Italian Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, French Director Mathieu Kassovitz, and Author James W. Douglass
By the 9/11 Consensus Panel
NEW YORK, June 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Amidst growing doubts about its origins, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, continues to fuel the war on terror.
Meanwhile, disturbing evidence long suppressed in the media is surfacing through the 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel’s scientific review of official claims that 19 diminutive Muslim hijackers defeated America’s defenses.
Incredibly, not one of the 300 Dulles International Airport security cameras –positioned at ticket counters, lounges and boarding gates — captured images of the alleged hijackers of AA Flight 77.
The famous “Let’s Roll” telephone call from UA Flight 93 was left open for 15 minutes after the plane allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania.
Government accounts about the whereabouts of key Pentagon leaders that morning are contradicted by witness reports that would raise the most cynical of eyebrows.
These reports are only outdone by the fact that 12 major air defense exercises — some traditionally held in April and October — were all scheduled for the morning of September 11.
The Panel is pleased to welcome its new Honorary Members.
Mr. Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Italian Supreme Court, has presided over terrorism cases, including the kidnapping and assassination of President Aldo Moro and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. He has publicly stated that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, recommending that it be tried at the International Criminal Court, which investigates… Continue reading
NEW YORK, May 16, 2013 – America first learned of the 9/11 hijackings from Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who reported two calls from his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson.
From American Airlines Flight 77, Barbara Olson fleshed out the drama of diminutive Muslim hijackers using knives and box-cutters to herd dozens of passengers to the rear of the plane.
These and other reported calls have now been examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel of scientists, pilots, professors, attorneys, and journalists.
The Panel began its research in 2011 with the Twin Towers and the sudden, stunning collapse of adjacent Building WTC7, a massive 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper.
The official conclusion that all 82 support columns failed simultaneously from fire alone has for years raised serious questions about the official account.
The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights.
The famous “let’s roll” drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer’s 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer’s line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash.
Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer’s cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.
Ever since the moment of the first impact at the World Trade Center, a struggle has raged between two broad, competing ideas of what really happened on September 11th, 2001.
The US administration delivered an almost immediate verdict, which can be described as follows: Dispatched by Osama Bin Ladin’s network and motivated by hatred and religious fanaticism, 19 suicide bombers hijacked four planes, crashed three of them into their targets, and caused the collapse of the Twin Towers as a consequence of the resulting damage and fires. The 19 men did not necessarily require any accomplices within the United States; and no one in the US government could have possibly anticipated or prevented the attacks.
Even as the administration exploited this Official Story (or “Official Conspiracy Theory”) as the pretext to launch new wars long in the making, independent researchers began to accumulate a vast body of evidence suggesting a different narrative for 9/11: that of the False Flag Operation.
July 12, 2012
by Jon Gold
Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox
Recently, I have started to talk to the “progressives” in this country about addressing the lies and cover-ups of 9/11.
In a talk I gave in Fresno recently, I said that “progressives” were afraid of losing their “pulpits” if they address the 9/11 issue.
I’m sorry, but this selfish reason is the best explanation I can think of as to why they don’t (or, I could say that they are paid shills for the CIA, etc… but I’m not a “Conspiracy Theorist”). The lies and cover-ups of 9/11 are so glaringly obvious that when someone who supposedly stands for truth, justice, and accountability doesn’t address them, I have to ask why.
As I said in my talk, the media has worked very hard to make anyone that questions the official account of 9/11 the equivalent of a dog torturer or a baby killer. Losing one’s “pulpit” because of being painted with the “9/11 Truth Brush” is the best explanation I can think of.
Years ago (before the media had a chance to have its anti-9/11 Truth campaign), MANY “progressives” were supportive of the cause for 9/11 Justice. People like Howard Zinn (RIP), Michael Badnarik, Medea Benjamin, David Cobb, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Stan Goff, Thom Hartmann, Rob Kall, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and many others. This is no longer the case (with few exceptions for sure).
I was told today that “Social justice, anti war, environment, political reform = 1 movement. (And all doomed to fail, until everyone involved learns that fact.)” I think this person is right.
by Paul Zarembka, Professor of Economics, SUNY at Buffalo
David Ray Griffin’s response to this article is posted below.
— “The present essay provides various types of evidence that the calls [from 9/11 planes] were, indeed, faked. ” (Griffin, 2011, p. 101)
Watching and participating for almost ten years in the movement to expose the truth about what happened on September 11, 2001, I have come to feel that some are trying too hard to prove that the government is lying. A population can be manipulated not only by lies but also by sprinklings of truths, half truths, and distortions. Indeed, offering some truths is an effective means of undermining critics who argue for lies everywhere.
A self-confident movement does not need to be exposing just lies and only lies. It can examine evidence and draw disparate conclusions about differing accuracies of the huge amount of material to work with. I have felt that the work of David Ray Griffin, a leading commentator on September 11, is an example of turning up stones everywhere with the word “lie” written on them. He seems called upon to write about everything having to do with September 11 in order to turn over stones everywhere. Why?
I hadn’t thought to put this worry to paper until I carefully read Griffin’s Chapter 5 “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes: How They Fooled America” that appears in his just published 9/11 Ten Years Later (2011, Northampton, MA: Olive Branch).
CeeCee Lyles’ Call
by David Ray Griffin
Professor Paul Zarembka has written a critique of a chapter of my recent book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes against Democracy Succeed . 1 The chapter in question is entitled “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes: How They Fooled America.” I thank Dr. Zarembka for taking my chapter seriously enough to write his critique. 2 However, I submit that my chapter not to be guilty of the charges he levels.
At the beginning of his critique, Zarembka states that I seem intent on “exposing just lies and only lies” — on “turning up stones everywhere with the word ‘lie’ written on them.” A computer search shows that my chapter contains no instances in which I used the term “lie,” “lies,” or “lying.” I certainly did, to be sure, suggest that various aspects of the official story are false. This would be grounds for reproach if these suggestions were based on errors, and Zarembka suggests that they often are. Indeed, to adopt his formulation, he seemed to be intent on turning up stones everywhere with the word “error” written on them. But the charge that my chapter is filled with errors cannot be maintained.
At the conclusion of Zarembka’s critique, he said that he found “weakness” in my chapter’s “internal logic.” This charge by Zarembka, however, reflects the fact that he simply failed to understand the logic of some of my arguments, or certain facts relevant to those arguments.
Sliding Over Deena Burnett’s Testimony… Continue reading
By Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski
October 14, 2011
A growing number of former government insiders — all responsible officials who served in a number of federal posts — are now on record as doubting ex-CIA director George Tenet’s account of events leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Among them are several special agents of the FBI, the former counterterrorism head in the Clinton and Bush administrations, and the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who told us the CIA chief had been “obviously not forthcoming” in his testimony and had misled the commissioners.
These doubts about the CIA first emerged among a group of 9/11 victims’ families whose struggle to force the government to investigate the causes of the attacks, we chronicled in our 2006 documentary film “Press for Truth.” At that time, we thought we were done with the subject. But tantalizing information unearthed by the 9/11 Commission’s
final report and spotted by the families (Chapter 6, footnote 44) raised a question too important to be put aside:
Did Tenet fail to share intelligence with the White House and the FBI in 2000 and 2001 that could have prevented the attacks? Specifically, did a group in the CIA’s al-Qaida office engage in a domestic covert action operation involving two of the 9/11 hijackers, that — however legitimate the agency’s goals may have been — hindered the type of intelligence-sharing that could have prevented the attacks?…Continue reading
Punitive Actions Are Once Again Being Taken Against the Wrong People
In Boiling Frogs Post’s recent interview with Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, Sibel Edmonds questioned the timing of former Counter-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke’s willingness to speak out about alleged 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, and the CIA’s knowledge of their whereabouts after the January 2000 Malaysia “terrorist summit.” Sibel asked Ray and John, ” why now? ” We would like to note that the interview with Clarke was actually recorded two years ago, in October 2009. As such, the “why now” question should actually be posed to Ray and John. The real questions for Clarke should be, ” why then? ” Why then and not during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, when it would have been meaningful to the Commission’s investigation? In addition, in his October 2009 interview, Clarke revealed pertinent insight into information sharing at high levels, which would clearly counter the misleading findings of the 9/11 Commission regarding the “failures” of communications between the FBI and CIA.
It is extremely troubling to us that the former Counter-Terrorism Czar, for both the Clinton and Bush Junior Administrations, as well as chair of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group for Bush Senior (essentially working in an anti-terrorism related capacity since about 1992), took so long to speak out about why the CIA would intentionally… Continue reading
By Stephen C. Webster
Newly published audio this week reveals that Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous Sept. 11, 2001 order to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft was ignored by military officials, who instead ordered pilots to only identify suspect aircraft.
That revelation is one of many in newly released audio recordings compiled by investigators for the 9/11 Commission, published this week by The Rutgers Law Review. Featuring voices from employees at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and American Airlines, the newly released multimedia provides a glimpse at the chaos that emerged as the attack progressed.
Most striking of all is the revelation that an order by Vice President Dick Cheney was ignored by the military, which saw his order to shoot down aircraft as outside the chain of command. Instead of acknowledging the order to shoot down civilian aircraft and carrying it out, NORAD ordered fighters to confirm aircraft tail numbers first and report back for further instructions.
Cheney’s order was given at “about 10:15″ a.m., according to the former VP’s memoirs, but the 9/11 Commission Report shows United flight 93 going down at 10:06 a.m. Had the military followed Cheney’s order, civilian aircraft scrambling to get out of the sky could have been shot down, exponentially amplifying the day’s tragedy.
Far from sending fighters to chase after the hijacked aircraft, as Bush administration officials have repeatedly said they did, the new audio tapes paint a picture of bedlam and unpreparedness.
The… Continue reading
This is Part I of our three-part one-of-a-kind interview series with author and researcher Paul Thompson. For additional background information please visit the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project at HistoryCommons.org and Richard Clarke’s interview by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski at SecrecyKills.com .
Paul Thompson joins us to discuss the latest revelations by former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and his explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials — George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee — accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence about two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had entered the United States more than a year before the attacks. He provides us with the most comprehensive history and context to date on Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 with three other terrorists and flew the jetliner directly into the Pentagon killing 189 people. Mr. Thompson takes us through a mind-boggling journey through the Yemen Hub, the highly critical Malaysia Summit, Thailand, USS Cole bombing, CIA’s Alec Station, NSA, FBI and beyond!
Paul Thompson is the author of The Terror Timeline , a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. His research in the field has garnered over 100 radio and TV interviews. Mr. Thompson holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990. For the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project visit HistoryCommons.org
Here is our guest Paul Thompson unplugged! [ 1:03:14 ]
Just one of the Legacies of 9/11
by Kevin Fenton Boilingfrogs
Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency (NSA) after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.
-President Bush, December 17, 2005
In the aftermath of 9/11, reams of newsprint were given over to discussing the CIA and FBI failures before the attacks; the agency had some of the hijackers under surveillance and allegedly lost them, the bureau was unable even to inform its own acting director of the Zacarias Moussaoui case. However, the USA’s largest and most powerful intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, got a free ride. There was no outcry over its failings, no embarrassing Congressional hearings for its director. Yet, as we will see, the NSA’s performance before 9/11 was shocking.
It is unclear when the NSA first intercepted a call by one of the nineteen hijackers. Reporting indicates it began listening in on telephone calls to the home of Pentagon hijacker Khalid Almihdhar’s wife some time around late 1996. However, although Almihdhar certainly… Continue reading
Authors Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
Published at the Journalof911Studies.com
The official narrative of the events which have become known as 9/11 includes descriptions of attacks on the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon by aircraft on 11 September, 2001. The towers were eventually destroyed and the Pentagon was severely damaged. The account of the attack on the Pentagon includes the following: A Boeing 757, operated by American Airlines, took off from Washington Dulles International Airport at 8:20 a.m. At 8:54 it deviated from its assigned route and at 8:56 the transponder was switched off. The plane, under the control of hijackers, headed back toward Washington and descended. As it approached the Pentagon it performed a descending spiral to the right and finally dived toward the Pentagon while accelerating. It hit some light poles and other objects on the ground and then penetrated the west face of the building at 9:37:44,(1) or 9:37:46,(2) depending on source.
Various claims have been made about the attack on the Pentagon. Early claims included damage by a missile or a truck bomb.(3) However, as so many witnesses had reported seeing a large commercial aircraft approaching the Pentagon, these claims received little attention from the public. It was not until the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was received from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that serious consideration was given to alternative explanations of the damage. The data was received in two forms,… Continue reading
by Kevin Ryan
Foreign Policy Journal
Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day. Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others. Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment. That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.
This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11. The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.
That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us. The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks. In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.” 1
With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons.…Continue reading
An Open Letter to Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi1
According to several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of its central claims, especially about the destruction of the World Trade Center, show its members to be scientifically challenged. In the opinion of some of these critics, moreover, claims made by members of this movement are sometimes unscientific in the strongest possible sense, implying an acceptance of magic and miracles.
After documenting this charge in Part I of this essay, I show in Part II that the exact opposite is the case: that the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center implies miracles (I give nine examples), and that the 9/11 Truth Movement, in developing an alternative hypothesis, has done so in line with the assumption that the laws of nature did not take a holiday on 9/11. In Part III, I ask these left-leaning critics some questions evoked by the fact that it is they, not members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who have endorsed a conspiracy theory replete with miracle stories as well as other absurdities.
I. The Charge that 9/11 Truth Theories Rest on Unscientific, Even Magical, Beliefs
Several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, besides showing contempt for its members, charge them with relying on claims that are contradicted by good science and, in some cases, reflect a belief… Continue reading
David Ray Griffin
There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.”1 This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.
Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft — hire mercenaries!
There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?… Continue reading
Careful investigation leads one to notice that a number of intriguing groups of people and organizations converged on the events of September 11th, 2001. An example is the group of men who were members of Cornell University’s Quill & Dagger society. This included Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley, Marsh & McLennan executive Stephen Friedman, and the founder of Kroll Associates, Jules Kroll. Another interconnected group of organizations is linked to these Cornell comrades, and is even more interesting in terms of its members being integral to the events of 9/11, and having benefited from those events.
After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC), a company called Stratesec (or Securacom) was responsible for the overall integration of the new security system designed by Kroll Associates. Stratesec had a small board of directors that included retired Air Force General James Abrahamson, Marvin Bush (the brother of George W. Bush) and Wirt Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers. Other directors included Charles Archer, former Assistant Director in charge of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, and Yousef Saud Al Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family.
Yousef Saud Al Sabah was also chairman of the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), which between 1993 and 1999 held a controlling share of Stratesec. The other owners of Stratesec were Walker and an entity controlled by Walker and Al Sabah, called Special Situation Investment Holdings (SSIH). SSIH was said to form a group with… Continue reading
City Room Blog – NYTimes.com
by Jennifer 8. Lee
Jeff Clark used pager message data released by WikiLeaks to created a visualization of the events of the day. The words, which are sized to their overall frequency over a 24-hour period starting from 3 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, brighten and fade in the video depending on how often they were used.
Programmers are introducing tools to analyze the hundreds of thousands of pager messages, supposedly dating from Sept. 11, released last week by WikiLeaks, an organization that releases sensitive documents and materials.
More than half a million messages were released by WikiLeaks, which has not disclosed who turned over the messages. Jeff Clark, a data visualization research who is not involved in WikiLeaks, interpreted the data in the aggregate, creating a video that shows the most commonly used terms that day, like “complex has evacuated” or “possible terrorist act.” The words grow brightest when they hit their peak and are sized by how frequently there were used.
“I recognize the pager data was very much like Twitter data, because it’s basically a time stamp with a bit of text,” said Mr. Clark, who had done work with Twitter.
He also created small time lines showing when certain key phrases hit their peaks, and then ordered the phrases by the peak time to create a moving narrative of the day.
Over the weekend, another programmer, Colin Keigher, created a searchable database of the messages, which makes them much easier to parse than the original 40-megabyte file.…Continue reading
2009 Truth Statement
We STILL Want Real Answers About 9/11
[Signatures have been closed as of March, 2010]
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General. Since that time, multiple professional polling organizations have obtained similar results in polls conducted nationally and internationally.
In 2004, 911truth.org assembled a list of notable Americans and family members of those who died who signed (see that list of signatories, below) a 9/11 Statement, calling for “immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”
On the eighth anniversary of 9/11, in spite of Americans having elected the “other” party in hopes it would deliver on its promise of a change in direction, we find ourselves asking these same questions and encountering the same resistance to transparency. The ensuing wars have destroyed countless lives, our civil liberties (including habeas corpus) are in tatters, posse comitatus is history, and our economy lies essentially in ruin. Meanwhile, thousands of 9/11 responders who rushed to stand with America in its time of… Continue reading