Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

9/11 Commission

9/11 Commission Co-chair Lee Hamilton Drenched with Viewer Skepticism on C-SPAN

- Challenges skeptics to bring their evidence forward

On May 26 Hamilton appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal and found himself under constant call-in attack for different aspects of the 9/11 cover-up [See amazing 12-min RealVideo excerpt here]. He said charges by Griffin and others of government complicity were…pause…”extraordinary” and was careful to say the Commission had found “zero evidence that our government planned that attack.” Although Hamilton clearly dodged most questions, he acknowledged the Report was imperfect and challenged skeptics to “come forward with their evidence and make their case in the public arena.” Please join the C-SPAN letter-writing campaign below to urge Washington Journal to offer that arena to Griffin, Nafeez Ahmed, and other spokespeople for the truth.

First call to action by 911citizenswatch.org:

“A civil letter writing and email campaign begun now could be effective in getting Griffin, Nafeez Ahmed and other critics of the 9/11 Commission on C-SPAN/Washington Journal by July 22, the first anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report. Please take a moment and follow the inspiration of SF Attorney Rattner below by writing a letter or email of your own.”
 

Washington Journal email journal@c-span.org

Fax number: 202-737-6226

Snail mail: 400 North Capitol St, NW, Suite 650, DC 20001

Please address all correspondence to Brian Lamb, C-SPAN CEO

 
Dear CitizensWatch:

Attached is a letter which I have written to C-Span’s C.E.O., Brian Lamb, requesting more C-Span coverage of 911 Commission findings.

Please join me in asking C-Span to cover objections to the… Continue reading

The 9/11 Commission v. 19 Named Muslims: A Trial in Absentia

The 9/11 Commission v. 19 Named Muslims:

A Trial in Absentia

By

Gary Wenkle Smith1

[This article first appeared in The Warrior, the official journal of the Trial Lawyers College (www.triallawyerscollege.com) and is reprinted here with permission.]

Within a few hours after the 9/11 attacks, our government named a group of 19 Muslim men as the principal players in the most devastating attack on this country–even more so than Pearl Harbor, as it was mostly civilians who were murdered on 9/11, unlike the mass murder of our sailors by another military power. Further, in addition to approximately 3,000 murders, there could easily be many counts of attempted murder2 charged, as well. Assuming an indictment is issued, there will undoubtedly be dozens of kidnapping charges, some major theft counts, destruction of public and private property, and sundry other charges arising out of the death and destruction of that day’s events. Of course, the principal charge will be the conspiracy to commit these crimes. The 9/11 Commission Report, frequently referred to as the Kean-Zelikow Report3, has concluded that the 19 named Muslims were the operatives of Osama bin Laden, and that they conspired to hijack airliners and commit the atrocities of 9/11.
 

Editor’s Note:
A brilliant lawyerly sketch of what a factual 9/11 defense might look like, and why no one in power would want to see this day in court.

 

I will proceed with this article as though I had… Continue reading

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin

Photo of Dr. David Ray GriffinIn discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.…

Continue reading

How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition
– A Reply to ZNet’s ‘Conspiracy Theory?’ Section
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
mediamonitors.net

 

Introduction

Acceptance of the official narrative of what happened on September 11, 2001 has become widespread, not merely on the right, but also on the left. In this paper, I take issue with the writings of several commentators who attempt to forcefully argue firstly that acceptance of the official narrative is justified, and secondly that certain kinds of inquiry into anomalies and inconsistencies in that narrative are illegitimate and unnecessary. The main bulk of this writing is available online at a new section at the well-known progressive website ZNet, and is somewhat representative of the mainstream approach to 9/11. [1]

http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm

In reviewing the work of these commentators on 9/11, I analyse in detail the failure of the U.S. intelligence community in preventing the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks; the casual repression and/or misrepresentation of facts related to 9/11; the failure of U.S. defence measures on 9/11; the historic and institutional basis for skepticism about the official narrative; and some salient facts which illustrate the need for proper research into the linkages between U.S.…

Continue reading

9/11 and American Empire: How should religious people respond?

by Dr. David Ray Griffin

Note: This lecture was delivered at the University of Wisconsin at Madison on April 18, 2005, and first broadcast by C-Span2 (BookTV) on April 30. Although this text does not correspond exactly to the lecture as orally delivered, all the differences are trivial except that, of course, the oral presentation had to get along without footnotes. – DRG

I will begin by unpacking the key terms in the title of my talk: “9/11,” “American empire,” and “religious people,” beginning with the last one.

1. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE


Although I am a Christian theologian, I am in this talk addressing religious people in general. I am doing so because I believe that religious people should respond to 9/11 and the American empire in a particular way because of moral principles of their religious traditions that are common to all the historic religious traditions.1 I have in mind principles such as:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors’ oil.

Thou shalt not murder thy neighbors in order to steal their oil.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbors, accusing them of illicitly harboring weapons of mass destruction, in order to justify killing them in order to steal their oil.

This language is, of course, language that we associate with the Abrahamic religions-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But the same basic ideas can be found in other religious traditions.

I turn now to “American empire,” which has been a highly contentious term.

2. AMERICAN EMPIRE: DIVERGENT VIEWS


In his… Continue reading

Recent 9/11 Strategy Thoughts from Dr. David Ray Griffin

Dear 9/11 truth activists and concerned citizens,

Below is an email exchange between Dr. David Ray Griffin and myself, where Dr. Griffin suggests a strategy for the 9/11 truth movement. I found it thoughtful as well as inspiring, and so I asked him if I could share it publicly. He said yes, and so here it is. I hope it inspires you as much as it does me. If so, please consider buying his new book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. It is unquestionably the best book to open people’s eyes–even better than his first book. This is definitely the one to give to your relatives and co-workers. Here’s the link:

http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html

Also, we still have available the new 1-hour DVD of Dr. Griffin speaking in Santa Rosa, California. We are offering these as a complimentary gift for a donation of $20 or more. (No extra shipping costs.) Like the book, this DVD is an excellent gift for someone new to 9/11 truth. We particularly encourage you to get both of them and send them to people you know in other countries, for as Dr. Griffin states in his email below, “the best hope is for an international tribunal.” Here is the link for the DVD:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/donations.php

Thanks, and may peace and truth prevail.


Emanuel Sferios Webmaster, SeptemberEleventh.org —–

A message from David Ray Griffin, March 19, 2005

Hi David,

What are your feelings about the 9/11 truth movement these days? How do you think we’ve done? Are… Continue reading

Significant Pattern to 9/11 Report’s Omissions & Distortions

by David Ray Griffin

 

 

NOTE: This is a transcrpit of testimony delivered by theologian David Ray Griffin to the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference on September 23, 2005.

Testimony at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference 2005 (September 21-24, Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC) for the session, ‘The 9/11 Omission: What the Commission Got Wrong,’ September 23, 2005, sponsored by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA):

 

Introduction

There have been two main theories about 9/11, each of which is a conspiracy theory. The official conspiracy theory says that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda. The alternative theory says that the attacks could not have succeeded without the involvement of forces within our own government.

In examining The 9/11 Commission Report , I have focused on how it dealt with evidence supportive of the alternative theory. I have found that it did so by distorting or simply ignoring this evidence. This is no surprise, because the man running the Commission, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney administration. But it is a fact that needs to be brought to light.

Because there are so many omissions and distortions—in my book I identified at least 115—I can point to a significant percentage of them only by moving through my representative list quite quickly.…

Continue reading

Important “Open Letter to Norman Mineta” concerning his 9/11 Commission-censored testimony – Please help distribute widely…

 

Editor’s Note:
An open letter to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the omission of his 5/23/03 testimony to the 9/11 Commission from the Commission’s Final Report. That testimony included eye witness accounting of events that occurred in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) the morning of 9/11/01. Additionally, as of the time of this letter, it appears that an effort has been made to conceal Secretary Mineta’s testimony from the public by editing it from video archives of the 5/23/03 hearing on the 9/11 Commission website (the testimony is not deleted from the .pdf and .html archive).

Dear Secretary Mineta

Portrait of Norman Mineta

 

On May 23, 2003 you testified before the 9/11 Commission in public hearing as to your experience on the morning of 9/11/01. During your testimony you stated that you arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) underneath the East Wing of the White House “at about 9:20 a.m.”, at which time Vice President Richard Cheney and other staff was already present in the center, with Mr. Cheney clearly in command. You also state in your testimony that you had believed based on a conversation that took place between Mr. Cheney and an unnamed “young man” that a shoot down order had been given by the Vice President prior to your arrival, because, in your words…

“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out, “the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand.

Continue reading

Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions about 9/11

By Peter Phillips
commondreams.org

For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and terrorist alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting tensions and fears. The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of partial healing and completion – especially given the corporate media’s high praise of the report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question the US government’s version of what happened on September 11, 2001. This resistance is rooted in our tendency towards the inability to conceive of people we know as evil; instead evil ones must be others, very unlike ourselves.

We all remember, as young children, scary locations that created deep fears. We might imagine monsters in the closet, dangers in a nighttime backyard, and creepy people in some abandoned house down the street. As we get older we build up the courage to open the closet, or walk out into the backyard to smell the night air. As adults there are still dark closets in our socio-cultural consciousness that make it impossible to even consider the possibility of the truthfulness of certain ideas. These fearful ideas might be described as threshold concepts in that they may be on the borders of discoverability, yet we deny even the potentiality of implied veracity – something is so evil it is completely unimaginable.

A threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on… Continue reading

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke regarding War Games, 9/11 Timeline and Myers/Rumsfeld Testimony

Editor’s Note:
There has been so little journalistic attention to 9/11 truth that glaring factual contradictions in the “official narrative” can go unremarked in the media for months if not years. In the following letter, 911truth.org co-founder Kyle Hence urges Richard Clarke (former counter-terrorism ‘czar’ for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Author, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror) to deal with the fundamental inconsistencies between his writing and testimony regarding 9/11 and the version released as gospel by the 9/11 Commission. Clarke has yet to respond but Kyle’s letter is an education in itself.

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke
From: Kyle Hence
February 23, 2005

Subject: Pertaining to accounts in Clarke’s book Against All Enemies, neither retracted or refuted, regarding 9/11 war games and the participation of General Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld in a video conference managed from the White House Situation Room by Richard Clarke with the assistance of his Deputy, Roger Cressey.

Note of Explanation: This letter/email was presented (via email or in person) to Mr. Clarke on four occasions without a response of any kind to the specific questions raised regarding the actions (or lack of) from our military and top officials in positions of responsibility on 9/11. Given no response, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s attempt to raise the issue at February 16th Armed Services Committee hearing, CitizensWatch is taking the step of making this letter public.

This letter (see below) with questions pertaining to 9/11 (wargames, sworn testimony by Rumsfeld & Myers) was first sent as an email in June of 2004 to Mr. Clarke via his consulting company, Good Harbor. This note and these questions were presented personally to Mr. Clarke a second time on October 6, 2004 – and via email (3rd attempt) directly to his personal email box on October 15. When presented with a second opportunity in person (4th attempt) to respond to these queries backstage at a December 7th function at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City, Mr. Clarke refused to acknowledge the author and instead quickly left the room.

Receiving no response despite repeated attempts I am now releasing this to the public as an ‘open letter’ in the hopes responsible members of the press, family members and/or dedicated investigators will follow up publicly and personally with Mr. Clarke and the Commissioners who failed to examine the glaring discrepancies between Clarke’s accounts and those offered in public statements and in sworn testimony by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld.

It should be noted that Richard Clarke is the only member of the Bush Administration to publicly apologize to the 9/11 families. While generating controversy at the time, his testimony before the 9/11 Commission regarding the warnings and plan for dealing with Al-Qaeda that he presented to Condi Rice and the Bush Administration in January of 2001 has been recently bolstered by the release of an unclassified version of his January memo to then National Security Advisor Rice.

This controversy could pale in comparison, however, to what could be revealed in sworn testimonies before the appropriate Committee regarding Sept. 11th war games (including “Vigilant Warrior” mentioned by Gen. Myers on the morning of Sept. 11th), changing NORAD timelines and the testimony already offered by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld regarding their whereabouts and actions taken in the first and most critical minutes immediately following the attack on the World Trade Center. {see pages 1-7; Against All Enemies)

This is being made public now in an effort to force this issue into the public’s eye and ultimately to see full accountability and disclosure. Another 9/11 commemoration must not pass without these issues being addressed forthrightly and honestly before the American people; either in Manhattan before an AG Spitzer or DA Morganthau-convened Grand Jury or public hearings, in Albany before the appropriate Committee or on Capitol Hill. We offer this in hope that those with integrity in a position of responsibility will rise to this challenge. In this case above all others we must not allow the truth to continue to be veiled or obfuscated.

Kyle F. Hence

Co-founder, 9/11 CitizensWatch

February 23, 2005

kfh@911citizenswatch.org

Continue reading

September 11th Advocates Statement on the 9/11 Commission’s Declassified Monograph on FAA Failures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2005

September 11th was neither an intelligence failure nor was it a failure of imagination. It was nonfeasance on behalf of a whole host of government agencies, including the FAA.

Of the 105 warnings issued, 52 warnings regarding al Qaeda were given to the FAA by the intelligence community in a six month period from April 2001 to September 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission’s final report, there were eight information circulars put out by the FAA between July 2, and September 10, 2001. Five of these information circulars targeted overseas threats, while the remaining three targeted domestic threats.

The 52 threats regarding al Qaeda were not received by the FAA in a vacuum. From March 2001 to September 2001, according to the Joint Inquiry of Congress, our Intelligence Community received at least 41 specific threats of a possible domestic attack by al Qaeda. Additionally, the FAA was also made aware of the August 16, 2001 arrest of Zacarias Moussouai. Finally, the FAA attended a high level meeting on July 5, 2001 where the domestic threat posed by al Qaeda was discussed by all relevant intelligence agencies.

According to the newly released FAA monograph, in the spring of 2001 the FAA knew that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.”

The aforementioned statement is yet another indicator of how widely known it was in… Continue reading

Developing Stories: Sibel Edmonds, Michael Chertoff, Kevin Ryan

Sibel Edmonds Stories:

(Heroic FBI whistleblower gagged by Ashcroft)

Michael Chertoff Stories:

(Terror $$$-related nominee for DHS chief)

January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat

By JoAnne Allen

Feb 10, 10:09 PM (ET)

Reuters: Original Report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 — five days after Bush took office — was an essential feature of last year’s hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington. A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive Web site on Thursday.

The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating al Qaeda. He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

“Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC (Gulf Arab states). Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see al Qaeda as a direct threat to them,” Clarke wrote.

“The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge… Continue reading

Bush Administration’s First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified

April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.”

Two days after Rice’s March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, “there’s a lot of debate about whether it’s a plan or a strategy or a series of options — but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn’t really understand why they couldn’t have been done in February.”

Also attached to the original Clarke memo are two Clinton-era documents relating to al-Qaeda. The first, “Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects,” was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. “Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida,” also known as the Delenda Plan, was attached to the original memo, but was not released to the Archive and remains under request with the National Security Council.

Below are additional references to the January 25, 2001, memo from congressional debates and the 9/11 Commission testimonies of Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice.

Excerpts from:

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES

Eighth Public Hearing

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC

Chaired by: Thomas H. Kean

[See also 9/11… Continue reading

9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings

By Eric Lichtblau,

New York Times

WASHINGTON (Feb. 9) – In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

But aviation officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” the commission report concluded.

Image of FAA logoThe report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.”

Show Editor’s Note »

Ask yourself how the 9/11 Commission could find that the FAA was “lulled into a false sense of security” after receiving 52 terrorist warnings including statements that domestic hijackings were preferable if the intent was “to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion.” Next watch the media talking heads endlessly repeat the official mantra of complacency, distraction and miscommunications. Then it may be clear how far the Commission and the spin doctors will go to protect the “official story” – and how cowed or stupid they all believe we are. See also the Voices of September 11th’s hard-hitting Feb. 10 response at the end.

 

The report takes the F.A.A.…

Continue reading

UL’s Letter Disowning Ryan and 911Truth’s Response

Paul M. Baker Manager
Media Relations Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Ill., USA
(847) 272-8800 ext. 41001
Cell: (847) 602-2828
Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com

UL Letter text:

On Nov. 11, 2004, a letter from Kevin Ryan, a former employee of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., addressed to the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), was posted on a Web site called the 9-11 Visibility Project (www.septembereleventh.org). In the letter, Mr. Ryan speculated on the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL’s knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL’s behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

UL’s Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL’s Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST’s request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in UL’s water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. fully supports NIST’s ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan’s letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims’ families and their friends.


To: Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com
From: W. David Kubiak
Subject: Re: UL’s statement regarding Kevin Ryan
Date sent: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:21:10 -0500

Dear Mr. Baker,

Thank you for the letter, but I notice that neither it or… Continue reading

“The Haunting of the White House”

Editor’s Note:
We are pleased on this evening of Nov. 1st to 2nd, known in Mexico as “The Day of the Dead,” to publish the following exclusive: a Republican-meets-Democrat, one-two punch editorial by Cynthia McKinney and Catherine Austin Fitts, on “The Haunting of the White House.” An earlier version of the piece was written in response to a request from editors of The New York Times. So far the Times has declined to publish, but other print publications are still considering it.
Meanwhile, you can feel free to forward it to the nine winds on the Web, with our thanks. – 911Truth.org Staff

Day of the Dead: The Haunting of the White House

By Cynthia McKinney and Catherine Austin Fitts

November 1, 2004

Something is rising from the ashes of September 11: the spectre of questions that will haunt our country until answered.

Months after the release of the official 9/11 Commission Report – even as Congress moves to implement its proposals for a radical centralization of security forces – growing numbers of Americans are doubting their  own government’s account of what really happened on September 11, and how.

From the first, the Bush Administration resisted investigation and disclosure. Families of September 11 victims were forced to lobby the administration and Congress for a full and independent inquiry. They fought  for 14 months, blocked every step of the way by the White House.

The political games reached such a point that the survivors of the worst attack ever on American soil were forced to hold a candlelight vigil in front of the White House. A vigil for the truth.

The White House finally assented in December 2002 to the establishment of an independent commission, under former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. Still, the administration pushed for a hand-picked panel, with a narrow focus on intelligence failures and recommendations.

The families demanded a full investigation, posing nearly 400 questions to the Kean Commission. The commissioners said they welcomed these queries. But their final report ignored most of the unanswered questions. Still posted on the website of the September 11 Family Steering Committee, these questions are a stark reminder of the Kean Commission’s failures.

Now these same questions have been submitted to the New York Attorney General. Last week, the New York City office of Eliot Spitzer received a citizens’ complaint to open a legal inquiry into crimes still unsolved, more than three years later.

So begins the haunting of the White House. Continue reading

Black boxes disappear from the WTC site: Bryan Sacks’ and Nick Levis’ of 911Truth.org break story

Firefighter Said Black Boxes Were Found at Ground Zero
By Bryan Sacks and Nicholas Levis

Pulitzer Prize winner William Bunch uses an account from the book, “Behind-the-Scenes: Ground Zero,” as one source for the claim that three black boxes from the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center were discovered by authorities during the recovery efforts in 2001-2002. This is contrary to the official story. (Philadelphia Daily News, Thursday, 10/28/04 – a longer version was published on his “Campaign Extra” weblog.)

We hope other newspapers – and broadcasters – will follow this important lead and endeavor to investigate other potential cover-ups relevant to the 9/11 investigation.

Update, Oct. 29: This breakthrough story has been picked up at OpEd News, Scoop Media, Yahoo PR Newswire and many other outlets.

Amid the enormous detail of loss, sorrow and recovery conveyed in “Behind-the-Scenes: Ground Zero,” a New York City firefighter reveals that at least three of the four black boxes from Flights 11 and 175 were found by “Federal Agents” at the former World Trade Center site, during the clean-up efforts from September 2001 to March 2002.

At the time of the disaster, Nicholas DeMasi was a firefighter at Engine Company 261 in Queens. (The firehouse was shut down in 2003, after a century of operation.) In the weeks that followed 9/11, he joined an all-terrain vehicle crew (ATV Unit) at Ground Zero.

In “Behind-the-Scenes,” he describes his experience as follows:

“If you needed anything, go ask the ATV Guy, they’re the gopher guys.”

On page 108 comes the revelation:
“At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes.

Continue reading