Project Bojinka - The Pre-Plan to 9/11

This post will over two articles by Allan Flavish that were published on Frontpage Magazine's website in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

In this article, "Clinton and 9/11", Allen details the preliminary plan that led to 9/11, called "Operation Bojinka" of which details were known to US officials as far back as 1995.

"Despite recent evidence that Bill Clinton knew by 1996 that al-Qaida terrorists who had tried to topple the World Trade Center in 1993 had plans to hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings on American soil, this evidence was ignored by the recent Congressional report on the causes of the September 11, 2001 aerial attack on the WTC.
On May 20, 2002, David Horowitz, the Editor-in-Chief of this website, wrote an article entitled “Why Bush Is Innocent and the Democrats Are Guilty”. The article discussed Operation Bojinka, which came to the attention of U.S. authorities in 1995 when Abdul Hakim Murad, a terrorist, was captured in the Philippines. As reported by Maria Ressa in her September 18, 2001 article “U.S. Warned In 1995 Of Plot To Hijack Planes, Attack Buildings” on CNN’s website:

The FBI was warned six years ago of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings, Philippine investigators told CNN.

Philippine authorities learned of the plot after a small fire in a Manila apartment, which turned out to be the hideout of Ramzi Yousef, who was later convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Yousef escaped at the time, but agents caught his right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, who told them a chilling tale.

Murad narrated to us about a plan by the Ramzi cell in the continental U.S. to hijack a commercial plane and ram it into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and also the Pentagon," said Rodolfo Mendoza, a Philippine intelligence investigator.

Philippine investigators also found evidence targeting commercial towers in San Francisco, Chicago and New York City.

They said they passed that information on to the FBI in 1995, but it's not clear what was done with it."

The fact that the Clinton adminstration had full knowledge of Al-Qaeda's intentions isn't even up for argument. It's one of the reasons that the 911 Omission Commission completely ignored Able Danger.

In the article, Allan also details the fact that Clinton himself knew of the plot which was detailed in the book "Dereliction of Duty", a New York Times best seller. Specifically:

"Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson was a military aide to Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the “nuclear football”—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. On page 139 of Patterson’s book “Dereliction of Duty”, published in March 2003, he wrote:

During the summer of the 1996 attacks, I myself learned first hand that the administration knew that terrorists were plotting to use commercial airliners as weapons. The president received a Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, every morning. It was a document encased in a smart leather folder, and emblazoned with the presidential seal, that contained the president’s daily intelligence update from the NSC. A senior NSC representative normally delivered it to the president. On weekends, at Camp David, and on vacations, the military aide was responsible for delivering and retrieving the brief.

One late-summer Saturday morning, the president asked me to pick up a few days’ worth of PDBs that had accumulated in the Oval Office. He gave them to me with handwritten notes stuffed inside the folders and asked that I deliver them back to the NSC.

I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading “Operation Bojinka.” I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it."

For those who tried to pin 9/11 on the Bush Administration, the argument for it falls to the ground with the fact that the Clinton Administration never past on the information about Operation Bojinka to them.

"Speaking at a press conference on May 16, 2002, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s National Security Advisor, defended the Bush Administration against charges that Bush learned enough information about a possible airborne attack on the WTC in the spring and summer of 2001 to have prevented the attack. Rice stated that the Clinton Administration did not tell her about Bojinka:

Now, on August 6th, the President received a presidential daily briefing which was not a warning briefing, but an analytic report. This analytic report, which did not have warning information in it of the kind that said, they are talking about an attack against so forth or so on, it was an analytic report that talked about UBL’s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense, and in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives. And the blind sheikh was mentioned by name as -- even though he’s not an operative of al Qaeda, but as somebody who might be bargained in this way."

As this article was written as the 9/11 Commission was in the midst of their investigation you would have thought they would have been very interested in Col. Patterson's testimony.

Yet in the second article,"What the 9/11 Commission Missed", Allan writes:

"I concluded my previous article by stating:

By failing to investigate Patterson’s account the congressional committees failed the American people and failed the approximately 2,800 people who died in the WTC attacks. We cannot depend on our elected representatives to tell us all of the important facts. Let’s hope the 9/11 Commission does its job, but don’t place any bets on it.

Unfortunately, my pessimism was justified. The 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss Lt. Col. Patterson’s allegation. Moreover, it appears the Commission did not try to obtain access to the 1996 PDBs given to President Clinton at the time described by Lt. Col. Patterson. On page 533 of the 9/11 Commission Report in footnote 2 for chapter 8, the Commission states: “The Commission received access to about four years of articles from the PDB related to Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and key countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, including all the Commission requested.” It appears that this four-year period did not include 1996."

As I said before, while the MSM is chasing "ghost stories", and the 9/11 Omission Commission continues to play "semantics" with Able Danger, the real truth about not only 9/11 but why we went into Iraq and why the very real danger of Islamic Faciscism is still with us.

I'm of the opinion that the 9/11 Omission Commission is FUBAR at this point and should be completely abolished, and a New Commission appointed immediately. This is immensely important as Hillary Clinton prepares a run for the Presidency of the US. We barely survived her husband - 3000 of us did not.

The potential consequences are too great for the full truth not to be told to the American public.