BUSH ADMINISTRATION ADMITS TO PRIOR WARNING ABOUT 9/11 HIJACKINGS

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer made a dramatic admission this past Wednesday--that US intelligence agencies had delivered to President Bush in early August definitive warnings that Osama bin Laden would be attempting to hijack commercial airliners. Fleischer was quick to provide a ready excuse for government inaction on the warnings by stating that the warnings did not indicate the possibility that the hijackers would use the aircrafts as guided missiles targeting high profile buildings.

This announcement is suspicious on its face. First, it has all the markings of a total fabrication designed to head off or soften the mounting real evidence of government foreknowledge and complicity with the 9/11 terrorist attack. The CIA was collaborating with Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia as late as July of 2001, so it is highly suspicious that the supposed intelligence warnings would have mentioned bin Laden by name as an enemy--unless bin Laden’s primary purpose is to serve as a fall guy. Second, if, as Fleischer says, the warnings gave no indications that the hijackings would be “for the use of suicide bombing, nor for the use of an airplane as a missile,” what did they think they were for, and why should this warning have been given such special priority? Generic potential hijackings are not considered worthy news items to put before the President in his daily briefings. last, why no prior admission of this prior warning (if it existed at all)? Why wait for six months to reveal it?

I strongly suspect that this is a ploy to defuse the growing evidence of government prior knowledge. By airing a harmless version of prior warning, the public will be induced to view all other subsequent and more damaging evidence as ‘old stuff.’ Even Congress may be diverted from highlighting evidence of other more telling collusion between government and the hijackers as they go through the pretenses of an investigation. Here are some major questions that will probably go unanswered by Congress as a result:

· What is the relationship between the CIA and Rudy Dekker’s Huffman Aviation which trained two of the alleged hijackers? Dekker leases space in his hanger to Britannia Aviation, a CIA front company.

· Why did the INS give numerous visas to these hijackers (in previous years, before 9/11) when they were conspicuously prominent on the CIA and FBI computer terrorist “watch lists?” I think the INS “mistake” of issuing renewed student visas to them after the attacks was only to provide a phony image of government incompetence--which doesn’t match the exacting ruthlessness of the INS in holding Caucasian immigrants to the letter of the law.

· In light of the recent admissions about prior warning, why didn’t the same agencies who briefed the President put two and two together and link flight school training taken by Arabs (with supposed ties to Al Qaeda) to the known threat of hijacking (even assuming the CIA didn’t know the ultimate purpose of the hijacking)?

· Why did Arabs who could barely speak English go to America flight schools (which offered no instruction in large airliners) when there was an Arab-speaking airline flight school in operation at Fort Worth International?

· Why is the FAA refusing to make public any of the tape recorded conversations with pilots of the hijacked airliners as the hijacking was taking place?

· Why the suppression of ATC controller testimony that two F-16 fighters were vectored to and intercepted Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, or about witness statements of explosions aboard the aircraft and the unmarked white jet aircraft that followed Flight 93 down to the ground as it crashed and then flew off at tree top altitude?

· Why did the government shut down all military flight lines in the East half way through the 9/11 attacks so they could not respond to other hijackings still in progress?

· Why is the FBI refusing to release the service station surveillance camera video they confiscated minutes after an aircraft flew into the Pentagon? How did they know to show up at the service station within such a short time period? Why did the government leak (unofficially) to NBC strange excerpts from a Pentagon parking video that, in fact, does not show a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon? The anomalies in the official story about the alleged crash of Flight 77 have given rise to a whole rash of internet suspicions pointing to another type of aircraft, possibly combined with a missile, that more fully explains the damage to the Pentagon. All this could easily be clarified by evidence the government has in its possession. Why the gag order?

People are so easily duped into accepting facile explanations for government incompetency and inaction. I participated on a panel discussion on terrorism at the FEE National Convention, and presented some of the anomalies in the official version of events surround 9/11, including the highly suspicious refusal of FBI headquarters to allow a local FBI office in Minnesota to search the apartment of an Arab flight school student who was reported to be only interested in learning to maneuver a large aircraft--not takeoff and land. Michael Ladeen, a fellow panelist who works for the establishment American Enterprise Institute, was quick to react to my charges by saying the FBI was under pressure by the federal courts to be cautious about violating anyone’s rights. Hogwash. My learned colleague was apparently oblivious to the voluminous testimony of FBI whistleblowers stating that the FBI violates the law anytime it wants. The surveillance of conservative Congressmen (Filegate) is only one example of such egregious violations of the law on a routine basis at the Bureau. If the FBI chose to be cautious in this case, it was only because the FBI was looking for an excuse to avoid exposing evidence pointing to an incident that powerful dark side forces in government wanted to happen--perhaps to justify further restrictions of constitutional liberties in America (see below) and to further globalist intervention.