The White House made no direct response to Mr Pillar's claims. Mr Pillar said the White House had simply ignored intelligence that did not conform with its intention to invade. "It went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." The "broadly held" intelligence assessment, he said, was that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections programme to supplement the sanctions already in place.

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war - or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

Mr Pillar said a CIA assessment of the implications of a US-led occupation had "presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition", including guerrilla attacks and sectarian conflict.

But the emergence of the footage, given to the News of the World by an anonymous whistleblower, will spark a huge controversy about the conduct of the army in Iraq. There were also fears that it could lead to more attacks on the British soldiers currently serving there.

The MoD has repeatedly given assurances that Iraqis who are captured are treated with respect and decency by British troops. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal involving Americans, dating back to 2004, shocked the world but Downing Street was adamant that there could not be any similar scandal involving the UK forces. However, there have been investigations by MoD prosecutors into a series of serious allegations of abuse by its troops in southern Iraq.

The video was apparently shot in secret by a corporal at a time when troops around Basra were dealing on a daily basis with street riots and insurgencies. Taken from a rooftop, the footage is said to show troops engaged in a running battle with youths, who are seen throwing a grenade which hits their compound.

The footage shows soldiers in combat fatigues chasing the men away, but then cuts to eight soldiers who return with four prisoners, who are marched to the compound gate and dragged inside.

In one of the most brutal scenes, a soldier punches one of the prisoners in the head and the stomach. He is then headbutted and kicked further.

Another scene shows a soldier walking up to one of the boys and kicking him hard between the legs from behind. The boy is seen doubling up in pain.

In some of the worst footage, a prisoner is kicked in the back and the body six times by two soldiers. As he struggles on the floor, one of the soldiers grabs him again by the shoulder, kicks him twice and then begins to hit him on the legs with a baton.

According to the newspaper report, the video also shows shocking footage of a soldier drawing back the blanket over an Iraqi corpse to display it close up to the camera as if it is a trophy. Another scene is said to show an Iraqi man being grabbed by three soldiers and forced to kneel behind a wall where he is kicked hard in the chest.

The video, lasting just over three minutes, is said to show at least 42 blows rained upon the four teenagers. The cries of the prisoners can be heard clearly according to the newspaper report.

The News of the World said it had decided not to reveal the unit or regiment of the troops involved in the video for security reasons. A spokesman said they received the video a few days ago and had given a copy to the MoD.

The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith will also want to see that the fresh allegations of brutality are fully investigated. His office, along with the MoD, was made fully aware of the video last Friday when officials held discussions with News of the World over the contents. There appears to be little doubt on the part of officials that it is genuine footage.

The new allegations will put more pressure on the government to hasten the departure of troops from Iraq. At present, there are 8,500 troops serving in Iraq, and officials have said they plan to begin redeployment in the next few months, with a view to bringing some of them back home by the end of the year.

The whistleblower who gave the video to the News of the World told the paper his aim was to try to prevent further abuses. The informant is quoted as saying: 'These Iraqis were just kids. Most haven't even got shoes on.' He said the video had been shown by the corporal's friends at their home base in Europe.

It has come at a "bad time", a senior defence source admitted. The Ministry of Defence, still reeling after a series of cases of alleged abuse of Iraqis by British troops, said that the video appeared genuine, describing it as "extremely disturbing", and saying military police had begun an urgent investigation.

The film is described as a "secret home video" which was obtained by the News of the World, and apparently was filmed from a rooftop for fun by a corporal who is heard laughing and urging on at least eight of his colleagues. It shows the troops repeatedly kicking and punching civilians with batons after seizing them following riots two years ago in the Basra region in which British forces were attacked. Another soldier, apparently a corporal, mocks the youths and urges his colleagues on. The newspaper declined to name the regiment, understood to be based in Germany, to try to avoid reprisals.

The 20 Armoured Brigade, based in Paderborn, Germany, was deployed in southern Iraq until April 2004, a period that covered the riots in March.

The brigade included the 1st Battalion Light Infantry, the 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Wales, the Queen's Royal Hussars, and 26 Royal Artillery. The brigade was replaced in April by 1 Mechanised Brigade.

The footage risks aggravating already delicate relations between British forces in southern Iraq and the local population. Last night, an ally of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr warned that demonstrators would take to the streets in Basra in protest at the apparent abuse.

Political sensitivity surrounding the damaging and highly embarrassing video was reflected in ministers, from Tony Blair down, rushing to join a combined exercise in damage limitation.

The only minister who did not do so was the defence secretary, John Reid, on the grounds that he could be part of the "chain of command" who could decide what punishment, if any, should be meted out to the soldiers.

Tony Blair said: "We take seriously any allegations of mistreatment and those will be investigated very fully indeed."

But he added that the "overwhelming majority" of British troops behaved properly and did a "great job for our country and for the wider world". They deserved the "fullest support" for their role in Iraq.

Speaking at a press conference in South Africa where he is attending a summit of centre-left leaders, the prime minister said: "Their presence there, under a United Nations resolution, helping Iraqis become the democracy they want to become, is of fundamental importance, not just to the security in Iraq but to the security of my country, Britain, and the wider international community."

The chancellor, Gordon Brown, said that if the allegations were true, they showed "unacceptable behaviour". Speaking on the BBC's Sunday AM programme, Mr Brown said the "loyal, hard-working, decent troops" in Iraq would see the allegations as a "slight on their great work". The shadow foreign secretary, Liam Fox, said British troops "must adhere to the highest possible standards" but added that the behaviour was not typical. The Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Michael Moore, said that the allegations increased the urgency of setting a plan to pull troops out.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, called the images "appalling" and said they would cause "enormous damage to our standing in the Muslim world".

He warned that it would put British troops "in greater peril". In Iraq, Akil al-Bahadily, an official from the Basra office of Moqtada al-Sadr, said: "This is good proof of the violations of human rights being committed by British troops in Basra."

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other groups critical of the policy have compiled dossiers detailing the detention and apparent torture of radical Islamists at the DST’s current headquarters, at Temara, near Rabat.

A recent inquiry into rendition by the Council of Europe, led by Dick Marty, the Swiss MP, highlighted a pattern of flights between Washington, Guantanamo Bay and Rabat’s military airport at Sale.

French intelligence and diplomatic sources said the most recent such flight was in the first week in December, when four suspects were seen being led blindfolded and handcuffed from a Boeing 737 at Sale and transferred into a fleet of American vehicles.

Morocco’s membership of a so-called “coalition of the willing” has led to tension within the kingdom, where Mohammed VI, 42, is trying to suppress a wave of Islamic fundamentalism, most powerfully expressed in the Casablanca bombings of May 2003, in which 12 suicide bombers — all of them Moroccan — killed more than 40 people.

More than 3,000 suspected radical Islamists have been arrested since, but some of the country’s higher-profile Al-Qaeda sympathisers have been released, including Abdallah Tabarak, a former bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden.

While much of the media is said to have been infiltrated by the DST, a few publications that dare to question official policy have accused the government of allowing Morocco to become “the CIA’s dustbin”.

Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary — who described Morocco and Tunisia yesterday as “long-standing friends and constructive partners” in the fight against terrorism — is due to visit today. Among the topics expected to be discussed with officials is the opening of a new FBI office in Morocco.

Last Friday the country witnessed its first protests against the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. They were highly organised and controlled but created a sense of apprehension in the capital before Rumsfeld’s talks.

Morocco has an estimated 30,000 policemen for a population of 30m and many people seem scared of speaking to strangers. A Sunday Times reporter was photographed by men with mobile phone cameras at least three times last week but was never directly challenged.

“It’s like a web — they let you spin away and like that they believe they get more information,” said the French intelligence source.

The presence of minders made asking questions around Ain Aouda almost impossible, but at a restaurant adjoining a newly built mosque nearby, elderly men supping mint tea while they watched the African Nations Cup were clearly angry about the project.

“We’ve seen nothing but Americans for five months,” complained one wizened figure before being told by his friends to be quiet.

There are no public access roads leading to the site, which can be seen at the moment only from a bend above the Korifla Gorge. The secluded forest setting is similar to that of Temara, 10 miles to the north.

Moroccan officials refused to make any comment about Ain Aouda. A spokeswoman for the American embassy said she had no information about the new building.

Temara itself already has a fearsome reputation among former inmates. Binyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian-born Briton later sent to Guantanamo Bay, told Amnesty International that interrogators there cut his chest and penis when he refused to answer questions.

Mohammed said he was held at Temara for 18 months before being flown to another “black prison” in Afghanistan in January 2004, and then on to Guantanamo Bay.

It is not clear how many suspects are being questioned in Morocco. The French intelligence source said the four brought to the country in December were all believed to be “high profile” but gave no further details.

The UN Human Rights Commission report, due to be published this week, concludes that Washington should put the 520 detainees on trial or release them.

It calls for the United States to halt all "practices amounting to torture", including the force-feeding of inmates who go on hunger strike.

The report wants the Bush administration to ensure that all allegations of torture are investigated by US criminal courts, and that "all perpetrators up to the highest level of military and political command are brought to justice".

It does not specify who it means by "political command" but logically this would include President George W Bush.

The demands are contained in the final report of the commission's working group on arbitrary detention, which will be presented at its Geneva headquarters in the next few days. A copy of the report has been obtained exclusively by The Daily Telegraph.

The report is bound to intensify the already strained relations between the US and the UN over the Iraq war.

Washington officials yesterday denounced it as "a hatchet job" when informed of the contents by this newspaper.

"This shows precisely what is wrong with the United Nations today," said a senior official. "These people are supposed to be undertaking a serious investigation of the facts relating to Guantanamo.

"Instead, they deliver a report with a bunch of old allegations from lawyers representing released detainees that are so generalised that you cannot even tell what they are talking about.

"When the UN produces an unprofessional hatchet job like this it discredits the whole organisation."

The Bush administration has repeatedly called for the UN's wholesale reform, and the report is likely to lead to demands from Congress for a freeze on Washington's annual donations.

The authors question the right of America to classify the detainees as "enemy combatants" and argue that the "war on terror" is no justification for holding them indefinitely without charge.

The report is also deeply critical of the US over recent disclosures that some of the detainees have been subjected to force-feeding when they have gone on hunger strike.

The authors argue that force-feeding is akin to torture, and demands that "the authorities in Guantanamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgment and is aware of the consequences of refusing food."

But US officials refuted the suggestion that force-feeding is torture, arguing that they had a duty under international law to protect the lives of the detainees.

"We have a duty to prevent people killing themselves," said an official, "and we are proud of the fact that none of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay has died since it opened."

The Guantanamo Bay detention centre was adapted to hold hundreds of al-Qa'eda fighters captured during the 2001 war in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban.

More than 750 detainees have been processed by the facility during the past four years.

After interrogation by US intelligence officers, some have been released and others returned to their country of origin.

Because the al-Qa'eda fighters do not wear uniforms and have no allegiance to any government they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

And while there is insufficient evidence to charge most of the 520 detainees with war crimes, the US insists on the right to detain them to prevent them returning to the battlefield to carry out further attacks against the coalition.

There have already been at least 12 instances where released Guantanamo detainees have resumed attacks against the coalition.

US officials are also prepared to return detainees to their home countries, assuming those countries are prepared to receive them and that they will not be subjected to torture on their return.

While American officials are prepared to concede that there are conflicting interpretations over how the laws governing international conflict should be applied, they are furious at the way the investigation was conducted, especially the evidence that the four "special rapporteurs" who compiled the report have used to reach their conclusions.

Although Washington invited the group to visit Guantanamo at the end of last year to inspect the facility, the rapporteurs rejected the invitation after American officials made it clear that they would not be allowed to meet the detainees.

"They [the rapporteurs] were offered the same access as congressmen responsible for overseeing the facility, but they declined to take up the offer," said a government official. "And then they complain that they had no access to doctors or guards - all of which they were offered."

The Bush administration also challenges whether it is the responsibility of a body such as the UN Human Rights Commission to investigate Guantanamo.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the internationally recognised body responsible for monitoring detention facilities, visits Guantanamo on a monthly basis.

A major article published Monday on the British FlightInternational.com Web site documented the far-reaching and long-term scale of Rumsfeld's new vision.

The new program, FlightInternational.com said, is already scheduled to take 14 years to develop: Its goal is to develop a non-nuclear, conventional explosives weapons system that could hit a heavily defended major target such as a weapons of mass destruction launch site within hours or minutes of being ordered to do so.

"Dubbed the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept, the initiative will open new opportunities for ballistic or hypersonic vehicle technologies," the article said.

As previously reported in UPI's BMD Watch column, the U.S. Navy is already working on converting several of its Lockheed Martin Trident II D-5 submarine-launched nuclear missiles to carry conventional warheads. "That approach is intended to satisfy the immediate desire of U.S. Strategic Command for a near-term PGS strike option, but the Trident's ballistic trajectory is unlikely to meet long-term accuracy requirements," FlightInternational.com said.

Now Rumsfeld has turned to Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and asked them to develop more effective delivery systems for such preemptive attacks. Late last month he issued a request to U.S. military-industrial companies asking their input in meeting the challenge.

Just as the Missile Defence Agency has been developing or exploring different anti-ballistic missile systems that could destroy ballistic missiles at different stages of their flights, Air Force Space Command is also seeking to explore simultaneously different options to achieve the PGS goal. Maj. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the command's director of requirements, told FlightInternational.com

These are, Shackelford said:

-- First, a next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This, FlightInternational.com said, would be the technically the least ambitious and least revolutionary system to develop or a "low-end" concept.

-- Second, the most ambitious approach would involve the hypersonic Common Aero Vehicle and Small Launch Vehicle under development by DARPA's Falcon program.

-- Third, U.S. engineers are applying the same principle that Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces are working overtime to give the Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) on their Bulava and Topol-M missiles maneuverable characteristics.

Shackelford told FlightInternational.com that U.S. forces are seeking develop a new conventional warhead for American ICBMs that can shape its own trajectory on re-entry, greatly improving its accuracy.

FlightInternational.com said the Department of Defence expects to receive responses back to its request from U.S. industry by March 14 and Air Force Space Command would then launch a two-year period of analyzing the different possible approaches for developing the new weapon.

The top officer at U.S. Strategic Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, reportedly sees this ability as vital if the United States receives fleeting intelligence about an important target, Inside Defense.com Newstand reported Feb. 3. Such a weapon might be used if North Korea prepares to launch a nuclear missile or if intelligence surfaces on a terrorist leader's whereabouts, the Web site said.

The most demanding scenarios under which the president might launch global-strike weapons are in cases of "no warning," U.S. defense officials told the web site.

The two-year review appears to be a setback for DARPA, despite the general strong support and generous budgets with which Rumsfeld has consistently favored it.

DARPA has pursued its Common Aero Vehicle based on the development of a new hypersonic glide vehicle, reflecting the agency's passion for new cutting edge technologies. But as FlightInternational.com pointedly noted, the hypersonic glide vehicle is "still-untested" and currently it "is not the presumed favorite candidate."

However, Gen. Shackelford told FlightInternational.com that "the results from the Falcon demonstration program, which involves a three-year series of flight tests on three increasingly capable versions of a hypersonic test vehicle, will be used to compete with the other candidates identified under the analysis of alternatives."

Although the new PGS system may be nearly a decade and a half away, even the coming debate over the best options to explore in developing it look likely to be charged with controversy.

For the very concept of the PGS, its critics claim, may push potential hostile nations to be prepared to launch nuclear-armed missiles with even less notice than before in order to avoid them being destroyed in any preemptive U.S. first strike. Therefore, they charge, far from making the American people and homeland safer, the development of such weapons could put them at even greater risk from thermonuclear attack.

As long as Rumsfeld remains at the Pentagon, however, the commitment to developing the PGS as energetically as possible looks unlikely to change.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Arriving at the Scene

Killtown: Were you one of the Ground Zero rescuers on 9/11?

Patricia Ondrovic: Yes.

KT: What was your position and who did you work for?

PO: I was an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York.

KT: How did your day start off on Sept. 11 and when did you get called to the scene at the WTC?

PO: It started off like any other. I had dropped a patient off at Bellevue and one of the Doc's asked if I was going to respond to the WTC. I told him it was out of my area. I asked "why, what's going on?" He told me they were getting reports that "a helicopter" had crashed into one of the towers. I responded after both planes had hit. I was on scene approx 45 min before the first tower fell.

[The 2nd crash happened at approx 9:03 a.m. and the South tower fell at approx 9:59 a.m.]

KT: Was the WTC area part of your regular route?

PO: No, I worked in the Times Square area. The WTC was far downtown from where I was.

KT: What did you immediately do once you arrived at the scene and do you remember where exactly you arrived at?

PO: I reported to a staging officer who told me to park the ambulance along Vesey Street. I ended up parking along the street in front of the 6 World Trade with several other ambulances. We were going to get any injured people who were brought out of the burning buildings to transport to the hospital. I don't remember where we entered from as I was not so familiar with the area.


Another Airplane Warning

KT: Did you basically stay around that area before the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am?

PO: Yes, we were staged waiting for the triage teams to bring us patients when an officer in a white shirt and blue pants (don't know from what agency) said that there was a radio transmission that stated, "Another plane was headed towards us!" We were told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move fast, but it wasn't fast enough. All of a sudden there was a lot of activity within the several agencies there and everyone started to scramble to ready their respective vehicles.

KT: When you were told another aircraft was approaching, was this right before the South Tower collapsed?

PO: Maybe 3 to 5 minutes prior. I don't know if that estimation is correct, but I remember we all had time to take a minute and look into the skies all around to see if we could see anything.

KT: Did you see any planes in the sky?

PO: No, there was nothing in the skies at that time.

KT: Did you happen to see any helicopters, military or non-military, flying around?

PO: I didn't see any helicopters at the time either.

KT: Where did they want you to move your vehicles too, any particular spot, or just "away" from the WTC?

PO: "Just get ready to move fast" is the phrase I remember.

KT: Did they want you to move away from the area right away, or just get ready to move if another plane was coming in?

PO: I don't know, they just told us to get our equipment, put it back in the vehicles and "get ready to move...fast". At that point, they seemed to realize it just wasn't a safe place to be.

KT: In retrospect, did it seem a little too coincidental that they told all of the rescuers to get ready to move out of the area minutes before the Tower collapsed?

PO: It was a bit eerie at the time as well. In that job, when someone tells you to "just move fast" there's nothing to question, you just move. We had been on scene for a while before just setting up and waiting for patients and all of a sudden there was so much activity. It did seem odd that after being there for some time all of a sudden everyone had to get ready to get out. I personally never expected the buildings to come down.

KT: Did you receive any direct warnings or hear any rumors that any of the towers might be coming down?

PO: We were not told the building was possibly going to collapse. I did not hear any rumors about a building collapse. I never heard anyone say anything to the effect that any of the buildings in the area were not stable at the time. We were simply told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move.

KT: Was Vesey Street blocked off between Church St and West St?

PO: Yes, I think all that were there were fire, police, EMS, and OEM [Office Emergency Management].

KT: Did you ever see any videos or cameras being confiscated from anyone that day?

PO: No.

KT: Did you see any newscasters or any other media people on or near Vesey taking any footage?

PO: No, none that I could see.


Cars Blowing Up

KT: What did you do when the South Tower started coming down?

PO: I didn't know what was happening, but there was a loud "roar" -- lots of crashing sounds. I was attempting to put my stretcher back into the vehicle. The ground was shaking and I saw a sea of people, mostly the various agencies on scene, Fire, Police, EMS, all running towards me. I had no idea what they were running from, but I decided I'd be ahead of them and just started running west towards the river. As I was running, parked cars were blowing up and some were on fire, the street was cracking a bit as well. Very shortly after I started running, everything became one big black cloud. I was near the West Side Highway and I couldn't see around me anymore.

KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?

PO: No.

KT: You talked about the cars blowing up in your WTC Task Force interview, correct?

PO: Yes.

KT: Can you estimate how many vehicles blew up around you?

PO: At least three and some were on fire as I was running by. I was still on the south side of Vesey running west. The burning cars were between my ambulance and about the middle of the 6 World Trade where the lobby doors were at.

KT: Where you running on the street, or up the sidewalk?

PO: Up the sidewalk.

KT: When these vehicles blew up, was it kind of like what you would see in the movies where the vehicle pops up in the air when it explodes with a fireball coming out?

PO: I remember parts flying off -- I think I got hit with a car door. I remember they were also on fire, but I don't specifically recall the movie type fireball, but there was a loud bang as the door flew off the one car I was running past.

KT: Do you have any idea what was causing these vehicles to catch on fire and/or explode? Was the air temperature really hot as you were running by these cars?

PO: I don't know what was causing them to blow up. I didn't know at the time that I was trying to outrun a skyscraper falling on me, but after I found out what I ran from. I figured it was the impact of the building falling and residual effect. I am not an engineer, so I can only guess at a probable cause. I don't remember feeling any extreme heat.

KT: Could you tell if the vehicles blowing up on the street were only parked next to the WTC 6?

PO: I was only paying attention to my immediate surroundings, if there were any vehicles not near me blowing up, I wasn't aware of them, just the ones closest to me.

KT: What type of vehicles were they (cars, SUVs, trucks -- civilian, non-civilian) that were on fire or had blown up?

PO: They were unmarked cars, most likely privately owned. I didn't see any SUVs, trucks or any "official" vehicles on fire.

KT: Were these cars all parked next to each other?

PO: They were parallel parked. There was no discernable order to what was on fire. It was all very chaotic.


Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby

KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?

PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?

PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.

KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these "pops" you heard inside this lobby?

PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.

KT: Could you still hear any of these explosions when you turned to run back out, or was the noise outside too loud?

PO: I don't recall hearing any more when I resumed running. It was very chaotic.

KT: Now to be clear, were you inside the Lobby of the WTC 6, or were you outside the building when you witnessed these what appeared to be explosions?

PO: I was in the doorway, but not inside the lobby. I remember being able to breathe the somewhat cleaner air coming from inside the building. They stopped me as I was trying to get past the threshold.

KT: Were the explosions going off as you were entering the lobby area, or did they seem to start going off after the police tried to turn you away?

PO: It all happened at the same time. As I got to the doorway, I was told not to come in. As the officer was telling me I couldn't get in the building the flashes starting going off.

KT: Where the police just right at the lobby door, or were some also way inside the building?

PO: There were probably 4-5 officers in the doorway. I could see a few others back in the lobby area.

KT: You said you saw "federal police." What exactly do you mean and did you find it strange they were in there and that they wouldn't let you in?

PO: Well, they were in light brown uniforms and "Smokey the bear" hats. I assumed they were federal police because NYC police don't look like that and I knew there was a lot of federal offices in the WTC as well as the surrounding area, so it wasn't strange to me to see them there, but I did find it very odd that they wouldn't let me in to get cover. But like I say, in that profession, someone tells you to go an opposite way you are going, you don't ask, you just go. I remember hoping they got out as I was watching whatever the small explosions were, because they stayed in the building. They weren't locking it up after evacuating or anything like that.

KT: Did you know which government agencies were in the WTC?

PO: I knew there were a lot of federal agencies in the WTC complex, but I don't know which ones specifically.

KT: Did these policemen run out of the WTC 6 lobby after these explosions occurred, or could you tell?

PO: It didn't look like they did. It looked like they were there making sure no one ran in like I tried to do. I remember seeing them in the doorway, but don't know what happened to them after that.

KT: Did you happen to notice if they were wearing any earplugs or any other uncommon protective gear?

PO: There was nothing that I could see. They appeared to be dressed to simply do lobby detail. No flack wear, no overcoats, no helmets. To this day, I still wonder if they got out.

KT: Did you think these explosions in the lobby were maybe lights popping out as in an electrical surge, or did they seem more like explosives going off in a timed manner?

PO: I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.

KT: Have you ever seen a building being demolished with explosives on TV and was the flashes and pops similar to that?

PO: It did remind me of just that. I had seen something on a Las Vegas casino being demolished and that's what it reminded me of.

KT: Can you try to describe what these "pops" you heard sounded like?

PO: They sounded like light bulbs popping, but there were no light fixtures where the explosions were coming from. The sound was not all that loud.

KT: Do you think these explosions you witnessed were loud enough to be heard on the street?

PO: Because of everything going on, I don't think these "pops" could have been heard from the street. It was definitely louder outside as a whole.

KT: At the time, who did you think planted these explosives in there?

PO: I didn't have any notions of where to put blame per se, but I remember thinking that it was possibly the same organization who tried to blow up the building back in 1993. I figured they came back to finish the job. At the time I was running, I remember thinking that "they" wired the whole area. At the time I wasn't aware that what made the towers catch fire were passenger jets crashing. I thought the buildings had bombs planted to go off that day. The idea of not only one passenger jet, but two took me a while to comprehend -- not to mention the pentagon as well.

KT: Can you estimate how long after you heard the load rumbling, which was the South Tower coming down, to when you witnessed these explosives going off in the WTC 6?

PO: Well, remember this was all on the same street I was parked. It is very difficult for me to estimate time with so much happening at once, but I want to say maybe 2 to 3 minutes from the rumbling and the ground, and the cars, and the fires, that I tried to run into 6 WTC for cover, which is when I saw those explosions.

KT: Did anybody else besides you and the police witness these explosions in the WTC 6 lobby?

PO: I imagine there must have been others to see, I wasn't the only one running up the street. I can't imagine being the only person to try to run for cover. I didn't see any "civilians" in the lobby of the 6, just the brown uniformed officers.


Motorola Radio Troubles

KT: After you witnessed the explosions in the lobby of the WTC 6, you started running in which direction and then what happened?

PO: I kept running west on Vesey. I got hit with the cloud shortly after being turned away from 6 WTC. I was probably at the corner of Vesey/West Street at that point running. I ran towards the West Side Highway -- there is a park area there. I remember running across grass and there was now lots of grey and black smoke. I was just trying to get to the water because nothing was exploding, or on fire from what I could see. There were lots and lots of people also running that way at this point.

KT: When were you able to escape the dust cloud and what happened after that?

PO: I was now at the water's edge. There were no boats I could see, so I started to run north along the side of the West Side Highway. I was about 9 or 10 blocks north of Vesey on the West Side Highway. I found the first FDNY EMS vehicle and knew the crew as they were also from my station. I remember not being able to breathe so well -- felt like someone was standing on my chest. When I looked back, I could see people coming out of the black cloud and continuing to run and walk north on the West Side Highway as well.

KT: Did you notice any firefighters or other rescuers having technical problems with their Motorola radios or any other equipment?

PO: Oh yeah, at one point there was a loud "buzzing" sound and none of the EMS radios worked for maybe 30 seconds? We all used Motorola radios and I believe our repeaters were on top of the towers, so when the tower came down our radios failed. I tried to use my cellphone, but that too did not work.

KT: Do you know if anybody's cellphone worked and were able to get through to anybody?

PO: A few of my co workers had Nextel phones. Theirs worked, but they couldn't talk to anyone who didn't have a Nextel because all the other services were out at the time.

KT: When did you get to leave the area to go home?

PO: I left by ambulance. A FDNY EMS supervisor came up to myself and my colleagues and told us to "go back in." I still wasn't aware of what I had come out of and I told him anyone who didn't get out isn't getting out and it's not safe to go back in. He yelled at me, demanding all 3 of us "go back in." I told him I was having chest pain and trouble breathing and my colleagues took me to St. Vincent's Hospital. I was on the stretcher with an oxygen mask on looking out the back windows as we were driving off and saw the other tower collapse. It didn't occur to me at the time that the other one was already gone and that's what I came out of. I don't remember when I got home. I had to walk over the Queensboro Bridge and it was dark out. I walked home from my station at Bellevue. I lived in Astoria, Queens at the time. All I wanted to do was get home and see my cats.


Bag & Tag at Ground Zero

KT: In the days after, did you have to go back at Ground Zero?

PO: Yes, I think my first day back was maybe 3 days later.

KT: What were your duties when you had to go back?

PO: We all took turns doing morgue detail, standby for anyone who got hurt going through the rubble. I did morgue detail a few times.

KT: Is this what is referred to as "bag & tag"?

PO: Yes, when you have to log any body parts, or personal effects in morgue work. It was important to try to document any remains we found.

KT: Now despite this being probably the most chaotic incident you had to work at, did you find any strange things when you're recovering evidence there?

PO: Well, I remember cataloging findings in the morgue log -- a tooth, an arm and such. Never catalogued watches, wallets or jewelry.

KT: You never found any jewelry on any of the victim's parts?

PO: I didn't, no. But I do recall at some point either in Brooklyn or Staten Island they had a facility where debris was trucked to and the contents sifted by hand for any evidence. That was some time after 9/11, maybe a few weeks after they started that.

KT: Did you find any personal belongings on the ground or buried under any debris?

PO: I didn't.

KT: What about things like office furniture, computers, and pictures -- things that would be in a normal office building?

PO: Everything was this sort of grey/black debris. I personally never saw anything definable like a chair, desk, or phone, but I never went into what was the base of the building itself, there could have been there. I remember everything being layered in grey soot and ashes everywhere and just debris. One thing I remember distinctly was on a corner adjacent to the towers a bike messenger's bicycle still chained to the lamppost covered in soot.

KT: Have you ever worked a recover detail where you didn't find any recognizable personal belongings or objects like interior furniture, say from the aftermath of a fire?

PO: I never worked a recovery detail before that. It wasn't customary for EMS to work recovery. From time to time we would have to transport a body to the morgue after an investigation was completed if the deceased was in public view. I worked in midtown. In the 12 years I was with EMS, I never responded to anything like that.

KT: A year after the attacks, a victim's family received an ATM card that belonged to their son who was supposedly on Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower and was supposedly found in relative pristine condition by rescue crews at Ground Zero. Did you ever come across anything even remotely close to someone's personal item like this in any condition?

PO: I never came across any personal effects. The things I did find were charred, burnt, rubble covered in soot. I guess that's the needle in the haystack [the ATM card].

KT: So is it fair to say that you think something like this plastic ATM could not only not survive at Ground Zero, but not survive so well intact?

PO: I'd say it was a miracle.


Aircraft Wreckage

KT: Did you ever see any aircraft wreckage lying around on or after 9/11 at Ground Zero.

PO: Not on 9/11, but a bit after one day I was doing standby and there was a long flatbed truck bringing out a long piece of silver and charred metal, probably the length of 2 passenger cars, that one of the police officers doing standby detail with us brought to my attention and he said it was a piece of the plane.

KT: Could you at all tell what part of the plane this piece of debris you saw on this truck came from and could you see any windows or other discernable markings?

PO: No, it had to be brought to my attention what it was. In fact, I forgot I saw that until you asked the question. It would have stuck in my memory if it was a wing, or seats or anything like that. It was a somewhat long and curved at the edges piece of what looked like fuselage. I didn't see any company markings on it either.

KT: You mentioned this piece was silver in color. Did any part of that piece of silver debris you saw have any of the "shiny silver" you would see on your average American Airlines plane?

PO: Not when I saw it. The entire piece was dull and charred silver, but it definitely looked like part of a plane.

KT: Did anybody you know of who was at the WTC on 9/11 or at Ground Zero afterwards see or find any airplane debris?

PO: Not that I'm aware of. No one mentioned anything like that to me.


WTC Task Force Interview

KT: You were interviewed by the WTC task force afterwards. Did anybody else interview you about your experience at ground zero?

PO: The WTC Task Force was the only group that ever interviewed or debriefed me. They asked me to detail the events that day as well as mark on a map where I was parked and which way I ran.

KT: Who were the people at the WTC Task Force that interviewed you?

PO: I was told one was from the F.B.I., one was from D.O.I. [Dept. of Investigations], one was P.D. I recall there were 4 to 5 people involved. They were writing as well as voice recording.

KT: Do you know why some of the lines on pages 9, 12, 13 of your Task Force interview were blacked out?

PO: No, I never received a copy of my interview and I never read it. All I did was the one interview with them.

KT: When these officials were debriefing you, was this a normal routine after an incident?

PO: I had been on other calls that I was debriefed after (not many) and usually it was an EMS supervisor with P.D. if it was a crime scene, or if I had witnessed a crime, or incident in progress.

KT: Was your interview with the WTC Task Force more of a normal debriefing, or did you feel like you were being interrogated?

PO: I felt as if they were trying to pick apart every minute detail from every possible angle.

KT: Did you find that odd, especially having to trace your movements on a map?

PO: It was a crime scene, so much was lost. I figured they still had to recover equipment and needed to document. I think I was still a bit shell shocked to really consider it. There were so many things that were odd then, nothing was normal.

KT: Did you mention the flashes and explosions going off in the lobby of the WTC 6 to them?

PO: Yes, I did. I remember describing what looked like depth charges going off in the building I tried to run into, but I don't see it in the transcript of my interview.

KT: Did they ask you any follow-up questions about these explosions?

PO: No, they asked me to describe the events as I have described them to you here. I don't recall them asking any follow up questions. They simply took notes all the way through. The only specific questions I remember being asked was in regards to mapping out where my vehicle was and which way I ran.


WTC 5 Blowing Up

KT: On the Task Force interview, you said "I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on me was on Vesey." Which building were you refereeing to?

PO: I don't know, but that is all WTC property. I'm not sure if that was 6 or just a part of the WTC complex.

KT: When you said the building "blew up" on you, are you talking about the explosions you saw in the WTC 6 lobby?

PO: No, this was directly behind my vehicle as I was trying to put the stretcher back in. I don't know if that was part of 6 though. I ran from what was blowing up and that's when I tried to run into the lobby of 6. The vehicles were parked backed up to the curb, not parallel parked, so the back doors of the ambulance were facing the building [WTC 6] on the south side of Vesey.

KT: Do you feel that it was either the WTC 5 or 6 that was blowing up?

PO: Yes.

KT: Was this before the cars started catching on fire and blowing up, or about at the same time?

PO: All at the same time. Everything happened very quickly. I couldn't say which came first.

KT: You mentioned in that interview that you thought one of the lobbies of the building behind you is what blew out. Was this the lobby of WTC 5 or 6?

PO: I'm not sure, but it was probably 5 because 6 was west of me and that's the lobby I tried to run into.

KT: Can you describe more about how the building blew up on you? Did you feel the shock wave from the explosion and/or debris falling down near you?

PO: Well, one second I was trying to put my stretcher into the ambulance, the next thing I know I am thrown to the ground as the ground was shaking. Debris was flying at me from where the building I was parked in front of. There was a continual loud rumbling, there was just debris flying from every direction and then everything being covered in the black and gray smoke.

KT: Let's recap real quickly; your ambulance was parked backed up against the WTC 6, near the 6's corner by the alleyway between the WTC 5 and 6. When you were trying to put your stretcher back in, you were knocked down to the ground by an explosion that you thought came from the lobby of WTC 5. When you got back up, you started running west up the sidewalk on Vesey St towards West Side Hwy and then these cars parked along the street started blowing up as you ran by and that's when you tried to duck into the WTC 6 lobby for cover, but these policemen inside where preventing you from coming in and that's when you saw the explosions inside the lobby of WTC 6?

PO: Yes.

KT: Did anybody else you know concur with you that either the WTC 5 or 6 was blowing up at the same time you heard the rumbling of the South Tower collapsing?

PO: No, it never came up in discussion.

KT: After the attacks when things were starting to settle down for you and after the government and media was telling us what had all happened, did you ever look back and think what were all those explosions from the WTC 5 and 6 you witnessed were all about and why there was never any official mention of them?

PO: No, I didn't watch the news. I was a bit shell shocked to say the least. In fact the very first time I have revisited that day was when I found your site.


WTC 7

KT: You mentioned you left the WTC area before the North Tower collapsed, when did you hear about the WTC 7 collapsing, in which you were parked across them street from?

PO: When I stumbled onto your site 3 weeks ago.

KT: Did that surprise you that you never heard about the WTC 7 collapsing afterwards?

PO: Actually, it did. It confused me somewhat because I don't remember seeing anything on the news about it, or even knowing it was in any type of unstable condition.

KT: So you weren't aware that another building had collapse (which was WTC 7) when you returned to Ground Zero for morgue detail?

PO: No I wasn't. There was so much debris and wreckage I couldn't tell what was what anymore.

KT: When you were on the scene on Vesey St that whole time, did you happen to notice anything commotion or anything strange going on near the WTC 7?

PO: No.


Colleagues Lost

KT: Were you ever invited to the 9/11 Commission hearings?

PO: No.

KT: Were you ever gagged by anybody from talking about anything related to 9/11?

PO: No, I wasn't.

KT: Are you concerned that you might loose your job by speaking out on these issues?

PO: No, not at this time.

KT: Have you suffered any health effects from working down at Ground Zero?

PO: I broke a couple of ribs, but didn't realize it till 3 days later. I had, like most of my colleagues, the "WTC cough" for several months. It was an extremely annoying dry hack that didn't produce anything, but acted more like "spasms" rather than a cough. You'd get woken up in the middle of the night with this cough that sometimes would have you near passing out and unable to catch your breath. Over time it has dissipated, thanks gods.

KT: Did you lose any colleagues at Ground Zero?

PO: I stopped counting at 60.

"It'd be like trying Tim McVeigh in Oklahoma City," said criminal defense lawyer John Zwerling, referring the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people. A federal judge moved McVeigh's trial to Denver.

Zwerling once waived his client's right to a jury trial in a terror-related case in Alexandria rather than risk jurors' visceral reaction to words such as al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11.

"It's a problem everywhere, but it's a particularly difficult problem in the shadow of the Pentagon," Zwerling said.

Moussaoui pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al-Qaida to use aircraft to destroy buildings in the United States. Moussaoui denies any involvement in Sept. 11 and says he was preparing to fly a plane into the White House as part of a second wave of attacks.

Prosecutors must directly link Moussaoui to the attacks to obtain the death penalty. They plan to do so by arguing that Moussaoui's lies to investigators when he was arrested in August 2001 prevented the FBI from thwarting the attacks.

Defense lawyers argue that the government knew more about al-Qaida's plans than Moussaoui ever knew and was still unable to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

Jeffrey Frederick, a jury consultant and director of jury research for the National Legal Research Group in Charlottesville, Va., said his death penalty research in recent year has found that people often cite Moussaoui's case as exactly the kind that warrants the death penalty.

"You have a situation where he is almost the poster child for the death penalty," said Frederick, who once worked with Moussaoui's defense on other jury issues but is no longer on the case.

Only after a jury determines Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty can they hear testimony and arguments about whether Moussaoui deserves execution.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said that in most capital cases the question of eligibility is little more than a formality and the real battle is whether execution is deserved. In Moussaoui's case, the reverse is true and the eligibility phase presents their best hope to avoid execution.

If the case makes it to the second phase, prosecutors can present emotional testimony from the families of Sept. 11 victims, Dieter said. Defense evidence of Moussaoui's difficult childhood, for instance, will certainly pale compared with the impact of nearly 3,000 murders, he said.

Potential jurors were called in Feb. 6 to fill out 49-page questionnaires asking about religious practices, perceptions of Islam, reactions to Sept. 11 and feelings on the death penalty.

Individual questioning of jurors begins Wednesday, with opening statements from lawyers set for March 6.

Frederick said one question on which Moussaoui's defense team should focus involves jurors' views of the FBI's handling of investigations like the 2001 anthrax attacks and the 1996 Olympic bombing investigation - both cases for which the FBI has drawn criticism.

People with doubts about the FBI's handling of such cases, he said, might also be disinclined to believe that the FBI would have foiled the Sept. 11 attacks with Moussaoui's cooperation.

Support for Israel interferes with: American relations with the oil-producing nations, with whom we previously had friendly ties; with Muslim consumers, who represent 1.2 billion people world-wide; and removes much-needed money from domestic American requirements — tax revenues that could be addressed to domestic needs are instead sent abroad to prop up a system of discrimination that is antithetical to American principles of equality and democracy.

In addition, the ‘special relationship’ between the U.S. and Israel is increasingly imperiling American lives.

Why, then, is this done? Close examination of the history and current situation reveals that U.S. policies in the Middle East are rarely driven by U.S. interests. Rather, they are largely driven by two very different factors:

1. Special-interest lobbying of the sort that is common to Washington. The only difference from typical lobby groups is that this lobbying is on behalf of a foreign government. Fortune Magazine rates one of the many lobby organizations working on behalf of Israel, AIPAC, as the fourth most powerful lobby in Washington. In total, many experts rate the pro-Israel interest group as the most powerful lobby in Washington.

2. The efforts of a growing number of individuals with close ties to Israel (known as neoconservatives) who have attained key positions at high levels of the U.S. administration, State Department, and Pentagon.

Interestingly, the oil and weapons industries, although very influential over parts of American Middle East policy, are not responsible for our relationship with Israel. In fact, quite often both of these industries find our support for Israel undermines their corporate interests in the region.