Copyright 2000-2002 South Africa Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF IMC.

Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld by "D. Rumsfeld", Thursday July 17, 2003 at 06:38 PM

Smoking Gun Evidence of Rumsfeld´s Connection to September 11th Treason

Download the actual Joint Chiefs of Staff document this article is based on (Adobe PDF):

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

By Donald Rumsfeld´s own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).

Well, that´s a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City.

It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with hijacked aircraft?

There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A" (www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf)

"AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS"

These are the standing orders to the military as to how to respond to hijackings over United States territory. The June 1 ´01 document deliberately changed the existing policies. Previous directives were issued in 1997, 1986 and before.

What is shocking about this entire sordid episode is the total disconnect between what Donald Rumsfeld´s story alleges (ignorance of inbound hijacked aircraft), and what these Chief of Staff Instructions require of the Secretary of Defense:

"b. Support. When notified that military assistance is needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will:

(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

"APPROVAL"

The usage of the word "approval" is the major change here to the existing hijacking response procedures. While the text of the document tries to link this "approval" to the previous orders "DODD 3025.15," the approval is now required BEFORE providing any assistance at all. Previously, approval would be required to respond to a situation with lethal force.

This June 1st update to the orders stopped all military assistance in its tracks UNTIL approval from Donald Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of Defense") could be granted -- which, by his own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed total ignorance of the inbound aircraft that attacked the Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building complex, where a construction project had been underway).*

In this manner, fighter planes were held up from immediately responding to the hijacked commercial jets on September the 11th.

The flight base commanders were ordered by the June 1st "Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction" to wait for "approval" from the Secretary of Defense before they could respond to hijackings, where they would have routinely responded in the past.

It´s inconceivable that New York City could be struck by two wayward jumbo jets, and still over 30 minutes later there remained no defenses over the skies of Washington D.C., easily one of the most heavily defended places in the world.

This reality led Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force to say: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. (...) As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."

The Plot Thickens

Enter the patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn´t be a mastermind if he hadn´t thought of a fall guy to take the blame, if needed. This brings us to Tom White, the former Enron executive, appointed to be Secretary of the Army, and more importantly the "executive agent for the Department of Defense" on May 31, 2001 -- ONE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HIJACKING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED!

The first public statement of Donald Rumsfeld on September 11th, 2001 makes an issue of Tom White´s "responsibility" for the situation:

"Secretary of the Army Tom White, who has a responsibility for incidents like this as executive agent for the Department of Defense, is also joining me." (The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia, September 11, 2001 6:42 P.M. EDT, http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0911/DoD.html)

It should be noted that Rumsfeld eventually fired White, allegedly for disagreeing about a weapons system. But, what about the introduction cited above? This is clearly an attempt to divert blame and responsibility away from the Secretary of Defense, and over to the "executive agent" a position that the general public would have no knowledge. That way, if inquisitive reporters started asking questions about the procedures and failures, Rumsfeld would have an easy scapegoat as to who the *real* person in charge of the situation should have been. Amazingly, no mainstream reporters bothered to investigate these matters at this level, and so the patsy wound up being unnecessary.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction is explicit, however, and it mentions Rumsfeld´s position and it requires his "approval."

Just where was this "approval" on September 11th 2001?

There is no mention of the Secretary of Defense approving anything related to the hijackings. The Vice-President (Cheney) is on record as approving the shooting down of the fourth plane over Pennsylvania. Whether or not the shoot-down occurred is not yet clear. But there is no connection whatsoever to the Secretary of Defense, whose "approval" is explicitly required before the military can respond to a hijacking incident over the USA, according to its own instructions.

CHANGING THE RULES

The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the military to respond to an emergency such as a hijacking:

"4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."

Rumsfeld went ahead and clouded the waters. The priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power -- in the specific case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of Defense. This is repeated in multiple paragraphs:

"c. Military Escort Aircraft (1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

This creates the necessity for: 1) making a request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2) receiving approval before military aircraft may respond.

The statement ?to determine if suitable aircraft are available? is also suspicious. Can anyone imagine a situation where the United States of America does not have a "suitable aircraft" available to respond to a hijacked airliner?

NORAD tried to spin such a story in the aftermath of September 11th. Supposedly, we just didn´t have any fighter planes on the morning of September 11th. What were they all doing?

Obviously we had planes available in Washington D.C., because press reports tell us about the "air cover" or "air cap" that went into effect just after the Pentagon was struck. Planes from Andrews Air Force base were in the sky "just minutes" after the Pentagon was struck. Why was no air cover available BEFORE the Pentagon was struck, Mr. Rumsfeld? After all, the "Secretary of Defense" is supposed to approve the launching of ?Military Escort Aircraft.? Did you?

If not, why not?

Also, if you take no interest in actually ?defending? the people of America during an attack, why do you remain in your position as the Secretary of Defense?

RUMSFELD SPINNING LIES

Both Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have maintained the fiction that:

"RUMSFELD: (...) Never would have crossed anyone´s mind that a commercial airline -- usually a hijacker who takes an airplane, of course, wants to get someplace or wants to make a statement or wants to go on television or wants to hold hostages, but this is a distinctly different behavior pattern than we´ve seen previously, and now, obviously, it´s something we have to be attentive to." (NBC´s Meet the Press, Washington, D.C., September30, 2001 http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0930/SoDNBC.html)

This is a blatant lie, which can be disproved in numerous ways:

1) Threats of a suicide skyjacking were known at the Genoa G-8 summit in July of 2001. The Italian government ringed the city of Genoa and the airport with anti-aircraft guns and missiles because of a known Al Qaeda plot to assassinate George W. Bush and other world leaders. (LA TIMES, September 27, 2001)

2) The Pentagon had staged response exercises, "Mass Casualty Exercises" in the case of a crash by a jetliner, nearly a year before September 11th in October of 2000.

3) Since 1995, the FBI had been aware of "Project Bojinka" a plan by extremists to simultaneously seize and to crash multiple commercial jets as suicide weapons. This prompted investigations at US flight schools.

4) Numerous warnings from Britain, Egypt, Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan and others alerted the US intelligence services that a plane would be used as a weapon to attack "prominent symbols of American power," including World Trade Center and the Pentagon, during the Summer of 2001.

5) A small Cessna plane actually did crash into the White House on September 12, 1994.

6) In 1994, suicidal Algerian hijackers plotted to use an Air France jetliner, loaded with fuel and dynamite as a deadly weapon and crash into the Eiffel Tower.

7) Another similar plan had Muslim militants hijack Pan Am Flight 76 in Pakistan in 1986 in order to attack Tel Aviv, Israel. The plane was stormed before take-off.

8) At the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics, "Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs Service jets were deployed to intercept suspicious aircraft in the skies over the Olympic venues," (LA Times).

With the numerous reports that came out in May of 2002 of Bush Administration warnings prior to September 11th, it is the lack of action that is most telling. The American people were not warned. Instead lies were told that "no warnings" were ever received. When it became public knowledge that warnings were indeed received, the Bush Administration spin changed to "warnings weren´t specific enough." This is also a lie.

If US airport security screeners were given the type of information that was widely known in the intelligence community, then there is a good chance that thousands of lives could have been saved.

But, in that case, we wouldn´t have a "new Pearl Harbor."

PRETEXT FOR AMERICAN AGGRESSION

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington foreign policy "think tank" created in 1997 by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and others. Their policy papers are available on the web. In a document called "Rebuilding America´s Defenses" they spell out pretty straightforwardly what it is they seek. The "neo conservatives" want nothing short of total world domination though military and financial supremacy.

It is about the time that the PNAC was founded when Rumsfeld and others began to pressure President Clinton to invade Iraq. A January 1998 letter demands a new strategy of Clinton: "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein´s regime from power."

Iraq, the second largest oil reserve in the world, is a major strategic prize. And it is the strategic advantage that drives the ideologues such as Rumsfeld, confident in the belief that whatever means employed are justified in the pursuit of American "primacy" or dominance over the entire world. The Project for the New American Century will accept no challenge to American supremacy around the globe, and the policies they are now implementing support this belief. They intend to raise military expenditures to absurd levels, in a world where the United States already outspends the rest of the earth combined on military.

What the September 11th attacks are then is stated explicitly in "Rebuilding America´s Defenses." It is the "new Pearl Harbor." According to Rumsfeld and company, the United States of America would slowly become the unchallenged power of the world. But this process would be speeded up satisfactorily if some new external attack, ?some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor? were to occur. This concept is also stated explicitly in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It´s Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

Both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz traveled around the media after September 11 repeating the phrase "Pearl Harbor," and cementing it in people?s minds. The "Pearl Harbor effect" is what is sought. An America gung-ho for war, for payback, for militarism, for sacrifice, for tears, for aggression, for the kind of violence witnessed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki if need be, this is the intended effect of September the 11th and ultimately the reason that day came to pass.

These are the true reasons that the September 11th attacks remain uninvestigated, covered-up and classified. Motive, opportunity and means -- the only thing needed here is justice.

Much ado was made in the press about John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" who fought in Afghanistan. On September 11, 2001, there was another Al Qaeda operative, a man who did more to help the attacks succeed than anyone else. It was not Osama bin Laden, but Donald H. Rumsfeld who has earned his place in the history books as the "American Taliban 2."

Don?t forget that it was Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in 1983, even while it was known that the dictator ("Hitler revisited") was using prohibited poison gas weapons. Rumsfeld assisted Saddam Hussein both financially and militarily, never once bringing up any qualms about helping a "ruthless dictator who gasses his own people."

"PROPHETIC?"

Larry King Live, December 5, 2001, regarding the morning of September 11th:

LARRY KING: And someone told me that you had spoken to a congressional delegation...

DONALD RUMSFELD: Right here in this room.

LARRY KING: ... in this room about terrorism that morning.

DONALD RUMSFELD: I had said at -- I had an 8 o´clock breakfast -- that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, 10, 12 months, there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people, again, how important it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that contributes -- that underpins peace and stability in our world.

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

* A firestorm of controversy erupted among independent investigators regarding the incident at the Pentagon on September the 11th. Photographs taken by Marine Corporal Jason Ingersoll in the minutes after the crash, but before the building collapsed, reveal the entry hole into the Pentagon being too small to accommodate a Boeing 757. Some of the photos and analysis can be found here: http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/

Further evidence indicates that the Pentagon was attacked by a smaller aircraft which fired a missile just before impact. The missile´s exhaust plume is visible in the video frames that were leaked to the press from the Pentagon parking lot security camera (CNN, NBC). This smaller attack plane was likely an Unmanned Attack Vehicle, or drone.

Eyewitnesses told of a plane capable of holding "8 to 12 people" (Steve Patterson, Washington Post, 9/11/01) and this size is consistent with the damage to the face of the Pentagon, seen before the wall collapse. More photos here: http://www.amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html

It should be noted that the "leaked" (or planted) Pentagon video footage has been doctored, badly, in an attempt to cover up the actual moment of impact, and to obscure the view of the attacking plane.

Thanks to Nafeez Ahmed and his book "The War on Freedom" for uncovering this evidence.

More analysis can be found here:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm

http://copvcia.com

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

Hear an in-depth AUDIO INTERVIEW wih Michael Ruppert here:

http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=5267