Category Archives: The quest for the truth

Real Americans Question 9/11

Real Americans Question 9/11

These days it’s difficult to remember what values the American people share. That’s because the U.S. government does so many things that seem to contradict basic human values. Wars of aggression, torture, kidnapping and indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, and so many other oppressions have become standard operational procedure for the U.S. government. Those who recognize and seek to correct this system of abuse soon realize that the key to doing so is to reveal the truth behind the primary driver for all of them—the crimes of 9/11.

It’s important to know what makes someone an American and what does not. Here are some examples of what does not make someone an American.

  • Loyalty to the flag
  • Respect for the national anthem
  • Serving in the military or honoring military veterans
  • Paying taxes

A person can do these things to any extent possible and it will not make them any more American than they were before they began. Popular culture and corporate media make every effort to present American patriotism as a sum of these kinds of activities but it is easy to see through that false front.

Only one thing makes someone an American and that is support and defense of the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of the United States defined Americans as those who are committed to the ideals of the Constitution. To this day, anyone claiming to represent the nation must swear an oath to uphold those ideals.

Each president, when taking office, affirms that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” All congress members must swear or affirm that they will “support and defend the Constitution.”

All new citizens of the United States and every member of the U.S. military must swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and that they “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

The U.S. Constitution is comprised of articles that spell out the government’s powers and the process of making amendments. It also includes the 27 amendments that exist today. The first ten amendments, ratified four years after the original text, are known as the Bill of Rights. These include the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press. Also, there are the rights to bear arms, to privacy, and to a speedy and public trial. The rejection of cruel and unusual punishment is another basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, virtually every Article and Amendment of the Constitution has been under attack since September 11, 2001. Yet very few people have risen to support or defend it. In fact, many so-called Americans have encouraged assaults on the core American values.

That abuse began with the violation of Article 1 of the Constitution that rejects starting wars of aggression without having been “actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” Instead of working to determine what actually happened on 9/11 and thereby defend the nation, the Bush Administration immediately invaded Afghanistan, a country that it had planned to invade long before the 9/11 attacks. Sixteen months later, the government invaded Iraq based on what everyone now knows was a pack of lies.

Americans who questioned that anti-American approach were silenced with claims that they were not “supporting the troops” if they did not consent to the growing greed-fueled militarism. The Afghanistan invasion was coupled with the passing of the Patriot Act—an attack on basic Constitutional rights and a failure to preserve those rights as described in Article 2.

In 2006, national polls showed that over one third of Americans believed that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so that the United States could go to war in the Middle East. At the same time, Americans witnessed a growing list of abuses of their Constitutional rights. These abuses violated the Bill of Rights in nearly every way and were driven by unproven claims about what happened on September 11, 2001.

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the Center for Constitutional Rights described how the Constitution had been shredded based on assumptions about the 9/11 attacks. By then, it had also become clear that the government was actually giving aid and comfort to the enemy (violating Article 3) through arming and training terrorists. One might think it obvious that stopping such actions would be the goal of all Americans but to do so one Congress member has had to spell it out in legislation.

Failing to protect Americans against domestic violence (a violation of Article 4), the FBI was found to actually be manufacturing terrorism. It was further learned that some FBI leaders had been facilitating or sponsoring terrorism since long before 9/11. This practice continues today and the manufactured plots have become so obvious that officials are finding it difficult to explain why Americans should take them seriously.

Attorney and author John W. Whitehead has detailed the continuing attacks on the Bill of Rights by writing that,

“What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. Since then, we have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance. The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time—Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and now ISIS—but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.”

The attacks on American values have been so extensive that people often no longer notice how bad it has become. For example, the government has named those captured and tortured in the name of 9/11 as “forever prisoners”—a term that exemplifies the hatred of freedom represented by the new phony Americanism. The fact that one of these men was a central character in building the official account of 9/11 and has since been exonerated for any involvement in those crimes makes no difference.

How can real Americans respond to this ongoing assault against the Constitution by flag-waving, militaristic, greed-driven fools? How can we “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” by “bearing true faith and allegiance to the same?”

To end the wave of anti-Americanism that began with the crimes of 9/11, Americans have two options. The first is to stand up publicly and fight the attacks on our Constitution by helping everyone understand that the crimes of 9/11 have not been solved. In fact, there are still so many unanswered questions about those crimes that everything done in “response” is almost certainly a crime in itself.

The second option is to end the tyranny through revolution. This was how America began, of course, and that great beginning is enshrined in the precursor to the Constitution—the Declaration of Independence. At the time, the founders stated that, “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

As Americans it is our duty to throw off the tyrannical abuses of power that are threatening to end America. That duty starts with questioning 9/11—the driver behind all of it.

Eliott Spitzer’s mouthpiece has his own secrets to hide

Spitzer’s mouthpiece has his own secrets to hide

Peter Lance
Published: Tuesday March 18, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Spitzers_Mouthpiece_Has_His_Own_Secrets_0318.html

As the sex scandal hurricane engulfed Eliott Spitzer last week, one of his closest advisors at the eye of the storm was Dietrich “Dieter” Snell. An ex U.S. Attorney from the same office conducting the prostitution probe, Snell is now defending Spitzer in the “Troopergate” scandal and reportedly raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the international law firm he joined last year.

A former Southern District prosecutor who later became Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Snell is also one of the ex Feds who rewrote history in the Commission’s “Final Report” by relying entirely on the tortured “confession” of 9/11’s purported “mastermind” to pinpoint the origin of the “planes as missiles” plot.

He’s the same investigator who dismissed as not “sufficiently credible” the testimony of a decorated Navy Captain who was part of a secret data mining operation that uncovered evidence of 9/11 hijackers in the U.S. more than a year before the attacks.

A former Deputy Attorney General under “the Sheriff of Wall Street,” Snell is now attempting to quash the subpoenas of investigators probing whether Spitzer misused state troopers to investigate his chief political rival, protecting his ex boss and mentor with a “separation of powers” defense worthy of Dick Cheney.

Despite Spitzer’s sudden flameout, there are currently three separate probes pending of Troopergate, the scandal that erupted when Spitzer’s aides reportedly used State Police to investigate the travel expenses of Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno.

The New York Daily News estimated that while the initial use of state resources to benefit Bruno was $72,000.00, the cost to the taxpayers of defending Spitzer, who refused to cooperate with the New York A.G.’s office, could amount to $1.54 million. And $400,000 of that figure will probably go to Snell’s law firm.

But from this reporter’s perspective it is Dieter Snell himself who ought to be in the hot seat answering questions, not about a petty state corruption probe but questions that go to the heart of the greatest mass murder in U.S. history: 9/11.

It was just four years ago Saturday, March 15th, 2004, when Snell led me into a windowless conference room at 26 Federal Plaza, the building that houses the FBI’s New York Office (NYO). It was then the temporary New York quarters of the 9/11 Commission’s staff.

Months earlier, Commission Chairman Gov. Tom Kean had read my first investigative book for HarperCollins, 1000 Years for Revenge, which presented probative evidence that Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the first WTC bombing in 1993, had designed “the planes” operation as early as the fall of 1994 in Manila and that his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) had merely carried out the plot after Yousef was captured in February of 1995.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), one of the top FBI oversight lawmakers on the Hill, had read the book and pronounced it a “must read for the FBI, Congress, the 9/11 Commission and anyone whose job it is to protect national security,” so Gov. Kean directed Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow to arrange for my testimony.

Cherry Picking the Evidence

But I was cautious. A source I had on the Commission staff told me that Zelikow and staffers on both side of the aisle were “cherry picking” the evidence, in an effort to remove Yousef, from the 9/11 scenario.

Why? Because as I’d reported in 1000 Years, the FBI’s NYO could have stopped Yousef in the fall of 1992 while he was building the 1,500 pound urea nitrate-formaldehyde device that he detonated on the B-2 level below the Twin Towers on February 26th, 1993, killing six and injuring 1000.

It was a plot directly funded by al Qaeda and tied to the cell around blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. If the Bureau’s elite Joint Terrorism Task Force had simply done its job and stopped Yousef then, he would never have executed the first attack on the Towers or escaped New York the night of the bombing to commence the 9/11 plot from Manila, half a year later.

1000 Years For Revenge contained probative evidence suggesting that prosecutors in the SDNY – including Dietrich Snell – had received evidence from the Philippines National Police (PNP) in early 1995 that, if acted upon, would have tipped the Feds to the 9/11 plot six years earlier.

Snell had prosecuted Yousef in 1996 for Bojinka, a non suicide plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific that was separate from the “planes as missiles” scenario, and as I saw it, he should have been called before the 9/11 Commission as a witness, testifying under oath about what he and other SDNY officials knew of this second suicide plot involving airliners.

The Fox and the Chicken Coop

Instead, Snell was given a senior Commission leadership role and put in charge of determining the single most important conclusion in the Commission’s investigation: the origin of the plot. Without knowing precisely when the plot began, no U.S. officials could be held accountable for failing to stop it.

So four years ago, when I learned that Snell would take my “testimony,” I was properly skeptical.

Also, my source had warned me that despite the televised public Commission hearings, and the appearance of transparency, more than 90 percent of the witness intake to the Commission had been anecdotal and unrecorded.

So I prepared my “testimony” ahead of time.

In the presence of an FBI agent assigned to the Commission staff, Snell sat across from me at a conference table. There was no stenographer or recording equipment present. The sandy-haired former AUSA took out a small spiral notebook and began to take notes as I read my statement.

Because I was writing a second book on the failures of the Feds on the road to 9/11, and because Snell had played such a key role in the prosecution of Yousef, I ended up asking him as many questions as he asked me.

I wanted to know why he had flown over eleven PNP officials to testify at the Bojinka trial but not Col. Rodolfo B. Mendoza, the top PNP investigator who had interrogated Yousef’s partner Abdul Hakim Murad, a pilot trained in four U.S. flights schools. It was Murad who was to have been the original lead pilot of the plot – the role later assumed by hijacker Mohammed Atta.

I wanted Snell to answer why he and other SDNY Feds had kept the hunt for KSM secret for more than two and a half years, only quietly passing his name to the press in January of 1998 when the plot was well underway, when they had arrested Yousef, his nephew, via a very public $2 million rewards program that had caused one of Ramzi’s cohorts to “rat him out.” Why not use the same method to capture his uncle KSM who was executing the “planes operation?”

“That’s Classified”

But each time I asked a question, Snell would smile and say, “That’s classified” or “I can’t discuss that.” At the end of my testimony I told him I would send along the transcript of my March 19, 2002 interview with Col. Mendoza, which documented Yousef’s creation of the planes-as-missiles plot in 1994.

I had evidence from the PNP that Yousef’s Toshiba laptop, passed on to the CIA in January of 1995, contained the full blown “9/11” plot, including seven targets: the WTC, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA headquarters, the Transamerica and Sears Towers, and an unnamed nuclear facility.

But as it turned out, that was evidence that Snell, as an alumnus of the SDNY, did not want to hear. Why? Because it corroborated the findings of the PNP that Ramzi Yousef was the architect of the 9/11 attacks and that, in turn, put blood on the hands of the FBI’s NYO for failing to stop him back in 1992.

Given Snell’s apparent bias, I sent the additional evidence directly to Commission co-chairman Tom Kean. In a cover letter, I asked him to make sure that it was a part of the permanent Commission record.

But when the Commission’s final report was published, that evidence was flushed – reduced to a single footnote that didn’t even mention Col. Mendoza by name, even though he was the investigator who had first uncovered Yousef’s suicide-hijack plot.
Rewriting History

In the Commission’s final Staff Statement #16, largely authored by Snell, the Commission removed Yousef from the “planes as missiles” plot and supported the fiction that the plot didn’t even begin to germinate until 1996, well after Yousef’s capture. The new finding, per Snell, was that KSM merely “pitched” the idea to Bin Laden in ’96 but it didn’t get a green light from the Saudi billionaire until 1998.

Worse, Snell and the staffers based their evidence for the origin of the plot entirely on the word of KSM, who we now know was subjected to waterboarding and torture in his interrogation.

Taking the sole word of KSM on the origin of the plot was a bit like taking the word of David Berkowitz for when he committed his first “Son of Sam” murder. But as the primary author of Staff Statement #16, the Commission’s last word on the plot origin, that’s what Dietrich Snell decided to do.

To this day, KSM’s questionable testimony has served to define the official record on the origin of the 9/11 plot, even though Snell himself admitted under oath, at the March 2005 German trial of an al Qaeda suspect, that he himself had never met Khalid Shaikh, that he’d merely submitted questions to KSM’s interrogators, and that he (Snell) had no control over how or even whether questions were asked.

Back on the Ides of March, 2004, as I left 26 Federal Plaza, I had no idea that a group of Army investigators in the year 2000 had been on a parallel investigative track to mine. But Snell would soon reject their evidence as well.
Discrediting the Able Danger Findings

In the early winter of 2000, a multi-million dollar data mining operation funded by the U.S. Army uncovered evidence that Mohammed Atta and three other 9./11 hijackers were present in the country months before the 9/11 Commission would conclude they’d arrived, thus making a number of U.S. agencies, including the FBI, culpable for their failure to stop them.

In the fall of 2003, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a key player in what had been termed Operation Able Danger, told 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow of the Operation’s stunning findings during Zelikow’s visit to Afghanistan, where Shafer had been hunting bin Laden with Task Force 180.

By July 12th, 2004 as the Commission was wrapping up its investigation on the origin of the 9/11 plot, one of Shafer’s Able Danger colleagues, Capt. Scott Phillpott, met with a top Commission leader to corroborate Shafer’s findings.

The senior counsel he met with was Dietrich Dieter Snell.

Like Tony Shaffer’s account, Capt. Phillpott’s input about the al Qaeda connections to the New York cell of Sheikh Rahman would have defied the spin that Snell and the Commission staff had decided to sell.

Phillpott was a Navy veteran who had previously commanded three ships, a decorated veteran with immense integrity and reliability as a witness. But after the meeting, Snell spurned Phillpott’s evidence on the hijacker’s U.S. presence, and not a word of it showed up in the final Commission Report.

Nothing more might have come of it until August of 2005, when the New York Times broke the story of how tens of thousands of pages of Able Danger evidence had been ordered destroyed in March of 2000. The scandal grew, and by mid February 2006 the House Army Services Committee called Snell to testify.
Spitzer KO’s Snell Appearance

But on the day of the hearing, February 15th, 2006, it was learned that Eliott Spitzer himself had intervened with the Committee’s counsel to keep Snell from having to account under oath for his dismissal of the Able Danger evidence. Citing Snell’s “heavy workload” in New York, Spitzer got him a pass from having to testify.

During his tenure on the 9/11 Commission, pushing the “origin of the plot” forward to 1996 and ignoring the Able Danger evidence weren’t Snell’s only lapses.

As Larisa Alexandrovna pointed out in a RAW STORY piece on February 28th, citing Phil Shenon’s recent book, The Commission, Snell also seemed to defy his own staffers who wanted to explore the Saudi government’s ties to Omar al-Bayoumi.

Al-Bayoumi was the San Diego based Saudi defense contractor whose company had multiple contracts with Prince Sultan, the father of Saudi Arabia’s then U.S. ambassador Prince Bandar. The flamboyant Bandar was so tight with the Bush family that over the years he’d earned the nickname “Bandar Bush.”

As reported in Triple Cross, Bayoumi played host to two of the 9/11 muscle hijackers, al-Midar and al-Hazmi, who flew AA # 77 into the Pentagon on 9.11:

    “…using their own names, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi jetted from Bangkok to Los Angeles on January 15th. There they were met by Omar al-Bayoumi a Saudi, suspected of being an intelligence officer, who had visited the Saudi consulate in L.A. the same day. After three weeks the two would-be hijackers moved to San Diego, where they lived openly for the next five months. During that period al-Bayoumi helped them get settled, finding them an apartment across from where he lived. It was later reported by Newsweek and the Washington Times that al-Bayoumi may have been the recipient of funds sent to his wife indirectly from Princess Haifa bin Faisal, wife of the then-Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar.

In fact, new information from declassified FBI files as reflected in Ms. Alexandrovna’s account for RAW STORY shows that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were living in a residence rented by al-Bayoumi from the day they arrived in California; not weeks later as reported in the 9/11 Commission Report. With respect to Snell’s possible knowledge of the Saudi connection, Ms. Alexandrova writes:

    Bayoumi moved to London in 2001 and lived there until his arrest immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. Following his release, Bayoumi returned to Saudi Arabia, where he was interviewed in October 2003 by the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, and Senior Counsel Dieter Snell.

    Snell did not respond to requests for comment; Zeilkow could not be reached.

    According to Shenon, several staff members working under Snell, “felt strongly that they had demonstrated a close Saudi government connection,” based on “explosive material” on al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy, a “shadowy Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles.”

    Shenon recounts how Snell, in preparing his team’s account of the plot, purged almost all of the most serious allegations against the Saudi government and moved the “explosive” supporting evidence to the small print of the report’s footnotes. (The Commission, pp. 398-399)

    Two commission investigators who were working on documenting the 9/11 plot, Michael Jacobsen and Raj De, argued that it was “crazy” to insist on 100 percent proof when it came to al-Qaeda or the Saudi regime. In the end, however, and with a publishing deadline looming, Snell’s caution and Zelikow’s direction buried apparently promising leads.

Entering Private Practice

On April 30th, Snell left his job as Deputy Attorney General to join the law firm of Proskauer Rose, which has offices in seven U.S. cities as well as Paris, London and Sao Paulo. Within months, the firm had been retained by Spitzer’s office to defend him in the Troopergate scandal.

Last July, New York Attorney General Cuomo’s office issued a report finding that Spitzer’s staff had acted improperly but not illegally. But the Senate Committee’s probe is ongoing along with an investigation by the state’s Public Integrity Commission. Also, after closing his inquiry into Troopergate last year, Albany District Attorney David Soares has reopened it. On Thursday Snell charged Soares with continuing on a “fishing expedition” and acting as “grand jury and grand inquisitor.”

It was an ironic use of the term.

Elliott Spitzer prosecuted Wall Street white collar crime with the same venom he used on call girl services and high-end pimps. Using the Attorney General’s office as a state-based strike force against local, state, even national corruption, he redefined the modern day inquisition.

As Governor, he apparently saw himself in the same role. Last year he reportedly told Assembly Minority leader James Tedisco that he was “a fucking steamroller” who would “roll over” Tedisco “and anybody else.”

Steamroller or Sheriff, we now know that Spitzer also redefined the term hypocrisy.

On Tuesday after the New York Times broke the call girl story, Dietrich Snell, with a few key advisors, was reportedly holed up in Spitzer’s Fifth Avenue co-op working on the damage control. In defense of Spitzer, and reportedly billing the public for his hours, he continued the spin in court on Thursday.

Disgraced and out of office, it’s time that Spitzer made a full accounting of his public sins along with his private ones. In the process, his loyal retainer and counsel Dietrich Snell needs to come clean as well.

Where are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?

FAQ #12: Where are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?
Written by Dennis McMahon, J.D. L.L.M.,
Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:03

with contributing editor Eli Rika


Many of those who cannot accept the scientific evidence that refutes the official story of the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11/2001 argue, “If 9/11 was an inside operation, surely at least one whistleblower would have come forward by now. You couldn’t keep something like that secret.” While at first blush this argument might seem to be logical, closer examination shows that it makes no sense.

Independent 9/11 researcher Gregg Roberts has responded to many false assertions from the defenders of the official 9/11 story

Since scientific evidence has clearly shown that the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers cannot be true, the theory that the official story must be true because there have been “no 9/11 whistleblowers” is entirely specious.

In his groundbreaking 2006 research paper entitled “Where Are The 9/11 Whistleblowers?”,
9/11 researcher Gregg Roberts addresses the subject in painstaking detail. At one key point, Roberts notes that “physics trumps armchair psychology.” That is, the evidence is what determines whether 9/11 involved more than what officials are telling us, not an assumed theory about the power of the whistleblower.However, for the sake of those who adhere to the baseless 9/11 whistleblower theory, let’s examine the alleged power of the 9/11 whistleblower by first defining “whistleblower,” and then adapting that definition to the 9/11 context.

Merriam-Webster online defines “whistleblower” as “one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.” An example would be the 40 whistle-blowing technical experts who present evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center in AE911Truth’s powerful documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. In addition, we could include the eyewitnesses, government officials, and litigants listed in James Corbett’s report, “
A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers,” and the Infowars report, “The 9/11 Whistleblowers.”

Another definition of “whistleblower,” provided by FindLaw, is “an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation.”

The broad definition of the term “whistleblower” would include technical professionals like Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, who was part of the team of scientists who identified thermitic material throughout the WTC dust.

A prime example of a person meeting this definition would be Kevin Ryan, the chemistry laboratory manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters’ Laboratories (UL), who began to investigate 9/11 and publicly ask questions about UL’s testing of the structural assemblies used to construct the World Trade Center towers as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). UL fired Ryan in 2004. Former JP Morgan IT consultant Indira Singh also suffered persecution when she investigated the money trail behind 9/11 and brought her concerns to her superiors.

Neither of the above definitions fits the context of the claim that since there have been no 9/11 whistleblowers to date, the official story of 9/11 must be true. However, here is an online definition of “whistleblower” from TheFreeDictionary that is readily adaptable: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” [Emphasis added.] Regarding the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we can narrow this definition to “a potential 9/11 whistleblower would be someone who was (wittingly or unwittingly) part of the organized effort to destroy the Twin Towers and Building 7 via controlled demolition, and who is willing to reveal what he or she knows about that event to the public or the authorities” — in short, a classic “insider.” This is the type of whistleblower to whom proponents of the theory are referring.

Note that this definition implies that a potential 9/11 whistleblower has the power to actually inform the public, for example through the mainstream mass media. But who would have the stature to command the mainstream media (which had already censored AE911Truth and others who attempted to publicize the WTC evidence) and somehow prompt them to accurately publish the inside story on what actually happened? Most likely, it would be only senior members of the 9/11 operation’s chain of command – the very people who would have been actively engaged in planning, execution, and/or cover-up at the highest level.

Former UL chemistry lab manager Kevin Ryan was fired after challenging his employer’s role in NIST’s WTC investigation

How likely would it be for any one of them to have a change of heart and openly confess to participating in the mass murder of 3,000 people and creating a treasonous pretense to draw America and other nations into two major wars?

For someone below the upper echelon to come forward, the problem would be, “To whom do I turn?” Since, as mentioned, the mainstream media were nothing short of complicit in propagating the official myth about what happened on 9/11, an underling blowing the whistle on his or her fellow 9/11 co-conspirators via the media would hardly be likely.

For a moment, put yourself in the position of a potential 9/11 insider. Let’s say you have your own Facebook or Blogspot page, or an account at YouTube, and you want to tell the world how and when the explosives were rigged in Building 7. Who would protect you and your family from retaliation if you went public? Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, if there was——as the evidence clearly shows——a concerted effort to rig the New York City towers for controlled demolition, what we are talking about here is pre-meditated mass murder. Would the murderers who committed that atrocity leave you in peace after you came forward to blow the whistle on them? Highly unlikely. What would inspire you to come forward, at a minimum, would be assurance that you and your family would not be harmed.
Would the murderers who committed that atrocity leave you in peace after you came forward to blow the whistle on them? Highly unlikely.
Nevertheless, let us say that you are that potential 9/11 whistleblower who feels that you must step up. Why? Perhaps you helped install electronics needed to detonate the explosives at Building 7, while being told that all you were doing was installing a high-tech alarm system or some other harmless device. Having learned what you were really part of has made you determined to bring your 9/11 insider knowledge to light. You know that the media would be of no assistance and wonder, “Where else might I turn?” At this point (or maybe at the outset), you would consider contacting someone in a position of authority, someone who could protect you from retaliation. But who? How about former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds is one of several government employees who was severely persecuted after blowing the whistle on 9/11:

•    the office of the President of the United States, and/or Attorney General Eric Holder? Obviously, as the chief sponsor of the war on terror based on the official 9/11 myth, President Obama (assuming you could reach him) might target you for assassination under the pretext that you aided and abetted terrorists. Holder, of course, supports his President’s policies and position on 9/11.
•    Congress? The same Congress that annually approves the financing of “wars against terror” that are rooted in the 9/11 myth? You might come forward if one of the few seemingly honest former members of Congress, like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, had actually succeeded in forming a committee to investigate what really happened on 9/11. But not before. Not with your life and the safety of your family at stake. You would be further discouraged from turning to a Congressman or Senator because, as a 9/11 insider, you would have done your homework and known that Senator Tom Daschle, who proposed investigating what really happened on 9/11, and Senator Pat Leahy, who disagreed with the Bush Administration and advocated fair trials for those accused of participating in 9/11, were both targeted victims of the anthrax attacks, and that the anthrax used has been linked to U.S. military labs.
•    the Manhattan District Attorney? Surely Cy Vance could get you into some sort or witness protection program, right? Probably. But Vance has not even bothered to reply to the requests by the Remember Building 7 campaign, which produced overwhelming evidence indicating that WTC Building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition. Why, then, would he listen to you?
•    the New York City Council? While somewhat receptive to the pleas from the Remember Buidling7 campaign, they ultimately preferred not to get involved.
•    the NYPD? Not without the support of the Manhattan District Attorney (for which, see above).
•    the FBI? Hardly. Consider the case of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
•    the CIA? No. Consider the case of whistleblower Susan Lindauer.
•    the 9/11 special prosecutor? There is none. The attacks on 9/11 were declared an “Act of War” instead of a crime.
•    the World Court? Not a likely venue. “After the court ruled that the US’s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law. . . the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.” Additionally, most 9/11 researchers have concluded that the World Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

If Bradley Manning is facing decades in prison for exposing alleged war crimes, what would a 9/11 insider face for exposing the crime of the century?


So, in summary, there is nobody in a position of authority to whom you, as a 9/11 insider, could turn and simultaneously insure the safety of your family and yourself.

How about Wikileaks, the not-for-profit media organization, whose alleged goal is to bring important news and information to the public? Whatever you believe regarding Wikileaks’ real motivations, you could not find a more unreceptive audience than founder Julian Assange, who is “constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11.”

Dealing with Assange could be dangerous as well. Let’s assume you could get Wikileaks to accept that your insider testimony conclusively proves how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via controlled demolition and who was involved. What kind of treatment might you expect? A hero’s welcome, perhaps? Well, let’s consider the case of Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, who has acknowledged releasing classified military data, including the so-called “Collateral Murder” video that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and a series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by WikiLeaks. Prosecutors seek to lock Manning away for life for “aiding the enemy,” even though chat logs attributed to Manning by the FBI clearly show his intent was only to inform the public and promote “discussion, debates, and reforms.”

As a 9/11 whistleblower, would you be encouraged to bring your story to Wikileaks, given Assange’s position on 9/11 and the experiences of Bradley Manning?

So, why have no 9/11 insiders blown the whistle? In short, no effective way to reach the public, no one in a position of authority to turn to, and no assurance of adequate protection from retaliation.

Declaration against racial incitement and slander

Declaration against racial incitement and slander

To add your name to the list of signatories, send an email to the webmaster

A.  On the basis of the study No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11” by Elias Davidsson (2008), that we have carefully examined, and other similar studies, we undersigned are now convinced that the U.S. authorities did not prove [beyond reasonable doubt*] their account on the mass murder of September 11, 2001, in particular their claim that Muslims/Arabs committed this crime.

B.  The presumption of innocence, as a civilised principle, is enshrined in Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which, every person “charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (…)” While the presumption of innocence was particularly drafted to protect the rights of persons already charged of a penal offence, it evidently applies to persons who have not even been formally accused of any offence.

C.  On the basis of the above findings, we consider the publication and dissemination of the allegation that  Muslim/Arabs committed the mass murder of 9/11, as a grievous and unconscionable form of character assassination. Such an allegation violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. It also violates Articles 1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists of the International Federation of Journalists, the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), and Resolution 1003 on the ethics of journalism, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1993.

D.  We, therefore, call upon journalists to refrain henceforth from attributing, either directly or indirectly, the commission of the mass murder of 9/11 to Muslims or Arabs or to any Muslim or Islamic organisation; to publicise the unreported fact that the U.S. authorities did not produce any evidence of Muslim/Arab participation in the actual mass murder of 9/11; and to publish an apology to the families of those maligned, without foundation, for the mass murder of 9/11.

(*) The requisite standard of proof in US criminal cases

Signatories,

Zainol Abideen, President of  The Muslim Bloggers Alliance, Malaysia
Rob Balsamo, Commerical Pilot, Co-Founder, PilotsFor911Truth.org, USA
Dr. Kevin Barrett, Arabic-Islamic Studies; author, radio host. USA
Hartmut Barth-Engelbart, Author, Musician, Gruendau/Hanau, Germany
Dr. med. Eric Beeth, Brussels, Belgium
Joachim Bergerhoff, expert in urban mobility, Belgium
Suzanne Borho, Professor for English, Daegu Catholic University, South Korea
James R. Carr, Professor, Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada U.S.A.
David Chandler, Physics educator, author, video producer, Strathmore, Calif., USA
Dennis P. Cimino, Commercial pilot, USA
John B. Cobb, Jr. Prof. Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology.
Anthony Deegan, former Director for Research Engineering, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Encinitas, California, USA
Dwain Deets, Helsinki, Finland
Chris Defendorf aka DJ Green Arrow, World Record Holder for Longest Freestyle Rap, USA
Prof. Kee Dewdney, Coordinator, Physics911 site, London, Ontario, Canada
Bernd Juergen Dröge, Psychological Counselor, Muenster, Germany
John Duddy, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dr. med. Carlucci Enzo, Neuchâtel, Schweiz
Prof. James Fetzer, USA
Anneliese Fikentscher, Arbeiterfotografie, Köln, Germany
Dr. Freddy Gardiol, Honorary Professor (ret.), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Founder and former Director of the Laboratory of Electromagnetism and Acoustics at EPFL. Life Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Reinhard Gebhart, Author, Germany
Paul F. Getty, DDS (dentist), North Carolina, USA
Prof. David Ray Griffin (emer.), USA
Dr. David L Griscom, Research Physicist (ret.), Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. USA
Dr. Sabine Grund, Berlin, Germany
Nicole Guihaumé, Paris, France
Jean-Luc Guilmot, Bio-Engineer, MBA, Liège, Belgium
Anthony J. Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge, Canada
Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, Secretary General, Malaysian Muslim NGOs Consultative Council (MAPIM), Jelapang, Perak, Malaysia
Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor, Dept. of Chemistry, Univerity of Copenhagen, Denmark
Klaus Hartmann, Chairman, German Federation of Freethinkers, Germany
Andreas Hauss, historian, Germany, www.mai2.eu
Sander Hicks, media activist, community organizer and journalist, USA
T. Mark Hightower, Engineer, San Jose, CA, USA
Folker Hoffmann, Borås, Sweden, http://principiis-obsta.blogspot.com/
Carol Holland, NY 911 Truth Activist
Ingar Holst, Department of Semantics, The Ahlefeldt-Holst Center, USA
Prof. Steven Jones, American physicist
Lincoln Justice, Independent investigator, Seymour, Missouri, USA
Claudia Karas, Palästina-Forum Nahost, Frankfurt, Germany
Dr. Ed Kendrik, Charter Member of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, USA
Yakup Kilic, Musician, Berlin, Germany
Hans-Peter Koehn, Social Manager, Germany
Dr. Pétur Knútsson (ret.), University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Anthony Lawson, cameraman, film and video editor, Thailand
Gérard Lazare, video producer, Viry Châtillon, France
Frank Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Australia
Prof. Dr. David MacGregor, Canada
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, (ret.), McMaster University, Canada
Steve Meadows, Truth Activist, Austin (Texas), USA
Feroze Mithiborwala, Writer and analyst on international affairs; President: Awami Bharat, Mumbai, India
Vincent Moreau, video editor, France
Rowland Morgan, co-author of “9/11 Revealed” (London & NY, 2005), author of “Flight 93 Revealed” (London & NY, 2006), and of VOICES (internet publication 2009), Great-Britain
Dr. med. Amir Mortasawi, physician and author, Germany
Jutta Müller, Teacher, Düsseldorf, Germany
Andreas Neumann, Arbeiterfotografie, Köln Germany
Fatima Özoguz, Author and Translator, Germany
Dr. Yavuz Özuguz, Director of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, eslam.de and author, Germany
Larry L. Payne, Partner, Digital Illustrator, Castell, Texas, USA
Michael Pengue, 9/11 Truth Activist, Montreal, Canada
Joanne Pettit, Retired, Ledyard, CT, USA
Jeff Prager, Founder and Former Publisher, Senior Magazine, Minneapolis, USA
Klaus von Raussendorff, Author, Germany
Vincent Robeyns, teacher, campaigner for truth, Liège, Belgium
Ellen Rohlfs, Translator, Member of Gush Shalom, Germany
Christopher Roney Sr., former US Air Force Captain and decorated War Veteran, Urbana, Ill., USA
Dr. Erik A. Röyrvik, Research Fellow, Norway
Henk Ruyssenaars, Senior foreign correspondent, Foreign Press Foundation, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Dr. med. Pascal Sacré, Bruxelles, Belgique
Prof. Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of English, University of California, Berkeley, http://www.peterdalescott.net
Gerlinde Scherer, Ohlsbach, Germany
Donna Sket, licenced esthetician, Los Angeles, USA
John Spritzler, Sc.D., author of The People as Enemy: The Leaders’ Hidden Agenda in World War II, co-editor of www.NewDemocracyWorld.org, and author or co-author of numerous articles about HIV infection in medical journals, USA
Jón Karl Stefánsson, Manager, Tromsö, Norway
Thomas Immanuel Steinberg, Steinberg Research, Hamburg, Germany,www.SteinbergRecherche.com
Catherine Thirion, ingénieure, Pessac, France
Tom Tvedten, MD., praticing physician, founder 9/11 Truth DVD Project, Little Rock, AR, USA
Willi Uebelherr, IT engineer, Halle, Germany
Rémi Vandangeon, St. Baudel, France
Dr. med. Jens Wagner, member of the Association of Physicians Against Nuclear Arms, Stade,Germany
Dr. med. Gabriele Weber, Netzwerkerin, Cafe Palestine, Freiburg, Germany
Sabine Werner, Bonn, Germany
Steve White, carpenter and artist, Tribeca, NYC, USA
Prof. William B. Willers, Emeritus Professor of Biology, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA
Carole Wilson, Bastrop, Louisiana, USA
Gerhard Wisnewski, Journalist, Author, Munich, Germany
Anna van Wittenbergh, writer-journalist-translator, Wassenaar, the Netherlands
Wojna, Musician, Die Bandbreite, Germany
Sami Yildirim, physicist, Germany
Paul Zarembka, editor, The Hidden History of 9-11
Tristan Zilberman, technician, Saint-Martin s. Lavezon, France
Barrie Zwicker, Media critic and author, Canada

 

Courageous relative of 9/11 victim dies in plane crash

Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the USA Today
My Silence Cannot Be Bought
by Beverly Eckert
 

I’ve chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I’ve forfeited the "$1.8 million average award" for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don’t get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband’s life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.

Beverly Eckert, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, is the founder of Voices of September 11th, a victims advocacy group.

CD Editors Note: Beverly Eckert was killed on February 12, 2009 in the crash of Continental flight 3407 outside of Buffalo, New York.

Father Of 9/11 Victim Says Government Ran Attack

Another 9/11 family member has gone public to rubbish the conspiracy theory that the attacks were planned and executed by nineteen incompetent Arabs with box cutters who were getting drunk in a strip club the night before and  barely even made it to the airport on time.
Father Of 9/11 Victim Says Government Ran Attack As Media Hit Pieces Continue
Emotional shell game accusation of ‘disgracing victim’s memories’ doesn’t jive anymore

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 4 2006

Another 9/11 family member has gone public to rubbish the conspiracy theory that the attacks were planned and executed by nineteen incompetent Arabs with box cutters who were getting drunk in a strip club the night before and  barely even made it to the airport on time. Meanwhile, hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement continue in the lead up to the fifth anniversary of the event.

A familiar emotional shell game on the part of the debunkers is to proclaim that questioning any aspect of 9/11 disgraces the memory of the victims. This tactic is clearly not working anymore especially in light of the fact that Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members – says that half now completely distrust the official version of events.

Bob McIlvaine’s son Bobby was working for Merrill Lynch in the 103rd floor of the south tower when Flight 175 struck. He was likely one of the unfortunate individuals who obeyed the Port Authority’s ridiculous order for workers to stay in the building and not evacuate even after Flight 11 had ploughed into the north tower.

McIlvaine is convinced that the attacks were an inside job orchestrated by elements within the US government.

"Today, there are no ifs or buts in my mind that this was an inside job. The US government orchestrated it with the help of MI6 and Pakistan and Mossad. What they are telling us is bullshit. The hijackers were patsies and Osama bin Laden was set up," McIlvaine told the London Independent.

McIlvaine has since devoted his life to educating others on what really happened on 9/11.

Despite the best efforts of Jewish American Adam Yehiye Gadahn to propagandize the reality of the Al-Qaeda myth, Americans are becoming increasingly skeptical of 9/11 and if the recent rash of hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement are anything to go by, the establishment is stricken with concern.

There were another two major 9/11 semi-debunking pieces over the weekend, one in the San Francisco Chronicle and one in Reuters. Expect a deluge of them for the next two weeks as the five year anniversary comes to pass.

The most incongruous sentence from the Chronicle piece is where CIA involvement in 9/11 is characterized as "the epitome of preposterous beliefs that start with a conclusion and work backward to find evidence."

Wasn’t it media talking heads and government officials in the hours after the attacks who were reading off the same script and ascribing blame to Bin Laden with no substantiating evidence? Did they then not present alleged "evidence" to work backward to the already pre-determined conclusion? So-called evidence that is insufficient to federally indict Bin Laden for involvement in 9/11 five years after the attack – despite the fact that it took less than three months to indict him for the 1998 embassy bombings.

Message from the Family Steering Commitee for the 9/11 Independent Commission

Should Americans be prevented from seeing what information is being withheld from them in the 9/11 Independent Commission’s Final Report?

http://www.coalitionof911families.org/default.asp”Page%20Name=News%20Story&Mode=Build&NewsID=64

Message from the Family Steering Commitee for the 9/11 Independent Commission

 
The Family Steering Committee For the 9/11 Independent Commission Statement Regarding the Need for an Extension to January 10, 2005

February 3, 2004

It is a fact that: It took over one year to get the 9/11 Independent Commission created. The Commission now finds itself behind schedule, unable to meet its mandate and unprepared to issue a complete and comprehensive Final Report by May 27, 2004.

The FSC supports an extension to January 2005. A pre-mature termination of this Commission will place this nation at risk. Prior to this Commission terminating its investigation, the Commission must:

Fulfill its legislative mandate of fully investigating the attacks of 9/11 and going wherever the facts may lead;

Court prevents release of most September 11 emergency calls

Court prevents release of most September 11 emergency calls

Privacy concerns outweigh public interest, judges rule

By Deborah Feyerick
and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Thursday, March 24, 2005 Posted: 2017 GMT (0417 HKT)

(CNN) — The emergency phone calls made by people trapped inside the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, need not be released to the public, a New York court ruled Thursday.

The New York State Court of Appeals declined to grant the wish of September 11 families who joined in a lawsuit seeking release of all tapes and transcripts of calls made from inside the Twin Towers to 9-1-1 operators.

“We are not persuaded that such disclosure is required by the public interest,” the judges said in their ruling.

Instead, it agreed only to the release of calls from any relatives of the eight families who joined a lawsuit, originally filed by The New York Times as part of a request under the freedom of information law.

The families sought release of the 9-1-1 calls possessed by the Fire Department of New York, along with department dispatcher calls and interviews with firefighters who participated in the September 11 rescue effort.

The court did order the release of 511 interviews with September 11 firefighters.

It ordered that the oral histories be disclosed except for “specifically identified portions that can be shown likely to cause serious pain or embarrassment to an interviewee.”

The fire department also will be required to release some internal communications between dispatchers and other employees — those with “factual statements or instructions affecting the public” but none disclosing “opinions and recommendations.”

The FDNY had resisted the disclosures, citing privacy concerns.

The appeals court disagreed with families whose attorneys argued in a hearing last month in Albany that public interest outweighed privacy protection of those who died in the attacks.

Although 9-1-1 calls might contain previously undisclosed factual information about what was happening inside the towers, the judges wrote, “it is normal to be appalled if intimate moments in the life of one’s deceased child, wife, husband, or other close relative become publicly known, and an object of idle curiosity or a source of titillation.”

Referring to the calls, they said, “Those words are likely to include expression of the terror and agony the callers felt and of their deepest feelings about what their lives and their families meant to them. The grieving family of such a caller — or the caller, if he or she survived — might reasonably be deeply offended at the idea that these words could be heard on television or read in The New York Times.”

No families came forward to oppose the release.

Norm Siegel, an attorney for the eight families who sought full disclosure, said they will seek affidavits from other families authorizing the release of additional 9-1-1 calls.

“We won a lot, but there are things we didn’t get,” Siegel said.

The FDNY also sought to block the release of six unidentified tapes and transcripts selected by federal prosecutors as evidence in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person facing trial in the United States for the September 11 attacks.

The court rejected the concern, saying the release of these calls would not affect the ability to seat an impartial jury.

The 9/11 commission, which had access to the FDNY tapes, found significant flaws in the city’s 9-1-1 system and recommended improvements.

Spanish Reporters Affirm no Aircraft Crashed into the Pentagon

9/11: New Evidences
Spanish Reporters Affirm no Aircraft Crashed into the Pentagon

by Sandro Cruz*

Two best sellers published in Spain affirmed the official version of the tragic September 11, 2001 attacks given by the American authorities were false and manipulated. The Spanish press and public opinion have accepted and welcomed these investigations.

13 September 2004

 

September 11th, 2001

11-S Historia de una infamia (9/11: the History of a Sacrilege) and Jefe Atta, el secreto de la Casa Blanca (Chief Atta, the Secret of the White House) the two books published in Spain

It’s been three years since the attacks perpetrated by aircrafts and which took the lives of about three thousand people destroyed the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York. The “official version” of the American government immediately blamed Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaid terrorist networks without any single evidence that can yet prove his guilt.

Motivated by the great silence of the American government regarding the attacks, Thierry Meyssan, the French researcher and journalist, director of Red Voltaire, published, three months after 9/11, two books titled:

Some Unanswered Questions by the Family Steering Committee

Some Unanswered Questions by the Family Steering Committee


The Family Steering Committee Statement and Questions
Regarding the 9/11 Commission Interview with President Bush

Statement and Questions 1-23 submitted February 16, 2004 to the Congressional Inquiry Commission
Questions 24-39 submitted March 18, 2004 to the Congressional Inquiry Commission

The Family Steering Committee believes that President Bush should provide sworn public testimony to the full ten-member panel of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States . Collectively, the Commissioners are responsible for fulfilling the Congressional mandate. Therefore, each Commissioner must have full access to the testimony of all individuals and the critical information that will enable informed decisions and recommendations.

Before an audience of the American people, the Commission must ask President Bush in sworn testimony, the following questions:

1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

3. What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th? What time were these orders given, and to whom? What orders were carried out? What was the result of such orders? Were any such orders not carried out?

4. In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center.

6. Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th.

7. What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack? Approximately how long did you remain in the classroom after Card’s message?

8. At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?

9. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton administration and your own, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information (either verbal or written) about terrorists, possible attacks and targets, did you receive from any source?

This would include briefings or communications from

? Out-going Clinton officials
? CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other intelligence agencies
? Foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys
? National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
? Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar

10. Specifically, what did you learn from the August 6, 2001, PDB about the terrorist threat that was facing our nation? Did you request any follow-up action to take place? Did you request any further report be developed and/or prepared?

11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?

12. What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States? Did you prepare any directives in response to these actions? If so, with what results?

13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL? If so, what resulted?

14. Your schedule for September 11, 2001 was in the public domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma E. Booker School is only five miles from the Bradenton Airport, so you, and therefore the children in the classroom, might have been a target for the terrorists on 9/11. What was the intention of the Secret Service in allowing you to remain in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, even though they were aware America was under attack?

15. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children?

16. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11th? Was Air Force One at any time during the day of September 11th a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One’s code ever breached on September 11th?

17. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed to allow military jets to arrive?

18. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9/11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?

19. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when all commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially, when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege – a privilege not available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9/11?

20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?

21. Please comment on the fact that UBL?s profile on the FBI?s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does not include the 9/11 attacks. To your knowledge, when was the last time any agent of our government had contact with UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what was the date of that contact and what was the context of said meeting.

22. Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda? What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?

23. Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11?   Please state specifically how you think they have benefited.

24. After the first WTC building was struck, did you receive any information directly or indirectly from the Secret Service agents located in WTC 7?

   ? If so, what information did you receive?
   ? Did the Secret Service agents or anyone else accompanying you attempt to call the New York City Secret Service office for information?
   ? Did the Secret Service agents or anyone else accompanying you attempt to call the Washington Secret Service office?
   ? Who provided you information, directly or indirectly, and what exactly was that information?

25. Please describe the role and influence of the President’s Foreign Advisory Council in establishing the administration’s counterterrorism policies.

26. In Feb 28, 2001, you released your economic blueprint and stated "to improve INS’ focus on service and to reduce the delays in INS processing of immigration applications, the administration proposes a universal 6-month standard for processing all immigration applications." Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, did you or anyone else implement this processing goal in any way? Were any directives, orders or policy guidelines given to INS personnel relating to this issue by anyone?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud14.html

27. During the second presidential debate on Oct. 11, 2000, as a Presidential candidate you responded to a question about racial discrimination and said that " …there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab Americans are racially profiled in what’s called "secret evidence".
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/2ndebate3.html

28. On Feb 28, 2001, you issued a memorandum on racial profiling to Attorney General Ashcroft, stating; "I hereby direct you to review the use by Federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches, and other investigative procedures."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010228-1.html

To your knowledge, were directives or communications issued, through Attorney General Ashcroft or anyone else, to any federal agencies, or to any individuals or offices of any agencies, that concerned the racial profiling Arabs or Muslims?      ? Could prohibition of racial profiling have been a factor in the FBI Headquarters personnel continually and “inexplicably? throwing up “roadblocks” and even undermining the field agents? “desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant in the Moussaoui investigation.”
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

29. In the first few weeks of the Bush administration it has been reported that Andrew Card, Chief of Staff required that all regulations (passed down by the Clinton administration) that had not yet been issued had to be reviewed anew by an official appointed by the new administration, generally, the department secretary.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-4.html

   ? Before adopting this blanket policy that delayed the implementation of regulations, did anyone in your administration have any concerns about delaying those that related to security issues, such as National Security or aircraft/airport security?
   ? Was any special course of action taken regarding these regulations?

30. In July, 2001, an executive order was issued which “blocks all property and interests in property of the Taliban and prohibits trade-related transactions by United States persons involving the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010702-10.html

Please discuss the American government’s role and position, either officially or unofficially in discussions/negotiations with the Taliban in 2001 and their timing and appropriateness with respect to the executive order of July 2, 2001 mentioned above. According to an article in Salon, 6-05-02:

“The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/index_np.html

   ? Who else was involved in those discussions/negotiations?
   ? What was the outcome?
   ? What promises or threats were made?

31. Please discuss the National Security Presidential Directive presented for your approval on September 9, 2001, which outlined plans for attacking al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"[Plans had been drawn up by the] Clinton administration to launch an attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Those plans were shelved when Bush took office, but were revived and accelerated in August 2001, following the breakdown of the pipeline negotiations. By the beginning of September 2001, the war plans had been approved by the Pentagon. On September 9 a National Security Presidential Directive outlining plans for an attack the following month, was presented to President Bush for approval."
http://pmdtc.org/docs/frnotices/66FR23310.PDF
http://www.jimpivonka.com/unpublished/forbiddentruthrev.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

   ? Who else was involved in those discussions/negotiations?
   ? What was the outcome?
   ? What promises or threats were made?

32. Please explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation.
http://www.rense.com/general25/ggg.htm

33. Please explain the reasoning which prompted the Executive Order governing the release of Presidential Records, including those of previous administrations, which could conceivably include historically important documents pertinent to the September 11th investigation.   http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_records_let.pdf

34. When did you first become aware of “Rebuilding Americ Defenses?( RAD) proposed by the New American Centurx’s (PNAC)? Who introduced it to you?

35. After September 11th, you seemed to have fully embraced the RAD plan. Please comment on these observations:

"Bush has virtually used, word for word, the written statements by PNAC members when he speaks publicly about Iraq crisis?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0227hellbent.htm

“Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year’s budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement? Bush’s National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption? There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

36. On February 29, 2004, the Seattle Times ran this headline “U.S. changes tactics, adds forces in hunt for bin Laden” and went on to say, “President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden”? Please explain why there has not been a consistently intense push since September 11th to capture or kill bin Laden.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001867838_binladen29.html

37. Why was author, Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War permitted access to confidential PDBs while the Joint Inquiry, and subsequently, the Commission, was not?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2003/03/030403.html
http://video.msnbc.com/id/4304339

38. Please explain why the White House has not demanded that the 19 recommendations made by the Joint Inquiry either be fully enacted or discussed via hearings?

39. What type of federal rescue measures are in place in the event of an attack on our nation, in terms of personnel and equipment?

 Part 1: Bush Administration

National Security Council

March 18, 2004

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States

1. Please discuss the advice and plans of the Energy Advisory Council specifically as they relate to pipeline development and gas/oil exploration in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and the feasibility of such development or exploration specifically in those two countries in 2001.   http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Bates/02-340.pdf

2., Please describe any discussions/negotiations between the Taliban and either public or private agents prior to September 11th regarding Osama bin Laden and/or rights to pass a pipeline through Afghanistan, or any other subject pertaining to Afghanistan.

“Specifically, what were the discussions/negotiations about?
“Expand upon the discussions, agreements, or threatening remarks that were reportedly made? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/index_np.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

3. On the morning of September 11th, when did you first become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you?

4. Besides ensuring the succession to the Presidency, is there a defense protocol to follow in the event our nation is attacked? Was it followed?
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/nd01/nd01schwartz.html http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm

5. What subsequent actions did you take to defend our nation?

“Did you have open lines with the Secret Service, NORAD, the FAA and DOD?
“Who was in the Situation Room with you?
“Was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld or anyone at the Pentagon informed that we were under attack? If so, at what time was the Pentagon informed? If not Rumsfeld, who?
“Why wasn’t the Pentagon defended?
“Did you consult with President Bush about all decisions?

6. Was the order given to shoot down Flight 93?

7. Please explain your opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request that Senator Daschle quash an investigation.
http://www.rense.com/general25/ggg.htm

8. The Hart Rudman Report was released in January, 2001, which predicted a catastrophic terrorist attack within the United States. Yet the White House apparently set aside the recommendations and announced in May that you would study the issue of domestic terrorism. Apparently, responsibility for dealing with the problem was then passed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Director, Joe Allbaugh. Congress had been willing to support the recommendations. http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html
http://www.mipt.org/srchnatlstrat03272001c.asp

“In addressing the issue of domestic terrorism, which you were asked to oversee by President Bush in May, 2001, whom did you consult and/or from whom did you request briefings?
“What were your findings on the threat level?
“What recommendations for improved security resulted from your study of domestic terrorism? When were they made and to whom?
“What coordinated plans of action, directives or protocols developed as a result?
“Were those recommendations carried out following the September 11th attacks?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/rrr/frp/frp2003.pdf

9. Why were the recommendations of the Hart Rudman Report ignored?
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html

10. Were you given Cipro on the evening of September 11? If so, why?

“At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won’t discuss that, or who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now?
On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was a precaution, according to one person directly involved.” http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2001/ap102401.html

11. Please provide the names of anyone else who received Cipro in advance of the anthrax attacks.

12. What level of support can the 9/11 Commission expect with regard to enacting the changes that they recommend?

 FSC Recommended List of Witnesses and Questions

Revised March 18, 2004

Part 2: Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

George Tenet, Director of the CIA

1. Why didn’t the CIA share vital information about the terrorists with the FBI?

2. Is the October 31, 2001 story by Le Figaro true which wrote of Osama bin Laden meeting with a CIA officer in Dubai in July, 2001?
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

? If so, why wasn’t he taken into custody?

* Recommendation: The Commission should contact Dr, Terry Callaway, the Canadian surgeon, reported to have been treating Bin Laden at the Dubai hospital for a kidney disorder, to request information about bin Laden’s medical condition and about whether he is aware of a meeting between bin Laden and a local CIA operative in July , 2001.

The Commission should also interview that Dubai CIA operative who was recalled to headquarters on July 15, 2001.

3. According Senator Ike Skelton (D- Missouri) in an interview on National Public Radio on the morning of September 11th, 2001, you had recently warned Congress of an imminent attack? “So this is not entirely unexpected.”
http://www.thememoryhole.org/tenet-911.htm

“What intelligence prompted you to draw that conclusion?
“When was this information shared with Congress?
“Specifically, what information about an imminent attack was shared with Congress?
“Was any of this information shared with any member of the National Security Council?
       

Families of airlines’ victims strangely silent

Family Members of the Doomed 9/11 Flights ‘Strangely Silent’ About Irregularities and Inconsistencies of Official Government Story

Except for Ellen Mariani, whose husband was reported on Flight 175, others who lost relatives on the airplanes have kept quiet in stark contrast to those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero. But when those from the ‘airplane community’ talk like Linda Gay and Frank Calley, who respectively had family members on Flight 11 and 77, they accept the government 9/11 story hook, line and sinker.

18 Nov 2005

 

By Greg Szymanski

 

Linda Gay believes her husband died in the fiery crash on Flight 11, believes the government conducted a fair investigation and blames the entire event on President Clinton who had eight years to catch Osama bin laden but failed.

 

Gay lost her husband, Peter, 54, a vice president of Raytheon Co. on 9/11. Four years later, she still lives in Tewksbury, Mass., claiming as she did right after the tragic event, she is satisfied with her government’s efforts at getting at the truth behind 9/11, satisfied with the money she received from the victim’s compensation fund and satisfied with not pursuing her husband’s death any further.

 

“I guess I am different than most people, but I just don’t believe in suing the airlines or the government over something they couldn’t control,” said Gay this week in a rare conversation this week from her home in Tewksbury, as she reflected back about the death of her husband, a top executive with a defense technology company doing business with the Pentagon.

 

“Looking back, one thing strange was that the night before the flight and the early morning on 9/11, Peter seemed more reluctant than usual to leave for California on business like he did every Tuesday for the last year.

 

“He was the type that didn’t like to be away from home, but on 9/11 he seemed more apprehensive about leaving than usual. The last thing we said was the normal goodbyes before he took the limousine and that was it. I never saw him again and had it confirmed he was on Flight 11 late in the afternoon at 2p.m. when American Airlines called.”

 

Giving a rare interview, Gax’s belief in the official 9/11 story and her reluctance to speak out is a pattern seen among many of the families of those who died on the four doomed airliners.

 

In fact, save Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband on Flight 175, the rest of the jetliner family community has never publicly questioned the government’s official 9/11 story and has pretty much stayed quiet in the background, out of the public eye.

 

What makes this surprising, if not downright suspicious, is that it is in stark contrast to the majority of family members who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, a group that has hundreds of outspoken critics of the government’s official story, a group unafraid to publicly blame the Bush administration for being the real culprits behind 9/11.

 

For example, there are literally hundreds of survivors and family members from Ground Zero who protest the government regularly, saying Bush and the neo-cons are hiding the truth about 9/11 to protect their own skin.

 

But in stark contrast only Mariani has gone public with her disgust of the government from the airline group, a fact that shouldn’t be ignored when trying to unweave the complex web of deceit woven by the neo-con culprits behind 9/11.

 

Take, for example, the across the board silence from the airline family community who has never really spoken out about obvious irregularities in the flights themselves, NORAD?s slow response, flight manifest irregularities and, basically, the total lack of a serious investigation regarding their missing relative.

 

If we want to believe Gay, the answer is simple: total trust in the government and the system. But if we want to look farther, we may find the silence among the flight family community as the tip of the iceberg behind the entire 9/11 mystery.

 

Take, for example, the simple law of averages. Doesn’t it make sense that at least a handful out of the approximately 261 who died on the planes would have had a few family members as outspoken critics?

 

But besides this strange veil of silence blanketing the entire group, there are many other stranger things concerning the airline families, a series of unexplainable facts and occurrences that draws attention to what may be the “Achilles heel” of the 9/11 mystery if, that is, investigators dig deep enough.

 

First, the Arctic Beacon has tried to contact at least 10 airline family members besides Gay, all who have repeatedly refused to answer the telephone or return emails. Julie Sweeney, whose husband, Brian, a former Navy F-14 pilot on Flight 175 who made two calls prior to the plane supposedly hitting the South Tower, said she was too busy to talk, acting apprehensive and wondering how the Arctic Beacon got her phone number.

 

After making an phone appointment the next day, Sweeney at the time of this publication failed to answer the phone at least 10 times, a sign she no longer wanted to speak after having time to reflect on the situation.

 

In contrast, family members who experienced Ground Zero losses have been more than happy to speak, as over a hundred family members of Ground Zero victims have been contacted by the Arctic Beacon, and even more by pother publications, with an overwhelming majority having no problem to talk openly about their loss and their feelings about the 9/11 investigation. 

 

Why the difference? There are no polls or experts to figure this out, but one simple explanation is the flight families are hiding something. Although this may be jumping to conclusions, what other conclusion can be drawn when nobody wants to talk?

 


Besides these speculations, it also should be noted that several psychologists and psychiatrists contacted said the typical reaction to a loss of a loved one in a situation like 9/11 is to strip all allegiance to state, country and employer, as the only motivation left for those who have paid the ultimate price is getting at the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

However, strangely, the reaction by the 9/11 airline community, less Mariani, is just the opposite. Let’s look at some of the glaring oddities about the airplane family members and why the government’s story should have at least sparked some doubt among them:

 

Remember Gay and those who remained silent, as the law construes silence as consent, believe or give the appearance to believe the official government story hook, line and sinker, despite the existence of credible evidence Flight 11 and 77 never even existed and, for all intents and purposes, may very well have been only “phantom flights.”

 

According to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) statistics both flights officially never took- off on 9/11, as well as showing no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time. However, Flights 11 and 77 on both 9/10 and 9/12 had all the recorded data properly logged.

 

Why the discrepancy?  No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely meticulous about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

 

But, more importantly, if this is a clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only “phantom flights” and never existed, why then wouldn’t some of the family members publicly voice their concerns?

 

Four years after 9/11, the answer still remains a guarded mystery, but then there is a lot of mysterious evidence regarding the flights, or the absence thereof, which has never been answered.

 

For example, why hasn’t the government turned over airport surveillance tapes, readily available for all flights, but suspiciously unavailable for all of the four doomed flights on 9/11? Again, why hasn’t there been a public outcry by the 9/11 family airplane community when obvious information regarding their loved ones is being withheld?

 

This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg: Start with the obvious “pod? hanging from the underbelly of the airplane that struck the South Tower, the airplane purported by the government to be Flight 175.

 

However, after looking at the video footage taken by CNN, pictures on Newsweek magazine and other video tapes, it’s obvious what hit the South Tower wasn’t Flight 175, but actually a military “drone? made to look like it. And it should be noted that when United Airlines was asked to respond about the strange existence of the “pod” that the airliner’s underbelly, officials didn’t deny its existence but simply refused to answer, citing national security as an excuse.

 

But, again a major question is why with this glaring evidence staring the whole world in the face, hasn’t the real people with a vested interest and loss ? the airline family members — demanded a public investigation?

 

Why? For the same reason they haven’t, excluding perhaps Mariani, demanded an investigation into the BTS records, the missing surveillance tapes, NORAD?s pitiful response time, unsubstantiated autopsy reports, miraculous evidence and personal belongings recovered from the wreckage and glaring inconsistencies concerning the actual flight lists, not to mention the fact that seven of the 19 hijackers are reportedly alive, well and living abroad.

 

However, specifically concerning the recovery of “miraculous evidence” and discrepancies in the flight lists, one of the most interesting cases is that of Waleed Iskandar, purported to be a passenger on Flight 11.

 

As unbelievable as it sounds, Iskandar’s parents were notified by the Ground Zero Recovery Team a year after 9/11 that they found the unscathed Wells Fargo ATM card of their son, who allegedly perished on the doomed flight.
 
After being notified of the miraculous find, Joseph and Samia Iskandar were sent their son’s bank card within days, noting it was in “perfect condition,” but never really publicly questioned the late timing of the incredible find or the suspicious nature of a flimsy ATM card surviving such a towering inferno.

 

What’s even more suspicious is that their son, a 34-year-old Harvard graduate, was never even listed as a passenger on Flight 11, either on the original manifest or on the official list provided by American Airlines, even though every reference to him afterwards on internet memorials or in newspaper accounts lists him as a Flight 11 passenger.

 

One would think, Iskandar’s family would have publicly questioned the numerous errors and discrepancies concerning Flight 11 and, of course,  the official passenger list which never listed their son. But instead they have remained silent, his parents even failing  to return over 25 messages left and emails sent over a two-week period concerning these very important issues. 

 

“It’s only my opinion but if that was my son, I?d be raising holy hell about the crazy government investigation and the information withheld about Flight 11,” said one 9/11 family member who lost a loved one, but wanted to remain anonymous.

 

Besides the strange silence from the Iskandar’s, the miraculous recovery of Flight 77 passenger, Suzanne Callex’s, California ID card, driver’s license and wedding ring, all found in perfect condition at the Pentagon, has also been accepted without questions asked by her surviving husband, Frank. Despite numerous questions regarding Flight 77 and the Pentagon crash, Callex’s husband  believes the government has done its level best when it came to the handling of his wife’s case, his wife’s military autopsy and subsequent government investigation into the Pentagon crash.

 

And it’s hard to believe Calley and the other Flight 77 family members haven’t been screaming from the rafters, demanding justice after looking at the facts of the secret investigation and the glaring inconsistencies concerning the military autopsy performed under the cloak of darkness.

But, again, Calley and the others seem to be in 100 percent agreement with the Pentagon since none of them have so much as whispered criticism against a government investigation lacking obvious credibility.

To make the point clear, here is exactly what Calley had to say about the Pentagon investigation and a run-down of the discrepancies in the Pentagon autopsy of the alleged Flight 77 victims as reported last week in the Arctic Beacon:

As told to another family member who lost a loved one in 9/11, Calley said:

“They told me they found her remains, but I decided not to look. The Pentagon officials also said the remains of at least 19 others on board the plane were also identified by a military medical group.
 
“Immediately after the crash, I was assigned a personal liaison who handled my case. He was cooperative and helpful and I decided I didn’t want to see Suzanne’s remains.”

 

What’s strange about the autopsy investigation is that none of the family members, including Calley, have demanded an independent investigation, relying solely on government medical reporting as advised by the Pentagon liaisons, a personal military attach

Family Members Of Doomed 911 Flights ‘Strangely Silent’

 Family Members Of Doomed  911 Flights ‘Strangely Silent’
About Irregularities &  Inconsistencies Of
Official Government Story
 
Except for Ellen Mariani, whose husband was reported on Flight 175, others who lost relatives on the airplanes have kept quiet in stark contrast to those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero. But when those from the ‘airplane community’ talk like Linda Gay and Frank Calley, who respectively had family members on Flight 11 and 77, they accept the government 9/11 story hook, line and sinker.
 

By Greg Szymanski
18 November 2005

http://www.rense.com/general68/doomed.htm

 
Linda Gay believes her husband died in the fiery crash on Flight 11, believes the government conducted a fair investigation and blames the entire event on President Clinton who had eight years to catch Osama bin laden but failed.
 
Gay lost her husband, Peter, 54, a vice president of Raytheon Co. on 9/11. Four years later, she still lives in Tewksbury, Mass., claiming as she did right after the tragic event, she is satisfied with her government’s efforts at getting at the truth behind 9/11, satisfied with the money she received from the victim’s compensation fund and satisfied with not pursuing her husband’s death any further.
 
"I guess I am different than most people, but I just don’t believe in suing the airlines or the government over something they couldn’t control," said Gay this week in a rare conversation this week from her home in Tewksbury, as she reflected back about the death of her husband, a top executive with a defense technology company doing business with the Pentagon.
 
"Looking back, one thing strange was that the night before the flight and the early morning on 9/11, Peter seemed more reluctant than usual to leave for California on business like he did every Tuesday for the last year.
 
"He was the type that didn’t like to be away from home, but on 9/11 he seemed more apprehensive about leaving than usual. The last thing we said was the normal goodbyes before he took the limousine and that was it. I never saw him again and had it confirmed he was on Flight 11 late in the afternoon at 2p.m. when American Airlines called."
 
Giving a rare interview, Gay’s belief in the official 9/11 story and her reluctance to speak out is a pattern seen among many of the families of those who died on the four doomed airliners.
 
In fact, save Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband on Flight 175, the rest of the jetliner family community has never publicly questioned the government’s official 9/11 story and has pretty much stayed quiet in the background, out of the public eye.
 
What makes this surprising, if not downright suspicious, is that it is in stark contrast to the majority of family members who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, a group that has hundreds of outspoken critics of the government’s official story, a group unafraid to publicly blame the Bush administration for being the real culprits behind 9/11.
 
For example, there are literally hundreds of survivors and family members from Ground Zero who protest the government regularly, saying Bush and the neo-cons are hiding the truth about 9/11 to protect their own skin.
 
But in stark contrast only Mariani has gone public with her disgust of the government from the airline group, a fact that shouldn’t be ignored when trying to unweave the complex web of deceit woven by the neo-con culprits behind 9/11.
 
Take, for example, the across the board silence from the airline family community who has never really spoken out about obvious irregularities in the flights themselves, NORAD’s slow response, flight manifest irregularities and, basically, the total lack of a serious investigation regarding their missing relative.
 
If we want to believe Gay, the answer is simple: total trust in the government and the system. But if we want to look farther, we may find the silence among the flight family community as the tip of the iceberg behind the entire 9/11 mystery.
 
Take, for example, the simple law of averages. Doesn’t it make sense that at least a handful out of the approximately 261 who died on the planes would have had a few family members as outspoken critics?
 
But besides this strange veil of silence blanketing the entire group, there are many other stranger things concerning the airline families, a series of unexplainable facts and occurrences that draws attention to what may be the ‘Achilles heel’ of the 9/11 mystery if, that is, investigators dig deep enough.
 
First, the Arctic Beacon has tried to contact at least 10 airline family members besides Gay, all who have repeatedly refused to answer the telephone or return emails. Julie Sweeney, whose husband, Brian, a former Navy F-14 pilot on Flight 175 who made two calls prior to the plane supposedly hitting the South Tower, said she was too busy to talk, acting apprehensive and wondering how the Arctic Beacon got her phone number.
 
After making an phone appointment the next day, Sweeney at the time of this publication failed to answer the phone at least 10 times, a sign she no longer wanted to speak after having time to reflect on the situation.
 
In contrast, family members who experienced Ground Zero losses have been more than happy to speak, as over a hundred family members of Ground Zero victims have been contacted by the Arctic Beacon, and even more by pother publications, with an overwhelming majority having no problem to talk openly about their loss and their feelings about the 9/11 investigation.
 
Why the difference? There are no polls or experts to figure this out, but one simple explanation is the flight families are hiding something. Although this may be jumping to conclusions, what other conclusion can be drawn when nobody wants to talk?
 
Besides these speculations, it also should be noted that several psychologists and psychiatrists contacted said the typical reaction to a loss of a loved one in a situation like 9/11 is to strip all allegiance to state, country and employer, as the only motivation left for those who have paid the ultimate price is getting at the truth and nothing but the truth.
 
However, strangely, the reaction by the 9/11 airline community, less Mariani, is just the opposite. Let’s look at some of the glaring oddities about the airplane family members and why the government’s story should have at least sparked some doubt among them:
 
Remember Gay and those who remained silent, as the law construes silence as consent, believe or give the appearance to believe the official government story hook, line and sinker, despite the existence of credible evidence Flight 11 and 77 never even existed and, for all intents and purposes, may very well have been only ‘phantom flights.’
 
According to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) statistics both flights officially never took- off on 9/11, as well as showing no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time. However, Flights 11 and 77 on both 9/10 and 9/12 had all the recorded data properly logged.
 
Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely meticulous about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.
 
But, more importantly, if this is a clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only ‘phantom flights" and never existed, why then wouldn’t some of the family members publicly voice their concerns?
 
Four years after 9/11, the answer still remains a guarded mystery, but then there is a lot of mysterious evidence regarding the flights, or the absence thereof, which has never been answered.
 
For example, why hasn’t the government turned over airport surveillance tapes, readily available for all flights, but suspiciously unavailable for all of the four doomed flights on 9/11? Again, why hasn’t there been a public outcry by the 9/11 family airplane community when obvious information regarding their loved ones is being withheld?
 
This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg: Start with the obvious "pod" hanging from the underbelly of the airplane that struck the South Tower, the airplane purported by the government to be Flight 175.
 
However, after looking at the video footage taken by CNN, pictures on Newsweek magazine and other video tapes, it’s obvious what hit the South Tower wasn’t Flight 175, but actually a military "drone" made to look like it. And it should be noted that when United Airlines was asked to respond about the strange existence of the "pod" on the airliner’s underbelly, officials didn’t deny its existence but simply refused to answer, citing national security as an excuse.
 
But, again a major question is why with this glaring evidence staring the whole world in the face, hasn’t the real people with a vested interest and loss – the airline family members — demanded a public investigation?
 
Why? For the same reason they haven’t, excluding perhaps Mariani, demanded an investigation into the BTS records, the missing surveillance tapes, NORAD’s pitiful response time, unsubstantiated autopsy reports, miraculous evidence and personal belongings recovered from the wreckage and glaring inconsistencies concerning the actual flight lists, not to mention the fact that seven of the 19 hijackers are reportedly alive, well and living abroad.
 
However, specifically concerning the recovery of ‘miraculous evidence’ and discrepancies in the flight lists, one of the most interesting cases is that of Waleed Iskandar, purported to be a passenger on Flight 11.
 
As unbelievable as it sounds, Iskandar’s parents were notified by the Ground Zero Recovery Team a year after 9/11 that they found the unscathed Wells Fargo ATM card of their son, who allegedly perished on the doomed flight.
 
After being notified of the miraculous find, Joseph and Samia Iskandar were sent their son’s bank card within days, noting it was in "perfect condition," but never really publicly questioned the late timing of the incredible find or the suspicious nature of a flimsy ATM card surviving such a towering inferno.
 
What’s even more suspicious is that their son, a 34-year-old Harvard graduate, was never even listed as a passenger on Flight 11, either on the original manifest or on the official list provided by American Airlines, even though every reference to him afterwards on internet memorials or in newspaper accounts lists him as a Flight 11 passenger.
 
One would think, Iskandar’s family would have publicly questioned the numerous errors and discrepancies concerning Flight 11 and, of course, the official passenger list which never listed their son. But instead they have remained silent, his parents even failing to return over 25 messages left and emails sent over a two-week period concerning these very important issues.
 
"It’s only my opinion but if that was my son, I’d be raising holy hell about the crazy government investigation and the information withheld about Flight 11," said one 9/11 family member who lost a loved one, but wanted to remain anonymous.
 
Besides the strange silence from the Iskandar’s, the miraculous recovery of Flight 77 passenger, Suzanne Calley’s, California ID card, driver’s license and wedding ring, all found in perfect condition at the Pentagon, has also been accepted without questions asked by her surviving husband, Frank. Despite numerous questions regarding Flight 77 and the Pentagon crash, Calley’s husband believes the government has done its level best when it came to the handling of his wife’s case, his wife’s military autopsy and subsequent government investigation into the Pentagon crash.
 
And it’s hard to believe Calley and the other Flight 77 family members haven’t been screaming from the rafters, demanding justice after looking at the facts of the secret investigation and the glaring inconsistencies concerning the military autopsy performed under the cloak of darkness.
 
But, again, Calley and the others seem to be in 100 percent agreement with the Pentagon since none of them have so much as whispered criticism against a government investigation lacking obvious credibility.
 
To make the point clear, here is exactly what Calley had to say about the Pentagon investigation and a run-down of the discrepancies in the Pentagon autopsy of the alleged Flight 77 victims as reported last week in the Arctic Beacon:
 
As told to another family member who lost a loved one in 9/11, Calley said:
 
"They told me they found her remains, but I decided not to look. The Pentagon officials also said the remains of at least 19 others on board the plane were also identified by a military medical group.
 
"Immediately after the crash, I was assigned a personal liaison who handled my case. He was cooperative and helpful and I decided I didn’t want to see Suzanne’s remains."
 
What’s strange about the autopsy investigation is that none of the family members, including Calley, have demanded an independent investigation, relying solely on government medical reporting as advised by the Pentagon liaisons, a personal military attach

Nine hundred and Eleven Missing Pieces


Nine hundred and Eleven Missing Pieces

What don’t we know, and why don’t we know it?

New York Press
Vol 16 – Issue 53 – 31 Dec. 2003 – 6 Jan. 2004

By Alan Cabal

The Southern Solstice has passed, and with it the deadline for 9/11 families to file their claims with the "Feinberg Fund," as it has come to be known. Of an official death toll of 2976, claims have been filed by for 2,851. The claim involves signing off on any future litigation against the government, the airlines, the airports or any security firms.

One hundred and twenty-five claims remain outstanding, but little has been written about any of these families. Where is the coverage of those insisting on finding out what really happened on that day before they sign away their "claims?"

First to stand up were five widows: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken. Breitweiser’s husband was killed in his office at Fiduciary Trust on the 94th floor of the South Tower, while Casazza, Kleinberg and van Auken are Cantor-Fitzgerald widows. They began lobbying for answers early in 2002, navigating the labyrinth of American bureaucracy and hammering the bureaucrats for direct answers to direct questions. In September 2002, Breitweiser testified at the first televised public hearing before the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) in DC.

Like many others, she wanted to know why, on May 16, 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated that she didn’t "think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center? That they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Breitweiser knows the historical facts say otherwise. She noted the following points in her statement. In her words:

? In 1993, a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

? In 1994, a disgruntled Fed Ex employee invaded the cockpit of a DC-10 with plans to crash it into a company building in Memphis. That same year, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds, and an Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group with the intent to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

? In January 1995, Philippine authorities investigating Abdul Murad, an Islamic terrorist, unearthed a plot to blow up 11 airliners over the Pacific, and in the alternative, several planes were to be hijacked and flown into civilian targets in the U.S. Among the targets mentioned were CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower and the White House.

? In September 1999, a report, "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism," was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress. It stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaed Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Like many others, Breitweiser believes that American intelligence had long speculated that terrorist organizations could and would utilize airplanes as weapons.

She also included a March 11, 2002 statement by the director of the CIA, George Tenet: "[The United States] never had the texture – meaning enough information – to stop what happened." She offered a similar statement by the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, from May 8, 2002: "[T]here was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the attacks."

Once again Breitweiser argued that the facts indicated otherwise. As she said:

? Throughout the spring and early summer of 2001, intelligence agencies flooded the government with warnings of possible terrorist attacks against American targets, including commercial aircraft, by al Qaeda and other groups. The warnings were vague but sufficiently alarming to prompt the FAA to issue four information circulars, or ICs, to the commercial airline industry between June 22 and July 31, warning of possible terrorism.

? On June 22, the militarx’s Central and European Commands imposed "Force Protection Condition Delta," the highest anti-terrorist alert.

? On June 28, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "It is highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks."

? As of July 31, the FAA urged U.S. airlines to maintain a "high degree of alertness."

? One FAA circular from late July noted, according to Condoleezza Rice, that there was "no specific target, no credible info of attack to U.S. civil aviation interests, but terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings, and we ask you therefore to use caution." Two counter-terrorism officials described the alerts of the early and mid-summer 2001 as "the most urgent in decades."

Breitweiser is resolute in her assertions. Airport security officials, she believes, could have done much more to prevent the hijackings. Beyond that, however, she wonders what September 11 would have been like had the government made the public aware of the threats. How many people, she asks, would have chosen to board planes that morning? And how many of those in World Trade Center 2 would have remained in their offices, watching the inferno of Tower 1, had they known of the possibility of an air attack?

 

One of the more compelling passages in Breitweiser’s statement concerns a July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS wherein a top counter-terrorism official, Richard Clarke, stated that "[s]omething really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon." Despite being put on heightened alert, intelligence agencies ignored – or at least dismissed – what is now widely known as the "Phoenix Memo."

On July 10, an FBI field agent in Phoenix, AZ, named Kenneth Williams reported suspicions of a hijacking plot. He recommended that the FBI investigate the possibility that al Qaeda operatives were training at U.S. flight schools, suggesting that Osama bin Laden’s followers may have been securing jobs as security guards, pilots and other personnel.

Too many questions remain, and Breitweiser is very thorough in outlining the possible failures of not only our government’s communication prior to the attack, but its response. She wonders why, for instance, the NY/NJ Port Authority didn’t evacuate the World Trade Center when they knew that a second plane was heading in? And why weren’t the F-16s and Stealth bombers that tracked on radar screens at approximately 8:05 a.m. used to prevent tragedy?

Concerning the attack on the Pentagon, Breitweiser notes that Washington Air Traffic Control Center was aware of the first plane before it hit the World Trade Center. And yet, the third plane”American Airlines Flight 77, soon to plunge into the Pentagon – made a few "loop de loops" over DC one hour and 45 minutes after Washington Center was made aware of the hijackings. Why, she asks, was our Air Force so late in its response?

 

In late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States?now known popularly as the "9/11 Commission"?was reluctantly created, in large part due to the efforts of the widow Breitweiser. The commission’s object is not so much to get the facts straight, but to assign blame for "shortcomings" and "failures" in the bureaucracy. It’s what is known in intelligence circles as a "limited hang-out."

On September 12, 2003, the widow Ellen Mariani filed a civil RICO suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania naming George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Norman Mineta, Peter G. Peterson, Condoleezza Rice, George H.W. Bush and Kenneth Feinberg, in addition to "Other unnamed past, present, officials, representatives, agents, and private consultants of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" as defendants. She is demanding a jury trial.

She also fired off an open letter to President Bush in which she claims that he "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for a “war on terrorism.”" She accuses him of being "fully aware of the unfolding events" yet "[choosing] to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and “photo op.”" With America under attack, she writes, our president "did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear [but] continued on as if everything was “business as usual.”"

Speaking for the families of the victims, she poses the following questions to President Bush:

Why were 29 pages of the 9/11 committee report personally censored at your request?

Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

Why can’t we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights?

When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?

Why did your brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, personally go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?

Her letter ends ominously: "I will prove this in a court of law!"

 

So many, many questions. Why did World Trade Center 7 collapse? No airplane hit that building, and before September 11, no steel skyscraper had ever collapsed because of a fire. Yet three fell – very neatly and virtually into their own footprints.

(Even if one allows the engineers their claims that WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to collapse in on themselves, what of the perfect collapse of WTC7?)

The firefighters who were in the two towers were not in the least concerned about a collapse, as demonstrated in the fire department’s transcript of their radio traffic. In fact, they stated that the fires were dying out and could be extinguished with just a couple of lines of hose. Jet fuel burns like kerosene or charcoal fluid – quickly and completely?yet Ground Zero burned for 100 days.

The idea of rigging the buildings for a controlled demolition was dismissed as unrealistic by even the most suspicious types. How to gain access? Well, President Bush’s other brother, Marvin, had a security company covering the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines.

In The American Reporter (Jan. 20, 2003), Margie Burns raises the question of Marvin Bush’s role in September 11. She notes that two of the planes involved that day were United, and another took off from Dulles airport. The firm that handled security, formerly named Securacom, "listed [Marvin] Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients."

The company, Burns writes, was never investigated. Rather, it has benefited from increased security measures instituted in the wake of the attacks.

Some doubt altogether that a plane hit the Pentagon. On Sept. 12, Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher made some revealing statements. When asked about aircraft wreckage, he responded that "there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation – but not large sections. In other words, there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." When asked about jet fuel, he referred to a "puddle."

Look at pictures, however, and it’s hard to believe that a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. The damage is not in proportion to the claim, especially when one considers that two Boeing 757s are said to have taken down three skyscrapers. The Pentagon was dented, the plane evaporated.

Nothing that has been reported as truth escapes examination. Even the 19 men at the controls, now infamously known as the 9/11 hijackers, cannot be tied with real evidence to the event itself. This, according to FBI Director Robert Mueller. "Mohammed Atta" appears to have been a stolen identity, as per the real Att father and his passport, which went missing in 1999, and on Sept. 23, 2001, the BBC reported that at least four other of the 19 men identified as the hijackers were alive and well – and considerably unsettled.

Why would seismographs in the NYC area register two tiny quakes at Ground Zero at the commencement of the collapse of each tower?

Why were the planes up in the air for so long? And why did they fly over so many military bases? Was Americ defense team on a crack break, or was it a National Reconnaissance Office exercise, a wargame that involved hijacked aircraft being splashed into buildings in New York and DC? The two that took the towers flew within spitting distance of the Indian Point nuclear reactor facility.

Condoleezza Rice’s preposterous May 16, 2002, statement that no one could have foreseen this scenario was particularly ironic given that Pacifica Radio identified her that day as the source of San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s "airport security" call warning him not to fly on Black Tuesday.

 

The internet is boiling with analyses of the 9/11 event. In Europe, a fair number of people believe the American government was complicit in the attacks. According to recent polls, one-third of young Germans believe this. Print and broadcast media here ignore the questions, but it can’t be kept from public view forever. It’s all out there. It’s been two years, and we still have nothing but questions and Grassy Knoll theories. The answers lay scattered in shreds and pieces, waiting to be assembled.

Now come the widows, asking the right questions. Mariani’s lawyer, Phil Berg, makes a point to remind people that he is not in the least bit suicidal, or given to playing with loaded guns. They may not be able to reassemble or reanimate their loved ones in a literal sense, but these families who are choosing the hard road, the Narrow Way, will get to the truth.

European Union MP supports families’ struggle

A letter from Paul Lannoye,
European Union Parliamentarian, Belgium

24 May, 2004

Dear World Legislators, Parliamentarians, and World Citizens,

We have watched with alarm that the sad and tragic events of 9-11 (11 September, 2001) have resulted in two wars and a global rollback in civil liberties. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, yet it has been attacked in the name of them. People in countries worldwide have suffered reduced civil liberties in the name of 9-11, and intelligence surveillance of ordinary citizens has expanded dramatically.

I submit to you that before any more wars are launched or liberties are lost in the name of the "war on terror" launched by the Bush Administration after 9-11, a full international inquiry into the events leading up to and on 9-11 be held, which includes 9-11 victims’ family members from the U.S. and other nations.

The National Green Party of the United States has requested an open independent 9-11 investigation that would involve 9-11 victims’ family members. This is a good start, but it must also be an international inquiry in addition that includes 9-11 family members from nations worldwide who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks.

We need this to occur because many, including the 9-11 Family Steering Committee (U.S.), are growing increasingly frustrated with the stunning lack of hard questions for witnesses appearing before the 9-11 Commission. Until these hard questions are asked and fully answered, we should refuse more wars, and renounce reduced liberty worldwide in the name of 9-11 and it’s resultant war on terror.

A few of these questions are:

1) Who made the insider stock trades against United and American Airlines the day before the attacks? And why did the head of AB Brown Trust (an institution once headed by the current Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard), where $5 million of those stock "winnings" were made, quietly resign on 11, Sept., 2001, and why is $2.5 million of that winning still unclaimed?

2) Why were there no fighter interceptor jets dispatched on 9-11 until it was too late on 9-11, after 4 commercial jets flew hijacked for an hour and a half, ending with the last one crashing into the worlds’ most highly protected building, the Pentagon?

3) Why did the CIA Station Chief in Dubai meet with Bin Laden weeks before 9-11 at a U.S. Army Hospital? Why did the Pakistani Intelligence Chief, who was in Washington on 9-11 meeting with top Bush officials, wire lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta $100,000 weeks before the 9-11 attacks?

These are but a few questions needing answers. (Read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin to further explore the disturbing unanswered questions of 9-11.)

I implore legislators, parliamentarians, and citizens worldwide to become involved in the global 9-11 Truth Movement by signing up at www.911Visibility.org and www.911Truth.org. These organizations have worked with 9-11 family members, and citizens worldwide to lobby government, media, and the 9-11 Commission to demand truth, and to hold public actions to educate the world about the apparent 9-11 cover up.

Warm regards,

Paul Lannoye, European Union Parliamentarian

Open letter from Ellen Mariani to President Bush

Open Letter To The President Of The United States from Ellen Mariani (9/11 widow)

Mr. Bush,

This ”open letter” is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to ”bash the Government”.

You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.

In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting? When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual".

In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter’s wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?

It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you.

These troops have and will continue to die for your lies. As an American I can make this statement as it appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11.

Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of "national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.

After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this without a judge’s review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:

1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?

2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

4. Why can’t we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights?

6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?

7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?

It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad September Day.

In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to and after 9/11!

I will prove this in a court of law!

Ellen M. Mariani

Unanswered questions

"I want to know why the Secret Service did not whisk [Bush] away. I want to know why he is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes [reading to schoolchildren] . . . And I think that I have a lot of problems with the Pentagon. I don’t understand how a plane could hit our Defense Department, which is the Pentagon, an hour after the first plane hit the first tower. I don’t understand how that is possible. I’m a reasonable person. But when you look at the fact that we spend a half trillion dollars on national defense and you’re telling me that a plane is able to hit our Pentagon, our Defense Department, an hour after the first tower is hit? There are procedures and protocols in place in this nation that are to be followed when transponders are disconnected, and they were not followed on September 11th . . . There are 3,000 lives lost and three million questions remaining."
— Kristen Breitweiser, widow of 9-11 south tower, 2 WTC victim, on the Phil Donahue show, 8/13/2002
The Donahue show was canceled just before the attack on Iraq

Four 9/11 moms battle Bush

Four 9/11 moms battle Bush
by Gail Sheehy


August 25, 2003 edition of The New York Observer

 In mid-June, FBI Director Robert Mueller III and several senior agents in the bureau received a group of about 20 visitors in a briefing room of the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C.

The director himself narrated a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the numbers of agents and leads and evidence he and his people had collected in the 18-month course of their ongoing investigation of Penttbom, the clever neologism the bureau had invented to reduce the sites of devastation on 9/11 to one word: "Pent" for Pentagon, "Pen" for Pennsylvania, "tt" for the Twin Towers and "bom" for the four planes that the government had been forewarned could be used as weapons — even bombs — but chose to ignore.

After the formal meeting, senior agents in the room faced a grilling by Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow whose cohorts are three other widowed moms from New Jersey.

"I don’t understand; with all the warnings about the possibilities of al Qaeda using planes as weapons, and the Phoenix Memo from one of your own agents warning that Osama bin Laden was sending operatives to this country for flight-school training, why didn’t you check out flight schools before Sept. 11?"

"Do you know how many flight schools there are in the U.S.” Thousands," a senior agent protested. "We couldn’t have investigated them all and found these few guys."

"Wait, you just told me there were too many flight schools and that prohibited you from investigating them before 9/11," Kristen persisted. "How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously FBI agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?"

"We got lucky," was the reply.

Kristen then asked the agent how the FBI had known exactly which ATM in Portland, Maine, would yield a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the attacks. The agent got some facts confused, and then changed his story. When Kristen wouldn’t be pacified by evasive answers, the senior agent parried, "What are you getting at?"

"I think you had open investigations before Sept. 11 on some of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks," she said.

"We did not," the agent said unequivocally.

Kremlin tactics

A month later, on the morning of July 24, before the scathing congressional report on intelligence failures was released, Kristen and the three other moms from New Jersey with whom she’d been in league sat impassively at a briefing by staff director Eleanor Hill: In fact, they learned, the FBI had open investigations on 14 individuals who had contact with the hijackers while they were in the United States.

The flush of pride in their own research passed quickly. This was just another confirmation that the federal government continued to obscure the facts about its handling of suspected terrorists leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

So afraid is the Bush administration of what could be revealed by inquiries into its failures to protect Americans from terrorist attack, it is unabashedly using Kremlin tactics to muzzle members of Congress and thwart the current federal commission investigating the failures of Sept. 11.

But there is at least one force that the administration cannot scare off or shut up. They call themselves "Just Four Moms from New Jersey," or simply "the girls."

Kristen and the three other housewives who also lost their husbands in the attack on the World Trade Center started out knowing virtually nothing about how their government worked.

For the last 20 months, they have clipped and Googled, rallied and lobbied, charmed and intimidated top officials all the way to the White House. In the process, they have made themselves arguably the most effective force in dancing around the obstacle course by which the administration continues to block a transparent investigation of what went wrong with the country’s defenses on Sept. 11 and what we should be doing about it.

They have no political clout, no money, no powerful husbands — no husbands at all since Sept. 11 — and they are up against a White House, an attorney general, a defense secretary, a national security adviser and an FBI director who have worked out an ingenious bait-and-switch game to thwart their efforts and those of any investigative body.

The mom cell

The four moms — Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken — use tactics more like those of a leaderless cell.

They have learned how to deposit their assorted seven children with select grandmothers before dawn and rocket down the Garden State Parkway to Washington. They have become experts at changing out of pedal pushers and into proper pantsuits while their SUV is stopped in traffic, so they can hit the Capitol rotunda running. They have talked strategy with Sen. John McCain and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. They once caught Congressman Porter Goss hiding behind his office door to avoid them. And they maintain an open line of communication with the White House.

But after the razzle-dazzle of their every trip to D.C., the four moms dissolve on the hot seats of Kristen’s SUV, balance take-out food containers on their laps and grow quiet. Each then retreats into a private chamber of longing for the men whose lifeless images they wear on tags around their necks.

After their first big rally, Patty’s soft voice floated a wish that might have been in the minds of all four moms:

"OK, we did the rally, now can our husbands come home?"

Last September, Kristen was singled out by the families of 9/11 to testify in the first televised public hearing before the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) in Washington, D.C. She drew high praise from the leadership, made up of members from both the House and Senate.

But the JICI, as the moms called it, was mandated to go out of business at the end of 2003, and their questions for the intelligence agencies were consistently blocked: The Justice Department has forbidden intelligence officials to be interviewed without "minders" among their bosses being present, a tactic clearly meant to intimidate witnesses.

When the White House and the intelligence agencies held up the congressional report month after month by demanding that much of it remain classified, the moms’ rallying cry became "Free the JICI!"

They believed the only hope for getting at the truth would be with an independent federal commission with a mandate to build on the findings of the congressional inquiry and broaden it to include testimony from all the other relevant agencies.

Their fight finally overcame the directive by Vice President Dick Cheney to Congressman Goss to "keep negotiating" and, in January 2003, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States — known as the 9/11 Commission — met for the first time.

It is not only for their peace of mind that the four moms continue to fight to reveal the truth, but because they firmly believe that, nearly two years after the attacks, the country is no safer now than it was on Sept. 11.

Exempt from politics

"OK, there’s the House and the Senate — which one has the most members?"

Lorie laughed at herself. It was April 2002, seven months after she had lost her husband, Kenneth. "I must have slept through that civics class."

Her friend Mindy couldn’t help her; Mindy hadn’t read The New York Times since she stopped commuting to Manhattan, where she’d worked as an accountant until her husband, Alan, took over the family support. Both women’s husbands had worked as securities traders for Cantor Fitzgerald until they were incinerated in the World Trade Center.

“That’s some bad pilot,” was President George W. Bush’s initial response upon hearing a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Mindy and Lorie had thought themselves exempt from politics, by virtue of the constant emergency of motherhood. Before Sept. 11, Mindy could have been described as a stand-in for Samantha on Sex and the City. But these days she felt more like one of the Golden Girls. Lorie, who was 46 and beautiful when her husband, Kenneth van Auken, was murdered, has acquired a fierceness in her demeanor.

The two mothers were driving home to East Brunswick after attending a support group for widows of 9/11. They had been fired up by a veteran survivor of a previous terrorist attack against Americans, Bob Monetti, president of Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie.

"You can’t sit back and let the government treat you like shit," he had challenged them. That very night they called up Patty Casazza, another Cantor Fitzgerald widow, in Colt’s Neck, N.J. "We have to have a rally in Washington."

Patty, a sensitive woman who was struggling to find the right balance of prescriptions to fight off anxiety attacks, groaned, "Oh God, this is huge, and it’s going to be painful." Patty said she would only go along if Kristen were up for it.

Kristen Breitweiser was only 30 years old when her husband, Ron, a vice president at Fiduciary Trust, called her one morning to say he was fine, not to worry. He had seen a huge fireball out his window, but it wasn’t his building. She tuned into the Today show just in time to see the South Tower explode right where she knew he was sitting — on the 94th floor.

For months thereafter, finding it impossible to sleep, Kristen went back to the nightly ritual of her married life: She took out her husband’s toothbrush and slowly, lovingly squeezed the toothpaste onto it. Then she would sit down on the toilet and wait for him to come home.

Focus on the timeline

Kristen was somewhat better informed than the others. The tall, blond former surfer girl had graduated from Seton Hall law school, practiced all of three days, hated it and elected to be a full-time mom. Her first line of defense against despair at the shattering of her life dreams was to revert to thinking like a lawyer.

Lorie was the network’s designated researcher, since she had in her basement what looked like a NASA command module; her husband had been an amateur designer. Kristen had told her to focus on the timeline: Who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?

Once Lorie began surfing the Web, she couldn’t stop. She found a video of President Bush’s reaction on the morning of Sept. 11.

According to the official timeline provided by his press secretary, the president arrived at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla., at 9 a.m. and was told in the hallway of the school that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. This was 14 minutes after the first attack.

The president went into a private room and spoke by phone with his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and glanced at a TV in the room. "That’s some bad pilot," the president said. Bush then proceeded to a classroom, where he drew up a little stool to listen to second-graders read. At 9:04 a.m., his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered in his ear that a second plane had struck the towers. "We are under attack," Mr. Card informed the president.

"Bush’s sunny countenance went grim," said the White House account. "After Card’s whisper, Bush looked distracted and somber but continued to listen to the second-graders read and soon was smiling again. He joked that they read so well, they must be sixth-graders."

Lorie checked the Web site of the Federal Aviation Authority. The FAA and the Secret Service, which had an open phone connection, both knew at 8:20 a.m. that two planes had been hijacked in the New York area and had their transponders turned off.

How could they have thought it was an accident when the first plane slammed into the first tower 26 minutes later? How could the president have dismissed this as merely an accident by a "bad pilot"? And how, after he had been specifically told by his chief of staff that "We are under attack," could the commander in chief continue sitting with second-graders and make a joke? Lorie ran the video over and over.

"I couldn’t stop watching the president sitting there, listening to second-graders, while my husband was burning in a building," she said.

Mindy pieced together the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He had been in his Washington office engaged in his "usual intelligence briefing." After being informed of the two attacks on the World Trade Center, he proceeded with his briefing until the third hijacked plane struck the Pentagon. Mindy relayed the information to Kristen:

"Can you believe this? Two planes hitting the Twin Towers in New York City did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld’s leaving his office and going to the war room to check out just what the hell went wrong." Mindy sounded scared. "This is my president. This is my secretary of defense. You mean to tell me Rumsfeld had to get up from his desk and look out his window at the burning Pentagon before he knew anything was wrong? How can that be?"

"It can’t be," said Kristen ominously. Their network being a continuous loop, Kristen immediately passed on the news to Lorie, who became even more agitated.

Lorie checked out the North American Aerospace Defense Command, whose specific mission includes a response to any form of an air attack on America. It was created to provide a defense of critical command-and-control targets.

At 8:40 a.m. on 9/11, the FAA notified NORAD that Flight No. 11 had been hijacked. Three minutes later, the FAA notified NORAD that Flight No. 175 was also hijacked. By 9:02 a.m., both planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, but there had been no action by NORAD. Both agencies also knew there were two other hijacked planes in the air that had been violently diverted from their flight patterns. All other air traffic had been ordered grounded.

NORAD operates out of Andrews Air Force Base, which is within sight of the Pentagon. Why didn’t NORAD scramble planes in time to intercept the two other hijacked jetliners headed for command-and-control centers in Washington? Lorie wanted to know. Where was the leadership?

"I can’t look at these timelines anymore," Lorie confessed to Kristen. "When you pull it apart, it just doesn’t reconcile with the official storyline." She hunched down in her husband’s swivel chair and began to tremble, thinking: There’s no way this could be. Somebody is not telling us the whole story.

A road map

The 9/11 Commission wouldn’t have happened without the four moms. At the end of its first open hearing, held last spring at the U.S. Customs House close to the construction pit of Ground Zero, former Democratic Congressman Tim Roemer said as much and praised them and other activist 9/11 families.

"At a time when many Americans don’t even take the opportunity to cast a ballot, you folks went out and made the legislative system work," he said.

Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general of the United States, said at the same hearing, "I’m enormously impressed that laypeople with no powers of subpoena, with no access to insider information of any sort, could put together a very powerful set of questions and set of facts that are a road map for this commission. It is really quite striking. Now, what’s your secret?"

Mindy, who had given a blistering testimony at that day’s hearing, tossed her long corkscrew curls and replied in a voice more Tallulah than termagant, "Eighteen months of doing nothing but grieving and connecting the dots."

Eleanor Hill, the universally respected staff director of the JICI investigation, shares the moms’ point of view.

"One of our biggest concerns is our finding that there were people in this country assisting these hijackers," she said later in an interview with this writer. "Since the FBI was in fact investigating all these people as part of their counterterrorism effort, and they knew some of them had ties to al Qaeda, then how good was their investigation if they didn’t come across the hijackers?"

President Bush, who was notified in the president’s daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, that "a group of [Osama] bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives," insisted after the congressional report was made public: "My administration has transformed our government to pursue terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks."

Kristen, Mindy, Patty and Lorie are not impressed.

"We were told that, prior to 9/11, the FBI was only responsible for going in after the fact to solve a crime and prepare a criminal case," Kristen said. "Here we are, 22 months after the fact, the FBI has received some 500,000 leads, they have thousands of people in custody, they’re seeking the death penalty for one terrorist, [Zacarias] Moussaoui, but they still haven’t solved the crime and they don’t have any of the other people who supported the hijackers."

Ms. Hill echoes their frustration. "Is this support network for al Qaeda still in the United States? Are they still operating, planning the next attack?"

The four moms, all widows a a result of the 9/11 attacks, are challenging the information we received from our government. From left to right: Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser and Lorie van Auken.
28-page hole

The hopes of the four moms, that the current 9/11 Commission could broaden the inquiry beyond the intelligence agencies, are beginning to fade.

As they see it, the administration is using a streamlined version of the tactics they successfully employed to stall and suppress much of the startling information in the JICI report. The gaping hole of 28 pages concerning the Saudi royal family’s financial support for the terrorists of 9/11 was only the tip of the 900-page iceberg.

"We can’t get any information about the Port Authority’s evacuation procedures or the response of the city of New York," complains Kristen. "We’re always told we can’t get answers or documents because the FBI is holding them back as part of an ongoing investigation. But when Director Mueller invited us back for a follow-up meeting — on the very morning before that damning report was released — we were told the FBI isn’t pursuing any investigations based on the information we are blocked from getting. The only thing they are looking at is the hijackers. And they’re all dead."

It’s more than a clever Catch-22. Members of the 9/11 Commission are being denied access even to some of the testimony given to the JICI — on which at least two of its members sat!

This is a stonewalling job of far greater importance than Watergate. This concerns the refusal of the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the failure to execute its most fundamental responsibility: to protect its citizens against foreign attack.

Critical information about two of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, lay dormant within the intelligence community for as long as 18 months, at the very time when plans for the Sept. 11 attacks were being hatched.

The JICI confirmed that these same two hijackers had numerous contacts with a longtime FBI counterterrorism informant in California. As the four moms pointed out a year ago, their names were in the San Diego phone book.

What’s more, the FBI’s Minneapolis field office had in custody in August 2001 one Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national who had enrolled in flight training in Minnesota and who FBI agents suspected was involved in a hijacking plot. But nobody at the FBI apparently connected the Moussaoui investigation with intelligence information on the immediacy of the threat level in the spring and summer of 2001, or the illegal entry of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi into the United States.

Handwriting on the wall

How have these lapses been corrected 24 months later? The FBI is seeking the death penalty for Mr. Moussaoui, and uses the need to protect their case against him as the rationale for refusing to share any of the information they have obtained from him.

In fact, when Director Mueller tried to use the same excuse to duck out of testifying before the Joint Committee, the federal judge in the Moussaoui trial dismissed his argument, and he and his agents were compelled to testify.

"At some point, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis," says Kristen. "Which is more important — one fried terrorist, or the safety of the nation?"

Patty was even more blunt in their second meeting with the FBI brass. "I don’t give a rat’s ass about Moussaoui," she said. "Why don’t you throw him into Guant

The 9/11 Commission Avoids the Hard Questions

Published on Monday, April 26, 2004 by the Albany Times Union / New York
The 9/11 Commission Avoids the Hard Questions
by Mark A. Dunlea
 

Two and one half years after 3,000 people were killed in the World Trade Center in New York City, not only do most questions remained unanswered about 9/11, they remain unasked.

President Bush aggressively lobbied Congress against a full-scale investigation. When Bush reluctantly agreed to the creation of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks, he insisted it be limited to representatives of the two major political parties, with each party having a veto over what the Commission investigated.

Noticeably absent from the Commission are representatives of the family members of the victims, whose only interest would be to determine who was responsible for the murder of their loved ones. Instead, the Commission members are entrenched members of the very foreign policy establishment they are supposed to be investigating.

Family members have called for the resignation of Philip D Zelikow, Executive Director of the Commission. In addition to co-authoring a book on foreign policy with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as a member of Bush’s foreign policy transition team Zelikow participated in the January 2001 meeting where counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke briefed the president’s national security team on the al-Qaeda threat. Zelikow is thus leading an investigation of his own response.

Commission Chairman Thomas Kean is partners with two of the Saudi billionaires sued by 9/11 families for their roles in the attacks. Khalid bin Mahfouz, who is Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, and Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, are both key financial players allegedly tied to al-Qaeda. Commissioner Fred Fielding is a former White House counsel during Reagan’s time, at the time of the Iran-Contra scandal. Commissioner John Lehman was navy secretary under Reagan.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay recently called for the removal of Commissioner Jamie S Gorelick, deputy Attorney General under Clinton, after Ashcroft attacked her for authoring a memo reminding the Justice Department to keep counterintelligence separate from criminal investigations. DeLay however doesn’t seem bothered that Gorelick is also very close to current CIA director George Tenet and is a member of the CIA’s National Security Advisory Panel. The Commission members are there for damage control, not to find the truth. It was appalling to watch commission members like former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson implement the White House playbook in attacking the credibility of Clarke.

Even with the cursory job done so far by the 9/11 Commission, it is evident that the Bush administration failed to take seriously the threat posed by terrorism and then manipulated the tragedy of 9/11 to pursue its pre-existing agenda to invade Iraq.

The US received explicit warnings shortly before 9/11 from the governments of Russia, France, Israel, Germany and Israel. Russian leader Putin said his warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms." Despite the claims of the Bush administration that no one ever thought that terrorist would use hijacked planes as missiles, NORAD conducted numerous training exercises under exactly that scenario.

But there are many other key questions that family members have been pressing the Commission on, starting with the role of Saudi Arabia.

Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. The Saudi ruling family has been a major source of funding for terrorists. Both the Clinton and Bush administration impeded FBI investigations into Saudi Arabia. No President has ever had such a close relation with a foreign government as the Bushes have with Saudi Arabia. More than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud over the past two decades to companies associated with the Bush family.

As John O’Neill, the FBI’s former top bin Laden investigator, said shortly before his death in the World Trade Center, "all the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization can be found in Saudi Arabia." O’Neill also said that America’s failure to stop bin Laden could be traced to one word – oil.

Some other key questions include:

 

 

1. What was the role of the Pakistani Intelligence Service with the 9/11 hijackers? Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan’s secret service, order $100,000 to be wired to lead hijacker Momahmed Atta?

 

2. What role did the CIA play in training and arming of terrorists before 9/11, including bin Laden and other members of al Qaida? What role did Pakistan and the US play in allowing the Taliban to come to power? Bin Laden worked closely with the CIA when the US during the Carter administration organized "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan to go to war with the Soviet Union.

 

3. What negotiations took place between the US government and the Taliban before 9/11 relating to the construction of a pipeline through Afghanistan?

 

4. What surveillance did the FBI and CIA have on the alleged hijackers before 9/11? Several of the hijackers were apparently closely monitored, particularly Mohammed Atta

 

5. What terrorist organizations and/or governments were responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Saying that "bin Laden" did it is like saying the "Mob" is responsible for organized crime. The NY Times reported the CIA believed that the hijacking may primarily been the idea of Atta, an Egyptian citizen. Other media reports indicate some hijackers thought that their goal was to exchange hijacked passengers for the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a cleric serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

 

6. Why did the FAA and NORAD fail to follow standard operating procedures in responding to the hijacking of the four planes on 9/11?

If America is ever to find the truth about 9/11, it needs a truly independent commission, one which includes several relatives of those killed on September 11, 2001. Rather than state lawmakers engaging in name calling over "fighting terrorism", the Governor and legislators should be demanding real answers as to why so many people were killed at the World Trade Center.

Mark Dunlea’s new novel, ‘Madame President: The Unauthorized Biography of the First Green Party President’, provides an alternative history to September 11. http://nys.greens.org/rachel.

Copyright 1996-2004, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation

Bush administration moves to stifle discovery in 9/11 lawsuits

Bush administration moves to stifle discovery in 9/11 lawsuits

By Walter Gilberti
2 August 2002

The Bush administration and the Department of Justice are moving to suppress evidence that could be used in discovery proceedings in several civil lawsuits resulting from the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. In June, Robert D. McCallum, US attorney general for the civil division, and James B. Comey, United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, informed US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in a letter that the Justice Department intends to intervene to control access to all evidence and documents related to the 9/11 attacks.

The letter states their intention to “seek entry of a global discovery order” requiring that the “Transportation Security Administration (TSA) be served with all requests for party and non-party discovery,” and that the “defendants and non-parties submit all proposed discovery responses that may contain ‘sensitive security information’ (SSI) to the TSA prior to releasing such material to plaintiffs.” The TSA would then have the “necessary opportunity to review such material and to withhold ‘sensitive security information.'”

To insure that these requirements are met, Attorney General John Ashcroft will press for the appointment of a lead counsel who will exercise a supervisory role over all victim family attorneys. The Justice Department is seeking to limit the scope of discovery by setting parameters for the “adoption of uniform discovery requests to streamline litigation, reduce costs for all parties and conserve judicial resources.”

With this intervention, the Bush administration is embarking, behind the claim of “grave national security concerns,” on an unprecedented vetting of evidence that denies the claimants their right to due process and a fair hearing of their legal claims. The purpose of the government’s intervention is to block any substantive disclosures concerning the events leading up to September 11.

The Bush administration is particularly fearful that a discovery procedure might place under scrutiny such documents as the August 6, 2001 Presidential Intelligence briefing that warned of a possible airplane hijacking by terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden, and the July 2001 memo from an Arizona FBI agent suggesting that Islamic fundamentalists linked to Al Qaeda were seeking training at US flight schools.

To underscore the seriousness with which the Bush administration regards any disclosure of its negligence and possible complicity in the events leading up to the September 11 attacks, Justice Department attorneys McCallum and Comey further informed Judge Hellerstein of possible consequences for the claimants. In what amounts to a veiled threat against anyone who seeks to exercise his democratic right to a tort lawsuit, the US attorneys warned claimants: “In making their election (to forego monetary compensation), plaintiffs should be fully informed of the risks accompanying litigation. TSA?s vigorous enforcing of the rules governing non-disclosure of sensitive security information may present significant litigation consequences for all plaintiffs, and the government respectfully requests that the court include a statement to this effect in any finalized protocol.”

Attorneys McCallum and Comey did not spell out the possible “risks” and “consequences” that might result from carrying forward the civil lawsuits. But the Bush administration is clearly attempting to intimidate prospective claimants who refuse to accept what is perceived by many as a payoff in exchange for keeping one’s mouth shut.

Judge Hellerstein has suspended all 9/11-related tort lawsuits pending a clarification of the government’s guidelines.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Congress passed and Bush signed into law a bill setting up the Victims Compensation Fund, which was designed to preempt an anticipated spate of tort suits. Tort law affords US citizens the right to redress a civil wrong – in this case the incompetence, negligence or complicity of the Bush administration, the various intelligence agencies and the airlines in the events prior to, during and after September 11. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America initially supported the fund.

However, it soon became evident that many of the families of 9/11 victims harbored doubts and unanswered questions, and would not settle for the government’s compensation package. In an article posted on Law.com last March, Roger Parloff of the American Lawyer journal wrote: “But now that the dust is settling, some traditional plaintiffs? lawyers are horrified by what their trade group has consecrated.”

As early as September 29 of last year, the article continued, Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the US Department of Transportation, who is currently a law partner in the Los Angeles firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guildford and Schiavo, urged families to use the tort system rather than be “bulldozed into taking a cheap payout from the government.” Schiavo has since filed several lawsuits on behalf of victims? families.

So far, as many as 33 families of September 11 victims have chosen to forego any financial remuneration from the Compensation Fund, in favor of civil lawsuits that seek redress for government and airline company negligence in failing to prevent the attacks. Additional lawsuits, involving 450 potential plaintiffs, have been filed against the New York/New Jersey Port Authority. Their complaints range from inadequate security at Newark Airport, where United Flight 93 took off, to locked roof doors and poor escape routes at the Twin Towers.

In the more than 10 months that have elapsed since the attacks, only a handful of the 3,200 families of September 11 victims have opted for the government’s compensation payout. Thrashing about for explanations for the slow response to the government’s monetary offer, officials cite confusion over the paperwork and ongoing grieving for lost loved-ones. But the family members as a group have also been vilified in some quarters as being “greedy.”

The speed with which the government is moving to control the dissemination of information on the September 11 attacks speaks to its fear that families are choosing litigation over immediate monetary compensation because they believe the Bush administration is involved in a cover-up and hope to use the courts to extract information that is being concealed from the public.

Truth – Justice – Peace