Saturday, November 29, 2008

The Two AP Breaking News Archives From 9/11

In an undated Issue 7 from the web site, which is a review of intelligence and media matters put out by The Institute for Media Analysis, Andy Weir and Jonathan Bloch write about a prominent British journalist named Robert Moss, who was active on the editorial staff of London's The Economist from 1970-198o, where he was an editorial writer and special correspondent. Specifically, he edited The Economist’s weekly Foreign Report supplement from 1974-1980.

Calling him "perhaps one of the most influential right wing commentators in politics today," Weir and Bloch couched their recognition of Moss's work in terms like "his messianic activities on behalf of the 'free world,'" saying, "it is plain to see that intelligence sources have provided him with the raw material on which he has based much of his reputation.

The weekly magazine The Economist, is considered the establishment paper of record for British business interests, although I much prefer the Financial Times, a very early visitor to stevenwarran.blogspot, and, (I flatter myself,) the mainstream outlet which published the best analysis I've ever seen, this past June, of what 9/11 has wrought.

But it is in the special hybrid Foreign Report that Moss is set apart from his journalistic peers. It is a "confidential" publication sent to selected individuals by prospective subscription, where applicants are screened, required "to provide copious details on themselves, and must agree to keep its contents confidential." The report was able to forecast almost to the day, for instance, the political coup's in Greece in 1967 and Chile in 1973, and such forecasting must rely on access to very high-level sources---like the people who pull the switches.

What the criteria for admission into this rarefied club entails---like the requirement for secrecy---isn't hard to fathom. It must relate to an interconnectedness, even a non-competitiveness between business interests, and certainly it requires obedience to direction. The organizing principle would be the necessitous appearances before government boards and regulators. The life spring of a Rolodex class accustomed to its privileged access, which allows them to parlay their informational advantages over the uninitiated masses. All of it in cahoots somehow with the drug runners, the arms smugglers, and the sex traffickers. In its secrecy, it is the very definition of the word conspiracy. It sounds like fun.

A unique style must result in the finished work product, which we are told, "is interesting reading for fans of unreconstructed conspiracy theories and reads like a gossip column of the intelligence world."

It is that quality of a high-level private one-way conversation which pervades another media record, a recently discovered and little known archive of "breaking news" reports from September 11th, 2001, categorized under the heading "War on Terrorism," and posted to the web by the Irish company Thomas Crosbie Media. The interlinked context is clear here: it is the first of such daily compendiums under that heading running at least until the end of 2001. According to, the archive page's first appearance online is dated to March 16, 2004.

The bulletins in it out of New York and Washington are recognizable by the verbatim quotes sourced to the Associated Press that were telecast on American TV news programs that day. This timeline is significant in several respects beyond its tone and the glut of incidental, conflicting, or contextualizing information contained within it. To begin with, it is seriously at odds with a competing compendium of AP reports from that day---a mysterious low-brow page put out by the AP and found online, which has generated only one or two references on the web in way of context. Most notably it is serving an important role as a source for facts in the Complete 911 Timeline at The History Commons project online.

This Associated Press timeline is a summation, self-described as "two flashes, 25 APNewsAlerts and 18 bulletins in the first day," presented on an undated and unnumbered, but otherwise professional appearing pdf page found online, which the Complete 9/11 Timeline calls simply, "Associated Press, 2001." Graphically, it looks like it might have come out of the semi-annual, in-house magazine, APWorld, but that can't be determined via Google. The Alerts should open to the promised expanded coverage, but the links are non-activated. records the page as not appearing online until March 6, 2008. (Viewable, for some reason, only by pasting into your browser*/ )

A second citation used at the Complete 911 Timeline reinforces eight key items from this pdf timeline page. They appeared in an article in the industry magazine Broadcasting and Cable dated 8/26/2002, and since this was the original preceding effort at damage control, it points to the most actionable conflicts in the timeline. I attempt a bit of explication of what that means in a blog here.

This helps explain why two completely rewritten and timestamped summaries of the AP's work from 9/11 would surface years after the event. I think evidence will show that the Crosbie archive is the legitimate record of the AP breaking news wire from September 11th, 2001. Saved, in an elegant twist, in Ireland, a land whose monasteries had also preserved much of the knowledge of the ancient Greek world during the extended dark period of Christian retrenchment known as the Middle Ages.

I use the term "legitimate" here lightly, since such a list was never intended to be constructed even, let alone seen by the public.

But it will also prove, I submit, that the Associated Press was a key co-conspirator to the massive United States government false-flag, psy-op production we know as the attacks of 9/11. Mixing thoroughly scripted synthetic elements with unavoidable organic material, events unfolded that day in extemporaneous, and sometimes premature, fashions. This resulted in factual inconsistencies within the timeline, conflicts which the summary constructed post-facto, (as distinct from assembled afterward,) attempted to clean up. But the effort surely never anticipated being seen in the light of its alternative "true" twin, so it only manages to dig a deeper hole into the onus, while reminding us of that old Watergate adage---how did that go again?

We can begin by examining the disparities in the timestamps given the breaking news, especially in those items issued in the first frenzied hours after the attacks.

Getting to the bottom of what the Crosbie reports really represented hasn't been easy for me. I put a call into the Irish company to ask about the extent of the AP sourcing, and the method the information would have arrived in---either by satellite, or online---and how the electronic pieces might have been assembled into the list as we now know it, but I didn't get very far. The staff member who answered the phone told me that the line as archived came out of the Press Association of England. This wasn't helpful at all, because it only added an additional corporate layer far removed, between the timeliness of the information and it's final repository.

Since I recognized verbatim AP quotes telecast on American TV news programs that day, but I also saw that the reports were written in standard British spellings and Greenwich Mean times. Could any rewriting represent a lag time of as much as twenty, or thirty minutes in some cases, that would account for the disparities?

No---because in one important item, the very first report, the timestamp in the Crosbie archive is in advance of the competition by five minutes, with internal evidence showing it likewise arose from an attempt to rewrite history and conform it to the unalterable tapes of the telecasts of 9/11 contained in living rooms across America.

The Associated Press pdf page coincides with the on-air announcements in a just too-pat synchronisity. That doesn't explain why an alternate version exists that gets the times so wrong, or why the Crosbie archive would contain so much more fascinating and detailed information, while the competition presents itself in a streamlined, bare-bones form so extreme that it fails to even mention the collapse of Building 7 at 5:30pm on the afternoon of 9/11, a gaffe belying its pose as the whole and complete record of the AP breaking news line from that day.

As if we needed a slap in the face to say this document was constructed after the fact, appending a correction to an egregious error---the report that a car bomb had gone off outside the State Department---does just the trick. In the 10:23am item attributed to "senior law enforcement officials," the [Note: Officials’ version later proved unfounded] is not nearly as contrite as a revealing of who those sources were will be.

By way of contrast, the authentic archive preserved by Crosbie, after first reporting the car bomb blast at its variant scripted time slot of 10:35am, then repeats the error as headline in three more bulletins over the course of the next 36 minutes: issued at 10:42am, at 11:03am, and again at 11:11am---shamelessly driving home the terror, which the AP themselves were originating.

But it is in their desire to create a written record that conformed to the recorded telecasts that the AP went too far.

At 9:55am, a co-anchor of the local CBS affiliate in Washington, D.C., Mike Buchanan, reported an item on-air, saying,
"Again, the White House has been evacuated after the Secret Service received credible threat, a credible threat of a terrorist act against the Presidential mansion and residence, again the AP is reporting the Secret Service has received a credible threat, a terrorist threat, against the presidential mansion and residence."
I suppose you'd have to appreciate the bombastic style of Michael "Buck" Buchanan, to understand what it is he's actually been selling in his career as a newscaster---which isn't his reading comprehension skills or oratorical precision, by the way. For the AP to have constructed a 9:55am bullet item that read, "The White House was evacuated after the Secret Service received credible threat of a terrorist act against the presidential mansion and residence," ranks as a monumentally stupid act of obvious spoon feeding.

The dropping of the article "an" before the "credible threat" is a nice writerly touch---it might even appear that Buchanan stops midstream to correct the AP's imprecision. But it is in the use of the solecism "presidential mansion and residence" for "White House" that a clear alarm bell is sounded. The Associated Press is famous for its just-the-facts-Mame style of news writing. The AP used the term "White House" literally scores of times that day. Why would they then use such a Buchananesque expression just this one time?

Isn't it more likely that Mike was winging it here? That the real AP report was the one issued as scheduled at 9:52am? In the bulletin: "Terrorist threats made against the White House," the one that reads, "The FBI has evacuated the White House after they received what they said were "creditable threats" against the White House?"

"FBI/Secret Service---whatever." Did any of the other anchors say the words "presidential mansion and residence" around this time? I'm going to go check now and make sure.

Warning! Hybrid activity! Bisexual alert! Aaron Brown at CNN said at 9:56am
"Just to add a bit, John, to what you've been saying. We're getting a report from the Associated Press now that the White House was evacuated after the Secret Service received what the AP is describing as a credible threat of a terrorist attack against the White House itself. I expect you'll be checking that out. We'll try and confirm that. But that is what AP is reporting right now."
So it's one confirmed White House, but still batting 500 on the FBI/Secret Service mix up. And do notice how the pose of journalistic nicety is for naught, as the AP didn't say it was a credible threat---the Secret...FBI did. And does the FBI run everything up the AP flag pole to see if it salutes?

Since we have proof that it was the Secret Service themselves who called in a false report to the D.C. fire department that a frigging airplane had crashed into the, um, presidential mansion and residence, can't we all just go home now?

Oh, I forgot about the "tone."

In an early report in the Crosbie archive, from 9:14am, Plane crashes may have been on purpose, which corresponds to the rewritten item on the AP pdf from 9:12am, headlined, "Washington: FBI investigating reports of plane hijacking before World Trade Center crashes." we receive the first mention of possible terrorism---sourced from the FBI.

But the Crosbie report contains this bizarre non sequitur, written in a strangely passive voice:
"There are reports that the FBI may be investigating the possibility that the two plane crashes may have happened on purpose.

"The second plane ploughed through the second tower of the World Trade Centre.

"President Bush has been told of the accidents at the World Trade Centre.

"It is said a few planes would be clearing the World Trade Centre by a few miles but ordinarily there would be no planes close to the twin towers.

"There is no way of physically closing down the airspace around the twin towers.

"One eye witness said It seemed that the first plane "lined itself up to hit the building directly".
Emphasis added.
This is the only reference in the record that I'm aware of, of a standing prohibition on commercial plane traffic along the Hudson river corridor. But it is fraught with additional meaning, of some special circumstance on that day, which must have anticipated air traffic near the towers, foreseen, perhaps, as part of some drill or exercise, which then must have gone terribly wrong. This would begin to qualify as a plausible "insider" version of events to share as necessary amongst the elect.

The unnamed source who said the plane, "lined itself up to hit the building directly," is repeating a talking point that dozens of other supposed eyewitnesses in New York also expressed; while in Arlington, a similar meme had the plane, "adding power," or going, "full throttle," into the building. Both were meant to indicate the malicious intent of the evil hijackers, although, it is frankly impossible given the limited perspective, for any eyewitness to have divined intent from the logistics of a surprise plane attack occurring at 540 miles per hour, but that certainly didn't stop the gag writers from laying it on---nor stop our recognition of the obvious pattern of relentlessness now.

The story of Barbara and Ted Olsen takes on a whole new meaning when a report in the Crosbie archive reveals news of it broke at 5:05pm on September 11th---even before Building 7 fell.

The synthetic destruction of Building 7 is more readily apparent in reports like the one in the Crosbie archive from 1:27pm - Third building on verge of collapse, which quotes the experts at "CNN reports it looks likely to fall down."


A motif that runs repeatedly throughout the day in the Crosbie archive, but which is entirely missing on the AP page, is an attempt to lay blame for the attack (or take credit, if you will) on the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Very early on, in a report from 10:45am which was doubly sourced, said that the DFLP "has claimed responsibility for the attacks on the World Trade Center, according to the BBC and Abu Dhabi television."

This was quickly and directly rebutted by contacts within the leadership of the DFLP, but the charges, and counter denials, were repeated again and again throughout the day, and represent some sort of proxy battle.

But making the whole thing ridiculous was the very first report---at 9:52am---inside Terrorist threats made against the White House, which begins by denying the still as-yet-unstated charge, by issuing a non sequitur, using the familiar abbreviated name form, plastered with the modifier, "later," although it clearly is coming first.
"Later a DFLP official denied responsibility for the attack.
I can't make sense of why an alternate version attributing culpability to Israel's political enemies, the Palestinians, was ran at all, much lest in such a coordinated way, unless it was to viscerally spoil the imagination of the body politic by piggybacking some stigma off the horror. Come to think about it, that certainly worked well with Saddam Hussein.

Since by 10:45am, (or 11:17am on the AP pdf timeline,) the demonization and blame of Osama bin Laden was on, and since history has borne out the political agenda of American interests, maybe some competing faction was attempting to co-opt the crisis.

Jewish fingerprints are all over the reports. Maybe given their control of the media they simply couldn't help themselves, but they really should have tried harder. There was the absurd item from 11:35am that said the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania was headed to Camp David, while also reminding us that the anniversary of the Camp David Accord was Sept. 5-17, 1978. It repeats again later.

But simply ask yourself, "If I were an amateur suicidal martyr/pilot, could I ever in a million years find Camp David from the air?" Then could I pick out the presidential cabin, called Aspen Lodge, from one of the many guest cabins -- Dogwood, Maple, Holly, Birch, and Rosebud, to name but a few?

Also overplayed, was the report from 10:56am, that said, "Israel has also evacuated its entire diplomatic staff from Israeli premises all across the United States." It might be noted they were the only diplomats reacting this way outside of Washington and New York, but the Jews have never been known for their less-is-more style.

Multiple reports, and dozens of images, depicting scenes of Palestinians celebrating in the aftermath of the attacks, flooded media markets all over the world within hours, all with elaborate identifying captions (a detail sorely lacking on a single photograph from Arlington that day, but something the AP could manage from Gaza with apparent ease.) Israeli interests must be held responsible for this savvy, self-serving public relations manipulation. Such an utter lie is evidence of foreknowledge by at least some members within the Israeli or American intelligence/media complex.

There is a stunning artifact left over from the unstable period immediately following the attacks. It is a denial on September 20th by CNN that said "there is absolutely no truth to the information that is now distributed on the Internet that CNN used 10-year-old video when showing the celebrating of some Palestinians in East Jerusalem after the terror attacks in the U.S." "The source of the allegation has withdrawn it and apologized," it reports. The source, a 20-year-old South American college student named Márcio A. V. Carvalho, had posted the information to a discussion group e-mail list.

That a third-world student's avocational musings could reduce the mighty international news organization CNN to the quivering tones of an aggrieved Duchess, says a lot about the true New World Order. That any law of proportionality, or rule of avoiding psychological focus, would be so abridged by CNN in this expression, says, mostly, I suppose, that they cravenly stand behind their story. Does that mean we should now invade and bomb Palestine?

I think it is very important that the history books preserve alongside one another, Yasser Arafat's condolences from 11:10am, with Ariel Sharon's condolences from 5:11pm, a primary source found only by my relentlessly searching eyes on the Thomas Crosbie Media timeline. Let each of us decide for ourselves, which seems heartfelt, and which might be sinister.

All this Jewish political machination---and I haven't begun to exhaust the examples in the Crosbie archive, mind you---never makes it onto the AP pdf timeline page. It has all simply been swept away, as if by some unseen force.

That Jewish thought is on a downhill trajectory became manifest for me recently when I read Richard Landes' infinitely sad analysis from September 2007, The Jews as Contested Ground in Postmodern Conspiracy Theory Passages such as the following:
because of the role of demopaths: people who use the language of democracy, human rights, and tolerance, not because they believe in these notions and are willing to make the sacrifices involved in guaranteeing them for others, but because they can use them to disarm the West itself. Demopaths "use democracy to destroy democracy."
with its invention of a whole new level of pathological illogicality, makes me wonder how much worse can it get.

Having come to conceptualize "preemptive retaliation," born out of the Jonathan Institute, founded in 1979 by Benjamin Netanyahu, whose brother Jonathan was killed in the commando raid on Uganda's Entebbe airport in 1976, Jewish consciousness is playing an endgame here. Worse than a mental illness---the mis-identification and projection between subject and object, victim and perpetrator---this constitutes a knowing intellectual violence, and should be considered as such.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this decline in Jewish thought is a quote from Alan Dershowitz in an article in the New York Times about Jewish support for Barak Obama.
"Israelis fear Iran 'could be the first suicide nation, a nation that would destroy itself to destroy the Jewish nation,' Mr. Dershowitz said."

The Crosbie archive is characterized by its disarming candor. In the earliest mention of the attack on the Pentagon in either timeline, at 9:41am, in Pentagon evacuated due to fire, it says,
"The Pentagon is being evacuated in expectation of a terrorist attack. It is believed a fire has broken out in the building."
This is clear, unspinnable English sentence structure, evidence the military had advanced warnings of a multi-phase surprise attack. Like the USAToday article published at 7:05pm on the evening of the attack, which said,
"Before the plane hit, the scene at the Pentagon was already chaotic. Sheriff's deputies were screaming at people to move along quickly. "There's a hijacked plane two minutes away. We don't know where it's going to hit. Keep moving," they shouted."
The AP's timeline bullet item from 9:43am is supposedly the first report that "An aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon, witnesses say," and is standardized as such in the Complete 9/11 Timeline. But who are these anonymous sources? Does the plural represent two, or more than two? Why should they carry weight over any conflicting reports, like Plante's plural "witnesses?"

Illogically, we are asked to believe that the 9:43am AP bullet item both originated, and then settled, a fierce disagreement between Chris Plante and his producers at CNN. Why were the producers arguing with Plante prior to 9:43am---that being almost the exact moment Plante was temporarily shut down by Brown after going rouge on-air in mentioning he had been held at gun point by Pentagon guards.

Aaron Brown goes forward about 9:46am with the report "The Associated Press is reporting that a plane, it was a plane that crashed at the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is being evacuated." (The Complete 9/11 Timeline has got this significantly wrong, saying it was at 9:53am.)

Christ Plante is allowed back on air about 9:49am to rebut for the dustbins of history, saying, "contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses that I’ve spoken to anyway—and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building and that there was then an explosion."

My blog, Saint Christopher of Plante, attempts a more detailed explanation of this major turning point in the plot, but in summary, it was Chris Plante's authentic and fiercely defended reporting of organic eyewitness testimony at odds with his producer's synthetic proffering that forced the premature announcement of a plane crash, necessitating a cover-up, and risking the plot.

It is more likely that the original confirmation a commercial airliner had caused the damage at the Pentagon was intended to be the 10:11am Crosbie report, Large airliner crashes into the Pentagon. This report is the first detailed and attributed eyewitness account of a plane crash at the Pentagon to go out on the wires. Only it, or something like it, would carry the gravitas necessary to shift any recipients 's variant thinking and set the new dominant paradigm---that of a 757, American Airlines, Flight 77.
"AP reporter Dave Winslow also saw the crash. He said, "I saw the tail of a large airliner..... It plowed right into the Pentagon."
We can know it is genuine---it was quoted verbatim on CBS. Many times that day Buck Buchanan milked the sexualized encodes within the phrase: "I saw the tail...plow right into the Pentagon," but without mentioning the name Dave Winslow even once. A named attribution represents the highest level of credibility, and even in the face of opposing eyewitness, it wasn't used.

A wonderfully strange report from 11:05am, Second aircraft hits Pentagon, said,
"A second aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon building. Earlier, a small plane had slammed into the building and set it ablaze."
Perhaps in the confusion, someone was misreporting that a second plane had crashed, rather than a second plane was threatening, and forcing further evacuations. That pull back stemmed from a 10:44am report Hijacked plane heading for Washington. It was too bad that "the forth plane" had already been reported as having crashed, six minutes before, in a report, 747 down in Pennsylvania, from 10:38am.

According to Google, other than the History Commons citation, only one other original-source article refers to the AP pdf. It is the Calgary Herald, in a piece by Kevin Brooker, published March 26, 2007, called The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower, and the reference was about the AP timeline's failure to mention the collapse of Building 7.

According to Google, other than the History Commons citation, only one other original source refers to the Broadcast and Cable article, by the blog Shoestring911, which picked up on an errant report of fire in the USAToday towers in Roslyn.

Putting the more likely name for the title-less pdf page, "A Stunning 48 hours of News," into Google and only 10 hits are returned. Entering the title of the Broadcast and Cable article also returns only 10 hits in Google. Yet these are the only two sources that the timeline of record, the History Commons project, the Complete 9/11 Timeline, uses to establish the bare fact of an airplane crashing at the Pentagon:

9:43 a.m.-9:53 a.m. September 11, 2001: Associated Press First to Report a Plane Hit the Pentagon; CNN Still Unsure What Happened for Ten More Minutes

CNN wasn't unsure, they were fighting.

Moral revulsion at the full horror of what the United States has wrought begins to deepen later in the day's reports, as the events of 9/11 cannot be separated out from its fruits---the invasions and domination of foreign countries for the glory and plunder of drugs and oil, and the religiously motivated murder of over one million Muslims at the hands of a sick cabal of Judeo-Christian traitors who lay await within the very heart of the American Military-Industrial Complex, ready to pounce---then surge.

I've never been a fan of the medieval Taliban, or the tyrant Saddam Hussein. But the humanity of our enemies is clear in reports like the one from 12:55pm where
"Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, said in reaction to the news of the terror attacks that 'we want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain and we hope that the courts find justice.'"
Like the resonating truth in the report from 3:15pm where the
Taliban rulers have rejected claims that bin Laden was behind today’s attacks on New York and Washington. They say bin Laden did not have the means to carry out such well-orchestrated attacks.
Or the morality apparent in a report at 1:46pm
Afghanistan's hardline Taliban rulers condemned the devastating terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on Tuesday and rejected suggestions that Osama bin Laden could be behind them. "We never support terrorism. We too are targets of terrorism," Abdul Hai Muttmain, the Taliban's spokesman in the southern city of Kandahar, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Or the meaning behind the facts reported from Kabul at 5:41pm that afternoon, when we learn that already "explosions have rocked Kabul for the last hour." The US denied responsibility for the large scale bombing, blaming the Northern Alliance. Michael Hayden testified before Congress that the head of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Masood, was killed the day before 9/11, but that he blamed on the Taliban. The way these two were going at it, why did we need to go in there at all?

Compare this hour-long bombardment of a capital city, a retaliation just eight hours after the attack in New York had begun, with the number of days it is taking to sort through the facts in Mumbai, although The Jerusalem Post already posits the perpetrators to be "death-cult Islamists."

My God, CNN even had pre-positioned a reporter in Kabul before 9/11. Were they scheduled to be there reporting on the poppy trade I wonder? (I should never have asked myself this question. You can't believe where it has led.)

But there are signs of hope. The right-wing reactionary reporter from the 1970's with whom I led off this piece, Robert Moss, has had a career change in recent years. He is now a master teacher revealing the secrets hidden within our dream life. He is the creator of a program called Active Dreaming, an original synthesis of dreamwork and shamanic techniques for empowerment and healing, and I must say, his author's page is most impressive.

On his Wikipedia page that charts this transformation, mention is made of his powerful early writings, by which he could almost be said to have invented the concept of modern international terrorism. So it seems perfect to me that he is inventing something else now, equally as powerful I hope, but countervailing. All that remains unrevealed to me now, but I trust him implicitly nonetheless.

I know, I can not be said to be the one who is dreaming. I never sleep.

1 comment: