In the guise of introduction, I have chosen to quote a prophetic statement made in 2004 by former FBI detective Michael Ruppert in his book Crossing the Rubicon, long before his view was espoused by of a large and respectable 9/11 truth community:
“Events in the five-year period that began on September 11, 2001 will determine the course of human history for several centuries to come. The fall of the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon attack were not isolated events. They were one predictable outcome of an economic system whose pressures necessitated murder in the judgment of those who perpetrated it.”
In the present book, I intend to present a voluminous amount of evidence that largely supports Ruppert’s conclusion. And while Ruppert’s book focussed on the subject-matter from the perspective of an American citizen, his conclusions are equally applicable to citizens of other countries, whose governments continue to collude in suppressing the truth on the mass-murder of 9/11 and engage themselves in crimes against their own populations.
Numerous excellent books have been written from a critical perspective on the issue of 9/11. Prof. David Ray Griffin, the undisputed leading scholar in 9/11 studies, has written more than ten books on this subject, each with a different slant. Some of his books focussed on particular aspects of 9/11, such as the dereliction of the 9/11 Commission, while others contain a heterogenous collection of articles on important facets of 9/11. His first book, The New Pearl Harbor, served and continues to serve as an excellent introduction into critical studies of 9/11. I fully concur with Prof. Richard Falk’s assessment of this book:
David Ray Griffin has written an extraordinary book. If carefully read with even just a 30-percent open mind, it is almost certain to change the way we understand the workings of constitutional democracy in the United States at the highest levels of government. (…) It is rare, indeed, that a book has this potential to become a force of history.
Other authors, such as Webster Tarpley, Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, and David MacGregor, attempt to shed light on covert aspects of U.S. governance that might underlie and explain the mass-murder of 9/11. These authors contend that there exists a deep and hidden structure ensconced within the official state apparatus of the United States, and which wields far greater power than is generally suspected. Their view has been partly vindicated by revelations made in Europe concerning similar structures operating during the Cold War under the name of Stay-Behind Armies or Gladio. Tarpley has also sketched a theory of synthetic terrorism, including a taxonomy of the actors involved. Other authors, including Barrie Zwicker, a veteran 9/11 researcher and producer of one of the best early documentaries on this issue, have focussed the role of media in covering-up the crime of 9/11 and the role of so-called leftist gate-keepers in maintaining the belief in the so-called blow-back theory. Specific aspects of 9/11 have been dealt in depth by several authors. Ian Hanshell, for example, provides an excellent critical analysis of the facts and myths surrounding Flight UA93. Political scientist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed provided a fresh and critical evaluation of the Al Qaeda network and its covert links to Western intelligence agencies. A number of serious 9/11 researchers, have preferred to present their findings in the form of articles, blogs or video documentation that they posted on internet fora. Among those are a group entitled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose main focus have been studies on the mysterious demise of the World Trade Center. Other groups, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth focus on issues for which they feel more competent to judge, such as the credibility of official allegations regarding the performance of the aircraft that allegedly crashed on 9/11. Another fine example of a web-based source is the website of Killtown, a nickname, whose analyses based on verifiable and quoted reports, illustrations and photographs are extremely helpful.
One name that deserves special praise among 9/11 truth activists is Paul Thompson, whose encyclopedic data base on 9/11 is universally acclaimed as the best resource available to researchers about this subject: It is extensive, objective, fabulously well sourced, accessible to everyone and free of charge (Thompson does appreciate donations). The results of his almost single-handed efforts surpass largely in quantity and quality those of the very official 9/11 Commission. None of the aforementioned scholars, nor myself, could achieve we did, without drawing on Paul’s gold mine.
I feel deeply indebted to all aforementioned persons and to others, unnamed, who have contributed significantly and sometimes against difficult odds, to the deconstruction of the official myths and deceptions surrounding 9/11 and to our understanding of the phenomenon designated as “false-flag” or “synthetic” terrorism.
After these words, readers might rightfully wonder what one more book on 9/11 attempts to achieve which has not already been achieved. While deferring with deep respect to the work of numerous researchers, I consider that time has come to draw conclusions from existing 9/11 research that can help our societies to uphold the rule of law, establish democracy and defeat imperialism. The mountain of evidence pointing to the U.S. government as the instigator of 9/11 is overwhelming. This evidence is already more than sufficient to presume the guilt of the U.S. government for 9/11, a presumption that could have been, but was not, rebutted for the last ten years by the U.S. government.
The events of 9/11 were obviously a massive crime, so a criminological investigation of the events had to be carried out, and those responsible identified and punished. As will be shown herein, a proper investigation of 9/11 was not carried out. On the contrary, the U.S. government attempted by diverse means to prevent an investigation of the various aspects of 9/11 and – with the help of the political class, mainstream media, academia and courts – suppressed efforts to establish the truth. Families of 9/11 victims are still voicing their anger and frustration after nearly a decade that no one has been brought to trial for this mass-murder.
The primary purpose of this book is to contribute to a change of paradigm in relation to 9/11.
Part II deals with the various investigations that were or should have been carried out concerning 9/11. As we proceed, it will soon transpire that the U.S. authorities did not relish to have the mass-murder of 9/11 investigated. In fact, they tried to limit, undermine and steer the investigations to conform with the pre-established account, reflected in the Resolution adopted by the U.S. Congress on September 12, 2001. In their quest to prevent the truth on 9/11 to emerge, the U.S. authorities also bribed or intimidated witnesses to the tune of several billion dollars. As shown in Chapter 9, the judicial branch, including prosecutors, defenders and judges, also colluded in the cover-up of the mass-murder.
Defenders of the official account might at this juncture try to “explain” the described conduct of the U.S. administration as mere efforts to avoid embarrassment resulting from negligence or incompetence, but not evidence of a criminal conspiracy. The 9/11 Commission said that the failure by the U.S. government to foresee such attacks was a “failure of imagination”. A detailed examination of the above conduct by U.S. government agencies would demonstrate that such explanations are unsustainable. To name just one example: What embarrassment did NIST try to prevent by investigating only what happened in the Twin Towers prior to their collapses, leaving out an investigation of the collapses?
If some readers still remain convinced that the cover-up described in Part II was caused by the fear of embarrassment, Part III should dispel such belief. It provides evidence that the U.S. authorities planned long before 9/11 to manufacture a series of myths in preparation of their 9/11 account and helped consolidate these myths on and beyond that date: The myth of leader terrorist Mohamed Atta; the myth of enemy number one Osama bin Laden; the myth of highly skillful hijackers; the myth of a conspirational terrorists; and the myth of fanatic Muslims aiming to enter paradise.
If the crime of 9/11 was indeed facilitated by the U.S. government, the question would arise what would be gained by such a evil act. Part IV provides one of the reasons why the U.S. ruling elite had to (a) stage a traumatizing event, similar to that of Pearl Harbor; and (b) manufacture a new epochal enemy, that could replace that of Soviet Communism, to ensure domestic support for U.S. foreign policies and the political unity of the Western Alliance. While stated as a hypothesis, it is supported by evidence: Chapter 19 (the legend of Mohamed Atta), Chapter 20 (the legend of Osama bin Laden) and Chapter 21 (the legend of fanatic Muslim terrorists).
Having established in Part I and IV an initial suspicion the U.S. state may have been involved in the commission of the mass murder of 9/11. Part V will evaluate the four most common classes of arguments used to dismiss such suspicions: (a) That U.S. leaders, while morally capable to order the killing of presumed enemies, would never dare order the mass-murder of their own citizens; (b) that the U.S. government and its various agencies are far too incompetent to orchestrate a covert operation of the size and complexity of 9/11; (c) that large government conspiracies cannot be maintained secret for a long time in a democratic society; or (d) that attempting to identify who committed the crime of 9/11 is politically irrelevant.
In spite of the voluminous amount of evidence presented above and pointing to U.S. state responsibility for 9/11, some readers might still wish to dismiss the facts as not sufficiently compelling. Part V addresses four categories of bona fide arguments commonly advanced to dismiss the charge of U.S. government responsibility for 9/11 or the political relevance of such a charge. These arguments are (a) that U.S. leaders, while morally capable to order the killing of presumed enemies, would be morally incapable to order the mass-murder of their own citizens; (b) that the U.S. government and its various agencies are far too incompetent to orchestrate a covert operation of the size and complexity of 9/11; (c) that large government conspiracies cannot be maintained secret for a long time in an open society; or (d) that trying to establish the truth on 9/11 is politically irrelevant in comparison with much more urgent issues. While such arguments are facially reasonable, they will be shown as lacking an empirical base. Their probative value remains negligible in comparison to the hard facts presented in previous Chapters.
The numerous findings in this book converge towards a single conclusion, namely that 9/11 was conceived, engineered and executed at the behest or with the approval of the U.S. government. This conclusion results from: (a) the cumulative nature of the evidence, and (b) the independence of findings from each other. In such a case, anyone who wishes to debunk the conclusion bears the almost impossible task of debunking the majority of the findings. As these findings are essentially a compilation of statements made by public officials or respectable journalists, the debunker would face the even more exacting challenge to demonstrate that these statements are untrue and that that public officials and journalists who made these statements have consequently lied.
As 9/11 was a vast crime, suspected participants, accomplices and those who deliberately attempted to cover-up the crime or protect the criminals, must be indicted and if the evidence is sufficient, brought to trial. Part VI presents a non-exhaustive list of individuals suspected to have acted as Principals in the crime of 9/11; as Accomplices to the crime; and as Participants in its cover-up. In addition to their names, their alleged criminal participation is summarized and annotated.
Part VII presents finally the author’s general legal, moral and political conclusions that he draws from the specific case of 9/11. Those who are well acquainted with the facts of 9/11 and with the nature of the U.S. regime, may choose to skip all previous parts and concentrate on this Part alone.
The Appendixes contain a number of short essays that elaborate in greater detail on specific aspects of 9/11.
Some methodological observations
The overwhelming majority of sources for this study can be classified into two categories: (1) documents and statements issued by the U.S. government, its agencies, its officials, members of Congress, courts and private entities acting at the behest of government authorities; and (2) reports from mainstream media. At times monographs or even blogs are cited. In such cases, the credibility of such material will be indicated.
Without access to authenticated documents held by U.S. government agencies, and without the ability to forensically examine them, the authenticity of such documents and their integrity can only be inferred from indices. Throughout this study, we will come upon documents whose integrity is doubtful.
As for the credibility of statements found in reports or documents, we will assign more probative value to statements made on record by named individuals than to indirect attributions. Statements made by unidentified individuals will be referred herein, as needed, but will be treated with the appropriate circumspection. A particular problem arises with respect to FBI documents, including so-called 302-forms, that represent summaries of witnesses’ interviews. These documents are never authenticated by a signature or by disclosing the names of the interviewing agent(s). In many cases, even witness names are redacted. These reports do not represent a verbatim transcription of what witnesses have said. They consist of an edited version compiled after the interview of what the interviewing agent remembers, believes, or interprets the witness had said. Witnesses, as a rule, are not expected to review this summary, nor asked to confirm it by their signature. Readers of these reports cannot, therefore, ascertain what questions were posed to the witnesses, how the witnesses answered and whether leading questions had been asked. Omissions of every kind are legion in these reports. While such documents may represent what witnesses have said, or part thereof, their lack of attribution and the method of their elaboration leaves open a wide margin for erroneous or deliberate misrepresentation. Apart from these overt deficiencies, there exists no plausible reason to presume the integrity and truthfulness of documents produced by a government agency, let alone those produced by law-enforcement agencies, such as the FBI.
In order to verify statements made to FBI agents, to media reporters or to the staff of the 9/11 Commission, the present author tried to locate a number witnesses. In almost all cases, they could not be located. In those few cases where witnesses could be located, they visibly expressed apprehension to say anything, or even merely confirm their erstwhile testimonies.
Anyone attempting to investigate possible U.S. government complicity in the events of 9/11 is actually engaging in intelligence analysis: Sifting large amount of data, including deceptive data, in order to discover what is relevant. James R. Schlesinger, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and thus a person with the right background, explained to a Congressional Committee in 2004 the difficulties facing intelligence analysis:
[I]ntelligence is inherently a difficult business. Intelligence targets naturally seek to conceal what they are doing, and have a strong tendency to mislead you. A central problem in intelligence is to discern the true signals amidst the noise. The relevant signals may be very weak…Countless events are being recorded each day, and countless events are failing to be recorded, or are deliberately hidden. Moreover, false signals are deliberately planted.
A further methodological observation addresses the concept of “intent”, which applies directly to the issue of 9/11. Contrary to common belief, intent cannot be reliably determined on the base of self-incriminating statements made by suspects. Statements and apparent confessions can be made for a variety of reasons and purposes, including maltreatment, threats and intimidation, or conversely, financial or other inducements, as well as the urge of suspects to brag or be viewed as heroes. Sometimes suspects may actually believe that they are guilty without, however, being so. Courts generally infer intent from the overall circumstances, of which statements made by suspects, are only a part. Although the book is mainly concerned with concrete evidence, or the lack of evidence, there will be cases where some inferential reasoning can help explain puzzling facts. Where the case arises, presentation of concrete evidence and inferential reasoning will be clearly separated.
As will be noted throughout this book, even a cursory examination of the 9/11 case would reveal to the student a bewildering number of anomalies, contradictions and unanswered questions, that in the language of intelligence analysis would amount to “noise”. It is the hope of the author that he will have succeeded in distinguishing between true and false signals.
In mathematics, we solve equations with one or several unknowns by various mathematical operations (manipulations). The solution may be a single number or a set of numbers. When attempting to solve a criminal mystery, we equally use formal operations to discover the unknowns. These operations include inference, tests of logical coherence, tests of reliability and plausibility, Occam’s razor, etc. Where major pieces of evidence are either inaccessible or have been destroyed, the solution to a criminal mystery may not yield a precise answer, but can provide an approximation, sufficiently adequate for policy purposes. As will be shown herein, the mass-murder of 9/11 may never be solved to a sufficient precision to secure a criminal conviction of individual participants. It can be, however, be solved to an adequate degree for the adoption of political decisions.
The student of 9/11 will sooner or later be confronted with the need to resort to presumptions (presumption of guilt or innocence). Presumptions of guilt do not attach equally to private persons and the state. While private persons are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the threshold for suspecting the state of malfeasance lies much lower. In the case of 9/11, for example, all those accused by the U.S. authorities of participation in the crime, including the alleged 19 hijackers, must be considered innocent because none of them has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with prevailing legal standards. On the other side, a single case of fraudulent conduct authorized or condoned by the U.S. government with regard to the investigation of 9/11, is sufficient for considering the government as a primary suspect in the crime of 9/11. The reason for such a low standard of presumption with regard to the government is that a government is merely a trustee. The People are actually The Principal, who delegate by periodic elections constitutional powers to a government to run the common affairs of the country for the common good. A Trustee which betrays the Principal by lies, deceptions and fraud, forfeits immediately its right to be presumed innocent by the Principal. Such a presumption of bad faith extends, due to the particular role of a government, to all statements issued by, and to all acts committed under the authority of, that government.
The author aims, therefore, to follow Nafeez Ahmed’s wise approach to the presentation of facts on such a highly sensitive issue. Introducing his own study he wrote:
Due to the controversial nature of the subject matter, I have chosen quite deliberately to attempt to grant as much space as possible to my sources to allow them, effectively, to speak for themselves. Simultaneously, I have avoided overemphasis on my own personal conclusions, preferring instead to assess rigorously the factual record and its most immediate implications. The method minimizes the possibility that I have misrepresented crucial data that is often stunningly at odds with the conventional wisdom., Thus, although I attempt to outline what seem to me the most obvious deductions from the available facts, the actual value of my work is in the facts themselves. The readers, ultimately, are free to draw their own overarching conclusions.
 Richard Falk, Foreword to David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, Olive Branch Press, Northampton, Mass. 2004, p. vii
 Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, Progressive Press, California (2006)
 Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire and the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers, Canada (2004)
 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1996); The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (2008) and; American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (2010)
 David MacGregor, September 11 as ‘Machiavellian State Terrorism’, in The Hidden History of 9/11, edited by Paul Zarembka, Research in Political Economy, Vol. 23, Elsevier (May 2006)
 Barrie Zwicker, The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw (2004)
 Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, New Society Publishers, Canada (2006)
 Roland Morgan, Flight 93 Revealed: What really happened on the 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight? Robinson publishers, London (UK) (2006)
 Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War on Truth, Desinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, Olive Branch Press (2005)
 Families of 9/11 Victims Frustrated by Lack of Prosecution, Ozarks First Com, March 1, 2011. Author’s document #439
 The concept of „state responsibility” under international law must be distinguished from that of criminal liability of individuals (see, inter alia, James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, University of Cambridge (2002), ISBN: 9780521013895). While it is often possible to determine the responsibility of a state for a blatant international illegal act, such as a crime against humanity, such determination may not always allow the identification of those state officials who planned and carried out the illegal act and the exact role they played in the crime, in view of attributing to them individual criminal liability
 We will not address spurious arguments, such as ad hominem attacks on 9/11 skeptics, attacks upon straw-men or attempts to psychoanalyze the motives of 9/11 skeptics.
 By the term “signals” the speaker is evidently not referring to a limited technical meaning, as in “electronic signals” but to the informational value of any data item, regardless of the form in which it is obtained.
 James R. Schlesinger, in Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, August 16 and 17, 2004
 By “government” we do not mean here the entire federal administration, including ordinary office workers, only the echelon of the Executive, i.e. cabinet members and those who directly assist them in policy-decisions
 Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, supra n. 10, p. xiii
Version 1.0 / December 1, 2011