September, 2003

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

". . . as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997, The Grand Chessboard [1]

". . . the process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
Rebuilding America's Defenses, September 2000 [2]

"The other day a reporter friend told me that one of the highest-ranking CIA officials had said to him, off the record, that when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure."
CIA agent Robert Baer, See No Evil, 2002 [3]

President Roosevelt and his top officials knew the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor, and didn't try to stop them. [4] Henry Stimson (CFR) was Secretary of War at the time. His diary contains the following entry dated November 25, 1941:

". . . at 12.00 o'clock we went to the White House, where we were until nearly half past one. At the meeting were Hull, Knox, Marshall, Stark and myself. There the President . . . brought up entirely the relations with the Japanese. He brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." [5]

Naval Intelligence broke the Japanese codes before the U.S. entered World War II. The Roosevelt administration knew the Japanese fleet was northwest of Hawaii, and knew they planned to attack Pearl Harbor because the U.S. Navy intercepted thirteen parts of a fourteen-part message sent to the Japanese ambassador in Washington, D.C. The intercept discussed Japan's grievances, and stated there was no solution. President Roosevelt read the decoded message on December 6, 1941, at 9:30 p.m., EST, and commented "this means war." He tried to call Admiral Stark, but couldn't reach him. The Admiral returned President Roosevelt's call shortly after midnight; they discussed the Japanese message, but failed to contact the commanders at Pearl Harbor. The fourteenth segment of the Japanese message was intercepted on December 7 at 4:30 a.m., EST. It said Japan was breaking diplomatic relations with the United States; it was a declaration of war. The Japanese ambassador was told to deliver the message to President Roosevelt on December 7 at 1:00 p.m., EST, 7:00 a.m. Hawaiian time. President Roosevelt read the message at 9:30 a.m. Sunday morning. He should have convened his Cabinet, and mobilized for war, but he didn't. The South Pacific command had a code machine and intercepted the "war message," but no one contacted Pearl Harbor. Was that an accident? [6]

General George Catlett Marshall was Army Chief of Staff. When his aide, Colonel Bratton, read the Japanese ultimatum, he tried to contact General Marshall to get authorization to issue a "war warning," but General Marshall was horseback riding - alone. Colonel Bratton sent an orderly to Fort Meyer to find the General. General Marshall called Colonel Bratton at 10:00 a.m. and said he would immediately drive to his office which was 10 minutes away. General Marshall arrived at his office 75 minutes later, at 11:15 a.m. EST, read the Japanese message, waited 45 minutes, agreed war was imminent, and told Colonel Bratton to notify the four Army commands by Army radio. The message reached Panama, the South Pacific, and San Francisco, but didn't reach Pearl Harbor, so it was sent by Western Union cablegram. If Admiral Kimmel had been told his fleet was about to be attacked, he would have sent some of his ships to sea, and had American planes intercept the Japanese squadrons before they reached Pearl Harbor. General Marshall could have warned Admiral Kimmel and General Short by telephone, or used the Navy's radio which was far more efficient than the Army's radio, but he didn't. As a result, 3,303 American servicemen died, or were listed "missing," and 1,272 American servicemen were wounded that Sunday morning. General Marshall's cable reached Admiral Kimmel a half hour after the attack began. It was delivered by a boy on a bicycle. [7]

Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), the Neocons (PNAC), and the elite group that controls the CFR, wanted a war with Iraq so they could station U.S. troops in the Middle East. Zbigniew Brzezinski explained how that would come about:

". . . as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [8]

The Neocons (PNAC) published Rebuilding America's Defenses in September 2000. It is available on the Internet at The report describes how current military policy could be changed (transformed):

"The process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [9]

The PNAC report discussed our unresolved conflict with Iraq:

". . . the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." [10]

"American armed forces stationed abroad and on rotational deployments around the world should be considered as the first line of American defenses . . . they are the cavalry on the new American frontier." [11]

Ted Koppel discussed the PNAC program for world domination when he interviewed William Kristol on Nightline on March 5, 2003. He remarked:

"It has been called a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination. . . . A small group of people with a plan to remove Saddam Hussein long before George W. Bush was elected president. . . . And 9/11 provided the opportunity to set it in motion. . . . Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed years ahead of the blow." [12]

Did the Bush administration know about the 9/11 attack beforehand? The CIA claims they briefed President Bush on August 6, 2001, and told him al Qaeda was planning to hijack American passenger planes. [13] We don't know what else was discussed that day because that information is "classified." At that point President Bush should have ordered the airlines to arm their pilots [14], lock cockpit doors during flights, reinforce the doors as the GAO recommended, and assigned armed national guardsmen to domestic flights. [15] None of those things were done. What was done? Immediately after the attack the Bush administration "classified" important information, ordered government employees not to discuss what happened, opposed a Congressional investigation of the attack, withheld information from the U.S. Senate Select and House Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence, and censored the Select Intelligence Committee's report. [16] Why?

Mindy Kleinberg addressed the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on March 31, 2003. Her remarks are reproduced below:

* * * * *

My name is Mindy Kleinberg. My husband Alan Kleinberg, 39 yrs old, was killed in the WTC on September 11, 2001. As I testify here today about the 9/11 attacks, I will begin by saying that my thoughts are very much with the men and women who are involved in armed conflict overseas and their families who wait patiently for them to return.
This war is being fought on two fronts, overseas as well as here on our shores; this means that we are all soldiers in this fight against terrorism. As the threat of terrorism mounts here in the United States, the need to address the failures of September 11 is more important than ever. It is an essential part of "lessons learned."
As such, this commission has an extremely important task before it. I am here today to ask you, the commissioners, to help us understand how this could have happened; help us understand where the breakdown was in our nation's defense capabilities.
On the morning of September 11 my three-year-old son, Sam, and I walked Jacob, 10, and Lauren, 7, to the bus stop at about 8:40 a.m.
It was the fourth day of a new school year and you could still feel everyone's excitement. It was such a beautiful day that Sam and I literally skipped home oblivious to what was happening in NYC.
At around 8:55 I was confirming play date plans for Sam with a friend when she said, "I can't believe what I am watching on TV, a plane has just hit the World Trade Center." For some reason it did not register with me until a few minutes later when I calmly asked, "What building did you say?" "Oh that's Alan's building, I have to call you back."
There was no answer when I tried to reach him at the office. By now my house started filling with people - his mother, my parents, our sisters, and friends. The seriousness of the situation was beginning to register. We spent the rest of the day calling hospitals, and the Red Cross and any place else we could think of to see if we could find him.
I'll never forget thinking all day long, "how am I going to tell Jacob and Lauren that their father was missing?"
They came home to a house filled with people but no Daddy. How were they going to be able to wait calmly for his return? What if he was really hurt? This was their hero, their king, their best friend, their father. The thoughts of that day replay over and over in our heads, always wishing for a different outcome.
We are trying to learn to live with the pain. We will never forget where we were or how we felt on September 11.
But where was our government, its agencies, and institutions prior to and on the morning of September 11?
With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again. Allow me to illustrate.
The terrorists' lucky streak began the week before September 11 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC, in concert with the United States intelligence agencies, has sophisticated software programs that are used in "real-time" to watch both domestic and overseas markets to seek out trends that may indicate a present or future crime. In the week prior to September 11 both the SEC and U.S. intelligence agencies ignored one major stock market indicator, one that could have yielded valuable information with regard to the September 11 attacks.
On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September 11, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded.
These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11 attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.
Why (weren't - ed) these aberrant trades not discovered prior to 9/11? Who were the individuals who placed these trades? Have they been investigated? Who was responsible for monitoring these activities? Have those individuals been held responsible for their inaction?
Prior to 9/11, our U.S. intelligence agencies should have stopped the 19 terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons alone. However, their failure to do so in 19 instances does not negate the luck involved for the terrorists when it comes to their visa applications and our Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS.
With regard to the INS, the terrorists got lucky 15 individual times, because 15 of the 19 hijackers' visas should have been unquestionably denied.
Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and unemployed males. They were, in short, the "classic overstay candidates." A seasoned former consular officer stated in National Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."
Yet these 19 young, single, unemployed, "classic overstay candidates" still received their visas. I am holding in my hand the applications of the terrorists who killed my husband. All of these forms are incomplete and incorrect.
Some of the terrorists listed their means of support as simply "student" failing to then list the name and address of any school or institution. Others, when asked about their means of support for their stay in the U.S. wrote "myself" and provided no further documentation. Some of the terrorists listed their destination in the U.S. as simply "hotel" or "California" or "New York." One even listed his destination as "no."
Had the INS or State Department followed the law, at least 15 of the hijackers would have been denied visas and would not have been in the United States on September 11, 2001.
Help us to understand how something as simple as reviewing forms for completeness could have been missed at least 15 times. How many more lucky terrorists gained unfettered access into this country? With no one being held accountable, how do we know this still isn't happening?
On the morning of September 11, the terrorists' luck commenced with airline and airport security. When the 19 hijackers went to purchase their tickets (with cash and/or credit cards) and to receive their boarding passes, nine were singled out and questioned through a screening process. Luckily for those nine terrorists, they passed the screening process and were allowed to continue on with their mission.
But, the terrorists' luck didn't end at the ticket counter; it also accompanied them through airport security as well. Because how else would the hijackers get specifically contraband items such as box-cutters, pepper spray or, according to one FAA executive summary, a gun on those planes?
Finally, sadly for us, years of GAO recommendations to secure cockpit doors were ignored making it all too easy for the hijackers to gain access to the flight controls and carry out their suicide mission.
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full-blown hijackings.
These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason - with heavily trafficked air space, airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.
Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.
If that weren't protection enough, on September 11, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept. of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."
Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11.
Let me illustrate using just Flight 11 as an example.
American Airlines Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).
Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.
Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. - a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.
Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?
Flights 175, 77, and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC.
Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia, rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
So the hijackers' luck had continued. On September 11 both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.
Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.
The acting Joint Chief of Staff on September 11 was . . . having a routine meeting. . . . Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane or something like that. So, he went ahead with his meeting. "Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit by another jet. Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit.
Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff? Have they been held accountable for their error? Surely this represents a breakdown of protocol.
The Secretary of Defense was at his desk doing paperwork when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld felt the building shake, went outside, saw the damage and started helping the injured onto stretchers. After aiding the victims, the Secretary then went into the 'war room.' How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m. did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense also at the Pentagon about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? How is it that the Secretary of Defense could have remained at his desk until the crash? Whose responsibility is it to relay emergency situations to him? Is he then supposed to go to the war room?
At 6:15 a.m. on the morning of 9/11, my husband Alan left for work; he drove into New York City, and was at his desk and working at his NASDAQ Security Trading position with Cantor Fitzgerald, in Tower One of the WTC by 7:30 a.m.
In contrast, on the morning of September 11, President Bush was scheduled to listen to elementary school children read.
Before the President walked into the classroom NORAD had sufficient information that the plane that hit the WTC was hijacked. At that time, they also had knowledge that two other commercial airliners, in the air, were also hijacked. It would seem that a national emergency was in progress.
Yet President Bush was allowed to enter a classroom full of young children and listen to the students read.
Why didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota Elementary School? Was this Secret Service protocol?
In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that our government has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be informed - not the last. Where were these individuals who did not properly inform these top officials? Where was the breakdown in communication?
Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when airline security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis?
To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck.
If at some point we don't look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs properly then how can we ever expect for terrorists not to get lucky again?
And, that is why I am here with all of you today. Because, we must find the answers as to what happened that day so as to ensure that another September 11 can never happen again.

* * * * *

U.S. Naval Intelligence monitored Japanese communications before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941; the National Security Agency monitored radio, telephone, e-mail, and fax messages throughout the world before the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. NSA computers listened to terrorist conversations and read their communications. [17]

U.S. Naval Intelligence knew an attack was imminent; U.S. Intelligence Agencies knew an attack was imminent. [18]

President Roosevelt, and his staff, didn't warn the commanders at Pearl Harbor; President Bush didn't warn the public, or arm airline pilots, or secure cockpit doors, or assign national guardsmen to passenger planes.

There were no fighter planes in the air on the morning of the attack on Pearl Harbor; there were no fighter planes in the air on the morning of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The Roosevelt administration "classified" information about prior knowledge of the Japanese attack; The Bush administration "classified" information about prior knowledge of the terrorist attack. [19]

Did our intelligence agencies know that al Qaeda was going to use commercial airplanes as weapons? Eleanor Hill was the Director of the Joint Inquiry Staff of the Congressional Select Committee. When she testified before the Select Committee on September 18, she stated:

"From 1994 through as late as August 2001, the Intelligence Community had received information indicating that international terrorists had seriously considered the use of airplanes as a means of carrying out terrorist attacks. While this method of attack had clearly been discussed in terrorist circles, there was apparently little, if any, effort by Intelligence Community analysts to produce any strategic assessments of terrorists using aircraft as weapons."

Eleanor Hill also testified our intelligence agencies knew the World Trade Center was a possible target. [20]

That may explain Robert Baer's observation:

"The other day a reporter friend told me that one of the highest-ranking CIA officials had said to him, off the record, that when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure." [21]

* * * * *

Exciting things are happening. City governments across America are rejecting the U.S. Patriot Act, and challenging the authority of the Federal government. Attorney General Ashcroft is touring America to allay public concern, but his efforts aren't succeeding because the public knows something is seriously wrong. Congressman Ron Paul delivered a wonderful speech on July 19, 2003, titled Neo-conned: A Call to Arms.
You can obtain the text from the Internet, or from Radio Liberty. Copy and distribute that speech. [22]

Continue telling others about Radio Liberty and our web site,, and focus on the Word of God which states:

1: Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth
in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2: But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and
3: And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his
fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall
prosper. [23]

Thank you for your faithful support and your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith


1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, 1997, p. 211.
2. Donald Kagan et al, Rebuilding America's Defenses,, p. 51. See Ref. 9.
3. Robert Baer, See No Evil, Crown Publishers, New York, 2002, Preface, p. xix.
4. Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2000, pp. 1-5.
5. Henry Stimson's Diary, Yale University Library, pp. 48-9.
6. Robert Stinnett, op. cit., pp. 231-40.
7. Radio interview with David Wade, September 9, 2003.
8. Zbigniew Brzezinski, op cit.
9. Rebuilding America's Defenses, op. cit., p. 51. The report also available through Radio Liberty.
10. Ibid., p. 14.
11. Ibid., p. 15.
12. Ted Koppel, Nightline, March 5, 2003, (818) 848-6500
15. Mindy Kleinberg's testimony: Note GAO recommendation to strengthen cockpit doors.
16. Report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Report, December 2002.
17. Ibid., p. 355, See Also: Terry Cook, Big Brother NSA & its "Little Brothers," Hearthstone, 1998.
18. Eleanor Hill, op. cit.
19. Yurica Report, web site -, op cit.
20. Eleanor Hill's testimony, op cit.
21. Robert Baer, op cit.
22. Ron Paul, Neo-conned: A Call to Arms, Available from Radio Liberty, (800) 544-8927.
23. Psalm 1, verses 1-3, Holy Bible, King James Version

Return to Radio Liberty home page