just below the logo is a search box. After "http://" paste-in the following url:

3) Hit "enter." You will be taken to the index of backups for DCANG.

4) Click the hyperlink for "April 19, 2001."

5) This will take you to the DCANG website as it looked April 19th.

On the upper left click on the hyperlink, "Headquarters."

This will take you to a page with the Mission Statement:


To provide combat units in the highest

possible state of readiness."


1) If you are at the April 19th DCANG WebPage, hit the back-arrow twice.

If you are not, follow steps 1, 2 and 3 above. Either way you'll be at the DC ANG backups index page.

2) Click on the hyperlink for September 13, 2002.

3) On the upper right, click the hyperlink, "About the DCANG."

4) Click "MISSION AND VISION" on the upper left. This will take you to the new Mission Statement:

"Headquarters Mission
Be the premier State Head Quarters in the Air National Guard, Critically linked to our units and influencing the future of the DCANG."

In case the April; 19th archive is pulled from www.archive.org, we have made a backup. It is at


If possible, please make backups yourself as well.

- John Flaherty and Jared Israel




[Posted 2 July 2002]
It looks like we've struck a nerve.

Last night we posted an article entitled, "POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT AIR FORCE WAS MADE TO STAND DOWN ON 9-11.

We emailed it to 20,000 Emperor's Clothes list members.

In that article we gave step-by step instructions for accessing the DC AIR NATIONAL GUARD Website as it appeared April 19, 2001, including the then Mission Statement: "To Provide Combat Units in the Highest Possible State of Readiness."

It worked fine last night. But this morning, when I and others tried to access the DC ANG archive pages at archive.org we got sent to a porno Website.

We also tried going direct to DC ANG's April 19th archive page using its direct URL which is (or was!)

The URL stayed in its little window, but below was the porno page. We tried several times and then Windows crashed.

Perhaps their choice of a porno site is symbolic.

Also our donations page is under assault. If you try to make a donation and have trouble, please call our direct line at 617 916-1705 (US).

Apparently you-all and we are making somebody angry. Let's keep it up! The best response is to spread the word.

Emperor's Clothes backed up the April 19th DC ANG archive a few months ago. I just tried the link and it seems to (still) work.

We urge everyone to back it up and post it on every Website.

The backup link is

If the pictures don't show up at first, hit the 'refresh' button.

-- Jared Israel



Commentary on a NY Times article on 9-11
by Jared Israel [posted 15 September 2001]

Note: We published this analysis September 15th. Not a word has been changed in the text. We think the issues raised here have not been answered. Please let us know what you think.
-- John Flaherty emperors1000@aol.com

[Emperor's Clothes has published a series documenting the U.S. Establishment's involvement in 9-11. A list of these articles has been added at end.]

"Police radio broadcasts 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.' 9:08 a.m."
('Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, NEWS SECTION; Pg. 24: THE TRAGIC TIMELINE, our emphasis)
[Emperor's Clothes note: This was after the first and second planes had struck the WTC Towers. The third plane is said to have hit the Pentagon 35 minutes later, at 9:43 am.

"In Sarasota, Fla., Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later. " ['AP' 12 September 2001, our emphasis]

"President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School second-graders read a story about a girl's pet goat Tuesday before he spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks."
--Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 September 2001 Pg. A20 HEADLINE: 'Bush hears of attack while visiting Booker' [Emperor's Clothes note: The school was Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla.]

We are not soothsayers.

We cannot say with certainty what happened September 11 - that is, what really happened, behind the scenes.

But the following report from the semi-official 'N.Y. Times' makes it clear that either Americans are being lied to by the those in the highest places - which if true has the gravest implications - or else the rulers of Washington's New World Order are criminally negligent.

In analyzing the 9-11 nightmare, we were puzzled by the official response to the so-called third plane. That is the one that left Dulles Airport, flew to Ohio, near the West Virginia and Kentucky borders, turned around, flew back to Washington and struck the Pentagon.

Concerning this plane, we asked: how could it stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen by U.S. air defense forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington and hit the Pentagon without being spotted and therefore intercepted?

The 'N.Y. Times' published the following explanation:

"During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.

"But despite elaborate plans that link civilian and military efforts to control the nation's airspace in defense of the country, and despite two other jetliners' having already hit the World Trade Center in New York, the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon." ( 'N.Y. Times,' Sept. 15, 2001)

This explanation makes matters worse.

If it was difficult to believe that the third plane was not spotted, then it is a good deal harder to believe that it was spotted and tracked for over half an hour and yet nothing was done because officials "didn't know what to do."

Why didn't they force the plane down and failing that, shoot it down? Before you think, "Because, as the article says, they didn't have a procedure for handling such an occurrence," note the following comment from deputy defense secretary Wolfowitz. Talking about the fourth plane, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania:

"Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said today that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes after the Pentagon crash." ('N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, 2001)

"Could have shot it down if necessary."

If they "could have shot" down the fourth plane, why did they not shoot down the third? Once they knew these were suicide hijackings - and surely they knew that by around 9:00 am - why would they wait?

And why, if they really were confused about what to do, why, after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd plane flew towards Washington?

Officials knew the first and second planes had hit highly visible symbols of US power. They knew this third plane was heading back to Washington. Couldn't they be reasonably sure that the target was a symbol of US power in Washington? Then why didn't they fully evacuate the Pentagon?

The White House has tried to confuse the issue regarding this question. They claim the Plane changed course - that originally it was heading for the White House:

"Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building." (CBS News, Sept. 21, 2001, http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412,00.shtml)

But according to CBS, this is not the case:

"CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows." (ibid.)

Says CBS:

"Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.

"At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.

"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph." (ibid.)

The White House denies this:

"At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.

"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House." (ibid.)

If the White House is right and CBS is wrong, why did the 'Times' report that:

"During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do." ('N.Y. Times,' Sept. 15, 2001)

Given the stories from CBS and the 'Times,' and given that the plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, aren't the news reports more believable than the White House denial?

And since in any case there could be no way of being absolutely sure where the plane would strike, why weren't all the most sensitive buildings evacuated to prevent:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Up to 800 people may have died Tuesday when a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, officials said.

"Firefighters were still battling a fire on the west side of the 29-acre, 6 million-square-foot building late Tuesday, more than 12 hours after the crash. Washington hospitals reported 71 people injured, some severely, and another 100 to 800 were still listed as missing and possibly dead late Tuesday. " (CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.terrorism/)

And why wasn't this plane, the third plane, forced down or failing that, shot down?

Regarding the fourth plane:

"Asked if rules of engagement would have allowed the Air Force to shoot the plane down, [deputy defense secretary] Wolfowitz said: 'I think it was pretty clear at that point that that airliner was not under the pilot's control and that it was heading to do major damage.'

"He said any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President George W. Bush....

"Forty minutes passed between the time New York's second World Trade Center tower was struck and another commandeered plane crashed into the Pentagon..."
* Washington Post, 15 September 2001, http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/indict/wps15.htm#a

A) Officials knew that the third plane, and quite possibly the second, was set to strike important targets.

B) They tracked the third plane for at least half an hour.

C) Supposedly George Bush, Jr. needed to approve shooting the plane down.

D) But instead of going into an emergency meeting, he continued his visit to an elementary school, hearing about goats.

What we have here is either criminal negligence beyond belief, and that includes the Commander in Chief, who hearing that planes are destroying the country focuses on goats, or b) the 'N.Y. Times' piece is repeating a cover story whose purpose is to explain away the obvious flaw in the original story: namely, that a plane could be hijacked in Ohio, and fly all the way back to Washington without being spotted.

And if the 'N.Y. Times' story is a lie, then those who fed the 'Times' this lie are guilty of conspiracy. They are people in high places and they are directly involved in the murder of God knows how many people in N.Y. as well as the 800 casualties the media speaks of in Washington either because they planned these attacks, perhaps working through Islamist groups secretly controlled by the CIA or they knew the attacks were going to happen and wanted to let them happen. The obvious motive: to create a seeming justification for extreme military action. And that is why they did not allow the Air Force to stop possibly the second and certainly the third planes.

So there you have it - either criminal negligence, including Mr. Bush who reads about goats while his countrymen are slaughtered, or treason.

Given these amazing facts, available in the mainstream media, why is there no call for an investigation?

Mr. Bush has called for bringing those responsible to justice. Let us begin at home.

- Jared Israel

To read the 'N.Y. Times' article quoted above, see:

'AFTER THE ATTACKS: SKY RULES; Pentagon Tracked Deadly Jet But Found No Way to Stop It,' at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/15.htm

Video of Bush at Booker Proves 9-11 Attack Was No Surprise
by Jared Israel
[Posted 16 September 2002]

A video was shot of President Bush's visit to the Booker School on 9-11. The Booker School put a link to that video up on their Website for awhile, then took it down. Copies of the video are available and you can view it. For instructions on viewing full video, go to


Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies
Part 1: A Strange White House Press Conference...

by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White
[Posted 25 September 2002, Updated 27 September 2002]
Note: This article has been substantially revised based on generous input from readers (for which thank you all!) and TENC Deputy Editor Francisco Gil-White. It was reposted 9:20 AM, Eastern U.S. time.
- Jared Israel

Dear Emperor's Clothes,

Regarding your article, "The President as Incompetent liar" at

I have two points.

One, the president was speaking with a 3rd grade child...

Two, everything was very chaotic and it is very easy to screw up time frames. But perhaps you have never been in a life-or- death adrenaline trip. Had to have been massive overloads of information, both true and false.

Dan O.

* * *

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the comments.

In criticism of the article, you note that "the president was speaking with a 3rd grade child." However, we did not criticize Mr. Bush for using childish language in answering 8 year-old Jason at the Florida Town Hall meeting. We accused Bush of lying.

You also write that Mr. Bush could have "screw[ed] up time frames" because he was on "a life-or-death adrenaline trip." This is certainly possible. People often misremember things, especially after a crisis.

As you will recall, Bush said he learned of the first World Trade Center crash sitting outside a classroom at the Booker School. He said he saw TV video footage of the plane hitting the building. Of course, this is impossible because, at the time, the TV stations didn't have such footage. Indeed, the TV news people weren't even sure it was a plane crash until the second plane hit the WTC. For example, here is Charles Gibson on ABC news speaking shortly after 9 AM:

"GIBSON: Well, obviously, we don't know if this was--if it was a plane, and I underline, if it was, we don't know if it would have been deliberate or accidental. We know so little now..." http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abc911.htm
So, Dan, Bush definitely did not see TV footage of the crash. However, as you argue, he could have misremembered.

The question is, *did* he? Did he misremember? Or was he lying?

Fortunately we have evidence that can help answer this question.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose Bush did *not* lie. Let's suppose he made false statements at the Florida Town Hall meeting due to faulty memory. Wouldn't members of his staff have corrected him?

They certainly would. Because his "mistakes" contradicted the previous White House story about what Mr. Bush knew and when on 9-11. That story was outlined at a Press Conference the evening of September 11th by Mr. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer.

A Press secretary has to face the media and explain apparent inconsistencies in the boss's statements. Mr. Fleischer had a personal stake in correcting Mr. Bush so that Mr. Bush wouldn't make the same mistake again.

And yet, one month later, in a Town Hall Meeting in California, Mr. Bush repeated the same falsehoods as in Florida.

We'll deal with the California meeting later on. Now let's look at the September 11th press conference. Keep in mind that Fleischer's job is to present the official White House spin. So the following did not originate from Fleischer. He was just verbalizing what the White House decided to tell the public.

[Start excerpt from Press Conference]


"MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. What I'd like to do is just try to give you a walk-through of the President's day, *what he did when he learned various pieces of information.* So this may take me a moment or two, but let me try to give you a good walk through.

"The President arrived just shortly before 9:00 a.m., at the [Booker] elementary school in Sarasota, when Andy Card informed him, as the President finished shaking hands in a hallway of school officials, about the crash of the first plane into the World Trade Center.

"The President then proceeded directly into his hold and spoke with Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who provided him with that information, as well. *The President then went before you all, in the public event, for the first event with the small children.*

*And during the course of his speech to the -- his remarks to the children,* Andy Card was notified about the crash of the second airplane.

Andy approached the President, whispered into his ear, *with the press before and the children before him*, about the crash of the second plane. *The President had been intending to make remarks about the first plane in that session, but he decided to wait until he could ascertain additional information, given the fact now that it was not one, but two, crashes*, which was an immediate indication, of course, of the serious nature of this suggesting terrorism.

*Then, as you know, the President returned to his hold*, received additional information from Dr. Rice. Information was still very sketchy at that point -- *this is shortly after 9:00 a.m.* And then the President proceeded -- the decision was made by the President that he would go and speak to the nation about what transpired. You have the record of that. And then the President immediately departed for the airport." (*my emphasis*)

[END excerpt from Press Conference]

Speaking for the White House, Fleischer says that Bush arrived at the Booker school "shortly before 9:00 am." He says Andrew Card briefed the President as he "finished shaking hands in a hallway [full] of school officials."

This hand shaking takes time. People exchange pleasantries, freeze the handshake for the cameras, etc. So by the time Card supposedly briefed Bush, it would already have been *at least* 9:00 AM. According to Fleischer the phone conversation with Condoleezza Rice was even later.

Attention to the time is important because the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reports that around 8:20 it "suspected" Flight 11 out of Boston had been hijacked. (1)

The FAA was tracking Flight 11 with radar and therefore knew this was the plane that flew into the World Trade Center. And that is why, according to Vice President Cheney, the FAA established open lines with the Secret Service starting at about 8:45 (2)

Of course the Secret Service would immediately have alerted Bush's Chief of Staff (Andrew Card) and also his National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice). So if Bush had conversations with Card and Rice *after* 9:00 am, then he was speaking to people who - unlike Mr. Gibson on ABC-NEWS - already knew that a terrorist attack was afoot. And their *job* was to tell the President.

So why did the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces proceed to dawdle in the hallway of the Booker School and then spend about 20 minutes observing a reading lesson?

Mr. Fleischer never addressed this question on the evening of Sept. 11th. However, as we shall see, it is the question that hung over his whole press conference.

Let us now take a close look at the text of this Sept. 11th White House press conference.

Consider the phrase, "The President then went before you all, in the public event, for the first event with the small children."

What "event" is Mr. Fleischer talking about? Mr. Bush was attending a *reading* class. And yet Fleischer says, "The President then went before you all." Who is "you all"?

As is clear from the video of President Bush at the Booker School (3) Bush entered the classroom, said hello *to the children* and then sat down and watched a reading lesson. He did not go "before you all."

Why is Mr. Fleischer speaking in this bizarre fashion?

By using the phrase "went before you all," Fleischer creates the false impression that President Bush went in front of a group of reporters.

Next he calls this "the public event," a sensible description of a press conference but not of a reading lesson. Finally he calls it "the first event." This puts it in the same category as the *second* event, Bush's speech to the nation at 9:30, televised from the Booker School. Fleischer then maneuvers children into this constructed image with the finishing touch: "with the small children."

How might Mr. Fleischer's misleading words be expected to affect public opinion?

Well, consider someone who heard a rumor that President Bush was watching a grade-school reading lesson instead of doing something to protect his fellow Americans. Such a person might hear the White House version and think, "So *that's* what happened! He had a press meeting in that classroom. *That's* why children were present!"

But in fact that is *not* what happened. Bush did *not* have a "first event" with the press. What he did was to sit down, watch a reading lesson, cheer, clap, smile, and twice give pep talks, even as terrorist attacks continued.

Consider Fleischer's sentence, "during the course of his [Bush's] speech to the -- his remarks to the children, Andy Card was notified about the crash of the second airplane."

Notice that once again Mr. Fleischer appears to put things clumsily. He appears to stumble. But does he? The phrase, "during the course of his speech," suggests.a speech. But Fleischer "corrects" himself, substituting "remarks" for "speech."

You see, in addressing a *nation,* one makes a speech, but in addressing an audience of reporters and some small children, one would only make "remarks." Thus Fleischer's apparent "stumble" and "correction" again creates a parallel between the 9:30 speech (the important "second" event) and the fictitious press conference (the humble "first event"). And once again Fleischer stirs the Booker children into this image by putting them in the audience for Bush's imaginary remarks during the fictional "first event."

Fleischer says that in the middle of those "remarks," Andrew Card learned about the second WTC crash. He then:

"approached the President, whispered into his ear, with the press before and the children before him."

Again Fleischer's awkward English - "with the press before and with the children before him" - has an effect. It creates the impression that the rumors about Bush wasting his time with school children stem from a misunderstanding of that "first event" during which Bush used a classroom to meet with the press. And in the middle of this meeting, with children present, Card whispered that "America is under attack." .

This impression is strengthened by what Fleischer says next:

"The President had been intending to make remarks about the first plane in that session, but he decided to wait until he could ascertain additional information, given the fact now that it was not one, but two, crashes, which was an immediate indication, of course, of the serious nature of this suggesting terrorism."

This completes the creation of the false impression, which is as follows:

1) The president turned a pre-arranged classroom visit into an impromptu meeting with reporters, albeit with children present.

2) He started to talk about the first plane crash, which he did not yet realize was a deliberate act of terrorism.

3) Then his trusty Chief of Staff learned that there had been a second crash and immediately told the president.

4) So the president changed his mind, deciding to get more facts and then make one official statement.

Note that Mr. Fleischer is claiming that Andrew Card whispered in Mr. Bush's ear "during the course of his speech to the -- his remarks to the children."

But we know from the Booker school video that Bush was *not* delivering a speech *or* making any remarks to anyone when Andrew Card whispered in his ear. He was sitting, silently, watching a reading lesson. And it was some minutes after Card left that Bush made some "remarks to the children."

Here are those remarks:

"These are great readers. Very impressive! Thank you all so much for showing me your reading skills. I bet they practice [unintelligible] reading more than they watch TV? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch TV? [Hands go up] Oh that's great! Very good [unintelligible] Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very impressed."
-- Transcribed from video of Bush visit to Booker School, 11 September 2001. To download this video, go to http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/bvl.htm

Getting back to Fleischer's imaginary reality, what did Mr. Bush do after Andrew Card told him - supposedly for the first time! - that this was a terrorist attack? Of course, he didn't stay in that room. He did what you would expect him to do:

"Then, as you know, the President returned to his hold." [A "hold" is apparently a room given for the use of the presidential party.]

But as we know from the video, this is totally untrue.

After Card whispered in his ear, Bush did...nothing.

He did not ask Card for details or give him orders, as one would expect if the President was informed there had been an "attack on America."

He did not budge. He continued to sit.
He observed the reading lesson for some minutes. When the kids did a good job he cheered the way a man might cheer at a sports event. He smiled. He gave two pep talks.

How many minutes did this last? Well, of that we cannot be sure because the video was been edited at least twice. The second time, at about the six minutes, two seconds mark, was after Card left. Some of the reading lesson has been cut out; there's an obvious jump. So we can only guess, but our educated guess is that Bush spent at least 20 minutes in the reading class.

Note that Mr. Fleischer says, "Then, as you know, the President returned to his hold." This gives the impression that Bush's visit to the Booker revolved around meetings with his staff. But as we know from the video, his visit revolved around sitting in a reading class. And the use of the phrase "you know" gives the impression that Fleischer's misinformation is common knowledge.

Referring to Mr. Bush's imaginary "return" to the supposed "hold," Fleischer says:

"this is shortly after 9:00 a.m. And then the President proceeded -- the decision was made by the President that he would go and speak to the nation."
This creates the impression that between entering the Booker School ("just shortly before 9:00 a.m.," according to Fleischer) and "proceed[ing]" to make his speech to the nation, ("shortly after 9:00 a.m.") only a few minutes passed. Again, this is false. Bush did not make a speech until around 9:30. And it is clear from the video that he dawdled in the reading class. Indeed, the scene appears stolen from a film by master-of-suspense Alfred Hitchcock: while the world collapses outside, the guy who's supposed to *do* something about it wastes his time giving pep talks to children. And the clock is ticking.

All this is plain to see in the video of Bush at the Booker. (3)

The purpose of Fleischer's White House press conference was to put the proper spin on "the President's day, what he did when he learned various pieces of information." But as we shall see in Part II, and with apologies to Robert Burns, "The best laid spins o' mice an' men gang aft agley."

Continued in "Part II, A White House Press Conference Creates More Problems than it Solves." 


Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:
White House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solves
by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White
[7 October 2002]

Part I, "A Strange White House Press Conference," can be read at
Advanced Damage Control

On the evening of September 11th, 2001, the White House held a Press Conference. The stated purpose of the press conference? To "give you a walk-through of the President's day; what he did when he learned various pieces of information." (1)

Isn't that amazing? On the evening of September 11th, did Americans really need to hear about the minutia of the President's day?

The U.S. had suffered an unprecedented terrorist attack. Why would the White House conduct such a defensive exercise during such a crisis? What were they thinking? It seemed as if they wanted to establish an alibi for Mr. Bush.

But why would the White House believe they needed an alibi? Were they being paranoid?

We don't think so.

All over the country, people were asking how come no planes had been "scrambled" (sent into the air) during the attack. What was wrong with the military command? What was wrong with President Bush, who was Commander in Chief of the military?

Rumors were circulating that the President spent the crucial period from 9:00 to 9:30 AM in a classroom, reading a story about a pet goat.

Of course it was actually the children who read the story, not Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush only sat there and listened and smiled and clapped and cheered and gave the children pep talks while a second commercial jet hit the World Trade Center and, we are told, two other commercial jets reversed course, speeding towards Washington, D.C.

At the press conference, the president's Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, made the following claims:

* On the one hand, he said that on the morning of 9-11, Mr. Bush was quickly informed and immediately carried out his responsibilities. Thus shortly after he entered the Booker School, he was supposedly briefed by his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, and then by his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

* On the other hand, Fleischer said that Bush didn't know the first World Trade Center crash was a terrorist attack. That's why he didn't immediately take action.

In order to accept Mr. Fleischer's claims, you have to believe that Mr. Card and Ms. Rice *did not know* there was a terrorist attack going on when they spoke to Mr. Bush, supposedly just after 9 AM.

Because if they *did* know there was a terrorist attack, they would of course have told Mr. Bush. And if the President knew, then why didn't he immediately go into conference with his military commanders? Indeed, why didn't he leave the Booker School?

After all, it was public knowledge that President Bush would be visiting the Booker that morning. (2) If foreign terrorists were attacking US symbols of power, he was obviously in danger. So why would he stay? Why on Earth would he go into that classroom and sit down and observe the children reading a story about a goat?

So it was crucial that people believe Clark and Rice did not know there was a terrorist attack going on. However, for them not to know, it was also necessary that the FAA (the Federal Aviation Administration) and the U.S. military did not know.


Because both the FAA and the military monitor air traffic. When there's a possible hijacking, they work together and as soon as either or both realized there was a terrorist attack, they would inform the Secret Service and the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice. And the Secret Service and Ms. Rice would inform the President.

So, if the FAA and/or the military knew *before 9 AM*, then of course President Bush knew when, according to Mr. Fleischer, he spoke to Condoleezza Rice, just after 9 AM.

Fortunately for the White House, for the first few days government officials and the media reported that the air safety/air defense system did *not* know there was an attack until after the Pentagon crash.

As long as that was the case, Mr. Bush was safe. If nobody was aware of the attack then nobody could have told him. And just as the military couldn't take action if they didn't know there was an attack, neither could Mr. Bush.

General Richard B. Myers, vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put forward the 'nobody-took-action-because-nobody-knew' line as late as September 13th. He was addressing the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was his nomination hearing to be head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Here's what Myers said:

"MYERS: When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft...That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck."
-- Sept. 13th hearing (3)

Unfortunately for the White House, the 'nobody-took-action-because-nobody-knew' story turned out to be a loser. Counter-information appeared in the press, including a damning article by Matthew Wald, published in the New York Times on September 13th. (4)

That same day, at General Richard B. Myers' Senate hearing, the senators criticized the official story. They literally demanded something better. And they got it. By the end of the hearing, Myers, who would soon be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rewrote history. Or perhaps we should say, he rewrote 'his story.'

The US military, Myers now said, did not respond "after the Pentagon was hit," that is, after 9:45 AM. Instead the military took action at around 8:45 - that is, a full hour earlier! (3)

After Myers' testimony, the Armed Forces Committee went into closed (non-public) session until the afternoon of September 14th. We have no record of what was said during these deliberations.

But on the evening of September 14th, CBS evening news put forward a whole new story. Without divulging who was the source of this new and mind-boggling information, CBS claimed that contrary to previous reports, the military had dispatched fighter jets as early as 8:38. In other words they *did* know and they *did* act. They were just too late.

Then, two days later, on September 16th, Vice President Cheney was interviewed on MEET THE PRESS. During that interview, he made it clear that the Secret Service knew a terrorist attack was underway by around 8:45 AM.

What a mess.

The Secret Service knew. So of course National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew Card knew. Was everybody keeping it a secret from the President? Not if, as Mr. Fleischer had said at the September 11th press conference, Mr. Bush spoke to Andrew Card and took a call from Ms. Rice shortly after he entered the Booker School.

Did this mean the President knew there was a terrorist attack but acted as if nothing was happening?

This is perfectly consistent with what Booker School Principal Gwen Tose Rigell said, according to MSNBC. Rigell is quoted as saying that *Bush himself* told her a commercial jet had hit the World Trade Center. Nevertheless, said Rigell, he told her they would be going on with the scheduled event, a visit to a reading class.

Here's Ms. Rigell, as quoted on MSNBC:

"'I actually heard the first plane had hit from the president, and he said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and that it was a commercial plane,' says Rigell. 'He said but we're going to go on, and in my mind I had created this picture of a plane knocking off some bricks on the corner of the World Trade Center.'" http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/david.htm#a

Why would Mr. Bush insist that "we're going to go in"? Why didn't he contact his top military commanders, as he *is required to do* during a national emergency?

If people took the new official story, that the air safety/air defense establishment *knew* a major terrorist attack was underway by 8:38 AM, and if they combined it with Fleischer's claim, namely that Mr. Bush spoke to his advisers just after 9 AM, then the obvious conclusion was: either Mr. Bush was guilty of criminal negligence or Mr. Bush was guilty of treason.

Thus the White House press statement on the evening of 9-11 had created a disaster far worse than the one it was concocted to solve. Sir Walter Scott knew what he was talking about when he wrote:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!" -- http://www.bartleby.com/100/338.25.html

To fix their tangled web, the White House folks did two things.

First, they quietly dropped Fleischer's statement about what Mr. Bush "did when he learned various pieces of information." They hoped that Mr. Fleischer's words would be forgotten in the shock of events. We believe they were correct about this.

Second, after a decent interval, they floated a whole new explanation of what Mr. Bush learned and what he did and when he did it on the morning of 9-11. This was put forward by Mr. Bush himself during two so-called Town Hall meetings. The first was in December 2001 in Florida. The second was in January 2002 in California. Of course, the new spin further tangled the web. So many stories, so many lies. But the White House hoped nobody would look too deep.

They were not hoping in vain. It is our observation that the mainstream Western press can be relied upon not to look too deep. But we are not the mainstream Western press. Let us go carefully through the stages of this process.

In forthcoming Sections of this article we shall examine:

* The official story from 9-11 until the evening of 9-14, including its obvious flaws. (This was the story that jibed with what Fleischer said on the evening of the 11th.)

* The transformation of the official story during the Senate Armed Forces hearing on September 13th. This transformation is amazingly clear from the transcript of the hearing. If the hearing had been televised, nobody would have believed the official story. Unfortunately not one TV station in the U.S. broadcast the hearing.

* The main new official story, floated by CBS on the evening of September 14th. (Only later was CBS parroted by the government)

* A secondary story floated by the CIA and Islamic Fundamentalists and repeated by various other folks. According to this secondary story, "the Jews did it." This was intended for the consumption of Muslims around the world as well as for critics of US policy and others who doubted the official story.

* The revision of the White House spin on "what Mr Bush learned and did and when", as put forward by President Bush in the Town Hall meetings in Florida and California, in December and January.

Continued in Part III - The first Official Story: "No Planes Were Scrambled Until after the Pentagon was Hit"


The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel
[Posted 12 September 2002]


On December 4, 2001, President Bush held what was billed as a Town Hall Meeting in Orlando Florida. During the meeting he took and answered questions from local people. A White House Briefing was published with a transcript of the meeting. The newsworthy part of the transcript is Bush's exchange with Jordan, whom we are told is a third grade student (about 8 years old), who asked Bush how he felt on 9-11.

We have posted the full transcript of the 'Town Hall' meeting at http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/town.htm

Below is an exceprt from that transcript with the exchange between Bush and Jordan. The excerpt is unaltered from the full transcript except that there are two comments by Jared Israel, editor of Emperor's Clothes. The comments are clearly indicated.


Remarks By President George W. Bush At Orlando, Florida Town Hall Meeting (Excerpt)

Q Mr. President, I want to say they haven't won. I got in my car today, and I'm in the same building with you, speaking to you. They have not won.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you very much.

Q And would you say hello to my son, Jordan, and my daughter, Patricia?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Jordan and who?

Q Patricia.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Hi, Patricia. How are you?

How old is Patricia?

Q Five, and Jordan's in third grade. And Jordan has the question, if I could give him the microphone.

PRESIDENT BUSH: You bet. That's -- your mother's relaying the mike to you, Jordan.

Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that -- how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well -- (applause) -- thank you, Jordan.

Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe where -- what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- well, actually I was in a classroom, talking about a reading program that works. And it -- I was sitting outside the -- the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower of a -- of a -- you know, the TV was obviously on, and I -- I used to fly myself, and I said, "Well, there's one terrible pilot." And I said it must have been a horrible accident.

[START Note from Jared Israel]

[Note from Jared Israel. First, at 9am on September 11th, when Bush was at the Booker School, there was no TV footage of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center for the very good reason that the TV news people didn't know it was going to happen.

As Peter Jennings said on ABC *after* the second plane hit the World Trade Center, that is, after the time when Bush claims he saw TV footage of the first crash:
"JENNINGS:... No, nobody who saw--watching "Good Morning America" today, for example, saw, at least those of us working on television, saw a first plane crash into the building. Much of the country watching television this morning will have seen the second plane crash into the other tower, and we have, as you can see from a distance there, until we get our cameras on the ground producing material which we can put on the air, a pretty limited view."

Video footage did surface later. But at 9 AM on September 11, 2001 Mr. Bush *could not have seen* the first plane hitting the World Trade Center on TV. Period.

This in itself does not prove Mr. Bush was consciously lying.

It is theoretically possible that Mr. Bush's memory played a trick on him. There might have been a TV in the hallway of the Booker, and it might have been tuned to the News, and Bush might therefore have heard about the WTC crash and seen footage of the building burning and later he might have thought he remembered seeing footage of the plane hitting the building. Theoretically, this might be the case.

However, based on the testimony of Gwen Tose Rigell, Principal of the Booker School, where Bush was that morning, in fact this was *not* the case.

Principal Rigell is quoted by MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield as saying:

"'I actually heard the first plane had hit from the president, and he said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and that it was a commercial plane,' says Rigell. 'He said but we're going to go on, and in my mind I had created this picture of a plane knocking off some bricks on the corner of the World Trade Center.'" (1) {End quote from Rigell}

Obviously if Principal Rigell's school had had a TV in the hallway tuned to news of the World Trade Center burning, everyone would have flocked around it and Rigell would have seen it too. She would not have formed a false impression "in my mind". She and everyone else in the school would have known the attack was *very* serious.

In that case Principal Rigell would not have told MSNBC, "I actually heard the first plane had hit from the president," and she would not have said, "I had created this picture of a plane knocking off some bricks in the corner of the World Trade Center," meaning it was a minor incident. Instead she would have said, "I watched the gruesome news on TV." (1)

So Bush lied.

The question asked by the little boy afforded Bush the opportunity to lie about what he did at the Booker School, using the child as a disarming prop.

[END Note from Jared Israel]

[BUSH:] But I was whisked off there; I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief of staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

And Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a -- a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind, just like your daddy and mother's mind, probably.

And I started thinking hard, in that very brief period of time, about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts, if we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause, cheers.)

I tried to get as many facts as I could, Jordan, to make sure I knew, as I was making decisions, there were -- that I knew exactly what I was basing my decisions on. I've got a fabulous team. A president can't possibly be president without a good team. Starts with having a great wife, by the way. (Applause.)

And so I got on the phone from Air Force One asking to find out the facts. You've got to understand, Jordan, during this period of time, there were all kinds of rumors floating around. Some of them were erroneous. Obviously, we -- for example, there was a news report saying that the State Department had been attacked. I needed to know what the facts were. But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the commander-in-chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so I talked to the secretary of Defense, and one of the first acts I did was put our military on alert.

[START note from Jared Israel]

[This is 100% double-talk. First, consider Bush's assertion that "I was whisked off there; I didn't have much time to think about it."

What does he mean, "I was whisked off"? Who whisked him? Is Bush saying he doesn't control his own locomotion? Is he telling us he was *forced* to sit in a classroom laughing and even cheering as kids practiced reading a story about goats - because that is where he went and what he did - instead of conferring with his military command, which is the positive obligation of the Commander in Chief during a national emergency. (4)

According to the MSNBC article on Bush's visit to the Booker, quoted above, Bush wasn't whisked anywhere. Quite the contrary, it was he who informed the school Principal, Ms. Rigell, that despite the crash, he would continue as planned and sit in on the reading class. As noted earlier, the Booker Principal, Ms. Rigell, said, according to MSNBC:

"I actually heard the first plane had hit from the president, and he said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and that it was a commercial plane,' says Rigell. 'He said but we're going to go on..."(1)
[END Rigell quote]

"We're going to go on" means, "I will be observing the reading class." Note that he was not asking permission nor was he being told what to do. There was no "whisking."

Bush says "I was whisked off" because he wants to create the impression that he was moved around by his overly-efficient staff too quickly to have time to absorb what he had, supposedly, just seen on TV. Of course, if Bush had actually seen TV footage of the World Trade Center crash he would have heard what everyone else watching the TV was hearing after 9AM - that this was a terrorist attack. The biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history.

And while we're noting, note also that Bush claims he *first* learned of the attack just before he went into the classroom. But according to the article on MSNBC:

 "'The limousine stops and the president comes out,' says [Booker School Principal] Rigell. 'He walks towards me. I'm standing here in a lineup; there are about five people. He walks over and says he has to make a phone call, and he'll be right back.'
   [MSNBC comments:] "That phone call was to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It was the first inkling the president would get about what was to unfold."
- http://www.msnbc.com/news/801474.asp

So if Bush first heard about the World Trade Center crash from the TV, what was he talking to Condoleezza about? And if he spoke to Condollezza Rice, why didn't she tell him that the FAA knew it was a *hijacked plane* that hit the World Trade Center?

Let us return to Bush's claim that he was "whisked" into the reading class at the Booker. He describes a similar inability to control his movements in recounting his supposed response after Andrew Card came into the classroom and whispered something in his ear. This was about 9:06.

We are told that Card whispered that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit and "America is under attack," but of course we don't know that that is what Card really said. We only know that he whispered something.

Anyway, Bush told the meeting in Florida that he had the following reaction: "I started thinking hard, in that very brief period of time, about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts, if we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America."

Now really, what is this man saying? "I started thinking hard...about what it meant to be under attack"? This guy is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and planes are flying into buildings and he is having an existential moment? Why doesn't he get up and get out of there and do his job? And if indeed Card did tell him that a second *hijacked* plane - because the Federal Aviation Administration knew these planes were hijacked (3) - had hit the World Trade Center, how could he doubt that "America is under attack"?

In this quote Bush is attempting to accomplish three somewhat contradictory things.

One thing is to picture himself as only having learned the full truth at 9:06, when Andrew Card whispered something in his ear. The goal here is to explain away his *failure to do his job* before 9:06.

Second, he is also trying to get us to sympathize with him - make us feel that he was, like most of us, stunned by the news. So how can we blame him if, like us, he didn't immediately know what to do? That's why his script writers gave him the following lines: "The idea of America being under attack never entered my mind, just like your daddy and mother's mind, probably..."

Previously Bush said that he saw a TV News report on the first plane hitting the World Trade Center. And yet the possibility that "America was under attack" never crossed his mind? Is he comatose?

Then comes the line, "I started thinking hard, in that very brief period of time, about what it meant to be under attack." So, never having conceived the possibility of his country being attacked, he was stunned, just like Jordan's mother and daddy who, he suggests, are also as dumb as a post.

The problem with Bush's "You-Were-Stunned, I-Was Stunned" line of defense is that the Secret Service had open lines to the FAA starting at around 8:45 AM, according to Vice President Cheney. (2)

Now, the FAA knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:20, or so they say. And it was Flight 11 that hit the World Trade Center. One would assume that the FAA imparted this information to the Secret Service when they took the emergency measure of setting up open lines. Therefore the Secret Service knew that "America is under attack" around 8:45, well before Mr. Bush and his staff, including the Secret Service, arrived at the Booker School. And this was about 21 minutes before Andrew Card whispered whatever he whispered in Mr. Bush's ear.

And while the Secret Service does not talk to Jordan's "daddy and mother", presumably they do talk to President Bush.

Bush is also trying to accomplish a third thing here, which is to give people the impression that he's tough and competent, that he quickly recovered, rolled up his sleeves and did his job. The idea is, we Americans may be remarkably obtuse, but once we get riled, we get mean.

So he says that he remained frozen with shock for only a "very brief period of time" - and then he vowed revenge ("there would be hell to pay") and got down to the hard work of gathering those all-important but elusive facts because, "the role of the commander-in-chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening." And therefore he "got on the phone from Air Force One asking to find out the facts." In order, you understand, to prevent other attacks from happening.

Here Bush fails to mention one thing: he couldn't have been "on the phone from Air Force One" until around 10:00 AM Eastern time because that's approximately when Air Force One taxied down the runway to depart Sarasota-Brandenton Int'l Airport.

Which was almost an hour after Andrew Card whispered whatever he whispered in Bush's ear.

Which was also almost an hour after the FAA took the very extreme measure of closing the air corridor between Cleveland and New York. (3)

And which was an hour and 15 minutes after the Secret Service went on emergency open lines with the Federal Aviation Administration (according to VP Cheney). (2)

Not to mention that it was one hour and 40 minutes after the FAA says they knew Flight 11 had been hijacked out of Boston. (3)

And by that time the other attacks had happened.

Hail to the Chief!

Is "Coverup" one word? Or does it have a hyphen, you know, as in "Cover-up"?]

[END Note from Jared Israel.]


For the unabridged text of Bush's December 'Town Hall' meeting in Florida, please go to


Bush Betrayed Consciousness Of Guilt On 9-11
by Francisco Gil-White and Jared Israel
[Posted 11 September 2002]

The difficulty when investigating the possible criminal actions of powerful officials is that they can use their power to cover up involvement in criminal conspiracies. One of the ways around this problem is to examine a politician's behavior at the time of the crime. Did he or she carry out positive obligations of office? Or did they shirk such obligations in ways that aided the criminals and betrayed prior knowledge of criminal plans, that is, consciousness of guilt?

On the morning of 9-11, George W. Bush and his advisers were in Sarasota, Florida. As soon as President Bush was aware that a plane had been deliberately flown into the World Trade Center, he had two positive obligations.

** Bush's Positive Obligations: To Protect Himself and the Rest of us **

Bush's first obligation was to protect the government and military chains of command. Since Bush was both Head of State and Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, this meant protecting himself and his closest advisers.

Bush's second obligation was to *protect the people* by immediately conferring with his top military commanders. This included Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense who is second in the military chain of command and also has special responsibilities in case of a hijacking, General Richard B Myers, who was acting chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and various officers at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC), the military nerve center for dealing with hijackings.

Using media reports as well as an on-line video of Bush, filmed at the Booker School on 9-11, and analyzing subsequent statements made by Bush, by his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, and by Vice President Cheney, in the next several posts we will show that:

* Mr. Bush and his advisers had to have known that a commercial jet had deliberately hit the World Trade Center before they arrived at the Booker School on the morning of 9-11.

* Under these circumstances, the Booker School was the most dangerous place they could be. Nevertheless their party proceeded at a leisurely pace to the school and stayed there for over 30 minutes, thus shirking their primary duty, to protect President Bush, the top person in the government and military commands.

* According to his own statements, George W. Bush did not immediately contact Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Gen. Myers and the National Military Command Center. Instead, following his drive to the Booker School he spent perhaps 20 minutes cheerfully observing a reading lesson. The video footage of this session shows Mr. Bush giving pep talks to teachers and children, smiling, cheering - doing everything except his duty. We will explain why Bush avoided the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief.

* The "Bush team" knew their avoidance of positive obligations of office pointed to criminal involvement in 9-11, so they attempted to cover up their actions. But their cover-ups were clumsy and provide further evidence of their consciousness of guilt.


* Footnotes and Further Reading *

Footnotes & Further Reading

For more on 9-11 see our full list of "Articles on 9-11," at

1) For the text of the White House statement on the evening of September 11th, go to

2) The President's schedule for 11 September 2001 was published various places including:
To read the FNS document go to http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/fns930.htm

3) Gen. Richard B. Myers' Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing, 13 September 2001
Full transcript at:

4) The New York Times, September 13, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final Section A; Page 5; Column 1; National Desk 
Controllers Say Flow of Information on Hijacked Planes' Course Was Slow and Uneven"

To Subscribe to the Emperor's Clothes email list go to http://www.emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
You'll receive texts posted at Emperor's Clothes

www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]

This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at http://globalresistance.com



Official complicity in 9-11

URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htm
Mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/911page.htm

Join our email list at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Receive about one article/day.

Send a link to this article to a friend! If you're reading this article in email, please forward it to a friend!

www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]

September 11: Guilt in High Places

(1) Evidence of official complicity in the actual events of 9-11
(2) Interviews related to 9-11 & Afghanistan

[28 December 2002]

(For more Articles on 9-11 go to

1) *Evidence of Official Complicity in 9-11*

A) Failure to scramble planes on 9-11 and the attempt to cover this up.

B) How George Bush's behavior during his visit to the Booker School on 9-11 betrayed consciousness of guilt.

C) General overviews off what happened on 9-11.

D) Technical references (maps, timetables).

E) Background & related information.

A) Failure to scramble planes

* 'Powerful Evidence that Air Force Was Made to Stand Down on 9-11,' by John Flaherty & Jared Israel

* 'Why Were None of the Hijacked Planes Intercepted?'
[Posted 14 November 2001]
Discusses the failure to scramble planes over Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon was hit. It also provides a general outline of our charges. This is useful because some material has not yet been posted.

* 'Mr. Cheney's Cover Story'
[Posted 20 November 2001]
Discusses Vice President Cheney's remarkable appearance September 16th on "Meet the Press." Cheney's attempt to cover-up the failure to scramble planes makes things worse.

B) George Bush's behavior in visit to Booker School

* 'Bush in the Open' - Given that George Bush and his staff knew a terrorist attack was underway *before* their motorcade left their hotel (the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort) why did he show up at the Booker School that day?
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm *

* "Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies Part 1: A Strange White House Press Conference..." at http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif1.htm

and "Part 2: White House Cover-up Creates more Problems than it Solves"
at http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm

* "The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC " at

* 'George W. Bush Betrayed Consciousness of Guilt on 9-11,'
by Francisco Gil-White and Jared Israel

C) General overviews of officials' actions on 9-11

* 'Criminal Negligence or Treason?' Commentary on a 'NY Times' article. This was the first article that we know of that pointed out the implications of the failure to mount an air defense on September 11. Written by Jared Israel in consultation with Emperor's Clothes writer Illarion Bykov and Canadian Attorney Tiphaine Dickson.
[Posted 15 September 2001]

Frequently Asked Questions on 9-11
Includes: 'FAQ #1 - Nobody was prepared for 9-11' and
'FAQ #2 - Dan Rather Discovers Planes *were* Scrambled After All! (This is a must read!)

Canadian TV Airs Emperor's Clothes 'Guilty For 9-11' Evidence!
by John Flaherty
[5 February 2002]

'9-ll: Ho-Hum, Nothing Urgent'
by George Szamuely
Research & documentation by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel

'Scrambled Messages' - 'New York Press' article based on the 'Guilty for 9-11' Series. by George Szamuely
[Posted 14 December 2001]

D) Technical references (maps, timetables)

* 'Map & Timetable for American Airlines Flight 77'
[Posted 8 December 2001]

* 'Map of Andrews Air Force Base'
[Posted 20 November 2001]

E) Background & related information

'Operation Northwoods: Plan for Terror to Justify War'
We know about this plan through the Freedom of Information Act. How many such plans do we *not* know of?

It was developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The purpose: to stage phony anti-US terrorist attacks and blame them on Cuba.

These plans allowed for the possibility of killing hundreds or even thousands of US citizens (by sinking a US military ship) and non-citizens (Cuban refugees). Then Castro would be blamed. This would make the US the victim and thus justify nuclear attack on the Socialist states (!)

We have posted the Northwoods document in full both as a pdf file and as regular web pages. We have also posted a commentary by Jared Israel with hyperlinks to the full text of Northwoods so you can see the context of the excerpts on which he is commenting.

* 'Reader Says Emperor's Clothes Wrong on bin Laden, 9-11'
A very interesting debate.
[Posted 28 September 2001]

* 'Russian Air Force Chief Says Official 9-11 Story Impossible'
[Posted 13 September 2001]

* '911: Letting It Happen'
By Ken McCarthy
[Posted 1 February 2002]

* "'Explosives Planted In Towers,' New Mexico Tech Expert Says"
[Posted 14 September 2001]
Important Note: Since we re-posted this article from the 'Albuquerque Journal,' that newspaper has published a retraction. We have written some comments on the retraction and given the article a new title, 'In Curious Battle: An Expert Recants on Why WTC Collapsed.' It is posted at the original address, http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm, with a link to the retraction.

(2) *Emperor's Clothes Interviews on 9-11, Afghanistan*

* 'Interview with Manager at Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on Official Story'
Interview by Jared Israel
[Conducted and posted 13 September 2001]

* 'Red Cross Spokesmen Refute Pentagon Lies'
Interview by Jared Israel
[1 November 2001]

 New 15 June 2002 - "What Really Happened on 9-11?" - The Transcript
Text of Jared Israel Interviewed by Mark Haim on Radio

"What Really Happened on 9-11?" - Audio File
Jared Israel interviewed by Mark Haim
KOPN 89.5 FM Evening Edition * 2 April 2002
1st of 2 interviews
[Posted 15 May 2002]
To access this you need a computer with speakers. There *might* be problems with Netscape and AOL.

Please Consider Making a Contribution to Emperor's Clothes

If you have been reading Emperor Clothes and find our articles useful but haven't made a contribution in some time (or ever) please consider doing so now. We're experiencing economic difficulties and we can only produce this work if you help us.

When you contribute your hard-earned money to Emperor's Clothes you are taking a stand against the lies that make war possible.

Here's how you can help:

You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at

You can use PayPal  at https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shipping=1

You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)

Or donate by phone by calling us in the U.S. at
1 617 916-1705

We can now accept donations through e-gold. Our account # is 444982.

Note: If you donate by mail, please let us know at emperors1000@aol.com

Regardless of whether you make a donation, thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!

Join our email list at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Receive about one article/day.

Send a link to this article to a friend! If you're reading this article in email, please forward it to a friend!

www.emperors-clothes.com or
[Emperor's Clothes]

This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/

To unsubscribe, which can only be done from an email address which is actually subscribed, click or send an email to unsubscribe@emperor.vwh.net


 Home Contents Library


Essential Medical Supply Sheepette Synthetic Lambskin, 30" x 60"

The closest synthetic to real sheepskin! Sheepette Synthetic Sheepskin Bed Pads prevent bed sores with a dense, heavyweight material that distributes pressure evenly. The thick material also allows greater air circulation than competing pads. Each pad also comes with instructions for machine washing and drying. D5003 30" x 60".

Various sizes available. Foldable for extra softness.


Medical Sheepskin Pelt - Extra Large

  • 100% 1" Thick Australian Merino Sheepskin
  • Totally free of dyes and toxins
  • Machine wash, hang to dry
  • Soft and comfortable for even the most sensitive skin


In 1904 there was very little cancer. Now there is an abundance of cancer. What has changed? Can this be reversed? If you have cancer or do not want to get cancer the information you and your family need is on this web site.


Note: there are two ways to navigate this site. You can follow the pages in their logical sequence, or you can access every page from "Contents".


For your assistance, there are Google search boxes on each page that will allow you to search this web site or the entire Internet for more information.


Alkalize For Health Site Search 

Custom Search

Search the Internet with Google



Copyright 2000 - 2018 AlkalizeForHealth
All rights reserved.

Home               Contents               Library