The Facts Speak For Themselves
by Jon Gold
This is dedicated to the 9/11 Truth Movement. – Jon
Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.
That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Scott Peterson, The Aruba Murders, and The Swift Boat Veterans got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”
This fine compilation of information by Jon Gold was originally published here on September 25, 2008. Because it has been significantly updated and further sourced, we are republishing now for readers’ convenience.
UPDATED 5/6/2010: Facts #7, #10, and #20.
Thanks to www.historycommons.org, DHS, and simuvac.
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, “while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.” On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or “Energy Task Force” for short. He prepared for this during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations. The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they denied it before Congress. It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of discussion during these task force meetings was Iraq’s oil fields. Five months before 9/11. The Vice President’s office fought long and hard to make sure the information from those meetings never saw the light of day. They even took the fight to the Supreme Court. Many were suspicious of the hunting trip that Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney went on prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case. Scalia was proud of the fact that he didn’t recuse himself from the hearings. Ultimately, they sent the fight to an appeals court, and it was decided that Cheney’s Task Force documents may remain secret.
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings that “Al-Qaeda” was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his “hair on fire,” and so many that a lot were not taken seriously “because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings.” One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” that was initially hidden by the White House. Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an “imminent threat,” that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about after it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to ask “does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there’s a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I’m really not interested in that information?” Cheney said that his “Democratic friends in Congress… need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.”
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11. On 3/7/2001, the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is “two-pronged and included a crisis warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer-range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate al-Qaeda.” On 3/15/2001, Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that the U.S. is working with India, Iran, and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that “the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.” On 6/26/2001, it is reported that “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.” In late Summer 2001, the Guardian will report that “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.” In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.” The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001. They “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf.” On 7/21/2001, three former American officials, Tom Simons, Karl Inderfurth, and Lee Coldren met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is allegedly told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”
On the day of 9/11, a number of key personnel were “scattered” across the country, and the world. With few exceptions, including Dick Cheney. The President of the United States, at a time when America was “under attack” from kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners, in a highly publicized location, 5 miles away from an international airport, in a classroom full of children, was not whisked away by the Secret Service. His conduct on the morning of 9/11 changed on the first anniversary. What actually happened was “when Chief of Staff Andrew Card told Bush about the second plane crash into the WTC, Bush continued to sit in a Florida elementary school classroom and hear a story about a pet goat for at least seven more minutes.” […] “But one year later, Card claims that after he told Bush about the second WTC crash, “it was only a matter of seconds” before Bush “excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left the Florida classroom.”
On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day. A lot of different people didn’t know whether or not the hijackings were “real-world or exercise.” According to Richard Clarke, on the morning of 9/11 at around 9:28am, he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference “I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?” Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies it’s, “NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK (emphasis mine). WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR, A NORAD EXERCISE (emphasis mine), but… Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert.” The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian, and in a footnote in the back of the book. On 2/25/2005, then Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked (realplayer required) Donald Rumsfeld about the exercises that were taking place on 9/11, but did not get an answer on that day. On 3/10/2005, Rep. McKinney asked Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers about the exercises again. The first question asked by Rep. McKinney was, “whether or not the activities of the 4 wargames going on on Sept. 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.” Gen. Myers responded with, “the answer to the question is, no, did not impair our response. In fact, Gen. Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission… I believe…I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond.” Then Rep. McKinney asked, “who was in charge of managing those wargames?,” and was cut off by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Gen. Myers never gave a name, but he did say, “North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible.” She was promised an answer in writing and as far as I know, never received it.
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C. This, according to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. According to Mineta, “during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say 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. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” The 9/11 Report states that Cheney didn’t arrive in the PEOC until 9:58. No video conferences from within the PEOC have been made available. No personnel records for who was in the PEOC have been made available. The “young man” Norman Mineta mentioned has never been named, and was never brought before the 9/11 Commission to testify.
On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War. DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld was saying. “Best info fast… judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time – not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” […] “Go massive… Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” […] “Hard to get a good case.” Like Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice started planning for the Iraq War within hours of the 9/11 attacks. Sir Christopher Meyer, “a former British ambassador to the United States says then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice talked to him about Iraq and Saddam Hussein hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.” Also, “George Bush tried to make a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 9/11 attacks, according to Blair’s foreign policy adviser of the time.”
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 9/11/2001, Bush says, “this is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity.” He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002. Karl Rove said, “sometimes history sends you things and 9/11 came our way.”
In the days and months following the attacks, several people within the administration and elsewhere tried to tie Iraq to 9/11. General Wesley Clark said, “there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.” According to George Tenet, shortly after 9/11, Richard Perle said, “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.” Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, “[I]ntelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks-whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others-were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein,” he writes. “As yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Dick Cheney claimed the bogus Atta-Iraqi spy meeting had been, “pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” Since that time, they have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and even Hillary did it. On 5/14/2009, it was reported that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured “in an effort to produce intelligence tying Iraq to al Qaeda.” According to Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff, “what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Rep. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged financier of the attacks on the day of 9/11.
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to “limit the scope” of, released a report with 28 redacted pages. Apparently, those 28 pages talk about “possible Saudi Arabian financial links.” In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is covering up Saudi Arabia’s possible connection to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, “present[s] a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance.” He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI to “to restrain and obfuscate” any investigations into the connection. The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent Steven Butler. The FBI originally tried to prevent Butler from testifying before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their information on the two hijackers. He said, “it would have made a huge difference.” […] “We would have immediately opened… investigations. We would have given them the full court press. We would… have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets.” On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005 when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family.” On 11/13/2008, it was reported that “thousands of victims of the 9/11 attacks appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday, asking it to overturn a lower court decision barring lawsuits against Saudi Arabia for supporting acts of terrorism.” On 1/6/2009, it is reported that “lawyers for Saudi Arabia have asserted in court papers that the Supreme Court should reject arguments that the desert kingdom be held accountable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because, over a period of many years, it financed al-Qaeda. In papers filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the kingdom and several high-ranking Saudi royals say that U.S. law provides blanket immunity to Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the 9/11 attacks.” On 2/24/2009, it is reported that “the Supreme Court yesterday asked the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to weigh in on whether a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia charging that it was a source of terrorist financing before the 9/11 attacks should move forward.” On 5/29/2009, the New York Times reports that “the Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.” 9/11 Family Member, and “Jersey Girl” Kristen Breitweiser said, “I find this reprehensible. One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.” On 5/30/2009, the victims family members released two press releases. The first one states, “today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration’s decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens — 9/11 family members — to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.” The second one states, “on the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration would enable five of the king’s closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The second press release lists “allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family’s sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.” On 6/9/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that this case “is likely to reach a critical juncture this month when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear arguments on Saudi Arabia’s legal exposure.” It goes on to say that “the hurdle for the plaintiffs, both insurers and individual victims, isn’t simply facts and law, but also the political dimensions. Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ most important allies in the Middle East. It has been a forward staging area for the U.S. military, deemed an important counterweight to Iran’s regional ambitions, seen as a huge source of energy, and a very big purchaser of American goods and services.” Tom Burnett who lost his son on Flight 93 asks, “why would the Obama administration give less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, and security and more to the pleadings of a foreign government? It strikes a blow against the public’s right to know who financed and supported” the 9/11 attacks.” “Kagan’s May 29 brief, representing the opinion of the Obama administration, was significant because the Supreme Court in most cases follows the solicitor general’s lead.” On 6/11/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “lawyers representing victims of the 9/11 attacks charge that the government sought to “appease” Saudi Arabia by urging the Supreme Court not to hear arguments that the kingdom could be sued for its alleged role in funding the attackers.” A “brief filed by the Center City law firm of Cozen O’Connor and other lawyers representing victims, employed unusually scathing and at times emotional language, suggesting at one point that the government’s brief was timed to coincide with President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia last week.” “A spokeswoman for U.S. Solictor General Elena Kagan said the May 29 filing of the government’s brief had been determined by the schedule of the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide whether to hear the case by the end of the month.” On 6/23/2009, the Washington Times reports that a “series of closed-door meetings between the relatives’ groups and Justice Department officials, arranged as an update on Mr. Obama’s plan to close the detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, turned instead into a sharp clash over the Saudi legal action.” Apparently, “the family members demanded to be be heard on the White House’s stance during a series of closed-door meetings at the State Department and the Justice Department last week.” On 6/24/2009, the New York Times reported that “classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families.” It goes on to say that Obama’s “Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser “said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims’ families, the president told her that he was willing to make the pages (28 redacted pages of the JICI) public. But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.” On 6/29/2009, it is reported that “the Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.” The “justices refused to review the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks and their families.” The Supreme Court “turned down the appeal without comment.”
The Bush Administration was the families’ “biggest adversary” when it came to the creation of a so-called Independent 9/11 Commission. The families had to fight “tooth and nail,” and lobby to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not want one. Dick Cheney and George Bush refused to testify under oath before select individuals of the 9/11 Commission even though the families wanted them to. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied. They made it difficult for the commission to get funding. They tried to make Henry Kissinger the Chairman of the commission, but he resigned after the families started asking too many questions. Alberto Gonzales “stonewalled” the 9/11 Commission’s access to the White House. They appointed Thomas Kean as Chairman, someone “who will be easily controlled by the administration,” and Lee Hamilton, a long time friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to be the co-chair. Hamilton participated in two inquiries that resulted in cover-ups. The Iran/Contra Affair inquiry, and the October Surprise inquiry.
Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry explained, “though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.” In 1995, Zelikow wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice called, “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft.” While at Harvard, “he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” Between 1997 and 1998, Zelikow helped to write a report that said “Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously… it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.” They predict the consequences of such an event: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great ‘success’ or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.'” In 1997, Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a report about John F. Kennedy that is “riddled” with errors. Zelikow wrote the pre-emptive war strategy for the Bush Administration. Zelikow said that the “real threat” with regards to Iraq’s WMD was to Israel. Zelikow tried to prevent the 9/11 Commission staffers from talking to the Commissioners. Zelikow tried to insert a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 into the 9/11 Report, but the families, and the staffers fought against it. It has been alleged that he may have taken direction from Karl Rove who, according to Philip Shenon, was concerned about the 9/11 Commission because “in the wrong hands… [it] could cost President Bush a second term.” The allegation regarding Rove drove the September Eleventh Advocates (formerly known as “The Jersey Girls”) to call for an entirely new investigation. Only Rawstory.com covered that story. In early 2003, Philip Zelikow and Ernest May wrote a complete outline of the final 9/11 Report. Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton decided to keep this outline a secret from the commission staffers. When “it was later disclosed that Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline of the commission’s final report at the very start of the investigation, many of the staff’s investigators were alarmed.” He rewrote the 9/11 Report to be more favorable of Condoleezza Rice. During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families called for the resignation of Philip Zelikow, but were denied that request. After the 9/11 Commission was finished, Philip Zelikow was given a job with Condoleezza Rice at the State Department.
NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Sen. Mark Dayton slammed the 9/11 Commissioners for what the 9/11 Report said about NORAD. On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick will question Gen. Myers about NORAD’s mission. “In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job.” […] “I would like to know, as the second question, is it your job, and if not whose job is it, to make current assessments of a threat, and decide whether you are positioned correctly to carry out a mission, which at least on paper NORAD had.” At the end of this exchange, Gen. Myers asks, “did I answer both questions?” Jamie Gorelick responds, “yes, and no, and my time has expired.” According to information collected by Dean Jackson, NORAD’s mission at the time, coincided with Jamie Gorelick’s understanding of it. On 8/2/2006, the Washington Post reported that “the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public” and that “the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.” Later, it was reported that NORAD’s mistakes were due to “inadequate forensic capabilities” and “poor record-keeping.” William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the Inspector General’s office, said that “the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.” To my knowledge, that report has not been released as of this date. Here are some excerpts from Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book, “Without Precedent.” “There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11–things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11–and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received…. These were puzzling and disturbing developments, and they account in part for some of the more bizarre and inaccurate conspiracy theories about 9/11.” […] “Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out.” […] “Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism–and thus the most conspiracy theorizing–was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001.” […] “Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue.” On 9/17/2001, NORAD gives a briefing to the White House. 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will say “it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that’s different than what actually happened on that day.”
Different pieces of evidence have been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 “by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center.” 2.5 terabytes of information regarding Able Danger was destroyed in April/May 2000. The CIA destroyed interrogation tapes. In 2003, a book was written by Gail Swanson entitled, “Behind-the-Scenes: Ground Zero” that is a “collection of personal accounts” from people that were at Ground Zero on that day. In that book, Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi says “at one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. When we got into the ATV to take off, the agent accidentally pushed me forward. The ATV was already in reverse, and my foot went down on the gas pedal. We went down the stairs in reverse. Fortunately, everything was okay. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.” The 9/11 Commission says those black boxes were not found. Most of the steel from the WTC was removed, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Fire Engineering magazine wrote, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”
Several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks. Most were ignored or censored by the 9/11 Commission. Some of these people are John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA), Sibel Edmonds (Language Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar (Language Specialist-FBI), Melvin A. Goodman (Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA), Gilbert Graham (Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI), Coleen Rowley (Retired Division Counsel- FBI), John Vincent (Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Robert Wright (Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton (Senior Analyst- NSA), Mike German (Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer , and Scott Philpott . 9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza said “Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify. And part of the problem with testifying, um… as someone who’s working for one of the agencies, is that, they have to be careful with state secrets, what they reveal. And, in order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed, cause then their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of, ya know, law, they could be… um… ya know, accused of being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed. So, most whistle-blowers were… did not come forward on the basis of what happened to Sibel Edmonds. Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, “these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed.” And, he promised me… to my face that “every whistle-blower would be… indeed heard.” And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them… that we had her with us. Um, we met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)… um, but, they had information… and basically, the Government knew… ya know, other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. (pauses) And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.” On October 29th, 2007, Sibel Edmonds agreed to break the gag order that was placed on her, and tell her entire story to the media. Until very recently, the only paper to take the challenge was the Sunday Times. At the time, the media in this country did not give her the time of day with one exception that I know of, and it wasn’t prominently displayed. Sibel’s story mentions the same alleged financier of the 9/11 attacks that Rep. Porter Goss, Sen. Graham, and Sen. Kyl met with on the morning of 9/11. More about Sibel will be mentioned later.
Apparently, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta. The 9/11 Families’ submitted a question to the 9/11 Commission about this incident. Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, John S. Pistole stated that their investigation “has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known al-Qaeda operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the US.” In January 2002, during a visit to India, FBI Director Robert Mueller was told about Saeed Sheikh’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Indian Investigators. Apparently, “on the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11 Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.” On 3/3/2006, the Friday Times reported that “Pakistan gave tens of thousands of dollars through its lobbyists in the United States to members of the 9/11 inquiry commission to ‘convince’ them to drop some anti-Pakistan findings in the report.” This according to FO Official Sadiq. According to the Pakistan paper Daily Times, this story about bribery “triggered” U.S. media interest. I don’t remember seeing any mention of this story at all. If you know of an American media outlet that investigated this story, and reported on the results of that investigation, please let me know. On 4/10/2006, Pakistan officially denied the allegations of bribery. “Pakistan has never indulged in the illegal activity of bribing or buying influence anywhere in the world,” said a statement issued by the FO spokesperson here on Sunday. On 10/1/2001, Lt. Gen. Ahmed and Saeed Sheikh may have been involved in another “terrorist attack” together. Recently, it was reported that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has been running a terrorist network from prison, and was planning to assassinate President Musharraf. Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul recently defended Lt. Gen. Ahmed regarding the allegations of the wire transfer. On 3/15/2002, Condoleeza Rice is asked a question about Lt. Gen. Ahmed. “Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that ISI Chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with you or anybody in the administration?” Her response was, “I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.” The transcript of this has “ISI Chief” replaced with “–.” On March 31st, 2006, 9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean was confronted on this issue. He said he wasn’t aware of it.
On the morning of 9/11, a homemaker by the name of Maria will notice a group of people sitting on top of a white van. She says, “They seemed to be taking a movie” at the time of the first impact. She calls the police. At 3:31pm on 9/11, the FBI issues a BOLO (be on the lookout) that says, “White, 2000 Chevrolet van…with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center…. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.” At 3:56pm on 9/11, these individuals are arrested. On 9/14/2001, the owner of Urban Moving Systems flees to Israel. Because of great pressure in late October 2001, the arrested men, allegedly Israeli spies, are released in November 2001. One of the men claims “our purpose was to document the event.”
No one has been held accountable, and instead, people that didn”t deserve it, were promoted.
On 9/11/2006, 9/11 Family members Donna Marsh O’Connor, Michele Little, and Christina Kminek, along with Kyle Hence (Executive Producer of 9/11: Press For Truth), and Paul Thompson (www.historycommons.org, author of “The Terror Timeline”), called for a new investigation (RealPlayer required) at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. I believe this is the only news outlet to cover it. Over the years, different family members like Bob McIlvaine, Lorie Van Auken, Daniel Wallace (RIP), Barry Zelman, and Manny Badillo have spoken out for the truth. The September Eleventh Advocates have released letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter after letter trying to get some truth. The media has been silent. In late 2009, there was an effort in New York to get a new investigation onto the ballot. Over 100 9/11 Family Members endorsed this effort. The city argued that a real/new investigation into 9/11 is “not a proper subject to be placed before the voters.” When Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner asked city counselor Steve Kitzinger “if the City had done anything to investigate 9/11. Kitzinger flatly responded, “No.” In disbelief, Judge Lerner responded with, “the City never did anything?” 9/11 Whistleblowers Coleen Rowley, and LTC Anthony Shaffer endorsed this initiative.
The United States Government has not fully cooperated with international investigations into 9/11. With regards to Abdelghani Mzoudi, the United States “would not allow Mzoudi’s defense to cross-examine bin al-Shibh,” and as a result he was acquitted. During an appeal, “Kay Nehm, Germany’s top federal prosecutor, again appeals to the US State Department to release interrogation records of bin al-Shibh to the court. However, the US still refuses to release the evidence, and a list of questions the court gives to the US for bin al-Shibh to answer are never answered.” With regards to Mounir El-Motassadeq, his conviction having to do with the 9/11 attacks was overturned after finding that “German and US authorities withheld evidence.” He was later convicted for his “Al-Qaeda” membership, but not for 9/11.
As I mentioned in the introduction, the Mainstream Media has not covered the questions concerning the 9/11 attacks as they should, and for the most part, with the exception of small town news, have attacked those that do. According to James Goodale, the founders of the United States “enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown.” On 10/31/2005, Reporters Without Borders reported that the United States ranked 44th in the world for Freedom Of The Press “mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and legal moves undermining the privacy of journalistic sources.” At the recent RNC, several journalists, including Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow were arrested. Over the years, the Mainstream Media has essentially used George Bush’s policy of never tolerating “outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th – malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” At first, and still, they have referred to anyone that questions the events of 9/11 as “Conspiracy Theorists.” They have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. The Mainstream Media has also repeatedly focused on what is considered the “fringe” of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and has ignored the more credible researchers. Several celebrities have spoken out for 9/11 Truth. Each time one has done so, almost in unison, the Mainstream Media has attacked them. They have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again. They have portrayed those who question the official account as “unpatriotic,” and also as “terrorist sympathizers.” We were even painted as Holocaust Denying murderers. As pointed out in Fact #23, the media has also ignored the 9/11 Family Members who question the official account, but they have also given a lot of attention to people like Ann Coulter that have attacked some of those family members again, and again, and again. The September Eleventh Advocates responded to Coulter’s remarks. The media has heavily promoted movies like “Path To 9/11” which are factually incorrect, and ignored movies liked “9/11: Press For Truth,” which calls into question the entire 9/11 Report, and is endorsed by the family members that fought for it. The MSM have also repeatedly said that if you question the official account of 9/11, you are dishonoring the family members.
The 9/11 Commission was mandated to give a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.” The 9/11 Commission had the power of subpoena, but rarely used it. Instead, they used what were called “document requests” which could be, and were ignored. As mentioned in Fact #19, several whistleblowers were brought forward, but were either censored or ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Early on, the 9/11 Commission didn’t hold people under oath. At one point, an advertising campaign was started that asked for people to be held under oath. On 4/27/2009, a memo was discovered that talked about “Government Minders” intimidating witnesses. According to Kevin Fenton’s article, they “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses,” they “acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution,” and they “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.” The following are some quotes from 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton from their book “Without Precedent.” “The two sides decided to split the difference, allowing eighteen months for the inquiry–a period of time that proved insufficient” [….] “The White House also suggested some candidates for executive director for our staff. The importance of this position cannot be overstated” […] “…we seriously only considered one candidate: Philip Zelikow…. Zelikow was a controversial choice. In the 1990s, as an academic, he had co-authored, with Condoleezza Rice, a book about German unification, and he later assisted Stephen Hadley in running the National Security Council transition for the incoming Bush administration in 2000-2001” […] “After Philip Zelikow came on board as executive director, he began recruiting and interviewing candidates…. Zelikow was selected with little consultation with the rest of the committee, but several commissioners had concerns about the kind of inquiry he would lead” […] “We soon encountered problems, both in obtaining information and with the laborious conditions placed on our access to some information” […] “We decided against an aggressive use of subpoenas for several reasons…. Furthermore, we knew that many of the most important documents we sought were potentially the subject of an executive privilege claim–meaning that the president might not be legally compelled to share that material with another branch of government, even with a subpoena” […] “We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate” […] “Senior officials from the FAA and NORAD–Jane Garvey and Craig McKinley–made statements about the timeline of 9/11 that were later proven to be inaccurate” […] “Many interviews were recorded, though we were not permitted to record those conducted with current officials from the Executive Office of the President” […] “We were set up to fail.” The 9/11 Family Steering Committee was made up of 12 family members, including the “Jersey Girls.” They monitored the commission, they worked with the staffers of the commission, and they provided 100’s of well researched questions for the commission to answer. According to 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean, “They monitor us, they follow our progress, they’ve supplied us with some of the best questions we’ve asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them.” The 9/11 Commission only answered 30% of the families questions.
The level of fear that resulted from the attacks of 9/11 was nourished and maintained, and still is to this day. Reich Marshal Hermann Goering once said “of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” On 6/23/2007, Glenn Greenwald wrote about how insurgents in Iraq were being referred to as “Al-Qaeda” more frequently. He states, “what makes this practice all the more disturbing is how quickly and obediently the media has adopted the change in terms consciously issued by the Bush administration and their military officials responsible for presenting the Bush view of the war to the press.” Fox News once suggested “Al-Qaeda” was responsible for starting California Wildfires. Keith Olbermann ran two stories that I know of regarding the political usage of “terror threats.” The New York Times recently ran a massive story on how military analysts with “ties to military contractors” were being used by the Pentagon to “shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.” They “have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated.”
The 9/11 Report was, and is promoted as a triumph. The Washington Post reported that it is “a useful analysis of the changes that have taken place since, as well as the changes that have not taken place, ” and calling the commission’s unanimity and comprehensiveness “impressive.” WaPo also reported that “the final report is a document of historic sweep and almost unprecedented detail, offering the sort of examination of a highly classified subject that customarily would not be possible for decades after the fact. From the findings of spy agencies to the tactics of fighter pilots, from the conversations of heads of state to the verbatim texts of secret presidential briefings, this is the government laid bare.” The New York Times reported that it was “uncommonly lucid, even riveting,” and is an “improbable literary triumph.” Time Magazine said the report was “meticulous in its reconstruction of the attacks and unflinching in its conclusions about why the government failed to stop them.” The 9/11 Commission’s report was nominated by the National Book Foundation in 2004 for best in Non-fiction. Former Representative Katherine Harris referred to the 9/11 Report as “one of the most important publications of our age.” Senator Hillary Clinton said the 9/11 Commission’s report was “a great testimony to the their willingness to search hard for the truth, to get at the facts.” Senator Charles Schumer said the 9/11 Commission did an “incredible job.” In 2004, Bush’s Presidential Campaign said “the Commission’s report makes the case for the policies that U.S. President Bush has been pursuing in the War on Terror and eliminates any doubt that the best defense against the threat of global terror is a strong offense.” Bush said, “I agree with their conclusion that the terrorists were able to exploit deep institutional failings in our nation’s defenses that developed over more than a decade.” A different kind of praise for the 9/11 Report has come in the form of requests for “9/11-Type Commissions” for other horrible events in America’s history such as Katrina and the recent “financial crisis.”
Osama Bin Laden has not been indicted for the 9/11 attacks. Some time before 9/26/2001, FBI spokesman Rex Tomb says, “there’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged.” He continues, “To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.” On 9/23/2001, then Secretary of State Colin Powell is asked, “will you release publicly a white paper which links [bin Laden] and his organization to this attack to put people at ease?” He responds by saying “we are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack.” The following day, then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer when asked about Powell’s statement says “I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the exact words the secretary used on the Sunday shows.… I’m not aware of anybody who said white paper, and the secretary didn’t say anything about a white paper yesterday.” On 10/4/2001, Tony Blair will present a paper that makes the case for Osama Bin Laden’s involvement before Parliament. It says, “this document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law.” Nevertheless, it continues, “on the basis of all the information available [Her Majesty’s Government] is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.” On 6/6/2006, Rex Tomb will say, “the reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” This according to Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report. On 8/28/2006, the Washington Post will report about this story. They state “from this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain. Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings.” They speak to Rex Tomb who says “There’s no mystery here” […] “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.” According to David N. Kelley, a former U.S. attorney, “It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view,” said Kelley, now in private practice. “If I were in government, I’d be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was.” Contrary to WaPo’s claim that “bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings,” Osama denied any involvement in the attacks on three separate ocassions. On 9/16/2001, he says, “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” On 9/28/2001, he says, “I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.… The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.… Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year.… They needed an enemy.… Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks.” On 12/26/2001, Bin Laden releases a tape that says the U.S.’s invasion of Afghanistan is “a vicious campaign based on mere suspicion.” On 9/10/2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino will be asked a question. “But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 –” Her response is to say that “No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he’s sitting in jail right now.”
The authenticity of video and audio recordings that have been released over the years allegedly from Osama Bin Laden have been disputed. On 10/29/2007, MSNBC reported about a “running debate among video analysts about whether al-Qaida faked” a video that was released on 9/7/2007. The so called “confession video” has been disputed from three different points of view. The translation of the tape was disputed. Professor Gernot Rotter from the University of Hamburg says, “this tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can’t use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places.” The date the video was made is disputed by analyst Maher Osseiran. Several commentators questioned whether the person depicted in the video is actually Osama. According to CNN, Bush was asked about the authenticity of the tape, but “scoffed” at the idea “that the videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the September 11 terrorist attacks might not be authentic.” He said, “It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored” […] “That’s just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man.”
The majority of the testimony from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, something the 9/11 Report is heavily based on, was gotten through torture, and “third-hand – passed from the detainee, to the interrogator, to the person who writes up the interrogation report, and finally to [its] staff in the form of reports, not even transcripts.” Because of the latter, the 9/11 Commission decided to add a disclaimer to the chapters that are heavily based on detainee interrogations. The disclaimer says, “Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. A number of these ‘detainees’ have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses–sworn enemies of the United States–is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process. We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al-Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the US government.” The 9/11 Commission became unhappy because the government’s investigators were “not asking the detainees the kinds of questions [it wanted] answered.” On 8/6/2007, the New Yorker reports that a former CIA official estimates that about “ninety percent of the information was unreliable.” KSM’s interrogations are mentioned as a source in the 9/11 report 211 times. On 6/15/2009, the Associated Press reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he would “make up stories” in order to get them to stop torturing him.
The Military Tribunals taking place at Guanatanamo Bay are a slap in the face to those seeking justice for the crimes of 9/11, as well as to the rest of the world. The level of secrecy is counterproductive. As the September 11th Advocates state, “prosecuting these men within a system that is secretive in nature and lacking in due process, and which uses evidence tainted by questionable interrogation methods and possibly even torture, is a dangerous endeavor.” Several other family members have voiced their concerns about the secrecy. Unlike U.S. Federal courts, “the Guantánamo tribunal permits hearsay evidence as well as information gleaned from coercion and makes no guarantee that the accused will be able to confront his accusers or know all the evidence against him.” As far as the media goes “only a handful of journalists will be allowed in the courtroom, confined to a glass enclosed booth where they can be shut off from hearing testimony on the judge’s instructions.” […] “Audio recordings and pictures of the proceedings are barred.” The ACLU charged that “the U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments.” Once the Supreme Court ruled that detainees “have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court,” the Bush Administration decided “to rewrite the official evidence against Guantánamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.” A propaganda film was shown to the court room. “The video is entitled “The Al Qaeda Plan,” an echo of “The Nazi Plan” made by Oscar-winning director George Stevens as evidence in the Nuremberg war crimes trials of German leaders after World War II.” Judge Keith Allred approved the video, but said, “The planes crashing into the towers and the people screaming doesn’t prove anything.” Army Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti said that Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantánamo war crimes tribunals, was “abusive, bullying, unprofessional.” Detainee lawyers say that “political interference taints the proceedings.” On 4/18/2008, it was reported that the families would be able to watch the trials. According to Army Col. Lawrence Morris, “we’re going to broadcast in real time to several locations that will be available just to victim families.” Later, the military decided against that. However, they were going to allow Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 Family Member that happens to be pro-Bush to attend. Several family members released a statement that said, “selectively inviting only 9/11 family members whose views are in alignment with those of the Bush administration is only one example of the repeated attempts to infuse politics into what should be an impartial process that has the goal of achieving justice.” On 10/27/2008, it was reported that “the Pentagon has made plans to bring victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — chosen by lottery — to watch a hearing of reputed al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s death penalty trial.” Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said, “Soon, some of those victim families will have the opportunity to see firsthand the fair, open and just trials of those alleged to have perpetrated these horrific acts.” The Miami Herald cites, “a long-promised victims witness program, which will enable thousands of family members of the Sept. 11 dead to watch the eventual trial through satellite feeds to four U.S. military bases.” On 12/10/2008, a group of 31 9/11 family members, along with the ACLU released a statement that said, “many of us do not believe these military commissions to be fair, in accordance with American values, or capable of achieving the justice that 9/11 family members and all Americans deserve.”
The resulting dust from the collapse of the buildings on 9/11/2001 was toxic, and people like Condoleezza Rice and Christie Todd Whitman lied about it so things like Wall Street could reopen. As a result, several 1000 9/11 First Responders, and residents of New York are sick and dying. Both local and Federal Governments have ignored them in their time of need.
Suspicious trading in the world markets took place before 9/11/2001. On or around 8/6/2001, what appear to be “suspicious” put option purchases are made. According to one analyst, “from what I’m hearing, it’s more than coincidence.” In early September 2001, “suspicious” short selling of reinsurance company stocks take place. Also in September 2001, suspicion of insider trading takes place in many other countries, resulting in the creation of several investigations. The countries mentioned are Belgium, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, Cyprus, U.K., Italy, and Japan. On 10/3/2001, the San Francisco Chronicle will report that the NYSE sees “unusually heavy trading in airline and related stocks several days before the attacks.” Some of those companies are American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US Airways. In early September 2001, there is a sharp increase in short selling of American and United Airlines stocks. Between 9/6/2001, and 9/10/2001, suspicious trading of put options on American and United Airlines occur. Ernst Welteke, the President of a German central bank, says that his bank has done a study. “There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge.” His researchers have found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.” During the time of the 9/11 Commission, the families pressed for answers about this suspicious trading. The 9/11 Report states, “highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.” […] “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.”
The 9/11 Report says, “to date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years.” The 9/11 Commission repeats this in a document entitled, “The Financing of the 9/11 Plot.” “To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. As we have discussed above, the compelling evidence appears to trace the bulk of the funds directly back to KSM and, possibly, Qatari, but no further. Available information on this subject has thus far has not been illuminating. According to KSM, Bin Ladin provided 85–95 percent of the funds for the plot from his personal wealth, with the remainder coming from general al Qaeda funds. To the extent KSM intended to refer to wealth Bin Ladin inherited from his family or derived from any business activity, this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame. Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years.”
“Al-Qaeda” has curious connections to intelligence agencies all over the world. Wikipedia defines “Al-Qaeda” as “an international Sunni Islamist movement founded in 1988. Al-Qaeda have attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching a military and intelligence campaign against al-Qaeda called the War on Terror.” On 9/28/2006, the Washington Post reported that “a leaked document accuses Pakistan’s intelligence agency of indirectly supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaida and calls on Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to disband the agency.” […] “Indirectly, Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism _ whether in London on (July 7, 2005) or in Afghanistan or Iraq.” The BBC reports that ” [The West has] turned a blind eye towards existing instability and the indirect protection of Al Qaeda and promotion of terrorism.” On 9/30/2006, the BBC reported Mumbai Police Commissioner AN Roy’s statement that, “We have solved the 11 July bombings case. The whole attack was planned by Pakistan’s ISI and carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and their operatives in India.” On 10/7/2006, the Sunday Times reports that “captured Taliban fighters and failed suicide bombers have confirmed that they were trained by the Pakistani intelligence service, known as the ISI.” In March 2001, Selig Harrison, a “long-time regional expert” says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” In 2000, “Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph” referred to the U.S. as “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” On 10/19/2007, B. Raman reported that “Brig Ejaz Shah, a former officer of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence” […] “used to be the handling officer of Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar, the amir of the Taliban.” When I asked Mr. Raman “What does it mean to be Osama Bin Laden’s “Handling Officer” for the Pakistani ISI? What is the responsibility of the person that has this particular job?” his response was, “The handling officer of a source in Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies is the person who looks after the welfare of the source, keeps him motivated and uses him as needed. The source cannot meet anybody else other than his handling officer except the head of the agency. One source–one handling officer is the general rule. This is to prevent the exposure of the operation and maintain its deniability. I understand in the CIA they call him the Running Officer of a source.” On 10/31/2001, Le Figaro reports that while staying in the American hospital in Dubai, he is treated by Dr. Terry Callaway. “He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter.” “During his stay, bin Laden is visited by “several members of his family and Saudi personalities,” including Prince Turki al-Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence.” “On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent. The CIA, the Dubai hospital, and even bin Laden deny the story. The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting.” “The Guardian claims that the story originated from French intelligence, “which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” The Guardian adds that during his stay bin Laden is also visited by a second CIA officer.” “In 2003, reporter Richard Labeviere will provide additional details of what he claims happened in a book entitled “The Corridors of Terror.” He claims he learned about the meeting from a contact in the Dubai hospital. He claims the event was confirmed in detail by a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain. This prince claimed the meeting was arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal. The prince said, “By organizing this meeting…Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between [bin Laden] and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure.” “On July 15, Larry Mitchell reportedly returns to CIA headquarters to report on his meeting with bin Laden.” “French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It “is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.” “A CIA spokesman calls the entire account of bin Laden’s stay at Dubai “sheer fantasy.” Luai Sakra, an alleged CIA informant is said to have trained 6 of the 9/11 hijackers. Ali Mohamed has connections to both the FBI and the CIA. On 3/17/2007, Seymour Hersh reported that, “Iran-Contra veterans working out of Dick Cheney’s office are using stolen funds from Iraq to arm al Qaeda-tied groups and foment a larger Sunni-Shia war.” On 4/3/2007, ABCNews reported that, “a Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.” […] “Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.” On 7/2/2009, a successful “working relationship” was established “between the Bush Administration, specifically Cheney, the CIA, and the Pakistani ISI” […] “for the express purpose of funding, manipulating and using a “terrorist” organization in order to carry out terrorist attacks.” On June 24th, 2009, 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, someone the ACLU refers to as the “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America” because of the Bush Administration’s usage of the “States Secrets Privilege” to gag her on two separate occasions, said on the Mike Malloy Show that Osama Bin Laden had “intimate relations” with elements within the U.S. Government up until the day of 9/11. As I pointed out in Fact #20, “Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone who met with U.S. elected and appointed officials in the weeks before 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, ordered possible MI6 Agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.” I refer you back to Fact #35.
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland had a lot of interesting things to say. Between January and July of 2003, the Bush Administration delayed the release of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Report until after the start of the Iraq War. Max Cleland says, “The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaeda) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. There’s no connection, and that’s been confirmed by some of bin Laden’s terrorist followers… What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends. The reason this report was delayed for so long–deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created–is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over… before (it) came out. Had this report come out in January  like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration.” After 1/27/2003, Max Cleland is disappointed with the start of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation. Specifically, he is not happy that the Commission “will not issue subpoenas for the documents it wants and will have a single non-partisan staff headed by executive director Philip Zelikow, who is close to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.” In May 2003, Max Cleland wanted the 9/11 Commission to investigate the false claims tying Iraq to 9/11 made by the Bush Administration. He says, “they were focused on Iraq, they were planning a war on Iraq, they were not paying attention to the business at hand.” Zelikow, Kean, and Hamilton opposed this. Phil Shenon will write, “even some of the Democrats [on the commission] were distancing themselves from him. Cleland knew he was quickly becoming a pariah.” Cleland will say, “it was painfully obvious to me that there was this blanket over the commission” […] “Anybody who spoke out or dissented, whether against George Bush, the White House, or the war against Iraq, was going to be marginalized.” In November 2003, the Commission, and the White House were battling over how much access the Commission would have to Bush daily briefings. Cleland says, “all ten commissioners should have full, unfettered, and unrestricted access to all evidence.” In December 2003, Max Cleland is offered a “position on the board of the Export-Import Bank.” He accepts. Before leaving the Commission, he calls the Bush Administration’s stonewalling of the Commission a “national scandal,” and says “I’m not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I’m not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I’m not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I’m not going to be part of that. This is serious.” On 10/26/2003, Cleland tells the New York Times “as each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”
Over the years, several polls have been conducted that show a majority of people are concerned about this issue. In August 2004, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded “half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” In May 2006, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded 45% of voting Americans think “Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.” In September 2007, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded “51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 Attacks.” In August 2006, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted a poll that concluded, “more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” In November 2007, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted another poll that concluded, “nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.”
Several interesting and thought provoking quotes have been made by people over the years with regards to the 9/11 attacks. Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “the two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago.” Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer states in his upcoming book, “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.” 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said, “By the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place. In the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made. The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ’96 and ’98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser said, “it is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures. We can now see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself.” On 7/22/2005, at the 9/11 Congressional Briefing chaired by then Rep. Cynthia McKinney, 9/11 Family Members Monica Gabrielle, and Mindy Kleinberg accompanied 9/11 Family Member Lorie Van Auken who said, “the 9/11 Commission’s report is one year old today. This report was supposed to provide the definitive account of what had transpired on September eleven, 2001. We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered. Yet incredibly we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers.” 9/11 Family Member Donna Marsh O’Connor said at the National Press Club on 9/11/2006, “This Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy Theories, because they haven’t answered fully, or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th, and that’s what I’m asking from you today. For exposure. We are not crazy. We have questions. We demand answers. […] We’re asking for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end.”
A document entitled, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” from 1962 proves BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT that elements within our Government are MORE THAN CAPABLE of devising a “9/11 Type” plan.
There are several indications that Osama Bin Laden has been protected, and even allowed to escape after the 9/11 attacks. On 12/24/1998, at the request of then CIA Director George Tenet, President Clinton signs an order authorizing the CIA to assassinate Osama Bin Laden. Philip Shenon will write that Clinton’s authorization is “written in stark language” and it makes it very clear “that the president was telling the tribal leaders they could kill bin Laden.” However, this order is “closely held within the CIA, and the 9/11 Commission will comment, “This intent [to have bin Laden killed] was never well communicated or understood within the agency.” “Apparently, it is never even communicated to Michael Scheuer, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer will later express his frustration at not being allowed to try to kill bin Laden, “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him.” In February 1999, Clinton rewrites the order for the CIA and “deletes the wording authorizing an operation to simply kill bin Laden.” In December 1999, Clinton issues a wider memo that deals “with “a wider set of contingencies,” and they authorize the use of force only within the context of a capture operation, not an assassination attempt. The CIA is therefore allowed to try to kill bin Laden only using one specific group of assets–tribal leaders tracking bin Laden in Afghanistan, still based on the earlier instructions. But the CIA does not test “the limits of available legal authority,” apparently because the CIA’s bin Laden unit is not told of the kill authorization and due to confusion.” On 9/21/2001, it is reported that President Putin “had warned the Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. “Washington’s reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: ‘We can’t do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over’.” After 9/11, Bush says about Bin Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.” Two days after that, he says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.'” In Afghanistan, veteran CIA agent Gary Berntsen is in charge of the team responsible for capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden called “Jawbreaker.” “He will claim that at the start of December 2001, one of his Arabic-speaking CIA agents finds a radio on a dead al-Qaeda fighter during a battle in the Tora Bora region. This agent hears bin Laden repeatedly attempt to rally his troops. On the same radio, that agent and another CIA agent who speaks Arabic hear bin Laden apologizing to his troops for getting them trapped and killed by US aerial bombing. Based on this information, Berntsen makes a formal request for 800 US troops to be deployed along the Pakistani border to prevent bin Laden’s escape. The request is not granted. Berntsen’s lawyer later claims, “Gary coordinated most of the boots on the ground. We knew where bin Laden was within a very circumscribed area. It was full of caves and tunnels but we could have bombed them or searched them one by one. The Pentagon failed to deploy sufficient troops to seal them off.” “A Knight Ridder investigative report will later conclude, “While more than 1,200 US Marines [sit] at an abandoned air base in the desert 80 miles away, Franks and other commanders [rely] on three Afghan warlords and a small number of American, British, and Australian special forces to stop al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from escaping across the mountains into Pakistan.” Military and intelligence officials warn Franks that the two main Afghan commanders cannot be trusted. This turns out to be correct, as the warlords accept bribes from al-Qaeda leaders to let them escape.” On 12/5/2001, Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis “is convinced his forces can seal the Tora Bora area to trap bin Laden there. Around this date, Mattis argues strongly to his military superiors at Centcom that his troops should fight at Tora Bora, but he is turned down.” Between December 8th – 14th, British special forces pursue Osama Bin Laden, and are reportedly “20 minutes behind” him but are “pulled off to allow US troops to go in for the kill.” However, it takes hours for the Americans to arrive, by which time bin Laden has escaped.” On 10/6/2008, it is reported that “a team of elite Delta Force commandos was sent into Afghanistan with an assignment to find and kill Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora” but were stopped by U.S. officials. On 60 Minutes, the commando leader is asked by Scott Pelley, “how often does Delta come up with a tactical plan that’s disapproved by higher headquarters?” His answer is “in my experience, in my five years at Delta, never before.” Apparently, Cofer Black is fired on 5/17/2002. “Six anonymous US intelligence officials will claim that, in fact, Black is removed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld because Black publicly revealed details of the US military’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in late 2001.” On 3/13/2001, Bush says, “He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.” Instead, Bush is “deeply concerned about Iraq.”
Over the years, there have been several reports indicating that Osama Bin Laden is dead. On 12/26/2001, Fox News reported that “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication.” On 1/18/2002, President Pervez Musharraf says, “I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a … kidney patient.” On 7/18/2002, the FBI’s counter-terroism chief Dale Watson says, “I am not really sure of the answer… I personally think he is probably not with us anymore but I have no evidence to support that.” On 10/7/2002, President Hamid Karzai says that Bin Laden is probably dead. On 10/16/2002, Israeli intelligence sources report that Osama is dead. On 10/23/2005, a Multan newspaper reports that Osama Bin Laden, “died four months ago in a village near Kandahar of severe illness.” On 3/15/2006, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports about a claim by then Rep. Curt Weldon that Osama Bin Laden died in Iran. On 9/23/2006, it is reported that “a French regional newspaper quoted a French secret service report on Saturday as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.” President Chirac said this was “in no way whatsoever confirmed.” Recently, former CIA official Robert Baer said that he thinks Osama is dead. On 6/30/2008, Time released an article entitled, “Is Osama bin Laden Dying … Again?”
Several of the alleged hijackers should not have been given visas. Between April 3-7, 2001, three hijackers are given visas to the United States through the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. They are Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi, and Khalid Almihdar. “Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are already “al-Qaeda veterans” and battle-hardened killers.” “All three men have indicators in their passports marking them as Islamist radicals. These indicators are used to track them by the Saudi authorities, but are apparently not noticed by US officials.” According to Michael Springmann, someone who was the head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from Sept. 87 to March of 87, said that he was “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” “He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah.”
Footnote 44 of the 9/11 Report states, “CIA cable,“Activities of Bin Ladin Associate Khalid Revealed,” Jan. 4, 2000. His Saudi passport–which contained a visa for travel to the United States–was photocopied and forwarded to CIA headquarters. This information was not shared with FBI headquarters until August 2001. An FBI agent detailed to the Bin Ladin unit at CIA attempted to share this information with colleagues at FBI headquarters. A CIA desk officer instructed him not to send the cable with this information. Several hours later, this same desk officer drafted a cable distributed solely within CIA alleging that the visa documents had been shared with the FBI. She admitted she did not personally share the information and cannot identify who told her they had been shared. We were unable to locate anyone who claimed to have shared the information. Contemporaneous documents contradict the claim that they were shared. DOJ Inspector General interview of Doug M., Feb. 12, 2004; DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael, Oct. 31, 2002; CIA cable, Jan. 5, 2000; DOJ Inspector General report,“ A Review of the FBI’s Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the 9/11 Attacks,” July 2, 2004, p. 282.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser referred to George Tenet as “Mr. “I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks.”
NIST released a report about the collapse of building 7 that is in dispute. Recently, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) published comments critiquing NIST’s report on building 7. The September Eleventh Advocates released a statement that cleverly mocked their report. There is an organization known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that disputes this report. A physics professor formerly of Brigham Young University named Steven E. Jones, a whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories named Kevin Ryan, and several others belong to a group called Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice that have written several critiques of NIST’s reports from over the years that have been published. NIST’s questionable report on building 7 caused people that were once on the fence regarding the collapse of those buildings on 9/11, to think that those advocating something different than NIST’s conclusions, responsibly, might be right. On 4/3/2009, the Open Chemical Physics Journal of Bentham-Open published a peer reviewed paper entitled, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” According to Dr. Steven Jones, “unless an objector actually publishes his or her objection in a peer-reviewed established journal” […] “then the objection is not considered serious in the scientific community.”
After the 9/11 attacks, George Bush’s popularity ratings soared to record numbers. On 9/18/2001, the Washington Post reported that, “the country has rallied to the president’s side. Even those who wished for a little more eloquence from him did not want to hear a word against him. Ask any journalist who raised questions about his initial handling of the crisis: They have been inundated with furious calls calling them a disgrace to their profession and even traitors. Congress is well aware that George Bush has become a colossus, surpassing his father’s 90 percent approval rating after the Persian Gulf War. Congress has been more than satisfied with a supporting role in the wake of the horror. On Tuesday night members convened and sang “God Bless America” and pledged allegiance to Bush. Democratic consternation and misgivings have been expressed behind the scenes. When Bush requested blanket authority for retaliation, some remembered the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which they unwarily gave to Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam and came to regret. They said the president’s current powers give him all the authority he needed to punish the authors of the obscene attacks. But, as one Democrat said disconsolately, “No one wants to say no to Bush now.”
The Moussaoui Trial had a lot of problems, and revealed a lot of information. On 3/7/2006, the Associated Press reported that “a defense lawyer got FBI agent Michael Anticev to admit that the FBI was aware years before Nine-Eleven that al Qaida planned to slam planes into prominent buildings.” On 3/13/2006, AP reports that “an angry federal judge unexpectedly recessed the death penalty trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to consider whether government violations of her rules against coaching witnesses should remove the death penalty as an option.” Another AP report cites that a, “government lawyer who has jeopardized the prosecution of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui used a transcript of the first day of the trial to try to shape future testimony to meet or deflect possible defense attacks, court documents indicate.” […] “Arguing that Martin’s e-mails tainted three government and four defense witnesses beyond repair, the defense has asked the judge to dismiss the government’s bid to execute Moussaoui, the only person charged in this country in connection with al-Qaida’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” This “outraged” the families. “I was really horrified and very outraged to hear that this type of mistake was made,” Regenhard said. “This is probably one of the most important trials in the history of this country — how someone could put that at risk. She betrayed the families of the victims who certainly have been waiting nearly five long years to get some kind of scintilla of justice.” On 3/15/2006, the Washington Post reports that “U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema decided yesterday to exclude all aviation security evidence after Martin violated a court order by e-mailing trial transcripts to seven witnesses and coaching them about their upcoming testimony.” […] “I am furious,” said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband, Eddie, was killed on the plane that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. “Aviation is a big part of this case. Aviation is what killed our loved ones. It was planes. You take aviation out . . . where do they go from here?” […] “How are we supposed to get any new information now?” said Fiona Havlish, formerly of Buck County, Pa., whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center. “I think what all of us are looking for is the truth, and the truth has not been forthcoming out of Washington. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel that the truth has come out no matter how hard we as family members have tried. And this was just one more avenue to find a particle of truth, and that is being thwarted.” […] “Some wondered whether she was being used as a scapegoat for other government officials who did not want the aviation security evidence to be made public.” […] “I don’t think she is alone,” Dillard said in a telephone interview last night. “I just don’t think she could have gotten away with that. Somebody helped her or prompted her. It just makes me wonder whether this is one more thing where no one is going to be held accountable. . . . It’s almost too clean. I wonder if there is more to the story than we know.” […] “I felt the government wasn’t telling us all that it knew, and I do know that feeling is shared in the Massachusetts circle of families within which I travel,” said Blake Allison, of Hanover, N.H., whose wife, Anna Allison, was killed on American Airlines Flight 11. “We talked about this the first day of the trial, the hope that the trial would bring some clarity to some of the circumstances leading up to 9/11.” On 3/15/2006, the Sunday Times reports more about 9/11 Family Member Rosemary Dillard’s anger about what happened. “I felt like my heart had been ripped out,” said Rosemary Dillard, whose husband Eddie was killed aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. “I felt like my husband had been killed again. I felt like the Government had let me down again.” […] “I don’t think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems,” said Judge Brinkema, who considered abandoning the trial altogether but eventually decided to adjourn it until Monday.” […] “The missing testimony was expected to deal with how much the Federal Aviation Administration already knew about possible terror threats to airlines prior to 9/11, and what security measures were in place.” On 3/16/2006, MSNBC reports that “the lawyer whose coaching of witnesses in the death penalty case of Zacarias Moussaoui caused his trial to be halted was placed on administrative leave from her job, the Transportation Security Administration said Thursday.” On 3/17/2006, AP reports that “the judge has issued a written order that says prosecutors can present exhibits and a witness or witnesses if they are untainted by contact with Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla Martin.” On 3/20/2006, Reuters reports that “an FBI agent testified in the sentencing trial of September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui on Monday that agency superiors repeatedly blocked his efforts to warn of a possible terror attack. Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui three weeks before the deadly airliner hijackings that killed 3,000 people, said he tried to tell his superiors that he thought a hijacking plan might be in the works. “You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man’s belongings. You were obstructed,” defense attorney Edward MacMahon said as the trial resumed after a week’s delay over improper witness coaching. “From a particular individual in the (FBI’s) Radical Fundamentalist Unit, yes sir, I was obstructed,” Samit said.” Forbes reports that “MacMahon (Moussaoui defense attorney) introduced an Aug. 31 letter Samit drafted “to advise the FAA of a potential threat to security of commercial aircraft” from whomever Moussaoui was conspiring with. But Maltbie barred him from sending it to FAA headquarters, saying he would handle that, Samit testified. The agent added that he did tell FAA officials in Minneapolis of his suspicions.” On 3/25/2006, the Washington Post reports that the families hope for answers at the Moussaoui Trial is “unfulfilled.”
On 9/25/2006, former 9/11 Commission Richard Ben Veniste makes public knowledge a deal within the 9/11 Commission to keep Bush, Cheney, and Clinton’s testimony classified until 2009. “BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don’t see anything and I don’t remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report. BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had — we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question. BLITZER: Why? BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t have the votes. BLITZER: Well, was — were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is? BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years’ time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.”
In the fall of 2003, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Sandy Berger, “removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency’s internal watchdog said Wednesday.” […] “Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration’s representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.” On 4/1/2005, it was reported that Berger “pleaded guilty yesterday to pilfering classified documents from the National Archives, saying he showed “very poor judgment” and that his actions were “wrong.” On 1/9/2007, Fox News reports that “some classified documents that were unlawfully removed from the National Archives three years ago may never have reached their intended destination — the Sept. 11 commission, a House Republican report concluded Tuesday.” […] “Released by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the report said Berger could have taken White House staff working papers that never were inventoried by the archives. In that case, nobody would know they were gone, the report said.”
Several companies friendly to the Bush Administration as well as others, and several partners in the “War On Terror” have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks. A long time ago at the 2004 9/11 People’s Commission, I asked ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern what he thought could be the possible motives (Quicktime required) for doing something as horrible as 9/11. He mentioned an acronym for “O.I.L.” that he created. “O for oil, I for Israel, and L for the logistical bases necessary to exert (inaudible) military capability in that part of the world.” Before he answered my question, he spoke of the PNAC’s dream of invading Iraq. He spoke of eliminating any possible threat to the state of Israel. He spoke of what were considered then to be 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, and so on. Since 9/11, oil companies like Exxon, Shell, and Chevron have made massive fortunes. on 6/20/2008, the Guardian reported that “Iraq is preparing to allow four of the biggest western oil companies to renew exploitation of the country’s vast reserves for the first time in almost four decades. Iraq’s oil ministry stepped up talks with BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total after the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, visited Iraq in March, where he also pressed the government to revive efforts to pass the hydrocarbon law that nationalist MPs were blocking. The first contracts are expected to be signed this month. Some 90% of Iraq’s budget comes from oil revenues.” Companies like Bechtel and Halliburton have made fortunes because of the “War On Terror.” Granted, like most companies, they have lost some of those fortunes within the last two months. Since 9/11, the Bush Administration have made repeated claims that they will protect Israel. On 1/26/2006, the Mail & Guardian reports that Bush has committed to the “defence of Israel.” On 2/1/2006, Reuters reports that Bush says the U.S. would defend Israel against Iran. On 5/23/2006, CNN reports that Bush promises to protect Israel if attacked by Iran. On 1/7/2008, AFP reports that Bush promises again to protect Israel if attacked by Iran. Haaretz reported about a possible pipeline of oil going from Iraq to Israel. On 5/24/2007, the Daily India reports that “a new study released by the Centre for Public Integrity, a non-profit organisation based in Washington, has said that Pakistan has been the largest recipient of anti-terror funds in the four years after 9/11.” On 5/30/2007, publicintegrity.org reported that most of the money Pakistan received “came through a Defense Department program subject to virtually no congressional oversight.” According to Spencer Ackerman, a lot of the money came in the form of “untraceable cash transfers.” Both Pakistan and Israel are considered partners in the “War On Terror.” If we’re not staying in Iraq, we sure have a massive U.S. embassy, “the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.” According to Wiki, Ray McGovern, “was a mid-level officer in the CIA in the 1960s where his focus was analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. McGovern was one of President Ronald Reagan’s intelligence briefers from 1981-85; he was in charge of preparing daily security briefs for Reagan, Vice President George H.W. Bush, the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Cabinet. Later, McGovern was one of several senior CIA analysts who prepared the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) during the first Bush administration.” It seems to me that he knows what he’s talking about.
There are so many facts concerning the 9/11 attacks, that it is impossible to know them all. People like to laugh at, and mock our theories (that we all have) concerning the events of 9/11. However, they have a difficult time with the facts. I hope that I have proven my point.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see above, the information that exists today clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However, as I said, this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Let’s have a real investigation, be it a domestic or international one, and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to take away the “9/11 Card,” and let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.