Category Archives: Correspondence regarding the events of 9/11

Correspondance with Chief James Bennett

Corresponden with Chief James Bennett

Nov 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:

Hello Chief James B.

I found that you run the Screw Loose Change website with another chap.  I wonder why you spent so much time in debunking the Truth Movement. Are you paid by anyone for this task?  If not, what moral principles impel you to spend your valuable time in this task?  Are you worried that the Truth movement will discover some government wrongdoing? And if not, then what’s the problem?

I have noted that few, if any debunkers, are afraid to confront serious Truthers in an open debate.  Why are debunkers so afraid?  You have, after all, the entire Government behind you. Your response would be appreciated.


On 18.11.2008, at 21:07, James Bennett wrote:

No, I am not paid.  I wish I was, I could use the money, but there doesn’t seem to be much demand for my services.  We don’t even sell ads t-shirts, or DVDs, unlike most truther sites. Ask your friend Griffin how much he has made off of his books.
 I wouldn’t say I spend that much time at the activity.  Maybe a few hours a week, probably less than many people spend blogging about their favorite pop group or playing World of Warcraft.
I mostly do it because I find the subject interesting.  I am also offended on an intellectual and moral level by people lying about our country and history.  Plus it is interesting studying the minds of conspiracy theories.  You find much about how logic and science works by studying their logical fallacies, much in the same way that a psychologist would learn about the working of a normal brain by studying a diseased one.
No, I am not worried about whatever "truthers find".  They haven’t found anything thus far, although that could just be due to the low level of their investigative skills.  If they do find something though, so what, I have no problem with people asking questions, just those who come up with stupid answers.
I would not say that debunkers avoid debate with truthers.  Both Mark Roberts and I have challenged David Ray Griffin to a debate, which he has avoided.  In fact Griffin for the most part avoids being challenged in the slightest.  He even refuses to answer e-mail questions from me.  Much of the debate is pretty pointless though, it does not add to the record to argue minutiae, but rather feeds into the conspiracy theory logic, much in the same way that Holocaust deniers argue that there were no holes in the roof of the gas chamber, or creationists argue their "God of the gaps".  History and science are about narratives and theories, not about anomalies.  Ask your friend Griffin how he feels about "theories".
take it easy,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Hi James,

Nice to hear about your pet project.  I am not interested in asking "my friend" Griffin what he feels. I read his books and draw my conclusions.

Because you are an intelligent person and appears quite knowledgeable about 9/11, I wonder whether you have seen somewhere evidence – I mean credible evidence, not just a newspaper report – that the 19 "hijackers" of 9/11 actually boarded the planes that they have been accused of hijacking.  If you can send me some such evidence, I would be thankful.  I did not find any.


On 18.11.2008, at 23:00, James Bennett wrote:

What do you define as "credible"?
As one of my economics professors always put it, the difference between a conspiracy theory and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory will produce consistent predictions.
Another way of putting this is scientific theories are falsifiable.  For example, if I forward the hypothesis that gravity makes objects fall at 9.8 m/s^2, than I can perform experiments on this, and prove whether this is true.  I can then predict in the future how fast an object will fall.
This even applies to the social sciences.  I can predict that the growth in the money supply will have an effect on inflation rates.  I can observe the past correlation of these two factors and use this to produce reasonable predictions of future activities, if it is a good scientific theory of course.
In conspiracy theory though, this does not exist.  For example, if we forward the hypothesis that there were hijackers on board the airplanes.  Well, we obviously cannot perform experiments to test this hypothesis, so we have to look for data which would indicate whether there were or not.  So, we could, for example reasonably propose that if there were witnesses to hijackers on the planes, then this is evidence of hijackers, if there were not, than this is evidence against hijackers.  This both allows us to make predictions, and allows us to falsify our hypothesis.
With conspiracy theorists this does not work though.  There were witnesses, over 20 phone calls were made, many describing the presence of hijackers.  The conspiracy theorists merely arbitrarily dismiss these phone calls as fake though.  On the other hand, if there were no phone calls describing hijackers on boards, the conspiracy theorists would also argue that this was evidence there were no hijackers on board.  
Another example, they argue that because Osama bin Laden has not been charged with involvement in the hijackings, that Arab terrorists were not involved.  Based on this then, one could reasonably make the prediction then that if an Arab were charged with involvement with the hijackings, then they would use that to support the idea that Arab terrorists were involved.
Wrong, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been charged with involvement, and Zacarias Moussaoui has actually been convicted, but despite the exact opposite situation, conspiracy theorists still use this to support the same conclusion, arguing that they have been set up.  Of course if neither had been charged, then they would also be using that to argue that no Arabs were involved.  
With conspiracy theory logic, one can never lose, one can never be proven wrong.  Their beliefs are not falsifiable.  It makes as much sense to argue non-falsifiable beliefs with someone as it would be to argue the existence of God.  Intellectually stimulating perhaps, but pointless.
So, I have to ask, what would falsify your beliefs?

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thanks James.  Your theoretical observations are well taken.  So we are on the same wave-length with regard to the scientific method.  I forebear to use demeaning terms such as "conspiracy theories" because the official account is also based on a conspiracy of some Muslims in Afghanistan.  What is important is simply to know the truth, and let the chips fall where they belond.

You say that "there were witnesses to hijackers on the planes".  These made "over 20 phone calls…many describing the presence of hijackers."   Let us examine in detail these propositions.  We have been informed, both by the FBI and by some of the relatives (who received phone calls) that many passengers made phone calls from the planes and that some provided some physical description of "hijackers".  Such evidence must, obviously, be examined carefully for consistency, and…it must be proved that the calls emanated from the planes.  This last item was not proved.  The FBI did not produce any document proving that the calls were made from the planes.   There was equally the question whether the calls were made from cellphones (as reported initially). Only after some "truthers" discovered that cellphone calls cannot be effectively made from above 8,000 feet, did the FBI change the story and attributed most phone calls to "airfone" calls. 

But there is another point that must be examined before assessing the credibility and authenticity of the phone calls.  These calls may – if credible and authentic – present circumstancial evidence about what went on in the planes, given that it is proved that the "hijackers" actually boarded these planes.  Yet, I have not found any evidence that proves they did.  No authenticated passenger list has been released. No boarding card stubs.  No video recordings of the boarding process.  And what is particularly surprising is that not a single person witnessed the boarding of any of the aircraft.  Finally, the bodily remains of the "hijackers" were not positively identified.   In short, there exists no evidence that any of the 19 Arabs actually boarded any of the four aircraft.  The implication of this absence of evidence is that claiming the guilt of Arabs/Muslims for 9/11 constitutes an outrageous case of defamation.  How dare anyone accuse 19 named individuals of mass murder without even being able to place these individuals at the scene of the crime?

According to my reasoning, if one accepts that there exists no public evidence whatsoever proving who boarded the aircraft of 9/11, one must refrain from endorsing the official account of 9/11 and one must actively demand the publication of this evidence in order to defeat the "conspiracy theories".   Those who accept the lack of evidence but still promote the official account, can only do so on the base of faith, faith in the integrity and honesty of the US government.

You are invited, however, to present evidence known to you regarding the boarding of the aircraft.

I await your response.

Cheers, Elias


James Bennett sent the following to E.D.

2. CAPPS was an FAA-approved automated system run by the airlines that scored each passenger’s profile to

identify those who might pose a threat to civil aviation.The system also chose passengers at random to receive additional

security scrutiny.Ten out of the 19 hijackers (including 9 out of 10 on the two American Airlines flights)

were identified via the CAPPS system.According to the procedures in place on 9/11, in addition to those flagged

by the CAPPS algorithm,American’s ticket agents were to mark as "selectees" those passengers who did not provide

correct responses to the required security questions, failed to show proper identification, or met other criteria.

See FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001,pp.75–76;FAA record of interview,Donna

Thompson,Sept. 23, 2001; Chuck Severance interview (Apr. 15, 2004); Jim Dillon interview (Apr. 15, 2004); Diane

Graney interview (Apr. 16, 2004). It appears that Atta was selected at random. See Al Hickson briefing (June 8,


3.The call was placed from a pay phone in Terminal C (between the screening checkpoint and United 175’s

boarding gate).We presume Shehhi made the call, but we cannot be sure. Logan International Airport site visit

(Aug. 15, 2003); see also FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11).

4. Flight 11 pushed back from Gate 32 in Terminal B at 7:40. See AAL response to the Commission’s February

3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.

5. See UAL letter,"Flight 175—11Sep01 Passenger ACI Check-in History," July 11, 2002. Customer service

representative Gail Jawahir recalled that her encounter with the Ghamdis occurred at "shortly before 7

A.M.," and
when shown photos of the hijackers, she indicated that Mohand al Shehri resembled one of the two she checked

in (suggesting they were Banihammad and Shehri).However, she also recalled that the men had the same last name

and had assigned seats on row 9 (i.e., the Ghamdis), and that account has been adopted here. In either case, she

almost certainly was dealing with one set of the Flight 175 hijackers. See FBI reports of investigation, interviews

of Gail Jawahir, Sept. 21, 2001; Sept. 28, 2001. Even had the hijackers been unable to understand and answer the

two standard security questions,the only consequence would have been the screening of their carry-on and checked

bags for explosives. See FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001, p. 76.

6. For Flight 11, two checkpoints provided access to the gate.The second was opened at 7:15

A.M. The FAA
conducted many screener evaluations between September 11,1999,and September 11,2001.At the primary checkpoints,

in aggregate, screeners met or exceeded the average for overall, physical search, and X-ray detection, while

falling below the norm for metal detection. No FAA Special Assessments (by "red teams") were done at Logan

security checkpoints during the two years prior to September 11, 2001. See FAA briefing materials,"Assessment

and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD," Oct. 24, 2001.

7. See Air Transport Association/Regional Airlines Association (ATA/RAA) report,"Air Carriers Checkpoint

Operations Guide,"Aug. 1999; FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001, appendix VI.

8. Mary Carol Turano interview (Mar. 11, 2004); FBI reports of investigation, interview of Nilda Cora, Oct. 4,

2001; interview ofWilliam Thomas, Sept. 14, 2001; interview of Jennifer Gore, Sept. 12, 2001; interview of Claudia

Richey, Sept. 15, 2001; interview of Rosarito Rivera, Sept. 25, 2001.

9. See TSA report,"Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated. For boarding and seating information,

see AAL record, SABRE information on Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001.These boarding times from the American

system are approximate only; for Flight 11, they indicated that some passengers "boarded" after the aircraft had

pushed back from the gate. See AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.


10. See TSA report,"Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated; see also UAL letter,"Flight 175—

11 Sep01 Passenger ACI Check-in History," July 11, 2002.

11.The Hazmis checked in at 7:29; the airline has not yet been able to confirm the time of Hanjour’s checkin.

However, it had to have taken place by 7:35, when he appears on the checkpoint videotape. See AAL record,

SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests,

Mar. 15, 2004; Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11,


12. See TSA report,"Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated; see also FAA report,"Selectee List

AALA #77," undated; FBI report of investigation, interview of Vaughn Allex, Sept. 12, 2001;Vaughn Allex interview

(July 13, 2004).

13.The FAA conducted many screener evaluations at Dulles between September 11, 1999, and September 11,

2001.While the test results for physical search exceeded the national average, both the metal detector and X-ray

results were below average. See FAA briefing materials,"Assessment and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD,"

Oct. 24, 2001.

14. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11, 2001;

see also Tim Jackson interview (Apr. 12, 2004).

15. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11, 2001;

see also Tim Jackson interview (Apr. 12, 2004).

16. For investigation findings, see FAA report,"American Airlines Flight #77: Hijacking and Crash into the

Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001," undated. For screener evaluations, see Tim Jackson interview (Apr. 12, 2004).

17. See AAL record,SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s February

3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.

18.UAL record, Flight 93 EWR bag loading status, Sept. 11, 2001;UAL record, Flight 93 EWR ACI passenger

history, Sept. 11, 2001;UAL record, Flight 93 EWR full bag history, Sept. 11, 2001;TSA report,"Selectee Status

of September 11th Hijackers," undated; FBI report,"The Final 24 Hours,"Dec. 8, 2003.

19.The FAA conducted many screener evaluations at Newark between September 11, 1999, and September

11, 2001. Detection rates for metal detection, physical searches, and X-rays all met or exceeded the national averages.

See FAA briefing materials,"Assessment and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD," Oct. 24, 2001; see also

FAA report,"United Airlines Flight 93, September 11, 2001, Executive Report," Jan. 30, 2002.

20. UAL record, Flight 93 EWR ACI passenger history, Sept. 11, 2001; see also FBI report, "The Final 24

Hours," Dec. 8, 2003.

21.While Flights 11 and 77 were at or slightly above the average number of passengers for the respective flights

that summer, Flights 175 and 93 were well below their averages.We found no evidence to indicate that the hijackers

manipulated the passenger loads on the aircraft they hijacked. Financial records did not reveal the purchase of

any tickets beyond those the hijackers used for themselves. See FBI response to Commission briefing request no.

6, undated (topic 8);AAL report,"Average Load Factor by Day-of-Week," undated (for Flights 11 and 77 from June

11, 2001, to Sept. 9, 2001);AAL response to the Commission’s supplemental document requests, Jan. 20, 2004;UAL

report, Flight 175 BOS-LAX Load Factors, undated (from June 1, 2001, to Sept. 11, 2001);UAL report,"Explanation

of Load Factors," undated.

22. See AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004; AAL record, Dispatch

Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL report,"Flight Attendant Jump

Seat Locations During Takeoff And Flight Attendant Typical Cabin Positions During Start of Cabin Service,"

undated;AAL report,"Passenger Name List, Flight 11/September 11," undated.

23. Commission analysis of NTSB and FAA air traffic control and radar data. See AAL record, Dispatch Environmental

Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept. 11,2001;NTSB report,"Flight Path Study—American

Airlines Flight 11," Feb. 19, 2002; Bill Halleck and Peggy Houck interview (Jan. 8, 2004).The initial service

assignments for flight attendants on American 11 would have placed Karen Martin and Bobbi Arestegui in first

class; Sara Low and Jean Roger in business class;Dianne Snyder in the midcabin galley;Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney

in coach; and Karen Nicosia in the aft galley. Jeffrey Collman would have been assigned to work in coach, but to

assist in first class if needed. See AAL report, "Flight Attendant Jump Seat Locations During Takeoff And Flight

Attendant Typical Cabin Positions During Start of Cabin Service," undated; Bob Jordan briefing (Nov. 20, 2003).

24. NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording—American Airlines Flight 11, Dec. 21, 2001; NTSB report,

Air Traffic Control Recording—United Airlines Flight 175, Dec. 21, 2001. Given that the cockpit crew of American

11 had been acknowledging all previous instructions from air traffic control that morning within a matter of

seconds, and that when the first reporting of the hijacking was received a short time later (the 8:19 call from Betty

Ong) a number of actions had already been taken by the hijackers, it is most likely that the hijacking occurred at


25.An early draft of an executive summary prepared by FAA security staff for the agency’s leadership referred

to an alleged report of a shooting aboard Flight 11.We believe this report was erroneous for a number of reasons—

there is no evidence that the hijackers purchased firearms, use of a gun would be inconsistent with the otherwise


common tactics employed by the hijackers, the alleged shooting victim was seated where witness accounts place

the stabbing victim (9B), and, most important, neither Betty Ong nor Amy Sweeney, the only two people who

communicated to the ground from aboard the aircraft, reported the presence of a gun or a shooting. Both reported

knives and stabbings.AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL transcript,

telephone call from Nydia Gonzalez to Craig Marquis, Sept. 11, 2001; AAL transcript, telephone call from

Nancy Wyatt to Ray Howland, Sept. 11, 2001; Michael Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004).The General Accounting

Office looked into the gun story and was unable to corroborate it.GAO report, summary of briefing re investigation,

Aug. 30, 2002.

26. Craig Marquis interview (Nov. 19, 2003); Michael Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004); Jim Dillon interview

(Apr. 15, 2004). See also AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001.

At the time of the hijacking,American Airlines flight attendants all carried cockpit keys on their person. See Craig

Marquis, Craig Parfitt, Joe Bertapelle, and Mike Mulcahy interview (Nov. 19, 2003).

27. AAL transcript, telephone call from Nydia Gonzalez to Craig Marquis, Sept. 11, 2001; Obituary, "Daniel


Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2001, p. B7.
28. AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001; AAL transcript, telephone

call from Nydia Gonzalez to Craig Marquis, Sept. 11, 2001. Regarding the claim of a bomb, see Michael

Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004).

29. Calls to American’s reservations office are routed to the first open line at one of several facilities, among

them the center in Cary, N.C. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003). On standard emergency training,

see FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001, pp. 139j–139o; Don Dillman briefing (Nov.

18, 2003); Bob Jordan briefing (Nov. 20, 2003).The call from Ong was received initially by Vanessa Minter and then

taken over by Winston Sadler; realizing the urgency of the situation, he pushed an emergency button that simultaneously

initiated a tape recording of the call and sent an alarm notifying Nydia Gonzalez, a supervisor, to pick

up on the line. Gonzalez was paged to respond to the alarm and joined the call a short time later. Only the first

four minutes of the phone call between Ong and the reservations center (Minter, Sadler, and Gonzalez) was recorded

because of the time limit on the recently installed system. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003); Nydia

Gonzalez testimony, Jan. 27, 2004.

30.AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001.


Hello James,

I am aware of every item you sent.   Here is my response:
1. The 9/11 Commission did not present any evidence about the boarding of the aircraft.  Its footnotes do not refer to any certified document.  Some of the documents are even "undated".  So apparently even the 9/11 Commission did not see any conclusive document relative to the boarding of the aircraft.
2. In a criminal case the prosecution must produce evidence to support its allegations. This evidence can be challenged in open court and it’s up to the jury to decide whether the evidence is credible. In the case of 9/11 the alleged hijackers are dead, or more accurately have disappeared.  Therefore no trial is held.  There is jury. There is no defense. Just the word of the "prosecution" is allowed to stand, as the full truth.  If you want to believe the word of the US Government at face value, you are welcome.  I don’t.
3. At the Moussaoui trial no evidence was presented regarding the boarding of the aircraft.   It was conspicuously absent.  Whatever was allegedly found at the crash site was not accompanied by chain-of-custody reports. It could have been planted there. It could have been found elsewhere.  In a criminal case one must have proof.  It would not be the first case where evidence is planted.  However, you are welcome to believe in the integrity of the FBI.
4. The video recordings you refer to are exactly two: One from Portland airport, allegedly showing Mohammed Atta and his colleague Alomari.  This does not prove in any way that either of them boarded AA11 in Boston. The other video is said to be from Dulles Airport, allegedly showing some of the "hijackers", including Hani Hanjour.  The recording lacks date, time and camera number.  The lighting suggests it was recording around noon.  The camera zooms, suggesting human operation and foreknowledge of the subjects to be filmed.  All of that suggests that the recording was staged.  That it was bogus.  So much for these video documents, who anyhow do not document the "boarding" of any plane.
5. No "financial records" were produced of them buying tickets, only transcribed information about these records.
6. In spite of the "hijackers" having spent time in the US, in known addresses and in known cars, the FBI did not attempt to obtain comparison DNA of the "hijackers" in order to positively identify them.  The spokesman of the AFIP actually stated that they would not attempt to get comparison DNA and would simply identity them "by default".  In addition, no chain-of-custody reports accompanied the samples allegedly found at the crash sites.  The entire identification process was tainted by irregularities from the start.  The remains of the "hijackers" were issued death certificates under the names John Doe, including the alleged "brothers" you mention.  We actually know nothing about the origins of the samples that were probably planted at the alleged crash sites, or more simply shipped from somewhere to the institute for identification.   
7. The items you mention were not introduced into the trial "under penalty of perjury" and were not subject to "cross examination" by defense lawyers.   The defense lawyers did not even question the disputed allegations made by the prosecution concerning the boarding of the airliners and agreed, through socalled Stipulations to exempt the prosecution from the duty to prove its allegations. This was a sorry display of collusion between defense and prosecution to put a mentally disturbed Muslim who did not commit any crime in the black hole for life and present to the American people the first success in the war on terror.  Such lawyers should be denounced for their shameful dereliction of professional duty.

Now, I again ask: Where is the evidence that the 19 "hijackers" actually boarded the planes?
Why are the authentic passenger lists and flight manifests not shown to the public?  
Why are the boarding cards stubs torn at the gates not shown to the public?
Why are the videos above the boarding gates not shown to the public?
Why was it decided in advance not to positively identify the "hijackers’" bodily remains?
Why did nobody testify to have checked the identities of the passengers  and hijackers at the boarding gates, torn the boarding cards and observed the boarding people?

Even if all items found at the crash sites had actually been found there and not planted, this fact alone would not place any particular person on the crashed plane (given that a passenger plane actually crashed there). In order to place anyone on the plane it must be shown that the person’s name was on the original passenger list, that his boarding card stub was removed and that someone at the boarding gate actually tore that boarding card after checking the identity of the boarding passenger.  The lack of testimonies by these people is highly suspicious because these were the last people to have actually seen the "passengers" alive.  Even the  boarding gate number of AA11 is disputed and remains one of the mysteries.  And to add another mystery, AA11 was not even scheduled to fly on 9/11, as reflected by the database of the Dept. of Transportation.   Apparentely the boarding of the aircraft is one of the biggest secrets of 9/11, that the US authorities are trying by all means to cover.  All of these facts add up to one huge question.  So, in the very least, any reasonable person would be wise to refrain from stating any definite opinion upon the identities of the perpetrators, their facilitators and the manner of the crime.  It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the US authorities did not prove their case. It is also obvious to the naked eye that the US authorities are extremely worried that anything regarding the boarding of the aircraft would leak to the public.  This alone raises suspicion.  What actually happened on 9/11 is another chapter. I leave it to you to develop your o

On 19.11.2008, at 00:40, James Bennett wrote

Most of this has been presented as evidence though.  It is all in the footnotes of the 9/11 Comission Report.  Yes, you may not have physical possession of this, but what criminal case do you have physical possession of the evidence for?  Much of this is also shown for the Moussouii trial.  ID cards of passengers found in wreckage is pretty good evidence that the people in question were on the plane.  The baggage of the hijackers were found, video footage of them going through security, financial records of them buying tickets.  DNA was identified for all of the passengers but 1 of those who crashed into the Pentagon.  They did not have DNA profiles for the 5 hijackers, but there were exactly 5 bodies which did not match known profiles, two of whom were identified as brothers.  Ask yourself, why is this significant?
All of this was introduced as evidence under penalty of perjury during the trial, with cross examination by a team of lawyers.  If this is not good enough evidence for you to believe it is legitimate, than I ask, what possibly could be?


On 19.11.2008, at 15:11, James Bennett wrote:

As I mentioned, your beliefs are not falsifiable, any evidence which does not support your beliefs you will just arbitrarily dismiss as fake.  Arguing with you is pointless.  I could have a taped confession of the hijackers themselves (which in fact do exist) and you would just dismiss it as fake.  It is also apparent that you do not understand the US legal system.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Elias Davidsson wrote:

On 19.11.2008, at 15:44, James Bennett wrote:
– I could produce boarding passes.

E.D.: Really?  Can you produce boarding passes from the flights of 9/11?  Have you connections to the airlines or the FBI?

– Testimony from airline employees.

E.D. Do you mean employees who witnessed the boarding?  Really?  I am very curious to see these testimonies.

As these documents have never been publicly produced, I wonder how you got hold of them.  I am really curious.


James Bennett:

You obviously don’t get this, do you?  Here, try the following thought experiment.  I want you to provide evidence that Germany invaded France in May, 1940.  Now I don’t trust historians, everyone knows that history is written by the winners and that historians lie.  And don’t just provide proof that these two countries were at war at some point, I want specific proof that Germany invaded France in an unprovoked manner in May, 1940.  So no pictures of Hitler standing in front of the Eiffel tower, that doesn’t prove anything.  And nothing from the German or French government, everyone knows that you can’t trust them.  So go ahead, produce your court certified evidence.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
So I guess you just bluffed before about being able to produce the boarding passes.  You also did not respond whether you have connections to the airlines or the FBI.   And I am still awaiting for your answers.  OK, thanks for the chat.  Try your luck elsewhere.


On 19.11.2008, at 17:04, James Bennett wrote:

Here, just to amuse you, more evidence for you to ignore.
September 21, 2008
7 Years Later, 9/11 Hijackers’ Remains Are in Limbo

Seven years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the remains of 13 of the 19 men responsible have been identified and are in the custody of the F.B.I. and the New York City medical examiner’s office.

But no one has formally requested the remains in order to bury them.

"Politically, one can understand that this is a hot potato," said Muneer Fareed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America and a former professor of Islamic studies. "People don’t want to identify with the political equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer."

What would happen if someone asked for the hijackers’ remains is not clear.

Neither the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which holds the remains of the nine hijackers whose planes hit the Pentagon and crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pa., nor the New York City medical examiner’s office, which holds the remains of 4 of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings, has policies to deal with such a request.

"If and when it comes up, we’ll address it then," an F.B.I. spokesman, Richard Kolko, said.

The bureau could turn down such requests, Mr. Kolko said, because the Sept. 11 investigation is an open case.

The medical examiner’s office, which, like the F.B.I., refuses to say where exactly the remains are being kept, will eventually put together a committee to come up with a policy, said Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the office.

Groups representing the victims of Sept. 11 are not sure what should be done with the remains.

"It would be sadly ironic if they ended up being properly buried or sent to a Muslim country when many of the remains of the victims remain buried in a garbage dump," said Kurt Horning, a founder with his wife, Diane, of the group WTC Families for Proper Burial. "I know we’d feel very distressed."

The Hornings’ son, Matthew, 26, was working at the World Trade Center and died there on Sept. 11. Their group has been advocating for excavation of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island where ash and other debris from the World Trade Center site was buried. The group believes the debris may contain identifiable remains.

The identified remains of the victims of Sept. 11 are regularly returned to their families upon request, after officials have made positive identifications.

At the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, investigators first identified the victims, and the remains that could not be linked to a victim’s DNA profile were assumed to belong to the terrorists.

For the World Trade Center site, with a much larger area to search and an initially undetermined number of victims, the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office.

But, since the DNA profiles were unnamed by the bureau, the office could not say which hijackers have been identified, just that 4 of the 10 have been so far.

Three of them were identified as hijackers within two years of the 2001 attack. But the fourth set of remains was not found until September 2007, when the discovery of numerous bone fragments at a building near the World Trade Center site prompted a reinvestigation of the entire site.

The only semblance of a request from a hijacker’s family member to any of the agencies that handled the recovery of remains came in the summer of 2002 from an uncle of one of the men on Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County.

"I got a call from Beirut at 4 a.m.," said Wallace E. Miller, the Somerset County coroner. "He said he was an uncle of one of them and wanted to know what the situation was. I said if he sent a DNA sample, we’d make a cross-reference to confirm, but I never heard anything more from him."

The uncle — Mr. Miller said he could not recall his name or who his nephew was — was apparently prompted by a British or South African journalist who had put the man on the phone after interviewing him about the events of Sept. 11.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thank you for the article. I had not seen it.  

On 19.11.2008, at 23:33, James Bennett wrote:

Here, some more stuff that I am sure you have never seen.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thank you.  It’s helpful background info.

On 4.1.2009, at 04:19, James Bennett wrote:

More evidence for you to ignore.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Hi James,  

One must read carefully and then only draw conclusions.  Let us proceed:

1.  Mr. Shaler is said to have said: The families said, "These people were criminals and did not deserve to be with them." The families asked for the remains of the hijackers to be separated out and kept someplace else.  OK.  Let us assume the reporter is quoting Shaler correctly and let us assume he says the truth. This only would mean that some family members BELIEVED that the remains of the hijackers were there mingled and BELIEVED that their own next-of-kin were there too. It does not have any relevance as evidence that the remains of the hijackers were actually there.

2.  Mr. Shaler continues: By the spring of 2002, Shaler and his staff of 105 scientists had yet to identify any of the New York hijackers. "I thought we’d never find remains from anyone on the planes," he says. But he promised to try.  What?   As late as the spring of 2002 they did find remains "from anyone on the planes"?  That’s really strange.  As he does not mention the "hijackers", I assume he meant the passengers.  

3. "Today, 1,126 of the 2,751 victims from the World Trade Center and five individuals from the Pentagon have yet to be identified at all—none of their remains and no traces of their DNA have been found."  What could explain such destruction?  According to the official theory the buildings crumbled. So at least one would find some remains under the ruins. Not so.  The alternative theory is that the buildings were destroyed by powerful explosives or even more esoteric means. This would explain why most so few actual bodies were recovered and why the fragments were so small and were found far from the buildings, on the roof of the Deutsch Bank building.  But of course no one wants to deal with the implication of this fragmentation as it would lead them to prohibited territory.

4. The author writes: "[T]he scientists have now ID’d four of the 10 New York hijackers.".  Well, the term ID’s means "identified", so I expect anyone doing an identification to tell us WHO these people were. But we are not told. So, no identification after all, or perhaps just a sham identification.

5. The author adds, deceiving the readers: "The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed".  Note that he does not say "identified" because they were not identified.  Some flesh was determined to belong to the hijackers by "exclusion", because it did not fit other samples.  So no identification after all, just a public deception.

6. About the "remains" of the terrorists, we have the word of the Ministry of Truth, an official of the FBI, Richard Kolko.  I am not a buyer. Are you?

7. The author writes: "None of the families of the hijackers, and no foreign governments, have come forward to request that the remains be handed over, and it is not clear what the official response would be if they did."  Well, no government has dared to challenge the official account on 9/11. By challenging the identification of the hijackers, any government would place itself in an embarassing position, as if suspecting a foul play.  This is why many statesmen, who privately suspect US government foul play in 9/11, remain quiet. As for the families of the hijackers, I suspect that they lie low. It would not surprise me that they have been either bribed or actually threatened by their not so democratic governments not to rock the boat.  It is also interesting to note that the US authorities have not made any efforts to seek out the families and have not even said how they would react if asked for the remains (as explained by the author).  Later in the article, my suspicions are verified by the author who writes: "Reached by NEWSWEEK, one relative of Ziad Jarrah, the hijacker believed to have piloted Flight 93 into a Pennsylvania field, expressed just this kind of ambivalence. "Of course we want to get back his remains, but we are not planning to make any contact before things get clarified," said the relative, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. He couldn’t bring himself to admit that Jarrah had carried out the atrocities. "Maybe he participated," he says. "Maybe there is something we don’t know….If he were related to one of the hijackers, he says, "I’d be scared for the harm that might befall the rest of my family by the Saudi or Egyptian government if I showed an interest," he says. "There is an environment of fear in countries like Saudi Arabia; it’s hard to describe. The culture of terror is suffocating.""  I would also be ambivalent about requesting the remains before being convinced that the remains came from the crash site AND that the person in question actually boarded the aircraft that crashed there.  

1.  None of the alleged hijackers were positively identified, that is by name.  The article does not provide, therefore, anything really new.
2.  Even if the remains of the 19 alleged hijackers were to be positively identified, we would have to be convinced that their remains actually came from the crash sites AND that the aircraft that crashed there were actually the aircraft on to which these alleged hijackers boarded.  In a criminal case, particularly when suspicion exists about official foul play, every piece of the puzzle must be proved.  You cannot simply take the word of law-enforcement as the Holy Bible.  As the US authorities have NOT produced any evidence that the 19 alleged hijackers boarded the four aircraft, nor positively identified the wreckage of the aircraft that crashed at the various locations, nor produced any material evidence proving the identity of the crashed aircraft, the above article must be regarded as a disinformation effort.
3.  That Newsweek chooses to publish such an article now proves that the US elite is uneasy about the widening suspicions. It proves that We The People are on the right track.

You are welcome to transmit my report to your superiors.  You might wish to reconsider your beliefs and loyalty.

Happy new year,

Elias Davidsson

8. "In September 2007 the medical examiner’s office in New York announced it had identified a fourth set of terrorist remains —the 13th identified to date.". What did he mean "identified"?  Who was this "terrorist"? Why aren’t we provided with his name?

On 14.1.2009, at 15:54, James Bennett wrote:

More evidence for you to ignore.  You might want to forward it to David Ray Griffin, so he can quote mine it for his next few books.

On 14.2009 Elias Davidsson wrote:

Thank you for confirming – by your silence – what I wrote below.



Letter to Prof. Anthony J. Sebok, Brooklyn Law School

Dear Prof. Sebok,

I read your article on FindLaw entitled "The District Court Decision in the Remaining 9/11 Litigation: Why Judge Hellerstein Was Wise to Dismiss Some of the Property Damage Claims".

While I note your legal skills in analyzing the decision, I wonder whether you have not seen the forest for the trees. Let me explain.

Your entire analysis is predicated on the facts, as they were presented by the US government and its agencies, regarding the events that took place on 9/11.  These facts, or rathere allegations, include:
(1) That four aircraft were hijacked by 19 Muslim fanatics
(2) That two hijacked aircraft crashed on the World Trade Center buildings

Now, I do appreciate that this description was widely reported and is widely believed, even by educated people and by those who educate others.  I have in fact tried, for more than four years, to locate evidence that supports this story.  What I discovered, however, is that there exists not a shred of evidence supporting this legend. Sounds unbelievable?  It does. Yet I have documented my search with almost 100 footnotes. Until today no one has challenged my findings:

(a) There is no evidence whatsoever that any Muslim fanatic boarded any of the four aircraft that reportedly crashed on 9/11.  Their names do not appear on passenger lists; their boarding cards are nowhere to be found; no one has seen them board the aircraft; no video recordings document their boarding; and their bodily remains were not positively identified.  If you don’t believe me, check it and you will discover that my statements are correct.  No evidence that Muslims committed 9/11?  Yes, that’s it.  I add that I do not make any specific allegations who committed the crime, although I think that the lack of evidence suggests where to look for suspects.

(b)  If real passenger aircraft actually crashed on the WTC, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania – which might be the case – the fact is undisputed that the wreckage was not identified and linked to the passenger aircraft onto which the passengers and alleged hijackers allegedly boarded. The FBI declared that there was no need to positively identify the wreckage of the planes. The NTSB did not study the crash, as it the rule with aircraft crashes. So we do not know what actually crashed there, a civilian plane, a military plane, a missile…  No one actually saw anything resembling an aircraft wreckage at any of these locations. This was particulary bizarre at the crash site in Pennsylvania where eyewitnesses who came to the crash site did not see anything reminding them of an aircraft, nor even any bodies or blood.  The FBI, however, claimed later that it could recover 95% of the airplane from the Pennsylvania crash site, which according to them had plunged into the soft ground. The FBI then handed the whole recovered wreckage to United Airlines, with no witnesses attending. No person was, however, allowed to photograph the recovered wreckage. Bizarre.

Now, I wonder how you are able to remain oblivious to the above facts as a US legal journalist.  After all 9/11 was a murder case and one would expect the government to prove its accusations against the alleged murderers. I would be most thankful for your explanation.

With kind greetings,

Elias Davidsson
Alfter, Germany

Letter to NATO Centre of Defence Against Terrorism

Centre of Excellence,
Defence Against Terrorism

Dear folks,

In connection with a paper I am preparing,  I am looking for statistics about terrorism fatalities in Europe. I tried to google for such statistics but did not find any.  As you are dealing with terrorism research I wonder whether you could supply me with statistics about the number of fatalities from terrorism in Europe for the years 1991 to 2006 (or 2007). If you do not possess such statistics, could you refer me to another source?

Many thanks,

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson
Alfter, Germany

Letter to Martin Schram, syndicated columnist

Dear Mr. Schram,

There are things that decent people do not do: Among those are to accuse others of complicity in mass murder without even a shred of evidence, even if these "others" live far away.  I am sorry to note that you have levelled such accusations at the Taliban in your article "Blindsided by War on Terror"  on

You write there: "The Taliban — facilitators of al-Qaida’s 9/11 terrorist attacks on our homeland — had just scored a major triumph."   Facilitators of the 9/11 attacks?  This allegation is without any foundation in fact and law.  I challenge you to present any credible evidence that the Taliban, or any person who resided in Afghanistan, had anything to do with 9/11.  Even the FBI admitted to have no such evidence.  I am no friend of the Taliban, have never been in Afghanistan and am not particularly interested how the Afghans are managing their lives.  But I cannot support anyone making false accusations against others, particularly when such accusations are used as a pretext for killings.

I would therefore ask you, in a civic but firm manner, to refrain in the future of accusing without any evidence otherpeople of mass murder or in helping mass murder.  Such conduct by yourself only serves to make Americans look bad.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson
Composer and human rights activist
Alfter, Germany

Letter to the FBI re. PENTTBOM

Elias Davidsson
Horpugata 14
101 Reykjavik

                                    Reykjavik, 13 December 2007

Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001


As a researcher and author, I have a few questions regarding the PENTTBOM investigation that was carried out under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

1.   What was the official mandate of PENTTBOM?  Can you provide the text of this mandate?
2.   Whom did the PENTTBOM team interview?   
    – Families of 9/11 victims (passengers and others who died on 9/11)
    – Families of crew members who died on 9/11    
    – Families of the hijackers (which?)
    – Airport personnel (which?)
    – Airlines’ personnel (which?)
    – Others (which?)
3.   Were PENTTBOM interviews recorded on tape or on video? 
4.   Is there an overview or listing of these interviews?
5.   In whose custody does the forensic evidence collected on 9/11 remain, including items recovered from the crash sites and from the departure airports?
6.   What reports have been issued by the PENTTBOM team and how can one obtain these reports?
7.   Has the PENTTBOM team been dismantled? If so, when? If not, what remains its role and how large is that team?

In the hope that you are in a position to answer these questions, I thank you in advance for your assistance and remain,

                                sincerely yours,

                                Elias Davidsson

Letter to Chief Judge Albrecht Mentz, Hamburg, Germany

Elias Davidsson
Horpugata 14
101 Reykjavik

                                    Reykjavik, 13 December 2007


Chief Judge
Albrecht Mentz,
Vorsitzenden Richter am 3. Strafsenat des OLG Hamburg
Fax: +49 – 40 – 428 433 555

I read in the Financial Times of 20 February 2003 your statement made at the Motassadeq trial held in Hamburg in 2003, that the defendant “knew the scale of what was being planned [regarding the events of 9/11] and, worse, he wanted it to happen.”  According to the Times you also said, “He was involved in the planning [of the attacks] from the beginning, and had the role of covering the backs of those directly involved while they were away from Hamburg.”

I feel compelled to inform you, Judge Mentz, that the crime of 9/11 was not committed by any of the friends or acquaintances of Motassadeq.  None of them boarded the aircraft which allegedly were used in the attacks of 9/11. There is not a shred of evidence that they boarded these aircraft and committed the crime.

In the trial of Motassadeq the prosecution did not present any evidence proving that Motassadeq’s friends actually planned to commit mass murder and that they boarded aircraft that they later hijacked and flew into buildings. No such evidence was presented to the court. The defense failed to challenge the lack of such evidence. And you, as a judge, did not bother to demand that such evidence be presented in order to make the case that Motassadeq actually helped commit a crime.  No connection was established by the court between Motassadeq and any act of murder. 

The Motassadeq trial will remain a taint on your career and on German justice. I therefore urge you to resign from your position. This is the only dignified manner to repair the wrong you have committed as a judge.

I expect you to respond to this letter.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson

Letter to Jason Burke, author of Al Qaeda

8 September 2008

Mr. Jason Burke, Esq.
c/o Penguin Publishers

Dear Mr. Burke,

I have read with great interest your seminal book Al Qaeda [third edition, 2007] and appreciate the independent and critical spirit emanating from your book.

As a scholar in international law and a keen student of contemporary events, including what goes under the name of the “war on terror”, I feel the need to convey to you a number of observations and questions with the hope to hear from you.

Here it goes.

1.   Page 16: “Intelligence services lie, cheat and deceive. Propaganda is one of their primary functions.” I fully concur with that view. Yet, it appears to me that a great deal of facts presented in the book emanate from intelligence services.  At a minimum, the reader cannot verify the credibility of the facts presented, particularly if they only reflect a private interview with a person that cannot be located.

2.  Page 24: Holy warriors are “proud, strong, deserving of respect and prestige.”  Yet, having followed many cases of detained terror suspects in various countries, when presented to a judge, they mostly deny the allegations of intending to commit terrorism and do not at all act as proud jihadists.  A number of them are even willing to make plea bargains by falsely accusing other Muslims. This would hardly be the case with true believers in their cause.

3. Page 39: “Bin Laden’s gripping and powerful pre-recorded video clip, delivered before the US air raids on Afghanistan and shown by al-Jazeera within hours of their inception, epitomized the inadequacy of the response the most powerful state of the world could muster in the face of basic modern telecommunications used well.”  Leaving aside the question whether the video clip was authentic, I think it is a wide-believed error to attribute to terrorists the skills of communications. Neither Al Jazeera nor CNN is owned by a terrorist organisation (at least in the accepted meaning of the word “terrorist organisation”).  No terrorist dictates to these corporate media what, when and how to broadcast a report.  Corporate media are notorious in refusing to report important facts that might embarass corporations or governments. The fame of Osama bin Laden is entirely due to the coverage given him by corporate media and cannot be attributed to his communication skills.  There are many people around the world who possess equal or better communication skills than OBL but are excluded from the media because they speak out the truth to power.

4.  Page 104 discusses Ali Mohammed without mentioning that he worked simultaneously for the CIA and the FBI  and for Osama bin Laden and that he worked as an instructor at the  John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg  (the “US military’s top warfare planning center”) while spending his weekends at a jihadist center in Brooklyn. One of his supervisors is Col. Norvell De Atkine actually contributes articles to a staunch Pro-Israel journal edited by Daniel Pipes.  While working for the US government, Ali Mohammed trained most 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center, with the full knowledge of the FBI.  In 1989 Mohamed was discharged honorably from the US army with commendations, including for “patriotism, valor, fidelity and professional excellence.” In 1990 Ali became an informant for the FBI and maintained connections with the FBI for much of the rest of the 1990s.  Apparently Ali also helps in 1991 to move Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan.  According to US prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Ali Mohammed “trained most of al-Qaeda’s top leadership – including Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri – and most of al-Qaeda’s top trainers.” (Source: 9/11 Commission).  According to Nabil Sharef, a university professor and former Egyptian intelligence officer, “for five years [Ali Mohammed] was moving back and forth between the US and Afghanistan. It’s impossible the CIA thought he was going there as a tourist. If the CIA hadn’t caught on him, it should be dissolved and its budget used for something worthwhile.” (Source: Wall Street Journal, 26 Nov., 2001). At one time, in June 1993, Ali Mohamed is detained in Vancouver, Canada by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After he tells them to call his FBI handler, John Zent, he is released.  An article published in the Boston Globe on February 3, 1995 exposes Ali Mohamed, calling him “a shadowy individual described by defense attorneys as a key figure in the largest terrorism trial in US history.” In spite of such publicity, US law-enforcement authorities do not touch him.  In October 1997 Ali Mohamed tells about his extensive Al-Qaeda links to US officials of the FBI in California but is not arrested.  In 1998, Ali Mohamed tells the FBI who the East-Africa embassy bombers but is not arrested even though he does not offer names. Ali Mohamed is allegedly arrested in September 1998 and will in October 2000 apparently plead guilty to five counts of conspiracy but will never be publicly sentenced.  The nature of the plea agreement made between Ali Mohamed and the US Goverenment remains secret.  He refused to testify in his trial.  His whereabouts are unknown.  His role as an agent of US intelligence remains mysterious. 

5.  In your book you at various points deny that the United States actually funded, let alone trained, the “Arabs” brought to fight in Afghanistan. Yet, according to various other sources, more than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and MI6, with the [British special forces unit] SAS training future al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. [Guardian, 9/20/2003]. Michael Springmann, former official at the U.S. Consultate at Jeddah,  also reported that dozens of Arabs were brought into the U.S. in order to be trained to fight in Afghanistan.

6.  Discussing the WTC bombing in 1993, your book does not mention a crucial fact, namely that an undercover agent of the FBI, Emad Salem, testified under oath in a New York court that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, an FBI supervisor called off this plan, and the bombing was not stopped. (Sources: New York Times, 28. Oct. 1993 and Court documents).

7.  A whole chapter of the Al Qaeda book devoted to 9/11. Yet, the U.S. government has not produced the slighest evidence that links 9/11 to Al Qaeda.  In order for such a link to exist, it must be shown that the persons who actually perpetrated the mass killing of 9/11 were related to, sympathetic to, linked to, or members of Al Qaeda.   However, the US government failed to prove that any Al-Qaeda related person actually boarded any of the airliners that crashed on 9/11.  The names of the alleged hijackers do not appear on any authentic passenger list; their boarding cards stubs cannot be found; no person saw them actually board onto the airliners; in fact no person at all testified to have witnessed the boarding of these airliners; there exist no video recordings of the boarding process; and the bodily remains of these alleged terrorists were not identified.  There is thus not a shred of evidence locating these particular individuals at the crime scene.  Additionally, the FBI has admitted in June 2006 to possess no “hard evidence” linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. This is the reason, according to the FBI, why 9/11 is not mentioned on their website offering a financial prize for that person.

In the book Al Qaeda, numerous statements refer to the events of 9/11 as the work of Al Qaeda and its operators. Yet, there is no evidence to support such statements.  I wonder whether you possess evidence that no one else possesses and if so, what is that evidence.  It goes without saying that statements by Osama bin Laden, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed or Zacarias Moussaoui, according to which Al Qaeda operators perpetrated the crime of 9/11, would not constitute incriminating evidence, even if the statements were made in good faith, for the simple reason that neither of these persons was an eyewitness and because the US authorities, possessing access to all documents, have failed to prove that presence of the 19 alleged hijackers at the scene of murder.

All the above observations, based on verifiable statements and facts, demonstrate the existence of covert links between the US government and Al Qaeda since the 1980s, links which continue until this very day.  I believe that the international community is entitled to know the full truth on 9/11 and on the real nature of the terrorist threat that, we are constantly told, represents a real danger to world peace.  For, if we are being lied to and Al Qaeda were to be exposed as a covert operation of Western intelligence agencies (as it appears to be), I am afraid that the deceivers will one day have to pay a high price for their deception that has helped spawn two wars of aggression and over a million deaths.  Meanwhile, those who cherish the truth are invited to include all relevant facts – including those which may suggest government malfeasance – in their writings on international issues.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson

Letter to David Heim, The Christian Century

David Heim
Executive Director
The Christian Century

Dear Mr. Heim,

I came across an article you wrote in The Christian Century on September 5, 2006 and was entitled Whodunit? The article focusses on the writings of Prof. David Ray Griffin regarding the events of 9/11. The condescending tone of the article towards Prof. Griffin barely conceals your concern regarding the impact his writings have on millions of ordinary folks around the world. As a respected scholar in international law and human rights, I have found Prof. Griffin’s writings not only compelling but standing out among the literature on 9/11. He will be remembered, without doubt, as a great American patriot and true Christian.

Apart from the condescending tone, I found that your attempt to discredit Prof. Griffin was based on a lie by omission. In your article you present the failure of the US airforce to intercept the alleged hijacked aircraft on 9/11 as caused by confusion: “The air defense was so disoriented that it was still chasing phantom hijacked planes that afternoon.” Yet, you omitted to explain the reason for this confusion, namely that the US military conducted on 9/11 simulated aircraft hijackings. To make these exercises look real, the military fed bogus electronic blips into the radars of flight controllers that looked as if they represented genuine planes. This explains why on 9/11 it was believed that many more than four planes had been hijacked (according to one account up to 22). Several flight controllers are on record as questioning whether these blips were “exercise or real life”. I believe that you deliberately omitted to mention these exercises and the fact that the 9/11 Commission glossed over this theme. If so, such deliberate omission is unethical and certainly un-Christian. If you simply were not aware of these exercises, I think you should begin to study in more detail the events of 9/11 before you write another article on this subject.

Finally, permit me to mention that the US government has accused 19 Arabs, designated as “hijackers”, for having perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11. Yet, that same government has failed to produce the slighest proof that these 19 Arabs boarded any of the aircraft they allegedly hijacked. The accusations are thus without foundation and constitute, therefore, a massive and terrible defamation of innocent persons, in addition to a monumental deception of the American and world public. I wonder whether your publication was among those who participated in the defamation of these 19 persons who no one has seen board any of these planes, whose names do not figure on authenticated flight manifests and whose bodily remains were not positively identified from the crash sites.” If your publication had done so, I would urge you to publicize an apology for having promoted an accusation of mass murder that has no foundation in material evidence.

I permit myself to post this letter on my website and will certainly add any explanation you might wish to make.


Elias Davidsson

Letter to Kristen L. Winemiller, Atty at law, Portland, OR

Reykjavik, Iceland, April 28, 2008

Ms. Kristen L. Winemiller,
Attorney of Law
1420 World Trade Center
121 S.W. Salmon Street
Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Ms. Winemiller,

I am writing to you in connection with the case of Jeffrey Battle, a defendant you represented at the US District Court for the District of Oregon. I have read the Plea Agreement entered between the defendant, as represented by yourself, and the US government.

The reason I write to you is because I cannot make sense of this Plea Agreement.

1. In para. 4 B. it is stated that on September 11, 2001…persons affiliated with….Al Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes.” According to the FBI webpage [1] the identities of the hijackers are still in question and thus their membership in Al Qaeda is unproved.

I would therefore be thankful if you could explain to me on what evidence the allegation in para. 4B is based and whether you are legally entitled to advise your client to sign onto facts that have not been proved and which neither he nor you can confirm.

2.” In para. 4 C. a number of questionable statements are made, including

(a) that the declaration of national emergency and the ultimatum to the Taliban government had been a “response” to the events of 9/11, rather than the use of the events as a pretext;
(b) that the Taliban refused to comply with the demand of the United States to turn over Osama bin Laden, while they in fact agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden upon the presentation of evidence linking him to 9/11;
(c) that the United States and allied forces bombed Afghanistan “in an effort to root out bin Laden and Al Qaida elements” rather than to secure US strategic interests in the region;

Is it the duty of Defense Counsel to advise their client with regard to facially questionable statements in a Plea Agreement?

More generally, are parties to a Plea Agreement entitled to collude in arbitrarily determining facts and prevent a trial, in order to hide from the public the truth about a crime? If so, what is the responsibility of Defense Counsel when such collusion occurs, and who is empowered to examine whether such a collusion took place?

I would be most thankful if you could enlighten me about the aforementioned issues.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson

[1] On Septmber 27, 2001, the FBI released photographs and names of 19 individuals “believed? to be the hijackers of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001. The website states: “It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way.” See:

Letter to Dr. Jeffrey M. Bale, Expert in Islamic Terrorism

Jeffrey M. Bale
Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program

Dear Dr. Bale,

I came across a Chart of alleged Al-Qa’ida’s WMD Activities, in the compilation of which you have participated. The Chart is posted on and is dated May 13,2005.

I have glanced over the sources of the various entries and discovered that practically all sources must be considered as questionable because they cannot be verified by independent observers. I wonder how are ordinary citizens to lend credence to warnings about Al-Qa’ida’s alleged WMD Activities when practically all evidence is generated by or processed by intelligence services who have, evidently, an axe to grind. After all, ordinary citizens cannot simply rely on what authorities and their paid advisors claim, as illustrated by the official lies regarding Iraqi WMD.

I also noted that you are specializing in Islamist Networks, Extremism and Terrorism. In that connection, I would be most thankful if you could point out court cases in the US or Europe in the past 10 years in which a Muslim was convicted for committing a violent terrorist crime (excluding the more remote forms of “terrorism” such as sending money to Hamas or possessing “jihadi literature”). I have been searching for such cases but have not discovered any. Your help would be appreciated.

With my kindest thanks,

Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland

Letter to the Global Terrorism Database

To: Global Terrorism Database (GTD)

Dear folks,

I wish first to express my appreciation for your compilation of global terrorism statistics and the attempt to use a reasonable methodology in classifying terrorist incidents.

My question refers to one particular and major incident, in which I contend that you make serious unsubstantiated allegations. The incident, ID nr. 74144, refers to part of the September 11, 2001 events, namely to the alleged crash of Flight AA11 on the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

In the detailed description of this incident, the perpetrators are identified as Al-Qa’ida, deemed an Islamic-Islamist (Sunni) religious organisation. Their motive is listed as “an attempt to cause a blow to the United States and cause American casualties.” Yet, there exists no material evidence linking this incident to Al-Qa’eda, notwithstanding how this elusive entity is defined. The US Government has never produced any evidence, that would be admissible in a court of law, that an organisation by the name of Al-Qa’eda, or any of its alleged leaders, planned, financed or organized this incident. Statements made by alleged Al Qa’eda leaders cannot be considered material evidence of such a link, particularly when one considers where, when and how such statements were allegedly made. Moreover, the FBI admitted in June 2006 to an American journalist that it possessed no “hard evidence” to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11.

Secondly, contrary to what is stated in the Incident Summary, there is no factual base for the allegation that “[f]ive hijackers belonging to the Al-Qa`ida terrorist organization, took control of the Boeing 767 aircraft on a flight originating from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, and destined for Los Angeles International Airport.” There exists not a single document proving that the five persons alleged to have hijacked Flight AA11, had boarded on that aircraft; there are also conflicting reports regarding the gate number from where the aircraft departed as well as evidence that Flight AA11 was not scheduled to fly on September 11, 2001. In addition, no one has seen the alleged hijackers board the aircraft, no CCTV recording documents their boarding, no boarding cards’ stubs have been produced proving their boarding and their bodily remains from the crash site have not been positively identified. Finally, there is no evidence that these five individuals “belonged” to Al Qa’eda. While families of victims and members of the public have repeatedly asked for evidence proving who boarded Flight AA11 and the other aircraft of 9/11, the US Goverenment has failed for over six years to produce this evidence. The statements in that entry are, therefore, unsubstantiated and constitute serious accusations that are particularly hurtful to the families of the 9/11 victims who are entitled to the truth, as well as the families of those wrongfully accused of mass murder. The events of 9/11 have not been properly claimed by anyone, notwithstanding the preposterous and possibly fraudulent claims attributed to a fugitive named Osama Bin Laden or to individuals kept at a secret location and subjected to torture.

Hence, I would respectfully urge GTD to delete this entry from the database in order that your database achieve the necessary level of credibility which it deserves. Alternately, GTD might wish to add to its entries on 9/11 that the information included therein remains tentative and is based on unconfirmed official allegations regarding the identity of the perpetrators, their goals and the means of causing death.

In the view of the seriousness of the unsubstantiated allegations referred to in this letter, I intend to make this letter and our future correspondance available to the internet community.


Elias Davidsson
Reykavik, Iceland
April 20, 2008

Letter to George Monbiot re. 9/11

Dear Mr. Monbiot

I listened carefully to your debate with Prof. David Ray Griffin held recently regarding the 9/11 events. From that debate I infer that you share with Prof. Griffin a desire to have the truth established on these events. If my conclusion is correct, I invite you to become one of the first 100 signatories to an international appeal for the establishment of an international, independent, commission of inquiry on the events of 9/11, under UN auspices, mandated to establish the truth on the events of 9/11 and determine responsibilities for these deadly events.

Upon request, I will send you the text of the appeal.

With my kindest greetings,

Elias Davidsson
11 December 2007

Letter to NATO HQ

To the NATO Press Office,

Sir, Madam,

On NATO’s web site a Statement by the North Atlantic Council is posted (at This Statement contains the following clause:

“The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”

I understand that on October 2, 2001 the Council heard a presentation by the US Ambassador to NATO in which evidence was presented that the attack of September 11, 2001 “was directed from abroad against the United States”, more specifically from Afghanistan. On that base the NATO Council formally invoked Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter.

I have a couple of questions in this regard:

1. What the factual base on which the NATO Council determined that the attack of September 11, 2001 “was directed from abroad against the United States” and specifically from Afghanistan?

2. Is it correct, as reported in the New York Times, that the presentation to the Council was entirely oral and that no evidentiary documentation was distributed to the members of the Council?

I would be most thankful for your response, which would be useful in my research in the field of international relations and international law.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson
Horpugata 14
101 Reykjavik
15 December 2006


Letter to Peter R. Neumann, director Center for Defense Studies

Peter R. Neumann,
Director of the Center for Defense Studies
King’s College, London

Dear Dr. Neumann,

I read your Op-Ed entitled “Profiling terrorists”, which appeared in todax’s International Herald Tribune (July 7, 2007). I appreciate that one cannot in a short article provide sources for the numerous allegations made.

Nevertheless, I wonder whether there exists empirical evidence to support some of the claims made in your article, particularly the thesis that some type of alienation might prompt highly educated Muslims in the West to prepare and commit terrorism, including suicide operations.

My skepticism is prompted by the fact that the alleged terrorists of 9/11, including Mohammed Atta, whom you describe as having “just completed his post-graduate degree in urban planning” and have been officially designated as fanatic Muslims, willing to sacrifice their lives for jihad, were reportedly playboys who spent their time in bars and brothels in Florida. Atta has been reported in the US media to have indulged in cocaine sniffing, gambling, drinking and lap dances. The flight school in Florida to which Atta was connected, was involved in drug smuggling in which Atta may have been involved. This is hardly what Muslim fanatics would do in their spare time, let alone highly educated professionals.

Common sense commands us to doubt that highly educated people with a job, unless suffering from acute depression, would be motivated to commit a senseless crime, let alone a suicide operation. A senseless crime is, as I define it, a crime which does not bring any benefit to the perpetrator or to the cause he wants to pursue. To arbitrary kill a few innocent passerby has no sense from a political or ideological point of view (even if we disregard the moral issue). It only causes a backlash against the group from which the perpetrator comes.”There is simply no point in such acts from the perspective of the alleged perpetrators. And while some individuals may act for absurd reasons, surely this cannot be the case when a pattern emerges. In that case, a policy can be inferred. And any policy, even the most criminal, is based on some rational reasoning.

Viewed from another perspective, the terrorist acts fulfil a very specific utilitarian purpose, namely that to discredit Muslims and keep alive the “war on terror” which has brought enormous profits to corporations and increased opportunities for the military and the intelligence services. The “war on terror” has permitted the US to accomplish what they have desired and could not do without some type of casus belli, namely attack and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. By asking the simple question cui bono, the enigma addressed in your article, fits better Occam’s razor.

As I presume that your quest for the truth stands above political expediency, I hope that you may take into account the above considerations.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland
6 July 2007

Letter to journalist Marc Fisher, Washington Post

Dear Mr. Marc Fisher,
Wasington Post

On Sept. 12, 2001, an article under your and Don Phillips' signature appeared in the Washington Post, with the title "On Flight 77: 'Our plane is being hijacked'. I have a few questions regarding this article.

1. In the article you say that "the passengers and crew members…were ordered to call relatives to say they were about to die." What is the source for this claim?

2. The report quotes one sentence by Ted Olson. Did any of you actually speak to Ted Olson or is this quote based on someone else's reporting? If you talked to Ted Olson, who initiated the contact, he or you?

3. Most of the information on the call by Barbara Olson to her husband emanates in your report from Tim O'Brien, described as a "friend of the Olsons". Did you talk to Tim directly and if so, who decided to have him describe the call by Barbara Olson rather than her husband who took the call? Such indirect attribution is rather unusual.

4. You write that controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion". Who were these controllers and at what time did their warning occur?

5. You write that "Aviation sources" said the plane was flown with "extraordinary skill" and that removing the transponder was a "move that is considerably less than obvious." Who were these aviation sources who made these statements?

As a researcher and author in 9/11 issues, I would be most thankful if you could help me with these questions.

With kind greetings,

Elias Davidsson
7 June 2007

Correspondence w. Prof. Jonathan Barnett

Correspondence between Elias Davidsson (initiator of the correspondece and webmaster of and Dr. Jonathan Barnett regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001.

Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett is a Professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). He holds appointments in Fire Protection engineering and mechanical engineering and is the co-Director and co-founder of the WPI Melbourne Project Center. Dr. Barnett received his undergraduate, masters and doctorate from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He is a fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Society of Testing and Materials Committee E-5, and the International Association of Fire Safety Science. He has held appointments as the Editor of the SFPE Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, President of the New England Chapter of the SFPE and Chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Fire Protection.

His work and research in fire protection engineering is extensive, including most recently his participation in the Building Performance Assessment Team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Dr. Barnett has written and published extensively on fire protection engineering, and his insight, opinions and research have been included in recent broadcasts by the BBC, the Learning Channel and NOVA, a production of the Public Broadcasting Service. Dr. Barnett has also been cited recently in articles in the New York Times and The Boston Globe on ongoing research to determine how and why the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and how building and construction rules may change in the wake of those studies.

His current research centers on the mathematical modeling and computer simulation of fires in buildings, ships and transit systems with an emphasis on heat transfer in structures and the use of computers in fire investigation and fire reconstruction. Recently he has developed a prototype garment flammability test for the U.S. Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility

Here begins the exchange of emails

Dear Prof. Barnett,

I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the New York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001:

“A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.”

I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been “partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures”. Did you follow up this observation?

I would be most grateful for your observations.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006

Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have any more questions.

Jonathan 2 January 2007

Dear Prof. Barnett,

I am aware of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report which reported unexplained sulferization and corrosion of the steel of the towers and WTC7. Professor Steven Jones finds that the most plausible explanation is the use of thermite. According to his account, thermite would fully explain these observations.

What is your take on that?

Elias 2 January 2007

I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I’ll settle for the certainty.

As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any other pie in the sky theory.

[Jonathan] 2 January 2007


I am no specialist. However, the thermite theory does not stand alone on its own. Over 100 firefighters, as well as many others (including media people) have testified to have heard, seen or experienced multiple explosions just prior to the collapse of the buildings. The WTC 1-2 were practically pulverized into very thin dust which shot out horizontally at the time of the collapse, a phenomenon not seen in buildings’ collapse. Several employees in the WTC testified to explosions that took place in the basement of one of the buildings (or both) prior to collapse. I wonder why have has all of this evidence been ignored in the official studies. Isn’t the role of experts to include ALL evidence into account, not just that which fits a predetermined theory?

2 January 2007

None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire…..I don’t know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.

2 January 2007

You mean the numerous explosions’ testimonies were not ignored? The reports do not mention, as much as I know, these multiple testimonies. Nor were the witnesses invited to testify, as much as I understand.

You say that the collapse of the towers occurred “exactly as one expect from a fire”. Could you refer to examples of other buildings who collapsed in this way due to fire?

You say that there were no predetermined ideas. Yet the hypothesis of controlled demolition was not examined in spite of many elements which suggested this to have happened. Wouldn’t a thorough investigation look at all possibilities and attempt to verify which one fits best to the observations?

3 January 2007

Well, we did talk to eye witnesses. In our opinion the “explosions” were local events, not demolitions but rather the sound of structural failures.

As far as collapse mechanisms, these buildings were unique. There were no other built like them, how can I give you an example of another failure in identical structures? However, when one looks at structural failures in fires in unprotected steel structures (which is what we really had as the fire proofing was knocked off by the impact of the aircraft), you find exactly this kind of failure. The literature abounds with examples, take a look at the last 40 years of the NFPA journal and in almost every edition you’ll find an example.

We did meet with and talk to the number one controlled demolition man in the world; Mark Loizeaux. I don’t know where you get the idea we didn’t do these things. If you’d like, we can continue this by phone. I”m in Australia at the moment and my personal number is +61 ? xxxxxxxx . As you see, I’m happy to respond.

2 January 2007

Dear Jonathan,

Could you explain what would occur if you drop a hollow concrete shaft weighing 200 lbs. from a height of say 10 feet on top of a 800 lbs concrete shaft, four times longer. Or hollow metallic constructions of the same respective weights? Or hollow concrete shafts strengthened by steel beams of the same respective weights?

16 January 2007

Well, it all depends on the sizes, shapes, strength of steel, concrete, etc. Perhaps you could give me more of an idea of what you’re looking for

16 January 2007

I was just speculating on the official story which is premised on the assumption that the 20+ floors including the floor where the aircraft on 9/11 hit, could by their gravitational weight pulverize the lower floors which were at about four times heavier, and all of that could be achieved at free-falling speed (which presupposes no resistance whatsoever from the lower floors) and in a symmetrical manner.

16 January 2007

Remember, its not the weight, but the momentum. The dynamic load is much greater than the static load which is why the building collapsed the way it did. Also, remember that although the columns on the lowest floors were much stronger than the ones on the upper floors, the transition from less strong at the top to strongest at the bottom occurs slowly through the height of the building. So a floor 1 % stronger than the one above needs to resist the impact of that floor plus all the load above that floor plus the momentum load.

The roughly symmetric failure (of course the top part of Tower 2 didn’t fall symmetrically), is to be expected as buildings just aren’t strong enough to fall any other way.

16 January 2007

Dear Jonathan,

I know of only two types of total buildings’ collapses: One is controlled demolition and the other is the result of earth-quakes.

Earthquakes shatter the foundations of the buildings which may bring the entire building to collapse like a card castle. Yet in all cases of earth-quakes collapses that I have seen pictures of, there are huge piles of debris. In the debris one finds victims, furniture and other items from the building. In such collapses one does not observe huge dust clouds emerging during the collapse, let alone that this dust is forcefully ejected from the collapsing buildings (as observed with the WTC). Some dust is caused by debris reaching the ground, but such dust settles in rather a short time.

Viewing the collapse of the WTC on video, it reminds one primarily of either controlled demolition or vulcanoes’ eruptions, in which enormous dust clouds are ejected and rise up.

Incidentally, what was the title of the inquiry/investigation in which you took part and what was your specific role in that task?

17 January 2007

Well, hitting a building with a plane can cause total collapse too. Also, remember that the WTC buildings used unique construction that has never been used before. You need to factor that in as well as the height to width ratio of the structure.

Earthquakes don’t just shatter the foundation of a building. The apply a large lateral load which can destroy a building by causing failure of shear walls, etc. this is often the cause of collapse, not foundation failure.

Having viewed slow motion close up pictures of the collapse, I don’t think the clouds of dust were unusual, they appear what one would expect as gypsum wallboard was pulverized. Remember that all of the interior partitions plus all of the shaft enclosures were made of gypsum.

By the way, the scenario of controlled demolition assumes that explosives were placed in advance at the impact floors. Allegedly, these explosives were supposed to have initiated the failure mode that I suggest was caused by heating of the steel columns on these floors. So the subsequent collapse, etc is just as would have been caused by the fires. No one is suggesting that explosives were placed on every floor. If it was, how would you get that much into the buildings? How could you hide it?

The name of the report is the ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA report 403. I was one of the 5 key authors. You can see in the table of contents what each of us did. There were 25 authors involved in writing the report.

16 January 2007


In the weekend before 9/11, power was taken down in the South Tower for 36 hours, apparently an unprecedented measure. This meant that all security was inoperative. At this period many unidentified workers and engineers came into the building to do work at the upper part of the building. No official explanation was given what was done during that week-end. The Commission of Inquiry did not show any interest to know what was done at that weekend in the Tower.

Have you heard about this?

17 January 2007

But they still could only have installed explosives in the upper floor as 36 hours is not long enough to install explosives on 200 floors (the two buildings). Now, let’s say they did. Detonating such explosives would only have caused the upper floors to collapse….you would have had exactly the same collapse as happened on the day of 9/11. On the day, we know we had fires and a plane impact that was capable of causing the building to collapse. Why use explosives when the plane and the fire was all that was needed? Nothing that occurred on 9/11 needs an explanation other than that resulting from the plane impact.

So, why explore the explosive issue? One might just as say the Bush is a Martian. He’s an idiot who led us into a war. Only someone not from this planet would do that. My point is, there is a logical and complete explanation of what occurred on 9/11. Why do we need explosives?

17 January 2007

One of the reasons for suspecting that explosives were used to collapse the WTC is that the aircraft which crashed on the WTC were not piloted by human beings. The story about the 19 “hijackers” is a fairy tale. There is not the slightest evidence that any of them boarded the aircraft which crashed on 9/11. Anyone accusing a person of mass murder better present the evidence if he wishes to remain credible. The US authorities did not present any evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the “hijackers” boarded the aircraft: Their names do not appear on passenger lists; no person saw them board the aircraft; their bodily remains were not identified. For all purposes the US government is simply diffaming people who have disappeared (perhaps murdered).

In addition to the above fact, many other facts refute the official fairy tale. The collapse of the three WTC buildings remains a mystery, if not for you, at least for many others.

B.t.w. would you allow me to post our discussion on my webpage?

The psychological impact of 9/11 was dependent on making the WTC collapse. It was a TV event. But because such buildings never collapsed due to fire, it was necessary to demolish them by other means, using the aircraft as distraction.

In the post below you did not tell me whether you had heard about this power down. It is also puzzling why nobody paid any attention to this unusual event, just two days before 9/11.

17 January 2007

You may post our discussion.

1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity, etc.

2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.

I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.

Finally, I don’t see why you need to have explosives present to prove or disprove your theories. Why don’t you just assume that the buildings collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are incorrect on.

17 January 2007

Thank you for your kind permission. I appreciate your conviction. Does your analysis about the buildings’ collapses extend to WTC7 which was not hit by an aircraft? Does your analysis conclude that all high-rise steel buildings built in the 60s and 70s are at risk of collapsing if fire would occur? If so, why did nobody warn against such a possibility before, if an “engineering analysis would predict” such an outcome? Why did various other high-rise steel buildings not collapse even after a much longer and fiercer fire?

B.t.w the powerdown was reported by Scott Forbes, a Senior Database Administrator for Fiduciary Trust whose office was at the 97th floor of the South Tower. He went public with his report and contacted the Commission of Inquiry. There is no reason to distrust him. I even talked to him on the phone. He says many of his co-employees (those who survived) can corroborate his account. He does not claim to explain what all these unidentified workers did on that weekend. He only reported an event which he never experienced during his 3 years at that location and which happened just two days before 9/11. He said that we he saw the buildings collapse, he had a uneasy feeling that the collapse was somehow related to what was going in the weekend. You can find interviews with him by googling his name.

17 January 2007

The difference between Towers 1 and 2 and all other steel construction is that the fire proofing was knocked off the steel by the aircraft. This left the steel vulnerable to ordinary office fires. We have lots of examples of bare steel structures which have collapsed due to a fire. This contrasts with protected steel structures where such a collapse had never been seen in the past (this is why you can rest assured about the safety of other high rise buildings).

Tower 7 is another issue. I was under the impression that the fires were unusual in that diesel fuel in large quantities became involved in the mid-afternoon. This would exceed the protection provided by the fire proofing. Of course the mechanism of collapse is still an unknown. There were large transfer trusses in the building, so perhaps those we compromised. I don’t pretend to have the answer to tower 7. But I anxiously await NIST’s final report on that tower.

Another building of interest is Tower 5 where there was interior collapse but no impact near the collapse. I’m currently doing a study of this to see what happened.

17 January 2007

You say the aircraft “knocked off” the fire proofing. Isn’t this merely a guess? Moreover how can one assess how much of the fire proofing was knocked off and whether the bared areas were those most subject to the fiercest fire? Aren’t these merely conjecture? More generally, isn’t the official explanation of the collapse based mainly on speculation rather than on observations and forensic evidence?

17 January 2007

No. We examined hundreds of beams. In no case did we find the fire proofing still on the beams. This type of fire proofing material is easy to dislodge by hand, let alone by the disintegrating plane. By knowing the adhesive properties of the fire proofing and by looking at the scenario of aluminum and other plane parts traveling well over 100 miles/hour, we determined that the fire proofing had to be dislodged. As little as 30% missing fire proofing would be enough to cause failure in an individual member. This isn’t guesswork. Its engineering analysis based on observations, calculations, an understanding of material behavior and of structural behavior.

On the other hand, guessing that there was an explosion is just that, a guess.

17 January 2007

One more thing, NIST’s analysis included an assessment of how much fire proofing would be knocked off by the impacting plane. They did careful computer simulations of the breakup of the aircraft. They reached the same conclusion we did. So two different sets of engineers reached the same conclusion using two different approaches. Sounds pretty convincing don’t you think?

Jonathan 17 January 2007

Letter to UN SC Counter-Terrorism Committee

Letter to the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Committtee regarding 11 september

On September 12, 2001, the Security Council adopted a resolution condemning the previous day’s atrocities as an act of “international” terrorism. At the time this resolution was adopted, no evidence was available to the US authorities, let alone to the Council, who were the perpetrators of these atrocities and their origin. In fact, such evidence was not produced until this day.

I wish therefore to know whether the Counter-Terrorism Committee possesses evidence supporting the decision by the Security Council of September 12, 2001 to designate the atrocities committed in the United States on September 11, 2001, as “international” terrorism, rather than a massive criminal act whose nature was still unclear. If the Committee does possess such evidence, I would be most grateful to be informed of the nature of this evidence, how it came to the possession of the Committee and when the Committee obtained that evidence.

Awaiting your assistance, I thank you in advance for your reply,

Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland
12 Jan. 2007

Letter to Prof. Ellen O’Connell, Moritz College of Law

Dear Prof. O’Connell,

[Moritz College of Law]

I read your article “What is War” on Jurist forum website I share your views as pertaining to public international law. However, I respectfully wish to point out that some of your factual allegations are not well grounded. While these do not impinge on your legal reasoning, a more cautious approach to factual evidence might have caused you to draft your article differently.

I am referring here specifically to one allegation, namely that the US has been attacked on September 11, 2001 “from Afghanistan”. On the base of this allegation you apparently endorse the US “legal right to take the fight to that country”, a euphemism for a policy of mass killing by aerial bombing.

In your article you do not refer to any evidential grounds for the allegation that the events of 9/11 had any links to Afghanistan.” In fact, such evidence was never produced. In 2002 Robert S. Mueller, Director of the FBI admitted that the agency has not found any evidence in Afghanistan or elsewhere about the prepartion of the 9/11 attacks. In 2006 a spokesman of the FBI admitted to Muckraker Report that the FBI did not possess “hard evidence” to link Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. The U.S. government, plainly, did not produce any evidence on which a case of self-defense could be mounted. The war against Afghanistan was thus at best based on flimsy evidence and more likely on non-existing evidence, like that on Iraq.

More seriously, and perhaps not known by you, the US authorities did not even produce a shred of evidence that proves the participation of any Muslim terrorists in the mass murder of 9/11. While the FBI has published the names and photographs of 19 individuals who allegedly partipated in this mass murder (by hijacking four aircraft and flying them into the known landmarks), no evidence has been produced to prove that these individuals even boarded these aircraft, let alone hijacked them.” None whatsover. Zero. Niente. Rien. It escapes me why nobody has pointed out this crucial fact in the case of the largest mass murder on US soil. Perhaps you have an answer to this extraordinary fact.

With my sincere greetings,

Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland



Letter to ACLU, 21 December 2006

Letter sent to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on 21 December 2006

I saw a large ad in the New York Times by ACLU bemoaning the secret spying on Americans. I fully share your concern about the human rights violations by the Bush Administration.

However, the PATRIOT Act and various other constitutional abrogations were justified by the atrocities of 9/11. They were in fact sold to the public and the Congress on the base of the claim that these atrocities were committed by dedicated Muslim terrorists who were hiding for years in the US and preparing their crimes. These assumptions were however wrong. They were fabricated in order to justify these human rights violations and wars of aggression.

There is not a shred of evidence proving that any Muslims participated in the atrocities of 9/11. The names of the alleged hijackers do not appear on passenger lists; no one has seen them board the aircraft; their bodily remains were not found; a number of them popped up living and well in other countries, etc. The FBI even admitted in June 2006 to the Muckraker Report to possess no “hard evidence” to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11. This was the reason, according to the FBI, the agency did not include 9/11 in the list of his alleged crimes (as reported on the FBI website). Meanwhile the US has under its custody two alleged leaders of Al-Qaeda, Khaled Mohammed Sheikh and Ramzi Binalshibh, who have been arrested 3-4 years ago and held incommunicado somewhere since. They have not been charged and no plans are to charge them for facilitating or planning 9/11, in spite of the fact that they are accused of having done so by the media. More and more evidence is emerging that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives, including testimonies by over 100 firefighters, visual evidence and common sense.” This would mean that their demolition was an “inside job”.

I urge ACLU to address seriously this issue, join the families of 9/11 victims in demanding the full truth on these events and demand that the US authorities prove their allegations against the 19 Muslims – whose names appear on the FBI website as the “hijackers” beyond reasonable doubt. The issue does not concern only the American people but the entire world. As an Icelandic citizen living in Iceland, I can only rely on people of good will in the US to help relieve us from the criminal policies of the Bush Administration.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson


Correspondence with Prof. of law Mortimer Sellers

To: Prof. Mortimer Sellers
Univesity of Baltimore
Faculty of Law

17 August 2006

Dear Prof. Sellers,

I bought and read the most interesting book Universal Human Rights, which you edited with David Reidy. It includes fascinating articles on the nature of human rights. As someone who has published a number of articles dealing with human rights and greatly interested in continuing work, particularly with regard to transnational (or extraterritorial)
human rights obligations, I will most probably refer to some of the articles in the book.

There is one particular issue that I wish to raise with you concerning the articles, but having little relation to human rights questions.It is the issue of the events of 9/11.

On p. 168-9, Larry May brings up the issue of Zacarias Moussaoui, a person allegedly linked to the events of 9/11.The entire section dealing with this man is based on the official conspiracy theory peddled by the Bush Administration regarding 19 Muslims who allegedly hijacked four aircraft and committed the atrocities.It is now increasingly obvious that this conspiracy theory is not even a theory but a web of lies which will cost its creators their heads if things will evolve as they have in the last 12 months. There is simply no shred of evidence underlying the official conspiracy theory. In addition, a mountain of undisputed evidence suggests that the twin towers (and WTC 7) where demolished by explosives. These facts, compounded by the reluctance of the US administration to even investigate the mass murder of 9/11 and initiate a public inquiry, is more than adequate prima facie evidence to demand a truly independent inquiry – totally independent of the US establishment – into this mass murder.As the main suspect is the US administration, any inquiry must be carried out by parties totally independent of the US state.

Similar assumptions are made by Stephen Nathanson in his article (p.193) and in Jonathan Schonscheck's article (p. 209 et al).

My concern is that a book containing such unsubstantiated claims ? as those regarding 9/11 – might cast a shadow on the credibility of the authors and indirectly on your credibility.

I urge you, therefore, to reflect upon these observations and attempt to undo any damage which might ensue from the above.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland

Mortimer Sellers answered on 17 August 2006

Thank you, Elias, for your kind words about my book.

Sometimes it is easier to agree on principles than on facts. I myself have been persuaded, as I think that you may also eventually be persuaded, by the facts laid out in the detailed 9/11 report ? but even if you are not persuaded, I am glad that you are considering the principles reflected in the book, which are separable, as you rightly observe, from any particular view of whst happened on 9/11/2001.

best wishes,

Tim Sellers